Environmental Discussion-article @ Patagonia

The op-ed article "Why Is Rural America At Loggerheads With The Environmental Movement" by Theodore Roosevelt IV was included in the winter 2005 Patagucci catalog:<br><br> www.patagonia.com/enviro/reports/2005/loggerheads.shtml

I found the article to be relevant to my own observations and ideas, and ponder whether it would add illumination to the discussion (re: previous interesting discussions on TAY). In this region, salmon and other issues dominate rather more than grazing, as discussed in the article.

My personal experience is that I live to the east of the Cascade crest, an area that differs from western WA in geography, climate, culture, and especially political views of many individuals. It seems to me that is is an uphill task for anyone outside of the (assumed?) dominant culture to dare to disagree. Anyway, it can be interesting to hear the response when one dares to differ.

In the thread here that discussed the article about global warming were perhaps assumptions that one view was correct and infallible and some "just can't believe" that anyone does not accept that view. Again, one of the points that I made was that the article references included credible reports that cast substantial doubts about any one certain conclusion.

This is a topic that is very relevant to users of public lands, and to all of us with interest and concern about conservation and good stewardship (sorry, it is very difficult for me to to use the "e" word without cringing {sarcasm/ joke}).

Similarly to some of the discussion in the article, I and my friends and community have been and are materially affected by policy dictates in regard to environmental regulations. Perhaps, at least in my view, some significant policy is implemented based on doubtful data and effect- what some of us refer to as "bad science." There is a feeling by many here in the sparsely populated lands that are ruled by the political dominance of the west (WA) that the folks over on "the coast" are imposing some of this on us unreasonably. Much of the Policy, of course, is imposed from the Federal level, so that is national politics.

In closing I would invite those living within the hubris of a large metropolitan and cosmopolitan culture to consider the views and lives of those in rural areas.

Good article. Thanks for the post.  I agree that conservationists must find common ground with those in rural communities. There should be no reason why many in rural communities should not also consider themselves conservationists. Historically, this has been true in the Northwest. During the big wilderness battles of the 1960s, some of the most ardent conservationists included Chuck and Marion Hessey of Naches, Yvonne Prater of Ellensburg, and Ray Courtney of Stehekin. <br><br>However, I don't think these prominent rural citizens would find much in common with today's "wise-use" movement. We need to find a middle ground between policies that completely alienate rural communities and those that would roll back the clock to the days before Teddy Roosevelt.<br><br>I have found Eric Burr's opinion pieces in the Methow Valley News, Off-Piste and Powder to offer a worthwhile point of view on outdoor management issues, which differs from what you hear from the extremes. Eric is a long-time backcountry skier from Mazama.<br><br>Bringing the topic back to skiing, I have been fascinated by the little bit I've heard about the schism in the Yakima outdoor community over the long-proposed expansion of the White Pass ski area. I really don't know the details, but it's clear that we cannot expect everyone to be of one mind. I think it would be fascinating, some day, for someone to write a sensitive story about both points of view on the White Pass issue.

You are welcome for the post. I am glad that it was appreciated.<br><br>It is interesting and probably predictable that we (including me) see what we wish to see that fits our worldview.<br><br>I saw the important points being in regard to the views and approach of politically powerful blocks of urbanites in regard to the rural population. This nation is now sharply dissected politically along this divide. It is my sense (opinion) that the pendulum is swinging to the red currently partly because of excesses in environmental lobbying and Policy.<br><br>This is quite interesting historically, since the environment-destructive excesses of the 70s and 80s (after the excesses of the 50s and 60s), for example, such as the fast clearcutting of the I-90 corridor (private lands) by the overleveraged landowner in the 80s helped further inflame public opinion against logging on private and federal (!) lands. The crescendo of environmentalist resistance culminated in the Clinton Administration shutdown of logging (and other activities) on Federal lands. This swinging pendulum had the biggest boost from vascillating and imprudently reactive public officials in the land management agencies. Another facet of this discussion reaches back a few more decades: back in 1950, after the private timber companies had scalped most of of the land obtained from the Federal Govt for a few dollars per acre at the turn of the century, the USFS threw open its supply of old growth timber, thought to be inexhaustable. It was significantly exhausted within a generation, and when the USFS timber machine was shut down, what remained were the scraps for the public to fight over in order to engage in all of the "multiple uses." The pattern is certainly wildly vascillating- scalp, then shut-down- where is the moderate and planned approach?<br><br>I sense an effort in the article and the post that followed, to find the right words, cite the right people, in order to push more of an environmentalist agenda that had been a steamroller in the late 80's and 90's.<br><br>Quotes from the article:<br><br>"Rural Americans feel that the national environmental movement does not understand and is not sympathetic to their economic dependence on natural resources, and is furthermore dismissive and condescending toward their views, lifestyles and economic hardships. Unfortunately, they base this view on a history of environmental callousness toward their communities, marked by national campaigns that by their lights demonize rural people, overlook issues of social justice, and utilize half-truths and misinformation. <br><br>But environmental NGOs have concluded that all they have to do in response is massage their message: change "who the messengers are" and adjust their language camouflage, while continuing on-the-ground policies and national campaigns that alienate rural constituents. (end of quote)"<br><br>Quote:<br><br>"There should be no reason why many in rural communities should not also consider themselves conservationists." (end of quote)<br><br>Say what? Many people give up opportunities at many levels in order to live close and remain close to the open or wild country. The roughest logger, rancher, or farmer more often than not has a profound appreciation for our natural and wild lands, flora and fauna. These red county resource producers spend a lot of time enjoying and appreciating the wilderness. Many of these folks have spent their lives living in the outdoors and spending time in the wilderness. I would suggest that most would not stand for environmental destruction or destruction of wilderness. Conservation is their life, it is not just their midweek discussion arising from their weekend outdoor adventure.<br><br>Well, anyway, I have attempted to illuminate what I see as a gulf of misunderstanding. I feel that those who have misunderstood also had been politically successful with a certain environmentalist agenda previous to the current US administration. Perhaps secondary to that political success (excess to many of us) the blue county/ state folks have taken for granted, or not respected, the lives and views of the red county/ red state folks? I sense that this group of blue state/ county folks are just shocked that some just don't get it in regard to the one view of global warming,for example, just as they are shocked that George Bush and the accompanying agenda Preside over our current government.<br><br>

