Letting Wilderness be Wilderness..
Hi Jim-
Here's a thought, for what it's worth...
I had been re-reading "A Sand County Almanac" when the last Zephyr came out. And toward the end, one quote stuck in my head: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of a biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."
It seems simple enough, doesn't it? I think our problems with wilderness lie in the difference between "having" and "being". We enviros (myself included) want to have it by mapping it, hiking it, biking it, rafting it--conquering its obstacles in droves. When will it be enough just to let a wilderness be a wilderness, without us? I'm not saying that those activities are inherently harmful, but the sheer number and scale of our participation makes it unsustainable.
Thanks for your willingness to say what others only think.
Andrea Jaussi
Flagstaff, Arizona
Looking at 'Enyaw" in the Mirror
Jim,
Thanks for the April Zephyr issue. It is one of the few issues I ever sat down and read from cover to cover. People of all faiths, foot, pedal or gas pedal all cause damage. I have done some of my own over the years. I am not sure what the solution is. We cannot hide the Utah from the world any longer. But I am also certain that we will need protection and that wilderness is the best legal tool we have to create protection. National Parks and Monuments provide protection but the rules are even more restrictive than wilderness.
I have looked in the mirror and Enyaw on the other side said he hopes you burn in hell. Which is one of the nicest things he says about anyone.
Wayne Y. Hoskisson
Moab, Utah
For those of you as slow as I am, "Enyaw" is "Wayne" backwards...JS
Frustrated in Escalante...
Jim Stiles,
In response to your "editorial/story" in the April-May 2001 edition of the Zephyr, well I don't know what to say. First of all I hail from that little hamlet that you so fondly speak about called Escalante. Patrick Diehl and Torrey Woodard live about two blocks from me and I am never afraid to talk to them when ever they stop by. I have had people tell me if I talk to them they won't talk to me...oh well. This is where I get into the sixth grade mentality. We (my wife and I) started a business here and I'll bet you next question is, were we accepted. My answer is, it depends on who you talk to.
I really want to congratulate you on your article. I know you have heard it before that "everyone" wants to protect the land for all but...My main question is WHO will be the first to make that move to bring both sides together to come to a common ground? Your comment of the chaining and the farmer stating that he did not want to talk to you because he did not want to be called that "E" word. Let's look at what's happening in this hamlet. We have street lights about to be installed, we have trees lining Main Street (Hwy.12) with a drip irrigation system and hopefully we are about to get a new reservoir. The High School is about to get a 2+ million dollar addition (auditorium), the BLM is going to build a new (I believe) 12,000 sq. ft. Visitor Center.
Now let's talk about what is happening. Roads are closing because of the new Monument Plan. Tour permits are due out any time. People do not want the Monument in "this" town BUT when they sell their land/houses in town they want monument prices. It's the old "get out of here" with their hands out to the government and I can give you example after example of this happening.
I do believe that the beauty of this town/area will be its down fall. As you stated, you get the weekend warriors coming in here in their Land Rovers and SUVs, trying to protect something that they see only once in as while. Try living here. I take neither side because I can see both sides points. When I start to go one way they do some thing completely irrational so I'll go the other way then they do something completely irrational. WHO will give in first? WHO will give that first gesture that will start the ball rolling?? The other side, instead of saying "Thanks" or "Let's make this work," will come back and say, "We wore them out, ha, ha, ha, we won.
Maybe it is time for every one to stop and take a look in the mirror to see who is calling who, what. Unless that happens, no matter what side you are on, everyone will lose. The popularity of every place in Southern Utah is growing greatly. WHY, because everyone wants to get out of where they are, so they come down here for a weekend, then go home and they now want to "preserve" this place for themselves to come back to in the future.
I have a great idea--lets go to the big city and take away the cars and pollution and ram it down their throats and see how they like it. I'll bet they will not. Will we be called environmentalists?? I'll bet we won't. I'll bet we'll be told to mind our own business, don't butt in and go home to our clean air, clear starry nights and we'll see you next year to tell you what to do with YOUR land.
Whenever we used to get into trouble we'd say, "Sit down, take a deep breath count to ten and think it out." WHO has done that lately?? There is no trust and we all know it. I do not pretend to know all of the answers and if some one said that they do, I'm sure there are a lot of people who will want to meet this person. If you pay your tax dollars, no matter where you live you are entitled to speak your peace BUT what about the people who live here, what say do they have. I can show you building material piles dumped into gullies, I can show you shot-up 5 gallon gas cans in the woods, I can show you containers of oil cans in the woods. NO ONE can say that they REALLY take care of the land.
