Monday, December 5, 2011
Park Economics
As is all too obvious, we are stuck in a recession/depression that will be very difficult to extract ourselves from given the current desire for savage budget cuts and senseless austerity. I have previously mentioned how a program like the CCC would do wonders to improve park infrastructure and facilities, clearing the massive maintenance backlog, while also providing work and income to thousands of unemployed Americans who are otherwise sitting idle. On the heels of that comes this project by Headwaters Economics to push for more parks and protected spaces generally, arguing that they provide economic boosts to the areas surrounding them. Among the 100+ signers are three Nobel Laureates in Economics, so it's not just a bunch of third-tier hacks pushing this. While this is not the first time that this argument has been made (see this essay from 2004 about Olympic National Park and how community feelings towards it and logging protections in the surrounding forest have changed as one example), it is nice that there is now institutional, academic support for this belief. It's a long way from shaping policy but it's important to lay the groundwork first.
Lake Maria
This post is very late but I'm finally getting around to it. Back in mid-October I went camping with my boyfriend and his dog up in Lake Maria State Park. It's only about an hour on I-94 from the Twin Cities and has a surprisingly large number of trails and campsites for a park its size (though most of the trails do pass by at least a few campsites so if it's busy expect to hear/see lots of people). It also has a number of interpretive programs and trails including geocaching (a GPS based program present in many MN parks). We went up at the height of fall colors but because of the high winds almost all the leaves had been stripped off the trees. Still, it is a very pretty park and a stop on one of the migratory flyways so it is a good location to see migratory birds in spring and fall. The campsites were well maintained and spacious (available by reservation or first-come basis). It also has cabins and group sites. While it has year-round programs, if you aren't a fan of winter camping it might not be the park for you because it is a decent drive out of the Cities for just a few hours, though definitely worth it.
A view of the wetlands.
A view of the wetlands.
 |
| There is a swan in the center of the frame |
 | |
| Not one of the rare turtles that live there, but it was sitting right in the middle of the trail (and was very fast in getting away). |
 |
| Izzy the Dog at our campsite. |
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Corporate Influence
I know this is a few weeks late but it's an important and interesting issue that continues to arise and will only become more common as park budgets continue to suffer from the misguided axe of austerity for a department with a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog that could easily provide work for thousands of unemployed Americans as was done during the Great Depression. A small amount was done, but it was a mere drop in the bucket and that funding is largely out of the system and cuts are back on the agenda. While some groups like the National Parks Conservation Association do fundraising and provide other forms of support, there is only so much they can give and in the absence of governmental support for public goods, it comes to panhandling to corporate America. However, once that money is taken, it should be no surprise that there are strings attached.
This is clearly the case (though the NPS denies it) at the Grand Canyon where the NPS killed a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water in the park after Coca Cola objected. Other bottled beverages would be unaffected and there are ample free water stations in the park to refill reusable bottles so concerns about visitor safety in a desert climate are clearly pretextual. When you also consider that the holder of the concessions contract in the park was in favor of the ban and that bottled water is an inherently ridiculous, wasteful, and predatory "commodity" designed to scam the stupid, it becomes even more obvious that Coke is calling the shots on at least some park management issues and overriding decisions made by local administrators who are veterans of the system.
I know the NPS needs money, but it is important to be wary of the sources it is able to find and vigilant about making sure that such "philanthropy" is just a way to get good press and not a backdoor into influencing policy. In this age of misguided budget cuts it would be all too easy to lose our parks to private speculators and profiteers, if not in name then certainly in character and practice.
The LATimes also jumped on this issue and was appropriately harsh and wasn't shy, like the NYT was, about drawing the connections (especially confusing since the NYT had emails essentially confirming the need for Coke's permission). It also connected this to the increasing commercialization of state parks and the spread of noxious outdoor advertising that can accompany their perpetual need for cash. The actions in California's state parks are troubling enough, there is no need to expand them and multiply them across the entire country and through the crown jewels of America's natural heritage.
Update 12/2: Thanks to FOIA some more information has come out about this and it makes the NPS look even worse.
This is clearly the case (though the NPS denies it) at the Grand Canyon where the NPS killed a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water in the park after Coca Cola objected. Other bottled beverages would be unaffected and there are ample free water stations in the park to refill reusable bottles so concerns about visitor safety in a desert climate are clearly pretextual. When you also consider that the holder of the concessions contract in the park was in favor of the ban and that bottled water is an inherently ridiculous, wasteful, and predatory "commodity" designed to scam the stupid, it becomes even more obvious that Coke is calling the shots on at least some park management issues and overriding decisions made by local administrators who are veterans of the system.
I know the NPS needs money, but it is important to be wary of the sources it is able to find and vigilant about making sure that such "philanthropy" is just a way to get good press and not a backdoor into influencing policy. In this age of misguided budget cuts it would be all too easy to lose our parks to private speculators and profiteers, if not in name then certainly in character and practice.
The LATimes also jumped on this issue and was appropriately harsh and wasn't shy, like the NYT was, about drawing the connections (especially confusing since the NYT had emails essentially confirming the need for Coke's permission). It also connected this to the increasing commercialization of state parks and the spread of noxious outdoor advertising that can accompany their perpetual need for cash. The actions in California's state parks are troubling enough, there is no need to expand them and multiply them across the entire country and through the crown jewels of America's natural heritage.
Update 12/2: Thanks to FOIA some more information has come out about this and it makes the NPS look even worse.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Amazon in Danger
This is an excellent Op-Ed by a Brazilian journalist about the threats the Amazon faces. What makes it so interesting is that it goes beyond recitation of distressing facts about rate of destruction, assassinations of activists, displacement of indigenous people, soil depletion and erosion, and the myriad other disasters the relentless expansion of sugar, cattle, and soy have caused. What caught my attention was the argument currently playing out in Brazil about its sovereign right to develop autonomously without interference and how the author used Brazil's history to counter it quite effectively.
While the "right to develop" is a common argument by some development theorists, and one that has a large amount of moral suasion--after all, why should the world's poor stay poor because rich countries now value the environment they spent centuries destroying as they developed--it is ultimately unsatisfactory. For starters, we now have technological options that can help developing nations bridge the gap over some of the dirtiest technologies. This is particularly true, ironically, in some of the least developed nations, such as Laos, where there is very little infrastructure that needs upgrading or replacing. One of my friends just finished a year working with a Laotian company that is working on installing small, locally assembled solar panels for off-grid villages. There are many other efforts do similar things on both small and large scales. There is also the substantial question of whether it is right to say that societies must develop, need to develop, and, most importantly, need to follow the pattern of the Industrialized West. While that is a very interesting and complicated philosophical and ethical question, it is not really what I want to discuss right now. Besides, there are much better places you can get a thorough examination of it.
Really what I wanted to highlight is the way Leão Serva takes the argument and demolishes its purported moral and nationalistic force by exposing both the corrupt corporate interests behind it and comparing it to another shameful piece of Brazil's experience: it's reluctance to abolish slavery and its claims that outsiders who condemned it had no right to meddle. He does it well, with grace but to devastating effect. Perhaps this will help clear the eyes of some who are less responsive to environmental concerns for their own sake (or their very real human consequences).
While the "right to develop" is a common argument by some development theorists, and one that has a large amount of moral suasion--after all, why should the world's poor stay poor because rich countries now value the environment they spent centuries destroying as they developed--it is ultimately unsatisfactory. For starters, we now have technological options that can help developing nations bridge the gap over some of the dirtiest technologies. This is particularly true, ironically, in some of the least developed nations, such as Laos, where there is very little infrastructure that needs upgrading or replacing. One of my friends just finished a year working with a Laotian company that is working on installing small, locally assembled solar panels for off-grid villages. There are many other efforts do similar things on both small and large scales. There is also the substantial question of whether it is right to say that societies must develop, need to develop, and, most importantly, need to follow the pattern of the Industrialized West. While that is a very interesting and complicated philosophical and ethical question, it is not really what I want to discuss right now. Besides, there are much better places you can get a thorough examination of it.
Really what I wanted to highlight is the way Leão Serva takes the argument and demolishes its purported moral and nationalistic force by exposing both the corrupt corporate interests behind it and comparing it to another shameful piece of Brazil's experience: it's reluctance to abolish slavery and its claims that outsiders who condemned it had no right to meddle. He does it well, with grace but to devastating effect. Perhaps this will help clear the eyes of some who are less responsive to environmental concerns for their own sake (or their very real human consequences).
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Trees in the City
I have a backlog of pieces I've been meaning to write about and a number of them all share a theme: urban trees. Many cities, particularly dense ones like New York (especially Manhattan) or sprawling, concrete filled ones like Los Angeles, have a pronounced lack of greenery and what trees do exist are often sickly, ugly, unkempt, or isolated. Often they are also pollution tolerant species like the honey locust and Norway maple or evolutionary survivors like the ginkgo. This leads to uninteresting monoculture landscapes that can be more depressing than a barren street on its own. It also can lead to the spread of non-native species which can become invasive. Lake of greenery and open spaces generally can also contribute to the heat island effect, in which paved and built up spaces absorb more heat during the day which is then radiated back in the evening leading to higher temperatures (both minimums and maximums) than in surrounding areas that are kept cooler by evapotranspiration, higher albedo, and other effects.
First up is a story from China this summer. China, as we all know, is a rapidly growing nation that is quickly urbanizing and converting any open space in and around its cities into factories, offices, housing, and business uses. The nature of the Communist Party's rule also means that any action is essentially indisputable and impossible to block. That, combined with the fact that China has a weak and nearly non-existent environmental movement, means that if some trees are going to be cut in the name of progress, nothing is going to change that. In the city of Nanjing, however, local activists were able to save at least a few of the cities enormous wutong trees from a proposed subway expansion. While an incomplete victory, the subway will still be built and a large number of the trees will still be removed, it is progress for a notoriously single-minded, authoritarian, and anti-environment nation.
Moving back to the US, there are two pieces I see as companions, of a sort. New York City is trying to plant 1,000,000 trees to green up the city. In doing so it has taken an approach of too many, too soon, too haphazardly, at least in the views of some critics. While I think that the city has a noble purpose that is generally to be applauded, there are some elements of the program that are potentially troubling. Some are mentioned in the article and are trivial (neighbors complaining, seriously people, who doesn't like trees?), others are more serious, at least financially (roots buckling sidewalks). A more substantial criticism is that trees are being planted at the wrong time or year or in the wrong place and are therefore struggling or dying. While I am not a botanist or arborist and the article does little to resolve the he said/she said, from what I know of the Bloomberg administration it would not surprise me if the mayor just decreed that trees be planted and that they be planted by a date certain, details be damned. Two additional problems were not mentioned in the article. One is that as the climate changes, so will the suitability of the urban environment for certain species. Trees live a long time and care should be taken to select trees that are fit to survive in both the present and warmer, wetter city of the future so as to mitigate future losses and replacement costs. This was one element of Chicago's climate change plan (which I hope to write about in the future in more depth). The other is that trees, like most organisms, have a finite lifespan and planting huge numbers of trees at the same time can set up future problems, like those seen in Atlanta where drought and development pressures have combined with age to kill off a huge number of the city's trees.
And finally, a fully positive story about rescue and rediscovery. The Franciscan manzanita was long thought extinct in the wild until it was discovered growing in the middle of a traffic island in San Francisco's Presidio district in the path of a road project. The project was suspended and the plant was moved to a more protected location within the park (click here to see a picture of the process). Now it is eligible for protection as an endangered species and botanists are looking for cuttings in botanical gardens and nurseries to plant near the wild one in the hopes of fostering enough genetic diversity to create a self-sustaining recovery population.
First up is a story from China this summer. China, as we all know, is a rapidly growing nation that is quickly urbanizing and converting any open space in and around its cities into factories, offices, housing, and business uses. The nature of the Communist Party's rule also means that any action is essentially indisputable and impossible to block. That, combined with the fact that China has a weak and nearly non-existent environmental movement, means that if some trees are going to be cut in the name of progress, nothing is going to change that. In the city of Nanjing, however, local activists were able to save at least a few of the cities enormous wutong trees from a proposed subway expansion. While an incomplete victory, the subway will still be built and a large number of the trees will still be removed, it is progress for a notoriously single-minded, authoritarian, and anti-environment nation.
Moving back to the US, there are two pieces I see as companions, of a sort. New York City is trying to plant 1,000,000 trees to green up the city. In doing so it has taken an approach of too many, too soon, too haphazardly, at least in the views of some critics. While I think that the city has a noble purpose that is generally to be applauded, there are some elements of the program that are potentially troubling. Some are mentioned in the article and are trivial (neighbors complaining, seriously people, who doesn't like trees?), others are more serious, at least financially (roots buckling sidewalks). A more substantial criticism is that trees are being planted at the wrong time or year or in the wrong place and are therefore struggling or dying. While I am not a botanist or arborist and the article does little to resolve the he said/she said, from what I know of the Bloomberg administration it would not surprise me if the mayor just decreed that trees be planted and that they be planted by a date certain, details be damned. Two additional problems were not mentioned in the article. One is that as the climate changes, so will the suitability of the urban environment for certain species. Trees live a long time and care should be taken to select trees that are fit to survive in both the present and warmer, wetter city of the future so as to mitigate future losses and replacement costs. This was one element of Chicago's climate change plan (which I hope to write about in the future in more depth). The other is that trees, like most organisms, have a finite lifespan and planting huge numbers of trees at the same time can set up future problems, like those seen in Atlanta where drought and development pressures have combined with age to kill off a huge number of the city's trees.
And finally, a fully positive story about rescue and rediscovery. The Franciscan manzanita was long thought extinct in the wild until it was discovered growing in the middle of a traffic island in San Francisco's Presidio district in the path of a road project. The project was suspended and the plant was moved to a more protected location within the park (click here to see a picture of the process). Now it is eligible for protection as an endangered species and botanists are looking for cuttings in botanical gardens and nurseries to plant near the wild one in the hopes of fostering enough genetic diversity to create a self-sustaining recovery population.
Roadless Rules Upheld
A panel of the Tenth Circuit has upheld (unanimously) the Forest Service's Clinton era roadless rule against a challenge by the state of Wyoming. The decision is here (but be warned that it is 120 pages long). This is a pretty big deal and a big win for conservationists, environmentalists, outdoors enthusiasts, and pretty much anyone who doesn't want to see small roads turn into bigger ones turn into major logging/mining/drilling projects turn into "well, it's already so developed what is the problem with going a little further" slippery slopes. It is also likely to severely limit, in theory if not in practice because many ORV users regularly flout restrictions, damage from off-road vehicles, snow mobiles, and 4x4s. If you would like a more digestible summary of the case you can read it in the NYT though it is only a shadow of the bigger issue.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
More Constructions
Not a long post, just a quick follow up on my last post about nature as a social construction. The September issue of National Geographic had a nice piece on New York's Adirondack Park that provides a perfect example of this. With Verlyn Klinkenborg's focus on the park's history and the ways it has grown and healed the landscape while continuing to provide space for myriad uses makes the piece a wonderful focal point for further thought on ideas of nature and wilderness (read through it and the photo captions and maps and think about how and why those words are used). It doesn't hurt that it is accompanied by National Geographic's traditionally excellent photography either.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Ideas of Nature and Social Construction
This is a topic I've been meaning to write on for quite a while and have touched on in the context of other issues repeatedly, but the time has finally come to give it direct attention. I have been fascinated for a long time by changes in conceptions of nature, what is natural, what it means to be wild, and from what source such places and concepts derive their meaning and importance (for their own sake, for the value of goods/services they can sustainably provide to humans, for the value of onetime goods/services they can provide, for their aesthetic value (and it's interesting to see how those ideas change), for their scientific value, etc.). While there is a rich and growing literature in what has come to be called environmental studies (with contributions from engineers and architects/urban planners, biologists, geologists, historians, economists, sociologists, artists, literary critics, philosophers, and theologians), a small blog is hardly the place to even pretend to summarize the field (though if you want a good place to start Donald Worster, William Cronon, and Richard White represent three distinct schools of thought and are leading thinkers in the field, at least among environmental historians).
Now that I've made the task seem overwhelming, it's time to get to actually writing. I'm a bit disappointed that right when I get ready to write on this topic the NYT goes and steals my thunder publishing a thoughtful Op-Ed by Michael Lipsky on regulation and wilderness. While his broader point is that there is nowhere in the nation, even in seemingly remote places that the reassurances of law do not comfort and the protections of regulation do not reach, he also rightly notes that the very idea of Wilderness has been codified in America, defined and protected as a place, to quote the Wilderness Act, "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" that is free of trails, permanent structures, and motors of any kind. He also paraphrases Roderick Nash's observation that wilderness is based on state of mind. This, too, is true. While federally designated (and therefore protected) wilderness has been strictly defined and given a specific set of social values, there are many other "wild" places one may encounter nature as well as ones that are not nearly as natural as they may seem.
A place of the first type can be found in my hometown (indeed my old neighborhood) of Philadelphia. There, a landscape designer has decided to let her yard "go wild," and has been cited by the city for its seemingly weedy and unkempt appearance. Clearly this is a case of social norms as to what constitutes an acceptable yard is coming up against though an alternative thinker. The benefits of a non-monoculture, unfertilized yard that attracts pollinators are clearly high, but they definitely do not mesh with the standard vision of an urban home. (This is not the most egregious case, however, that goes to Oak Park, MI, where a city planner threatened a homeowner using twisted logic for having a vegetable garden in her yard. Fortunately Julie Bass prevailed over the urban planing department). While no one will ever mistake a yard or even a city park for a wilderness, how we think about them is quite revealing of how we view nature and its role in human life and the boundary between them (if there is one). (Another very interesting project that plays on this boundary is NYC's High Line, which I highly recommend walking in its entirety should you get the chance). City parks and how they are designed is also fascinating and revealing, but that is a matter for another post.
Finally we have purportedly wild places that aren't nearly as natural as they would seem. I take as my example in this case Yosemite National Park. One of the Park Service's crown jewels, featuring giant sequoias, stunning views, easy access from the Bay Area (and the attendant crush of people) it is a truly beautiful place. It is also highly managed and while less Disneyfied than it used to be (the 1 hour photo is gone and I think the golf course is as well), it is still largely dominated by roads, parking lots, and paved trails to the best vistas. But that is not what I want to discuss (it's a bit too obvious). What caught my eye for inclusion in this post was an article at the end of July about how the NPS is managing the trees and meadows in the park with the aim of optimizing and restoring the views of the impressive peaks of Half Dome and El Capitan that were seen when the park was founded. The reason this is necessary is because a century of aggressive (and ecologically misguided) fire suppression has caused trees to fill in many of the meadows, blocking off many of the views and trails that once crisscrossed the valley. That such meadows were created and kept open by Native Americans via periodic burnings and then by settlers through grazing is alluded to but the implications for any concept of "restoration" or "natural state" skipped over by the author. While I do not know enough about the logistics of the plan to take a position for or against this logging action, I can say that it is definitely not restoring nature as it was when the park was constructed. What it is doing is restoring the image of the park as it existed when it was popularized and propagated via promotional pamphlets, artwork, movies, and televisions. The iconic image of Half Dome and El Capitan rising over the valley is what visitors expect. Many are consumers of the "postcard vista" idea of parks, best illustrated by Mount Rushmore, and are disappointed when they do not find it. While I find such people misguided, they are at least expecting something that has been protected to a small degree (though the Valley is in pretty poor shape) but has made possible the preservation of a much larger area. </digression>.
What do all of these things have in common? They all challenge ideas of what nature and wilderness are and how we think about the boundaries and interactions between our built environment and the "other" that lies outside our comfort zone. Going back to those historians, I believe it is White who has written how nature has been defined and redefined to constitute the "other" against which we define our culture and civilization. While there are many other "others" that mark boundaries between cultures, there is definite merit behind the idea of a shifting nature/man boundary that has moved as our social, aesthetic,and economic needs have changed. But that boundary is becoming more blurred and it is easy to look behind the label and examine how true or easily made those distinctions remain. What you see when you look can tell you a lot about your frame of reference, state of mind, and cultural values, and sometimes what you see might surprise you.
Update 9/20:
Apparently Memphis, Tennessee, is also under the impression that gardens are essentially stinking, unsightly wastelands that need to be scrubbed from the community. I really do not understand these people and have no idea what this neighbor could possibly be thinking. Only two things come to mind, neither flattering. One is a Stepford Wives dystopia and the other recalls the episode of The X-Files in which a garbage monster kills members of an HOA that do not conform to a ridiculously draconian code. These people need to grow up and start addressing real problems, not attacking people trying to live healthier, be outside, and give back to their community.
Now that I've made the task seem overwhelming, it's time to get to actually writing. I'm a bit disappointed that right when I get ready to write on this topic the NYT goes and steals my thunder publishing a thoughtful Op-Ed by Michael Lipsky on regulation and wilderness. While his broader point is that there is nowhere in the nation, even in seemingly remote places that the reassurances of law do not comfort and the protections of regulation do not reach, he also rightly notes that the very idea of Wilderness has been codified in America, defined and protected as a place, to quote the Wilderness Act, "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" that is free of trails, permanent structures, and motors of any kind. He also paraphrases Roderick Nash's observation that wilderness is based on state of mind. This, too, is true. While federally designated (and therefore protected) wilderness has been strictly defined and given a specific set of social values, there are many other "wild" places one may encounter nature as well as ones that are not nearly as natural as they may seem.
A place of the first type can be found in my hometown (indeed my old neighborhood) of Philadelphia. There, a landscape designer has decided to let her yard "go wild," and has been cited by the city for its seemingly weedy and unkempt appearance. Clearly this is a case of social norms as to what constitutes an acceptable yard is coming up against though an alternative thinker. The benefits of a non-monoculture, unfertilized yard that attracts pollinators are clearly high, but they definitely do not mesh with the standard vision of an urban home. (This is not the most egregious case, however, that goes to Oak Park, MI, where a city planner threatened a homeowner using twisted logic for having a vegetable garden in her yard. Fortunately Julie Bass prevailed over the urban planing department). While no one will ever mistake a yard or even a city park for a wilderness, how we think about them is quite revealing of how we view nature and its role in human life and the boundary between them (if there is one). (Another very interesting project that plays on this boundary is NYC's High Line, which I highly recommend walking in its entirety should you get the chance). City parks and how they are designed is also fascinating and revealing, but that is a matter for another post.
Finally we have purportedly wild places that aren't nearly as natural as they would seem. I take as my example in this case Yosemite National Park. One of the Park Service's crown jewels, featuring giant sequoias, stunning views, easy access from the Bay Area (and the attendant crush of people) it is a truly beautiful place. It is also highly managed and while less Disneyfied than it used to be (the 1 hour photo is gone and I think the golf course is as well), it is still largely dominated by roads, parking lots, and paved trails to the best vistas. But that is not what I want to discuss (it's a bit too obvious). What caught my eye for inclusion in this post was an article at the end of July about how the NPS is managing the trees and meadows in the park with the aim of optimizing and restoring the views of the impressive peaks of Half Dome and El Capitan that were seen when the park was founded. The reason this is necessary is because a century of aggressive (and ecologically misguided) fire suppression has caused trees to fill in many of the meadows, blocking off many of the views and trails that once crisscrossed the valley. That such meadows were created and kept open by Native Americans via periodic burnings and then by settlers through grazing is alluded to but the implications for any concept of "restoration" or "natural state" skipped over by the author. While I do not know enough about the logistics of the plan to take a position for or against this logging action, I can say that it is definitely not restoring nature as it was when the park was constructed. What it is doing is restoring the image of the park as it existed when it was popularized and propagated via promotional pamphlets, artwork, movies, and televisions. The iconic image of Half Dome and El Capitan rising over the valley is what visitors expect. Many are consumers of the "postcard vista" idea of parks, best illustrated by Mount Rushmore, and are disappointed when they do not find it. While I find such people misguided, they are at least expecting something that has been protected to a small degree (though the Valley is in pretty poor shape) but has made possible the preservation of a much larger area. </digression>.
What do all of these things have in common? They all challenge ideas of what nature and wilderness are and how we think about the boundaries and interactions between our built environment and the "other" that lies outside our comfort zone. Going back to those historians, I believe it is White who has written how nature has been defined and redefined to constitute the "other" against which we define our culture and civilization. While there are many other "others" that mark boundaries between cultures, there is definite merit behind the idea of a shifting nature/man boundary that has moved as our social, aesthetic,and economic needs have changed. But that boundary is becoming more blurred and it is easy to look behind the label and examine how true or easily made those distinctions remain. What you see when you look can tell you a lot about your frame of reference, state of mind, and cultural values, and sometimes what you see might surprise you.
Update 9/20:
Apparently Memphis, Tennessee, is also under the impression that gardens are essentially stinking, unsightly wastelands that need to be scrubbed from the community. I really do not understand these people and have no idea what this neighbor could possibly be thinking. Only two things come to mind, neither flattering. One is a Stepford Wives dystopia and the other recalls the episode of The X-Files in which a garbage monster kills members of an HOA that do not conform to a ridiculously draconian code. These people need to grow up and start addressing real problems, not attacking people trying to live healthier, be outside, and give back to their community.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Four Quick Things
First a quick update: California's legislature has passed the ban on shark fins that I wrote about a few weeks ago. It is quite likely that Governor Jerry Brown signs it.
Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.
Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.
Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.
Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.
Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.
Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Polar Bear News
Two pieces of news about polar bears (Ursus maritimus). The first is some good news in an ongoing saga: Charles Monnett, the scientist who documented cases of drowned polar bears and was subsequently suspended by his agency, BOEMRE (the new acronym, since the Deepwater Horizon proved the final disgrace for a notoriously corrupt agency (discussed here)) has been reinstated from administrative leave. While investigations continue into why he was initially suspended and he will not be returning to the same duties, he has at least been temporarily cleared. This is something to keep watching as it develops though I wouldn't expect it to move with any great speed.
The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.
Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.
The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.
Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sharks and Rhinos
Last week I saw two articles that I thought would be interesting to juxtapose. The first is a piece from the NYTimes on the increase in the theft of rhino horns as trade in legal horns has become more difficult (the increased CITES and EU restrictions have also apparently increased poaching, but are on the whole a positive. Rather than loosen restrictions it would be best to increase commitments and support for conservation and anti-poaching forces and economic development to alleviate the poverty that makes poaching and trafficking a desirable way to earn a living). The second was a short piece in the LATimes about the advancement of a ban on the sale of shark fins through a legislative committee in the state senate.
First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.
Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.
Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.
I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?
None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.
First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.
Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.
Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.
I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?
None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Mining and the Media
A few weeks ago Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims on federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. The effect of this was to temporarily extend the suspension of new claims he imposed two years ago for an additional six months pending (unnecessary) additional scientific review. The ultimate outcome is likely to be the withdrawal of these lands for 20 years (which is the longest they can be removed from availability under current law without additional statutory action). This is a significant event because it will close off most of the threat of uranium and other hard rock mining in that area. There are a few existing, but inactive, mines that might be allowed to reopen (it will depend on whether they are deemed abandoned claims), and a few other new claims that might be perfected, but most of the claims that were filed near the end of the Bush presidency are likely to be worthless. This is because withdrawals of public lands are always made subject to valid existing rights. However, a right is not valid and existing just by being made. The way hard rock mining works in the United States is that a claimant must show that he or she (or it for corporations) has made an actual discovery of some mineral, has taken steps to physically occupy the land, and that the discovery would actually be economically rational to develop. It is not enough to say "it is likely that there is uranium on this claim" or "we believe uranium is on this claim" or "we want to look for uranium here." If there has not been an actual discovery on the date of withdrawal then the claim is not a prior valid right. (This is relevant to closed mines because if they were closed due to economic reasons, whether commodity price or cost of extraction or some combination, and remained closed for a long enough period, the right might have been abandoned. There is currently litigation over whether the current owners of those interests are able to "revive" their mining claims or if they are now subject to the moratorium).
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Park Budgets
Today is the Summer Solstice and the official beginning of summer. Yes the "summer season" began for many a month ago with the observance of Memorial Day, but now there is no denying it. The arrival of summer means many things: barbecues, long days, gardens and fresh produce. It is also a time when many people leave the cities for the "natural" world, visiting state and national parks in great numbers. Yet this year, many people will find these trips either more difficult or impossible. Here in Minnesota we are only ten days away from a potential shutdown of the state government due to inability to pass a budget. This would force all parks to close as there would be no money for rangers, maintenance workers, or any of the other state funded workers necessary to make them work. While many parks do charge fees for admission, campsites, firewood, and other amenities, these are generally not enough to be self-sustaining (especially since the greater the attendance, the higher the costs of maintaining and patrolling the park).
Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.
We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*
This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.
There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.
*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.
Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.
We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*
This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.
There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.
*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Babbitt Speaks
This is not directly park related but it is interesting. Bruce Babbitt was Secretary of the Interior under President Clinton and has impeccable environmental credentials. He is most famous for his roles as the named government defendant in the Sweet Home case that upheld the Endangered Species Act and one of the most important players in the establishment of Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Now he is in the news criticizing President Obama's environmental policies, particularly in the areas of land and water protection/conservation and failure to push back aggressively on disingenuous and dangerous Republican attacks (usually based on lies and other forms of disinformation) on a wide range of environmental issues from oil leases to mountain top removal to fracking to greenhouse gas emissions.
That such a high profile former official would criticize a president of his own party in this direct a manner, even in such a gentle way, is certainly notable. It isn't often (though it is healthy and necessary) that you see this kind of behavior. (Indeed, our discourse on the environment as well as all other issues would be healthier, more productive, and more intellectually consistent and honest if we did have more intraparty criticism based on facts and well-reasoned arguments, but that's a side issue). The main point is that while Obama has done a handful of good things on environmental, natural resources, and public lands issues, on the whole there has been a lot of stalling and evasion, not to mention areas (particularly when it comes to oil drilling) where he is actively damaging the future for negligible short term gain. This should be a wake up call to Obama that the environmental community is not happy with him and will not automatically rise to his aid in 2012. It is likely that some will respond to the "better than the alternative" fear-based argument, but that won't raise nearly as much money or inspire nearly as many door knockers or phone bankers. We'll see what he does (but I don't expect him to change his moderately anti-green behavior any time soon).
Update (June 11): The Los Angeles Times agrees and uses pretty strong language and lots of examples. Unfortunately it is buried in the Saturday paper, but it's still the strongest newspaper castigation I've seen of Obama's weak and cowardly environmental record.
Update II (June 13): The New York Times also agrees though its language is much more conciliatory to the administration (however, it appears on a Monday so it will get more views). In a related development, the power plant rules that the Op-Ed cites have been delayed again (announced after publication).
That such a high profile former official would criticize a president of his own party in this direct a manner, even in such a gentle way, is certainly notable. It isn't often (though it is healthy and necessary) that you see this kind of behavior. (Indeed, our discourse on the environment as well as all other issues would be healthier, more productive, and more intellectually consistent and honest if we did have more intraparty criticism based on facts and well-reasoned arguments, but that's a side issue). The main point is that while Obama has done a handful of good things on environmental, natural resources, and public lands issues, on the whole there has been a lot of stalling and evasion, not to mention areas (particularly when it comes to oil drilling) where he is actively damaging the future for negligible short term gain. This should be a wake up call to Obama that the environmental community is not happy with him and will not automatically rise to his aid in 2012. It is likely that some will respond to the "better than the alternative" fear-based argument, but that won't raise nearly as much money or inspire nearly as many door knockers or phone bankers. We'll see what he does (but I don't expect him to change his moderately anti-green behavior any time soon).
Update (June 11): The Los Angeles Times agrees and uses pretty strong language and lots of examples. Unfortunately it is buried in the Saturday paper, but it's still the strongest newspaper castigation I've seen of Obama's weak and cowardly environmental record.
Update II (June 13): The New York Times also agrees though its language is much more conciliatory to the administration (however, it appears on a Monday so it will get more views). In a related development, the power plant rules that the Op-Ed cites have been delayed again (announced after publication).
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Point Reyes
First off, apologies to anyone who is reading for not posting in a long time. I've been busy with a number of personal projects and other issues. It's summer now and I'm going to be making a concerted effort to do more posting more regularly.
One of the things I've been working on is some pro bono work for an environmental non profit called the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin on the Point Reyes National Seashore potential wilderness issue. Essentially the issue is this: when the park was created there was an oyster farm operating in Drake's Bay, within the boundary of the park with a lease set to expire in 2012. The enabling legislation for the National Seashore was accompanied by a committee report indicating that all commercial activity in the bay should eventually come to an end. The owners of the reservation for use and occupancy (RUO) sold their lease to the Drake's Bay Oyster Company (which knew full well of the limitations and timeline for termination). Upon the cessation of oyster farming and removal of commercial equipment, this part of the park would become officially designated wilderness (as legislatively determined). However, the DBOC successfully lobbied Sen. Diane Feinstein ("D"-CA and friend to corporate interests of all types) to insert a rider into an appropriations bill granting the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to issue a ten year extension (called a special use permit) of the lease. For more detail on the history of this issue, see the NPS' background page or the EACMarin website.
Under federal law, whenever an agency takes an action that might have environmental effects, it must complete an environmental impact statement (EAS) in fulfillment of its duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).* NEPA, however, is merely a procedural statute; it does not determine outcome. The important thing is that the process is done properly and with a full review of relevant facts and meaningful input and feedback from the public. Once the EIS is complete, the Secretary can issue a decision.
What I have been doing is providing background and assistance on NEPA and challenges to a decision made under NEPA as well as providing my opinion on various aspects of the public comment process that goes into developing the EIS. The comment period has closed, now is the time to wait for the agency's decision, continue to pressure it in appropriate ways, and prepare for potential legal challenges to the outcome (there will certainly be a legal challenge either way but because of the deference courts generally give to agencies, especially regarding scientific findings in areas of agency expertise, the agency action will likely be upheld). Still, I will update once there is a resolution.
*This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are different levels of review and different types of findings, but the need for an EIS is the only relevant issue here.
One of the things I've been working on is some pro bono work for an environmental non profit called the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin on the Point Reyes National Seashore potential wilderness issue. Essentially the issue is this: when the park was created there was an oyster farm operating in Drake's Bay, within the boundary of the park with a lease set to expire in 2012. The enabling legislation for the National Seashore was accompanied by a committee report indicating that all commercial activity in the bay should eventually come to an end. The owners of the reservation for use and occupancy (RUO) sold their lease to the Drake's Bay Oyster Company (which knew full well of the limitations and timeline for termination). Upon the cessation of oyster farming and removal of commercial equipment, this part of the park would become officially designated wilderness (as legislatively determined). However, the DBOC successfully lobbied Sen. Diane Feinstein ("D"-CA and friend to corporate interests of all types) to insert a rider into an appropriations bill granting the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to issue a ten year extension (called a special use permit) of the lease. For more detail on the history of this issue, see the NPS' background page or the EACMarin website.
Under federal law, whenever an agency takes an action that might have environmental effects, it must complete an environmental impact statement (EAS) in fulfillment of its duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).* NEPA, however, is merely a procedural statute; it does not determine outcome. The important thing is that the process is done properly and with a full review of relevant facts and meaningful input and feedback from the public. Once the EIS is complete, the Secretary can issue a decision.
What I have been doing is providing background and assistance on NEPA and challenges to a decision made under NEPA as well as providing my opinion on various aspects of the public comment process that goes into developing the EIS. The comment period has closed, now is the time to wait for the agency's decision, continue to pressure it in appropriate ways, and prepare for potential legal challenges to the outcome (there will certainly be a legal challenge either way but because of the deference courts generally give to agencies, especially regarding scientific findings in areas of agency expertise, the agency action will likely be upheld). Still, I will update once there is a resolution.
*This is, of course, an oversimplification. There are different levels of review and different types of findings, but the need for an EIS is the only relevant issue here.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Winter Camping
So, it's been a while, but I'm finally getting around to posting about some actual parks. Minnesota has a fantastic state park system and this past winter I visited three of them.
In November I went camping at Tettegouche state park on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Since it was hunting season, all parts of the park inland of Highway 61 were closed. The campsites, however, were open. We took a group site that was easily accessible from a parking lot. There were even carts available to load and transport gear in on well maintained and wide paths. In short, it was only a step more "rustic" than car camping. The site itself was gorgeous. Situated on a 20 foot cliff right on the lake there was a great view of the shoreline, which would have been better had it not been the weekend of the first winter storm of the year (being right on the lake we only got rain). It was nice being able to hear the waves breaking on the cliffs in the night, though as the storm grew in strength the wind became more of a problem, at one point almost taking down one of the tents. At times the waves were large enough to break and send spray up the cliff and well into the site. Still, quite a nice site. Proximity to the highway and other campsites might make for noise problems, especially in summer months when both are more heavily used, but we were the only people there that weekend. It would have been nice if the people in my group had been a bit more serious/less ridiculous/more prepared, but it was still an enjoyable time.
Due to the restrictions from hunting all of the hiking we did was actually in Gooseberry Falls which is located several miles south of Tettegouche. Again, large portions of it were off limits due to hunting, but a much larger area is on the lake side of the highway, providing more opportunity for activity. The day we were there it was raining sporadically, though not enough to keep us inside. The trails are fairly easy but still provide some nice views even in inclement weather. They also have a number of shelters and cabins that make it a good park for the elderly and parents with children to use. We tried to do the free geocaching exercise the visitor center had but it didn't seem to be working properly. Either the people I was with couldn't use the GPS properly or the coordinates were incorrect (or just entered improperly which would go back to improper use). Still, another activity that is good for families. Not even the weather and the waves could keep me from flying my kite though.
In February I went true winter camping with my boyfriend, Andrew, at Afton state park. The sites at Afton are about a mile in from the parking lot and reasonably well spaced from each other. In summer when all are occupied there is probably some crowding, but in winter it is easy to select one that is isolated from other groups (if any) that are present. We entered on snowshoes, not necessary on the walking trails but definitely required to get to and around the camping area. There are also many cross-country ski trails of varied difficulty levels that are heavily used. It is not the quietest park, and certainly not that dark either. It sits on the edge of the Twin Cities metro area and is right next to Afton Alps ski area. Lights from night skiing there as well as the sounds of lift operations cover most of the park, especially areas near the visitors center. At night (at least on winter weekends) there is a candlelight snowshoe/walking trail (most of the path is both, they do divide at one point) as well as free cider and hot chocolate at the center and a fire with marshmallows at the far point of the loop, donations are accepted but not required (and support for the parks is certainly a worthwhile cause).
Our site was nice, we picked one of the farthest ones that was shielded from the sights and sounds of the ski area. Unfortunately my stove pump was broken so we had to cook our dinner over a fire (starting it with dried grass and leaves) but there is firewood available. For a small fee you can have a wood permit and then cut your own at the central area of the campground. Andrew's tent was a little large for winter camping with only two people, but it got the job done. His new snow stakes also worked quite well though the snow might have been a bit too light for optimal performance. Afton is located about 40 minutes from the Twin Cities so it is easily accessible for day/evening trips as well as overnight excursions.
In November I went camping at Tettegouche state park on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Since it was hunting season, all parts of the park inland of Highway 61 were closed. The campsites, however, were open. We took a group site that was easily accessible from a parking lot. There were even carts available to load and transport gear in on well maintained and wide paths. In short, it was only a step more "rustic" than car camping. The site itself was gorgeous. Situated on a 20 foot cliff right on the lake there was a great view of the shoreline, which would have been better had it not been the weekend of the first winter storm of the year (being right on the lake we only got rain). It was nice being able to hear the waves breaking on the cliffs in the night, though as the storm grew in strength the wind became more of a problem, at one point almost taking down one of the tents. At times the waves were large enough to break and send spray up the cliff and well into the site. Still, quite a nice site. Proximity to the highway and other campsites might make for noise problems, especially in summer months when both are more heavily used, but we were the only people there that weekend. It would have been nice if the people in my group had been a bit more serious/less ridiculous/more prepared, but it was still an enjoyable time.
Due to the restrictions from hunting all of the hiking we did was actually in Gooseberry Falls which is located several miles south of Tettegouche. Again, large portions of it were off limits due to hunting, but a much larger area is on the lake side of the highway, providing more opportunity for activity. The day we were there it was raining sporadically, though not enough to keep us inside. The trails are fairly easy but still provide some nice views even in inclement weather. They also have a number of shelters and cabins that make it a good park for the elderly and parents with children to use. We tried to do the free geocaching exercise the visitor center had but it didn't seem to be working properly. Either the people I was with couldn't use the GPS properly or the coordinates were incorrect (or just entered improperly which would go back to improper use). Still, another activity that is good for families. Not even the weather and the waves could keep me from flying my kite though.
In February I went true winter camping with my boyfriend, Andrew, at Afton state park. The sites at Afton are about a mile in from the parking lot and reasonably well spaced from each other. In summer when all are occupied there is probably some crowding, but in winter it is easy to select one that is isolated from other groups (if any) that are present. We entered on snowshoes, not necessary on the walking trails but definitely required to get to and around the camping area. There are also many cross-country ski trails of varied difficulty levels that are heavily used. It is not the quietest park, and certainly not that dark either. It sits on the edge of the Twin Cities metro area and is right next to Afton Alps ski area. Lights from night skiing there as well as the sounds of lift operations cover most of the park, especially areas near the visitors center. At night (at least on winter weekends) there is a candlelight snowshoe/walking trail (most of the path is both, they do divide at one point) as well as free cider and hot chocolate at the center and a fire with marshmallows at the far point of the loop, donations are accepted but not required (and support for the parks is certainly a worthwhile cause).
Our site was nice, we picked one of the farthest ones that was shielded from the sights and sounds of the ski area. Unfortunately my stove pump was broken so we had to cook our dinner over a fire (starting it with dried grass and leaves) but there is firewood available. For a small fee you can have a wood permit and then cut your own at the central area of the campground. Andrew's tent was a little large for winter camping with only two people, but it got the job done. His new snow stakes also worked quite well though the snow might have been a bit too light for optimal performance. Afton is located about 40 minutes from the Twin Cities so it is easily accessible for day/evening trips as well as overnight excursions.
Friday, March 4, 2011
DeChristopher Convicted
Tim DeChristopher, the environmental activist who bid on oil and gas leases to prevent development of sensitive tracts near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, was convicted yesterday on both counts (false statements and impeding a federal auction). This is not surprising as he had admitted to the acts and he was barred from discussing his motives. The New York Times' reporter Kirk Johnson asked "Do Motives Matter?" in a blog post about the verdict. Legally, in this case, the answer is no. Without the ability to argue necessity any discussion of his motives, technically speaking, would be irrelevant to proving the charges; the government asked the jury "did he do it?" and reminded them that it didn't matter why. (Aside: motive is almost always irrelevant in criminal prosecutions (though it can be relevant in sentencing), a misconception that is perpetuated by pop culture portrayals of trial. Cops rely on motive in investigations, but in the courtroom it is rarely an element that must be proved).
Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.
At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.
Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.
At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Things This Week
First off, some sad news. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the eastern cougar subspecies is extinct and should be removed from the Endangered Species List. This isn't particularly surprising. Cougars were largely hunted down as pests, nuisances, and threats to livestock and people in the east long ago. That, combined with the massive destruction of habitat, ever-increasing surburbanization and sprawl, and the fragmentation of what little suitable habitat once existed into ever more isolated biological islands and large predators stand no chance of survival. To tie this in with parks a little bit, While often highly developed and connected to infrastructure, parks can provide protections for core biomes, and when all the public and private stakeholders are on board, can provide the anchor for regional management plans that enable species to have a foothold for recovery from which they can radiate into adjacent suitable areas.
It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.
I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.
Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.
It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.
So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.
It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.
I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.
Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.
It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.
So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.
DeChristopher Trial
Tim DeChristopher's trial is being conducted this week. DeChristopher is the environmental activist who prevented oil and gas drilling on lands near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks by bidding on and winning $1.8 million dollars worth of leases on BLM land in 2008. Unfortunately he has been barred by Judge Dee Benson from discussing his motives during his trial. While this is not particularly surprising, it makes it highly likely that he will be convicted. The statutes under which he is being charged require a "knowing" or "intentional" standard and the court rejected his "necessity defense." In other words, it said that even if all the evidence he planned to present in court were believed, it would not meet the requirements to legally justify his actions as preventing a greater harm. In its order barring discussion of necessity, the court held that he could not establish that he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that he couldn't show enough of a connection between the leases and the threat of climate change, and that he had other legal alternatives.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
About the Blog
I'm not entirely sure what the overall nature of this blog will be. I know that it will, as the title indicates, focus on the idea of parks, park management, and (probably) natural resources management more broadly. There will probably be a mix of news, commentary, and reviews of different parks and issues affecting them. While my interests generally run toward the national park system and the many issues it faces as it struggles to fulfill its dual mandate of promoting use and preservation, state and local parks often struggle with similar issues and will get attention as well.
One of my goals in life is to visit every unit of the National Park System. I know it's a bit cliche and hokey, but my interest is more than the low-brow kids-in-the-camper desire to see Disneyfied nature. I wrote my thesis on the idea of "Nature in the National Parks" and have always been interested in the interplay between policy, perception, and social construction. Every unit in the system has a different approach and focus, and some have extensive and interesting histories behind why they are presented the way they are. I value nature for its own sake, a large part of why I believe in and support parks (both for their aesthetics and their ecological value), but I realize that many people do not and need to experience them. What that experience consists of can go a long way toward shaping the nature of their support for parks and for the ideas of conservation and environmental protection more broadly. So part of my interest is more academic, evaluating and comparing how different parks present themselves and what that says about them and their management priorities.
So that's the basic goal. It's pretty ambitious, but life is about aspirations. I've been to a large number and might write some up (at least the ones I've been to more recently) before I get out to new visits. If any other big issues catch my eye I might also present my take on them though that's generally not my focus.
One of my goals in life is to visit every unit of the National Park System. I know it's a bit cliche and hokey, but my interest is more than the low-brow kids-in-the-camper desire to see Disneyfied nature. I wrote my thesis on the idea of "Nature in the National Parks" and have always been interested in the interplay between policy, perception, and social construction. Every unit in the system has a different approach and focus, and some have extensive and interesting histories behind why they are presented the way they are. I value nature for its own sake, a large part of why I believe in and support parks (both for their aesthetics and their ecological value), but I realize that many people do not and need to experience them. What that experience consists of can go a long way toward shaping the nature of their support for parks and for the ideas of conservation and environmental protection more broadly. So part of my interest is more academic, evaluating and comparing how different parks present themselves and what that says about them and their management priorities.
So that's the basic goal. It's pretty ambitious, but life is about aspirations. I've been to a large number and might write some up (at least the ones I've been to more recently) before I get out to new visits. If any other big issues catch my eye I might also present my take on them though that's generally not my focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)