Protect OUR lands

[Rick J]

a sobering post

http://soft-hacklejournal.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-rise-of-dominionism.html

[johnsquires]

Thanks, Rick, for posting that very well-written article.
As discussed in another thread, there are several groups fighting such efforts. Those who agree with such thoughts might give a look at attending the Back Country Hunters & Anglers Rendezvous in Missoula this coming April. BCA is very involved in this fight.

[JasonB]

Thanks for sharing that Rick, indeed it was well put. I hope that a lot more folks will take a step back and really consider the full ramifications, rather than falling lock step into typical partisan political viewpoints. The article lays out some pretty sobering concerns for all who enjoy public lands (meaning everyone who camps, fishes, hunts, hikes... etc, etc, etc); worth at least a few moments to ponder.
JB

[Bob Loblaw]

LOOK OVER THERE!!! THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!

meanwhile the perpetrators of this fictitious war on legal gun ownership are taking public lands and giving it to foreign mining conglomerates, timber companies and frackers.

Outdoors enthusiasts and sportsmen need to have a political come to Jesus about who they support and why.

[Larry S]

Sadly, there are those that believe privatizing many of our public lands would result in a greater good
for all. I'm also of the opinion that free flowing waters should be just that. No owning of the streams
below mean high flow marks. There's going to be a rude awakening for many voters in the next few years.
Best to all,
Larry S

[Darian]

Not making light of this but "....You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. Pave paradise and put up a parkin' lot."

I'd like to say that we're facing the greatest challenge to ownership of our natural resources in our history but that wouldn't be true. We've had greater challenges in the past 200 years. Privatizing lands was the goal of the federal government when it was seen to be a good idea to settle the wild west. National Parks weren't established until the Teddy Roosevelt administration. Does privatization of public lands include privatizing reservation lands?? OK, we'll make it through this, although we may have a lot to undo when the current situation changes (and it will). Larry's right. We all need to evaluate what our needs/wants are and support candidates that are in line with those needs/wants.

Hmmm,.... After thinking about it, isn't that what got us into this situation to begin with??? ;)

[johnsquires]

So in a system where, ostensibly, the majority rules (presidential election aside), if most people want to pave paradise, either because they profit from the paving or they enjoy the results of the paving, i.e., malls, movie theaters, tame rivers, selective wildlife, do those who disagree have any recourse - I mean recourse which will produce tangible results?

[Rick J]

johnsuires - a large portion of the population know nothing about this and rarely if ever venture out onto federal lands. Of those that do, I expect many do not understand the ramifications of selling lands to the State. They think Federal and are just turned off. Just like those idiots who took over land up north and then were found not guilty.

It will take action in education and supporting environmental groups that actually have some sway on opinion and can take folks to court if necessary and lobby in Washington. No question it is an uphill battle but folks need to try. I am posting below a post from a fellow on another BB that kind of puts things in perspective:



"My only politics are the politics of fishing. Because of this I care most about clean cold water and the right of Americans to have access to same. I am also 62 years old and have had a good run of it ever since I was only eight years old. This future of our National Treasures will be the plight of those who are my juniors in age. Those who also have children whom they wish to have the same experiences that we of of more senior age have enjoyed.

What I just wrote does not mean that I do not care what happens. It means that the portion of the population yet to taste the wonders of this magnificent land to the extent others have are going to have to stand up for themselves.

I could go on trying to make a point which I'm not so sure I am able but it is obviously time for people who care about this environment to find their way to be heard. The bare and bold truth is that when the day comes that the environmental quality provided for the people of America no longer matters there is little left to care about.

I worked for one of the largest private environmental organizations for most of the 1980's. My position was legislative liaison my assignment was to garner support for HR3400 which at the time was known as the acid rain bill, essentially we were fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I just said that hoping to explain why I'm not ready to go to the ring again. I worked hard, we had minor successes which in turn have been reversed to some extent. At the end of the campaign I was offered to stay on to carry on other battles however I was burned out, I wanted nothing more than to stop looking up and feeling defeated when I saw the sky above.

So I started a small business and went to the mountains as often as I could. The Appalachians, Smoky's, Catskills, Rockies, Tetons, and finally to the Chugach and Alaska Ranges, and I stood in rivers. I see what is coming, I saw it in 1981 when they tore the solar panels off of the White House roof. I've always known that what I held dearest would eventually come into the focus of those who do not see what I see when I look upon the land and waters. Change is not always good but change is inevitable. Only good people will create a positive future for our country and just like always we will have to be driven to the precipice before there will be a movement for what matters most. Where I grew up we (humanity) nearly had decimated our land and waters before there came a groundswell of support to bring it back to a great extent. Now humanity has grown contemptuous of our environment again and care will be cast aside and thus the precipice once more.

I do hope I have said nothing that will seem offensive to anyone here, members, administrators or owners."

[Rick J]

will add a few lines from another post that also make sense:

"If there is to be a positive to take away from this it is the fact that the closer to home the more responsive to the voter politicians tend to be.

Start with your DC representatives and senators...and do so often and demand real replies...not the usual boiler plate canned response. Then if need be...start in on the state level officials with the same demands. It just may be that this whole idea can grind to a halt if we the people act peacefully, within the system and with a never give up approach."

[Mark Kranhold]

Great article and spot on! Thanks for sharing Rick.

[JasonB]

So in a system where, ostensibly, the majority rules (presidential election aside), if most people want to pave paradise, either because they profit from the paving or they enjoy the results of the paving, i.e., malls, movie theaters, tame rivers, selective wildlife, do those who disagree have any recourse - I mean recourse which will produce tangible results?

That really does get to some thorny questions John. In a good old campfire chat amongst friends I would have quite a bit to say on several points there... but in this particular format I find the biting my tongue is almost always better. That said, I do think there's a couple of important thoughts worth sharing:

Despite our lack of tangible power to make things go "our way" it is still absolutely worth going through the processes that we're afforded in our democracy (such as it is). I have found that letters to representatives and senators do get responded to, albeit often in the form of some typical party line blah, blah, blah. I do think that overall those letters, calls, and petitions do get noticed though; especially when lots of folks take the time to repeatedly address specific issues and offering specific and direct action that could be taken for positive impacts. While it may be very unlikely that any of my concerns and issues stated in any letter will have a significant "payoff", it's not that different from casting a line into unknown waters; you may not have success either way, but you stand NO chance at success if you don't keep casting...

One other thing I see is that I think most of us are largely failing when it comes to having meaningful discussions with those from differing social/religious/political values than our own. It's good to get those of like minds fired up on important issues, but even better if we can reach others who might be inspired/persuaded to take action as well. I would hope, for instance, that having our public lands be accessible and protected from degradation (for all) would be something that a huge percentage of those of us who enjoy the outdoors would see as a worthy cause to get behind; but depending on how that discussion is framed it could easily cause people to split right down party lines in yet another pointless argument that gets no one anywhere...

If we can stay focused on the areas of agreement, we will likely be able to form a much larger and stronger voice. We don't have to all like the same kind of rod and reel to be able to relate to what a special thing it is to be out on the water for some peace away from it all. On public lands, there are an awful lot of people who enjoy using them to some level or another and those connect to a lot of interest groups with potential to lobby. Perhaps it's worth finding out a bit more, and reaching out to a few more friends and neighbors who might share some of our concerns.
Tight lines to all,
JB

[Darian]

I agree with all of the points made so far (education/outreach/participation). However, there's another avenue that I prefer. As I've said before in prior posts, I tend to support organizations that invest in lands to create conservation easements that protect against acquisition/development, such as Nature Conservancy. IMO, removing lands (private/public) from the influence of potential developers and handing it over to conservation agencies results in meeting the goal of protecting our lands (at least for now).

Having said all of that, nothing is chiseled in stone in this world. Todays accomplishments can be overturned without constant vigilance/effort. That's where other activities (education/outreach/participation) are valuable. Trouble is that unless retired a lot of us are working and/or caring for family members and don't have a lot of time to participate. IMO, that's where joining/supporting environmental NGO's might be a good choice. They provide instant numbers/organization/skills/scale for accomplishing our goals. Also, they tend to be better funded and at playing the lobbying/litigation game necessary in todays political atmosphere. Pick one or more and support them (Natural Resources Defense Council, Trout Unlimited, Cal-Trout, Nature Conservancy, etc. Too many good ones to list here).

[Bob Loblaw]

The most immediate threats are not to lands but to water. PEOTUS Trump stated during the campaign that California does not have a drought or a water shortage. He continually parroted the language of big agricultural interests that we are wasting water by allowing it to flow to the ocean...in everyday vernacular we call those flows "rivers".

We are headed for a huge fight between agriculture, urban users and rivers. A Trump Supreme Court and a Republican Congress will make runs at the Endangered Species Act, and the EPA. Mandatory minimum fish flows will be abolished. Dams will be allowed to hold back 100% of the water they collect and divert it for other uses. In the past 100% of the mighty San Joaquin River's flows were diverted for ag and urban use and it is only recently that it has been rewatered albeit at very low flows. With no laws to protect the environment, why should we expect to see water in the Sacramento River in the future? or the American or the Feather or the Trinity?

This might seem like a dystopian vision of the future, but its as likely to happen as not.

[Rick J]

As Darian says - lots of good organizations who do have some weight behind them to get the message out. I am heavily invested in TU and he WSI which does seem to be making some progress towards helping our wild fish.

Also as I quoted above - reach out to your local representatives - likely more open to hearing from you and make sure they understand what many of their constituents want to see and get them carry the message on

[johnsquires]

I do agree that education is an important factor when it comes to such matters. What is frustrating -- at least to me -- is that we seem to have entered an era where facts are not that important anymore, science is only useful when it comes to medical issues or (especially) dental issues. It just leaves me babbling when facts, logic, reasoning, historical examples carry little or no weight in a debate.
Exposure I think is also important. But unless we break the cycle of paving and developing, it's going to get progressively more difficult to find places in which to expose.
What is at stake is too important to stop fighting for; it's just a challenge when so many people value money/profits above all else.

[ycflyfisher]

I don't get some of these weird conservational divisions that often pop up on this forum. Water and land are connected at the hip. You simply cannot have a healthy aquatic ecosystem without it being surrounded by healthy terrestrial habitat, and likewise, you cannot have anything but a healthy desert habitat without healthy aquatic ecosystems. And likewise, species specific conservation efforts (Ex. We need to save the stripers/ we need to save the salmon) are also shortsighted and likely destined to fail.

The only efforts that have been known to work are efforts to preserve ECOSYSTEMS and restore the aspects of ECOSYSTEMS that imperiled species are dependent upon.

We do have a safeguard against the "majority rule" and that's the Fed ESA. Critics have since its inception, pointed out that the FED ESA goes too far (it does not) in their view, has resulted in the expenditure of billions of dollars (tons of truth to that) to save species they assume no one cares about, and has not always been successful in terms of "results" (unfortunately tons of truth here also). But the reality is most of the major successful conservation battles are not won by "getting the message out"/ raising awareness or levels of "caring", they're won in court or at least a "notice of intent" level threat to haul someone's ass into court for perceived violations of the ESA. Any conservation org that isn't equipped to file notices of intent, and follow up if action is not taken, is extremely limited in what it may accomplish.

The science surrounding ecosystems and ecology is of utmost importance, and without said science, we'd still be looking for the proverbial "1st win".

Agree with Bob that our current president elect would like nothing better than to gut the EPA and the ESA like a fish. I can see him being somewhat successful in causing some minor/moderate changes for the worse to the former, but in regards to repealing/ castrating the ESA, I think he's going to find that his delusional levels of godlike omnipotence are about as effective as his comical hairpiece is as making him look less like a total tool. I don't see it likely the ESA is going away anytime soon.

[Darian]

Bulletin Boards like this one provide a good outlet for comment and relief of frustration. That's probably a good thing. Fishing clubs are similar and do, occasionally, undertake small scale conservation projects but really only are able to donate to organizations that can take on larger scale initiatives/projects. In my limited experience, the only things that matter to those in positions of authority are money/power. NGO's are able to raise large amounts of money, provide numbers (members)/organization for activities (prior to litigation) and litigation.

Along that line, I have to agree, reluctantly, that litigation appears to be the real attention getter when dealing with environmental issues but it's never been something I liked. A good lawyer I once worked with told me that, "a good settlement is better than a bad lawsuit." Litigation is costly and there's some level of risk of loss associated with going to court. For that reason, I've always favored lobbying efforts. Problem is as you say they don't seem to work as well as a good threat.

In a recent interview on NPR it was discussed that if Trump wanted to impact the EPA/ESA, all he'd have to do is reduce/deny budget support for EPA or appoint someone whose objectives (small government/relax regulations) are the same as his own. Well, if we stick around long enough, things will change....

[Rick J]

That is why larger groups like TU and CalTrout can at times be successful - they are willing to go to court though do prefer compromise which will maybe will take longer to get where you want to go is still progress.

They do think ecosystem and watershed wide - it isn't just putting in woody debris or taking out barriers (though taking out dams go along way to overall watershed improvement!!).

But don't knock the little guys doing work in their own backyard - everything helps including just planting trees along creeks and picking up trash

[Rick J]

interesting story sent to me by my friend Bruce
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2016/dec/1/yurok-and-hoopa-tribes-collaborate-transform-forme/

[Ard]

Wild lands and rivers are in for a hard time. I am very much aware of this because the knives are being sharpened here in Alaska where we have both a population and political representatives who are more than eager to get on with I call DDT. DDT would be drill, dig and timber. All necessary facts of modern life but what could happen here may be a tragedy that could last forever.

[johnsquires]

Wild lands and rivers are in for a hard time. I am very much aware of this because the knives are being sharpened here in Alaska where we have both a population and political representatives who are more than eager to get on with I call DDT. DDT would be drill, dig and timber. All necessary facts of modern life but what could happen here may be a tragedy that could last forever.

Exactly!
Some actions that may be taken can be reversed over time. Doubtful that the proposed Pebble Mine, for example, fits into the reversible category.