Many people give up opportunities at many levels in order to live close and remain close to the open or wild country. The roughest logger, rancher, or farmer more often than not has a profound appreciation for our natural and wild lands, flora and fauna. These red county resource producers spend a lot of time enjoying and appreciating the wilderness. Many of these folks have spent their lives living in the outdoors and spending time in the wilderness. I would suggest that most would not stand for environmental destruction or destruction of wilderness. Conservation is their life, it is not just their midweek discussion arising from their weekend outdoor adventure.

<br><br>I agree with you. I'd prefer to see people in rural communities retain as much freedom as they can to continue their rural lifestyle. But we must continually evaluate where current trends are heading. As you said, there have been environmentally destructive excesses in the past. How did that happen? Could it be that the people who live in rural communities were not really in control of events? Could it be that they are caught in the middle, between commercial interests who claim to speak for them and environmental interests who claim to speak for the land? <br><br>I think you have accurately described the political pendulum. I suggest that the Theodore Roosevelt IV article is a plea to environmentalists to try to reduce the pendulum swing by working toward policies that align with the interests of rural communities. I also suggest that the current Republican government has no such goal. I feel that the current Republican government intends to push the pendulum back as far as possible, to repeal the 20th century, if they can manage it. <br>

Great article - thanks for sharing it.<br><br>There are of course other strains that deepen the rural-urban divide. Taxes tend to flow from rural to city, for instance, a point which is not missed out in the countryside. Of course, in our modern and highly interdepenent world, the cities provide critical services that are essential to most of us, regardless of where we live and spend our time (e.g. the Port of Seattle moves a lot of goods that are coming from and going to the east of the mountains, tall buildings in cities house the insurance companies, etc etc that most of us depend on one way or another). In a similar vein, urbanites of course depend on rural areas for food, other resources, and of course recreation.<br><br>So there's an uneasy interdependence. Neither of us can afford to stick our heads in the sand with regard to what the other is doing on their plot of land, and yet as the tone of some prior threads have shown, each "side" has a tendency to flatly disregard the concerns of the other. Which brings me to my favorite line from the article:<br><br>"We need to have a more optimistic and congenial view of humankind if we expect to have broad political appeal."<br><br>That applies to us all, whether we're asking society to manage, despite uncertainties, against the risk of the huge problems that will come about if dire global warming predictions turn out to be correct AND it turns out that humans have significant impact on the rate of change (not quite a land use issue of the sort described in the article - in fact behavior in urban areas has a bigger impact on this issue, but this issue nonetheless pushes all the same buttons as Randonee has made clear), or if we're asking to be allowed to have reasonable control over what we do on our own properties and to be trusted to properly manage nearby public resources. <br><br>If we all follow the advice quoted above, I'm sure we'll see postings that accuse "the other side" of sheer hypocricy being replaced by postings that seek to inquire and educate about each others' points of view.

Taxes tend to flow from rural to city, for instance, a point which is not missed out in the countryside.

<br><br>Really? That's not what I've generally understood to be the case -- my understanding is that it is the urban areas that support the rural areas tax-wise. <br> Example article on the gas tax <br><br>Recient examples are the "Freedom County" and "Cedar County" movements that lobbied for splitting Snohomish and King counties basically alone the Urban/Rural line defined by Washington's Growth Managment Act. The Washington state constitution allows for new counties to be formed like this -- but these movements failed to gather suffcient support from the residents of the rural areas. Perhaps in part because the property tax rates in the rural areas would have to be increased to sustain a new county government.<br><br>An older example was the state of Lincoln proposal -- this would split Washington along the Cascade crest and Idaho along the Salmon river to form a new "inland empire" state. <br><br>I think there will always be a portion rural population that feels disinfrancised by the balance of political power. I recall the leader of the Cedar county movement commenting on how unfair it was that large rural land areas in eastern King county had so little represetation in the King county council. <br><br>I think that basis of rural unrest lies not in taxes -- but in the balance of political power.<br>