There are those that do a better job than other so there is enough blame to go around but WHO will be the first to step up to the plate and begin the process. If you find that person THEY will be the true Environmentalist and-or Rancher.
Thanks for your time. We here in the tiny hamlet don't get you paper very often but it is informative.
Tom Mansell
Escalante, Utah
You Cannot Turn Back the Clock...
Jim Stiles,
I picked up the Zepher on my last day in Moab. You have a great paper. Your dedication to your beliefs, your courage to state them and hard work is evident in the Zepher's coverage. You are direct in your statements so I feel I can respond in kind.
I found it interesting that you appeared shocked upon discovering a very basic truth that public lands run by government bureaucracies for the public have changed the "culture"of your personal environment. By changing the land ownership from private to public, we forced tradeoffs that have both beneficial and negative impacts. As a conservative, who practices conservation, I have turned off from the environmentalists' whining who never appear to accept the truism that there are major tradeoffs to any decision to take lands from private ownership and make them public. In fact, there are always tradeoffs to any political decision or action. It is utter folly not to look at probable tradeoffs before forcing a political solution.
In 1986, the biologist Garrett Hardin coined one of the truest phrases about the environment, "the tragedy of the commons". It means the common ownership of land or any resource invites exploitation and abuse. The opening of "secret places" on public lands by those disputable guidebooks is just typical thinking of environmental elitism. Who anointed those people, who believe that they solely have a right to public lands? Why should they be the only privileged ones to enjoy the beauty of a public place? Yes, land, used by many people, will be changed forever. That decision was made when the government purchased it, some by force, and made it public.
There is no turning back. Communities will grow or deteriorate based on many decisions and basic economic truths. Moab is expanding and your life style and community will change "beyond your recognition". Of course yuppies will move in from California and will pressure government to take more land using other people's money for their environmental enjoyment. They were successful in California, as they will be in Utah. Their decisions in California have had major negative impacts, that they now want to escape from--they will have the same impact in Utah.
They don't accept the fact of tradeoffs nor do they accept responsibility for their political decisions. They can always blame "powerful interests" or "corporate interests" or just people. They believe they are anointed, as they are environmentalists fighting all those interests. Their dogmatic doctrine to increase regulation and government control, slow down technology, redirect scientific thinking, etc. is popular but too shallow. You also find change (growth) undesirable and, frankly, whine about it.
Again, this growth is partially a tradeoff due to government owning most of Utah which forces land prices up beyond what is affordable to most of us. Why should't people move to Moab as they get virtually free use of million of acres for their enjoyment paid for by other people's money and efforts? Diametrically, when I arrived home in Minnesota, the front page of our newspaper had an article on North Dakota where most of that state is losing population. Many farms and ranches are disappearing due to economics and government actions. In North Dakota, they want more people and resist the land going back from wheat to prairie where only buffalo can be raised.
Environmentalists blame the changes on corporate interests or the phantom population growth-just too many people. Their dislike for free markets and capitalism almost always comes through and like you, who are successful, write that you feel guilty engaging in this very competitive fray--you make excuses for your own success.
Also, some assumptions expressed are just wrong. First, our native population is not expanding. Many studies even show it shrinking. Almost all of our population growth is due to immigration. We can stop growth simply by stopping immigration. Of course there are many tradeoffs to that decision. Second, the market responds to demand at a price that covers cost. Corporate interests react to demand cause by many factors including government decisions on restricted land use or free use. They follow demand and usually don't create it. Corporate interests and the "rich", who drive "corporate interests", contribute most of the taxes that are used to purchase the land we all freely use. Also, corporate interests contribute heavily to many environmental groups. My reaction is that the hatred for "corporate interests" and capitalism by environmentalists is like biting the hand that feeds you and attacks the effect not the cause.
I spent a few days in your beautiful state. I was impressed with the people, mainly young adults, who showed great respect for the parks. My wife and I walked many of the very popular trails and found no trash or garbage of any kind. Of course there are footprints, many footprints, but little else. I agree with you that environmentalists can be their own worse enemy. But the main basis for the changes you find so disturbing are probably caused by our great economy that has created widely distributed wealth and new technology, which allows people to work even in your coveted "wildlands". I am impressed that you are reviewing past decisions and are doing some sole searching. We all need to do that. I suggest rather than assigning blame or wallowing in guilt that we try to find real solutions and understand tradeoffs and compromise. We all need, however, to realize that there is really no going back.
In the long run, if you don't like what is happening, you can always move to North Dakota. If that is not your decision, then work together with all affected groups to make your community better for all recognizing that past decisions and changes not in our control are making our past lives a memory.
Again, thank you for a great paper.
Gene Kasper
Annandale, Minnesota
Kudos to Dirk's Platform Shoes
Editor,
Just read Dirk Vaughan's piece on pimps that don't wear platform shoes. Having lived in a small mountain town in western Colo for three years, MAN did it ring true. We're all pimps to a degree, selling the place we live, one experience at a time, to the highest bidder. It's not as obvious as the real estate agent or the land developer or the ski area operator, but it is the same. How will we find a balance between our need for the solace of the outdoors and wilderness and the cumulative impacts over time?
With great difficulty if at all. Very nice piece, Dirk.
Neal Graham
Austin, Texas
Zephyr Missed the Point
Dear Jim,
While visiting family in Castle Valley, I read your articles in The Zephyr about the environmental struggle. Your position was that the so-called environmentalists and cyclers are having a devastating effect on the environment, exactly what you all moved to Moab to prevent. Also you felt like you were becoming more like the old ranchers in some ways. I know that I'm only approximating your positions. I think you completely missed the point and are only continuing to evade the real issue and mislead your readers.
What you are missing in your analysis and what we all are evading is that we as individuals and as a nation are living on stolen land. We are walking and cycling on earth soaked with blood of the native people. We the conquerors, the occupiers, the settlers are the environmental/social problem-whether we ride a bicycle or a John Deere. According to Ward Churchill (The Struggle for the Land) the United States (i.e.: us) has no legal claim to at least 1/3 of it's/our current land base. Within the borders of current Indian land, we and the US of A are running amok. The struggle for the land is here and now. We must advocate respecting Indian treaty rights; reparations to the native people and a struggle for Indian self-determination and sovereignty. That is the primary contradiction, not how many or how few healthy white people ride their bikes.
Dave Reardon
Excellent point. Thanks...JS
You can always print anything I send you, but the credit has to go to Ward
Churchill and the indigenous people who have never given up.
Retracing the Severance Family Trip
Editor,
On a recent trip through Moab we picked up "THE ZEPHYR" and read "The 1921 Severance Family Trip to California" To pass the time traveling, I read the story to my husband who was driving us back to Michigan. We traveled on some of the same roads they did (I think our roads were much better). I found it fun to follow their trip on the map in my lap. The point of my message is: Is there a possibility you could send us "the rest of the story"?
William & Barb Tite
AuGres, Michigan
The entire Severance Family's 1921 Trip will be available on-line at The Zephyr web site in late July. www.canyoncountryzephyr.com . …JS
Pandering to the Recreational Economy...
Dear Jim,
I picked up a copy of your "Time to Look in the Mirror" issue when my wife and I were on a camping trip to the Cisco area recently. I'm always amazed that a periodical of thoughtful environmental journalism comes out of a town of 9,000.
For the past five years I've been researching a book on native wildlife and habitats (shameless plug: "Creatures of Habitat. The Changing Nature of Wildlife and Wild Places in Utah and the Intermountain West," Utah State University Press, May 2001) and I too am convinced that we outdoor recreationists are having a serious negative impact on natural landscapes, habitat and wildlife.
You may have located the root of the problem: When we argue to preserve wild places for recreation and a recreational economy, we pander. Native landscapes and the wild things that depend on them are more important than that. Much more than scenery is at stake.
We can't afford to look at wild places as big outdoor adventure parks. There are too many of us now. During the balance of our recent camping trip I thought about what you wrote. The crunch of cryptobiotic soil was unusually loud as I tiptoed between rock ledges. When I went to bury my um, ŠŠ elimination, the thought plagued me, "Shouldn't I use a portable toilet? How many others are doing this too?" It is convenient for us hikers and mountain bikers to demonize others on conservation issues rather than focus on the damage to natural areas we cause directly. And we can't ignore the dramatic effects of our urban and suburban overconsumption: more dams, highways, strip malls, and subdivisions.
As you suggest, we could be open about it and lead the search for solutions. Coming home from Cisco, on a birdwatching side trip, we got our four-wheel drive truck hopelessly mired in slick mud on a remote backroad. Who do you think happened by and cheerfully towed us out? Three cougar hunters.
We can't do it alone. Adversarial lobbying groups encourage name-calling and a blame game mentality. But people who care about natural landscapes, habitat and wildlife are multi-dimensional. