If there is one word that I think is overused, and done so with the intent mislead the uninformed and progress the environmental agenda its the word "protect". You will NEVER hear any of the environmental organizations (from the Sierra Club, to the Great Old Broads for Wilderness, to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and all of them in between) admit it, but their constant use of the word is almost entirely propaganda (YIKES!), but, it is.
You see, environmental groups spend a lot of time at the "grass roots" level making presentations (full of beautiful high definition pictures and videos, and happy smiling people and families enjoying nature) to small groups around the country. Most of the people in these groups have very very little knowledge about public land in the West and the intricate and involved nature of the public land debate here and know even less about the threats that face the land; but they do appreciate pretty pictures and have fond memories of that vacation they took with their parents to Yellow Stone when they were 8 years old. This is the ideal environment (no pun intended) to get uninformed people to cough up some of their hard earned cash and to support the cause.
So after REALLY tugging on the heart strings-showing all the HD pretty pictures and beautiful videos and conjuring up high sentimental value memories of public land-they start trotting out the need to "protect" these places from the big bad oil and gas companies and the OHV's (and then they start showing pictures of strip mines, and sand dunes void of vegetation and with OHV tracks all over them, and a Jeep spinning its tires trying to get up a slick rock ledge leaving black marks on the rock with horror music playing in the back ground) to really drive the point home. Followed by a "your donation of $50/year will protect these special places...thank you so much, thank you for caring enough to protect these special places"...and here put this "Protect Wild Utah" sticker on your bumper, and sign this petition to ask President Obama to "Protect Greater Canyonlands", and on and on and on. Protect...Protect...Protect...Protect. Who doesn't want to protect stuff??? Nobody wants to destroy stuff...
The word "protect" in and of itself-without the need to come right out and say it-denotes that there is a threat. So the environmental groups don't have to come right out and lie (and say that every single acre is threatened)...they can just use the word "protect" and then let the hearer draw their own conclusion that every single acre of public land in the West is threatened. The disingenuous part is that the Environmental groups don't spend anytime talking about how MUCH of the land is honestly and truly threatened, and thus needs protection. If they let the hearer assume ALL of it is threatened, they are more likely to donate to their organization and sign their petition(s)...the end justifies the means...a little half truth is okay, because it helps the cause.
Truth be told, and I'll use Utah as an example but only because I'm the most familiar with it, in the entire 9.4 million acres of proposed Wilderness in the Red Rock Wilderness Act (which is proposed by the SUWA) there is only 27 days of natural gas (with the recoverable reserves being even less) and 4 days of oil (with the recoverable reserves being even less). From their own publications they say:
"An analysis recently completed by researchers at The Wilderness Society concluded that the technically recoverable undiscovered resources below the lands in ARRWA amount to less than 4 weeks of natural gas and 1 week of oil. Because “technically recoverable” figures do not take into account the cost of recovering the resource, these figures significantly overestimate the volume of resources that may be economically recoverable."
I'm well aware that they are using this as an argument in favor of their agenda (touting that a strict Wilderness designation wouldn't have a negative economic impact because there are hardly any reserves), but the part that is dishonest-and which they sweep under the rug in their presentations-is that if such a small amount of oil and gas is included in their ARRWA proposal, then ALL 9.4 million acres don't need "protection" from oil and gas companies...oh, that's right, they didn't say oil and gas were a threat to ALL 9.4 million acres...they just said we need to "protect" all 9.4 million acres from oil and gas development...GOTCHA! (See how that works? And see how entirely disingenuous it is?)
You don't have to protect something when their is no threat to it. Unless of course you wear mosquito repellent...in January...in Alaska...to "protect" you from the mosquito's that aren't there, of course. But who does that? That is exactly the same thing as saying we need to protect land with no oil and gas reserves from oil and gas companies...it just makes no sense. But they don't explain that to their uninformed audience at their presentations...they just let them believe all 9.4 million acres are threatened so those people will put a bumper sticker on their car, write them a check, and sign their petition.
The other issue is that the use of the word "protect" automatically "dumbs down" the debate to simplistic extremes. It paints the debate as an "either/or" proposition. Either the land is "protected" or its "destroyed"...your either for "protecting" the land or you want to "destroy" the land. The public land debate is far to complicated and intrinsic to pigeon hole it into that kind of a discussion. Just because its not designated with a restrictive and formal public land designation doesn't mean it will be destroyed.
It is the environmental lobby's constant use of dishonest tactics like this that aggravates the access advocates so much that they really dig their heals in and oppose every single conservation measure. This forces the environmental lobby to do it more, and to literally force their agenda down there throats, which further enrages the "access advocates", and the gap between the two sides continues to widen.
If environmental groups were more honest in their arguments and less extreme in their position, the absolutely vital and important message about preserving our earth would be far more widely received and accepted.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Friday, May 30, 2014
The End does NOT justify the Means
As an environmentalist, I get so tired of the subtle dishonesty and even worse the blatant disingenuous and dishonest nature of the movement. More and more its become acceptable, expected and even worse applauded, for environmental groups to justify this behavior with eye roll inducing the "end justifies the means" mentality.
The crux of my frustration is because the movement will stand on its own-and have far more support-if the organizations driving the movement would be a lot less extreme and just let the facts and data dictate the public land policies. The movement doesn't need to twist, manipulate, exaggerate and make-up data to support their agenda (and all of those happen...often). The facts, of their own accord and with no massaging, will stand on their own. We don't need to stoop to ridiculous lows and push ethics and honesty aside to progress a very realistic, very responsible, very environmentally sound, and widely supported (even outside of environmentalist circles) environmental agenda in this country, for the benefit of us all, including our future generations.
The ONLY reason such dishonest, manipulative, and disingenuous tactics are even necessary is because of the ridiculous and unnecessarily extreme position today's environmental groups have taken. And the problem these groups have is that the true facts and data don't support such an extreme agenda (they support a much more moderate agenda); so, they have to twist and manipulate and exaggerate the data to support their extremism. And that is where I take issue with the environmental groups, because I maintain that they have a major problem when rather than molding their position around the available data, they are molding the available data around their position. And time and time again, I see environmentalist groups doing just that! And even worse, is that the loyal members of their organizations don't even bat an eye at it any more, and applaud it.
Lets stop making "environmentalist" a dirty word. And if we'd maintain a much more moderate position, using honest and ethical arguments supported by pure unaltered facts, it wouldn't be. We'd be able to work with oil and gas companies, and OHV groups, and rural communities for the betterment of all, especially the environment, if the extremism and this "the end justifies the means" attitude were checked at the door.
Extremism breeds extremism...and in this case the environmentalist groups are the offensive, and should take the high road and scale back their extremism.
If you are looking for examples, I will do posts specific to some more prevalent examples of this mentality as time presents itself and as I see them. Stay tuned.
The crux of my frustration is because the movement will stand on its own-and have far more support-if the organizations driving the movement would be a lot less extreme and just let the facts and data dictate the public land policies. The movement doesn't need to twist, manipulate, exaggerate and make-up data to support their agenda (and all of those happen...often). The facts, of their own accord and with no massaging, will stand on their own. We don't need to stoop to ridiculous lows and push ethics and honesty aside to progress a very realistic, very responsible, very environmentally sound, and widely supported (even outside of environmentalist circles) environmental agenda in this country, for the benefit of us all, including our future generations.
The ONLY reason such dishonest, manipulative, and disingenuous tactics are even necessary is because of the ridiculous and unnecessarily extreme position today's environmental groups have taken. And the problem these groups have is that the true facts and data don't support such an extreme agenda (they support a much more moderate agenda); so, they have to twist and manipulate and exaggerate the data to support their extremism. And that is where I take issue with the environmental groups, because I maintain that they have a major problem when rather than molding their position around the available data, they are molding the available data around their position. And time and time again, I see environmentalist groups doing just that! And even worse, is that the loyal members of their organizations don't even bat an eye at it any more, and applaud it.
Lets stop making "environmentalist" a dirty word. And if we'd maintain a much more moderate position, using honest and ethical arguments supported by pure unaltered facts, it wouldn't be. We'd be able to work with oil and gas companies, and OHV groups, and rural communities for the betterment of all, especially the environment, if the extremism and this "the end justifies the means" attitude were checked at the door.
Extremism breeds extremism...and in this case the environmentalist groups are the offensive, and should take the high road and scale back their extremism.
If you are looking for examples, I will do posts specific to some more prevalent examples of this mentality as time presents itself and as I see them. Stay tuned.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
So about these ATV's on public land....
Can I go ahead and put my opinion out there on ATV's? Great...here we go.
I'm not one that generally likes to "paint with a broad brush" or stereotype...I just don't like being wrong, and well, when one does that, they are ALWAYS wrong. For example, just because some African-Americans are in gangs, I wouldn't say that all African-Americans are gang members; nor would I say that all skinny people have eating disorders just because some skinny people have eating disorders. It's just so, I can't even think of the word, but "lazy" seems to fit best. It's a lazy mans argument to paint with a broad brush and stereotype. It's great for "effect" when a valid point doesn't exist or when arguing with an uneducated opponent, but its just so lazy and disingenuous.
I say that because I want all those honest, good, considerate, responsible ATV users in the world to know I'm not lumping you in with all the inconsiderate ones that have no regard for anything or anyone past their front fender.
BUT-you knew that was coming, didn't you?-I absolutely HATE-okay hate is a strong word, but I really dislike-ATV's. They ruin trails (and by trails I mean anything that is not a gravel road). They create a TON of dust (way more than even their two wheeled counter parts). In my opinion ATV's (and their ugly step sister the UTV's) belong on farms and ranches...with shovels attached to them, and newborn calves hog-tied and strapped to their racks while the mommy cow follows behind confused, or pulling cute little trailers full of grain, or with farmers riding them in knee high rubber boots. In my opinion that is where ATV's belong, they fit perfectly there...like Michael Jordan on the basketball court.
That's my beef with the machines. Now, their riders, for whatever reason, they just seem to attract the most disgusting, lazy, disrespectful (to other people and the land), people. Hold on here a bit, ATV users, let me clarify: just because you ride an ATV doesn't mean you are disgusting, lazy, and disrespectful, like I said before there are some good, respectful, and even downright beautiful people that ride ATV's, and A LOT of them that spend a lot of time volunteering on public land, for the benefit of us all...BUT...if you are lazy, disgusting, uneducated, and disrespectful, and happen to live in the rural West, there is a pretty good chance you own/ride ATV's. Does that make sense? Yes, there are disgusting and disrespectful hikers and mountain bikers...I get it...but a mountain biker or hiker doesn't fly by my camp at Mach 1 just up wind, and dust me out...then do it over and over and over again all day...and if they do, they don't kick up any dust, so I just think they are a little weird and make sure not to make eye contact.
Okay, having said all of that... I acknowledge that my issues with ATV's are purely my opinion. I just don't like them. And remember that, its important, because it helps me make my next point.
I'm sure, up to now, 100% of "traditional" environmentalists (meaning your average, run of the mill, Sierra Club or SUWA members) have been giving "high-fives" and shouting "amen" at the top of their lungs-no doubt annoying your co-workers and/or your beautiful Husky with one brown eye and one blue eye-while ATV users just ripped the sleeves off another perfectly good-though noticeably faded-Bon Jovi "Slippery When Wet" concert T-shirt from 1986, and crushed a beer can on their heads for good measure. And I'm confident that is about to change...
So here is the deal, I have this thing about public land...I know a lot of my environmentalist friends don't get it, but, well, its public. Public means that everyone owns it, and everyone has a right to it. No one person, or user group has more of a right to the land than another.
For that reason, I will NEVER, ever, under any circumstances, discourage a RESPONSIBLE individual from using their land, or lobby to keep them from using their land in any way that they want or advocate for an existing ATV trail or road to be closed. . To do so, in my opinion is pure and inexcusable selfishness.
It's incredibly selfish of me to want to ban responsible ATV users from public land just because I don't like ATV's, and don't want to be around them. VERY selfish. And that is EXACTLY what every single environmental organization in America wants to do. They want to ban ATV's from accessing their public land all most entirely for the soul reason that they don't like them and don't want to be around them.
I'm sure environmentalists reading this right now are feverishly yanking dreadlocks from their heads, and screaming at their computer screens about the negative environmental effects ATV's cause to public land (trail proliferation, and trail creation for that matter, and the liter, and the destruction to archaeological sites, and on and on and on), and how rude those ATV riders they saw on their last hike were, and the noise pollution the ATV's caused on their last hike in the San Rafael Swell. And further going on and on-with your most serious and devout tone-about how you don't want to ban them from ALL the land...just the most beautiful and desirable places visit (wink, wink...nudge, nudge...).
I TOTALLY get where you are coming from, my granola eating friends, but I'm not talking about irresponsible ATV use...and its irresponsible ATV use, and users, that causes trail proliferation, and trail creation, and liter, and damages archaeological sites, and dusted you out on your last hike (responsible riders would slow-or stop-and allow you to pass). Those guys, the irresponsible ones, well, they need to go. But I'm talking about responsible users.
Yes, an ATV has a larger negative impact on the environment than, say, hiking. But when used responsibly, that increased negative impact is not enough justification to warrant banning responsible ATV users from public land. We all have a negative impact, everyone of us, whether its Dunlops or Chaco's...granola bar wrappers or beer cans...revving motors or a belted-off key and out of harmony-chorus of "kumbaya"...we are all negatively impacting nature. So lets not start splitting hairs here...and remember this isn't our back yard, it is PUBLIC land we are talking about.
I was at a public park the other day...and there was a group of teenagers hanging around one of their cars with the doors open and this ridiculous noise was coming from the speakers of their car....they were singing along and dancing, so I GUESS it was music (kids these days?)...was I annoyed? Yes. Did I want them to go away? Yes. On the other side of me there was a group playing Frisbee, and they were awful at it, the Frisbee kept trying to fly into my head. Was I annoyed? Yes. Did I want them to go away? Yes. On the playground where I brought my kids to play, there were some older kids (bigger, more coordinated, faster, stronger) playing, and my kids didn't feel comfortable playing with them there. Did I want them to go away? YES. Was I annoyed? YES.
All of these annoyances at a public park...why do I go there? Because I don't have a play ground in my back yard, and my kids like to go down slides and swing...so I have to go to a public park. And since its public, I have to put up with people using that park in ways that annoy me. It's just the way it is. I don't have any right to ask those other users to leave, or to petition the city council to ban them from the park; they weren't necessarily doing anything wrong, they were just annoying me (even though I could make the exaggerated argument that Frisbee's to my head was a health risk). If I want my kids to play on a play ground without other people doing things I don't like, I'm going to have to buy my own play ground and put it in my back yard.
And therein lies the lesson to be learned from this-way to long-post...why is it so easy to understand this concept when talking about a public park, but so impossible to understand when talking about public land???? We don't own the public land, and as such, if we choose to use it, we are going to have to put up with other people using the land in ways we don't agree with, and that annoy us. We can't tell those other users to go away or to stop using the land, just because they are annoying us. If we want to enjoy the great outdoors without other people around, we are going to have to buy some of the "great outdoors" and then we can do what we want with it. But until then, we need to be unselfish and allow other Americans the right to use the land the way they want to use it. They have just as much right to it as we do.
And, in the off chance that we do want to get away from "machines", lets not forget, that right now, there is almost 150,000 square MILES (not acres, miles) of federally designated wilderness in America (a land mass larger than the entire state of California) where machines aren't allowed (and that doesn't take into consideration the national parks, monuments and preserves that don't allow ATV's either). So there is PLENTY (more than I think is fair, in fact) of land in America set aside specifically for quiet recreation.
Come on, my fellow environmentalists, lets be reasonable, fair and honest about this debate...more than anything you want ATV's banned from public land because you don't like to be around them (selfish), and so we exaggerate and sometimes even make-up (really, ATV use in Utah is melting the snow faster in Colorado? Really? I have no idea how anyone can make that argument with a straight face) the negative environmental affects of ATV use (I know nobody likes to admit that happens, but lets be honest with each other and at least admit the obvious; IT HAPPENS!)...and stop trying to ban ATV's from public land. You wouldn't advocate putting all African-Americans in jail because SOME African-Americans are gang members, so why on EARTH do you feel it makes sense to try and ban all ATV's from public land because some of them are complete and utter morons?
We've got enough land set aside specifically for us (more than any of us could ever see in a lifetime), so give it a rest....lets stop spending money closing existing ATV trails, and on banning things we-personally-don't like, and start spending that money on educating the public about how to use the land responsibly and helping them better understand the land and its history so they'll appreciate it more. That is a sound way to spend money.
Why can't we all just get along??? We can! We just all have to be a little less selfish...
I'm not one that generally likes to "paint with a broad brush" or stereotype...I just don't like being wrong, and well, when one does that, they are ALWAYS wrong. For example, just because some African-Americans are in gangs, I wouldn't say that all African-Americans are gang members; nor would I say that all skinny people have eating disorders just because some skinny people have eating disorders. It's just so, I can't even think of the word, but "lazy" seems to fit best. It's a lazy mans argument to paint with a broad brush and stereotype. It's great for "effect" when a valid point doesn't exist or when arguing with an uneducated opponent, but its just so lazy and disingenuous.
I say that because I want all those honest, good, considerate, responsible ATV users in the world to know I'm not lumping you in with all the inconsiderate ones that have no regard for anything or anyone past their front fender.
BUT-you knew that was coming, didn't you?-I absolutely HATE-okay hate is a strong word, but I really dislike-ATV's. They ruin trails (and by trails I mean anything that is not a gravel road). They create a TON of dust (way more than even their two wheeled counter parts). In my opinion ATV's (and their ugly step sister the UTV's) belong on farms and ranches...with shovels attached to them, and newborn calves hog-tied and strapped to their racks while the mommy cow follows behind confused, or pulling cute little trailers full of grain, or with farmers riding them in knee high rubber boots. In my opinion that is where ATV's belong, they fit perfectly there...like Michael Jordan on the basketball court.
That's my beef with the machines. Now, their riders, for whatever reason, they just seem to attract the most disgusting, lazy, disrespectful (to other people and the land), people. Hold on here a bit, ATV users, let me clarify: just because you ride an ATV doesn't mean you are disgusting, lazy, and disrespectful, like I said before there are some good, respectful, and even downright beautiful people that ride ATV's, and A LOT of them that spend a lot of time volunteering on public land, for the benefit of us all...BUT...if you are lazy, disgusting, uneducated, and disrespectful, and happen to live in the rural West, there is a pretty good chance you own/ride ATV's. Does that make sense? Yes, there are disgusting and disrespectful hikers and mountain bikers...I get it...but a mountain biker or hiker doesn't fly by my camp at Mach 1 just up wind, and dust me out...then do it over and over and over again all day...and if they do, they don't kick up any dust, so I just think they are a little weird and make sure not to make eye contact.
Okay, having said all of that... I acknowledge that my issues with ATV's are purely my opinion. I just don't like them. And remember that, its important, because it helps me make my next point.
I'm sure, up to now, 100% of "traditional" environmentalists (meaning your average, run of the mill, Sierra Club or SUWA members) have been giving "high-fives" and shouting "amen" at the top of their lungs-no doubt annoying your co-workers and/or your beautiful Husky with one brown eye and one blue eye-while ATV users just ripped the sleeves off another perfectly good-though noticeably faded-Bon Jovi "Slippery When Wet" concert T-shirt from 1986, and crushed a beer can on their heads for good measure. And I'm confident that is about to change...
So here is the deal, I have this thing about public land...I know a lot of my environmentalist friends don't get it, but, well, its public. Public means that everyone owns it, and everyone has a right to it. No one person, or user group has more of a right to the land than another.
For that reason, I will NEVER, ever, under any circumstances, discourage a RESPONSIBLE individual from using their land, or lobby to keep them from using their land in any way that they want or advocate for an existing ATV trail or road to be closed. . To do so, in my opinion is pure and inexcusable selfishness.
It's incredibly selfish of me to want to ban responsible ATV users from public land just because I don't like ATV's, and don't want to be around them. VERY selfish. And that is EXACTLY what every single environmental organization in America wants to do. They want to ban ATV's from accessing their public land all most entirely for the soul reason that they don't like them and don't want to be around them.
I'm sure environmentalists reading this right now are feverishly yanking dreadlocks from their heads, and screaming at their computer screens about the negative environmental effects ATV's cause to public land (trail proliferation, and trail creation for that matter, and the liter, and the destruction to archaeological sites, and on and on and on), and how rude those ATV riders they saw on their last hike were, and the noise pollution the ATV's caused on their last hike in the San Rafael Swell. And further going on and on-with your most serious and devout tone-about how you don't want to ban them from ALL the land...just the most beautiful and desirable places visit (wink, wink...nudge, nudge...).
I TOTALLY get where you are coming from, my granola eating friends, but I'm not talking about irresponsible ATV use...and its irresponsible ATV use, and users, that causes trail proliferation, and trail creation, and liter, and damages archaeological sites, and dusted you out on your last hike (responsible riders would slow-or stop-and allow you to pass). Those guys, the irresponsible ones, well, they need to go. But I'm talking about responsible users.
Yes, an ATV has a larger negative impact on the environment than, say, hiking. But when used responsibly, that increased negative impact is not enough justification to warrant banning responsible ATV users from public land. We all have a negative impact, everyone of us, whether its Dunlops or Chaco's...granola bar wrappers or beer cans...revving motors or a belted-off key and out of harmony-chorus of "kumbaya"...we are all negatively impacting nature. So lets not start splitting hairs here...and remember this isn't our back yard, it is PUBLIC land we are talking about.
I was at a public park the other day...and there was a group of teenagers hanging around one of their cars with the doors open and this ridiculous noise was coming from the speakers of their car....they were singing along and dancing, so I GUESS it was music (kids these days?)...was I annoyed? Yes. Did I want them to go away? Yes. On the other side of me there was a group playing Frisbee, and they were awful at it, the Frisbee kept trying to fly into my head. Was I annoyed? Yes. Did I want them to go away? Yes. On the playground where I brought my kids to play, there were some older kids (bigger, more coordinated, faster, stronger) playing, and my kids didn't feel comfortable playing with them there. Did I want them to go away? YES. Was I annoyed? YES.
All of these annoyances at a public park...why do I go there? Because I don't have a play ground in my back yard, and my kids like to go down slides and swing...so I have to go to a public park. And since its public, I have to put up with people using that park in ways that annoy me. It's just the way it is. I don't have any right to ask those other users to leave, or to petition the city council to ban them from the park; they weren't necessarily doing anything wrong, they were just annoying me (even though I could make the exaggerated argument that Frisbee's to my head was a health risk). If I want my kids to play on a play ground without other people doing things I don't like, I'm going to have to buy my own play ground and put it in my back yard.
And therein lies the lesson to be learned from this-way to long-post...why is it so easy to understand this concept when talking about a public park, but so impossible to understand when talking about public land???? We don't own the public land, and as such, if we choose to use it, we are going to have to put up with other people using the land in ways we don't agree with, and that annoy us. We can't tell those other users to go away or to stop using the land, just because they are annoying us. If we want to enjoy the great outdoors without other people around, we are going to have to buy some of the "great outdoors" and then we can do what we want with it. But until then, we need to be unselfish and allow other Americans the right to use the land the way they want to use it. They have just as much right to it as we do.
And, in the off chance that we do want to get away from "machines", lets not forget, that right now, there is almost 150,000 square MILES (not acres, miles) of federally designated wilderness in America (a land mass larger than the entire state of California) where machines aren't allowed (and that doesn't take into consideration the national parks, monuments and preserves that don't allow ATV's either). So there is PLENTY (more than I think is fair, in fact) of land in America set aside specifically for quiet recreation.
Come on, my fellow environmentalists, lets be reasonable, fair and honest about this debate...more than anything you want ATV's banned from public land because you don't like to be around them (selfish), and so we exaggerate and sometimes even make-up (really, ATV use in Utah is melting the snow faster in Colorado? Really? I have no idea how anyone can make that argument with a straight face) the negative environmental affects of ATV use (I know nobody likes to admit that happens, but lets be honest with each other and at least admit the obvious; IT HAPPENS!)...and stop trying to ban ATV's from public land. You wouldn't advocate putting all African-Americans in jail because SOME African-Americans are gang members, so why on EARTH do you feel it makes sense to try and ban all ATV's from public land because some of them are complete and utter morons?
We've got enough land set aside specifically for us (more than any of us could ever see in a lifetime), so give it a rest....lets stop spending money closing existing ATV trails, and on banning things we-personally-don't like, and start spending that money on educating the public about how to use the land responsibly and helping them better understand the land and its history so they'll appreciate it more. That is a sound way to spend money.
Why can't we all just get along??? We can! We just all have to be a little less selfish...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)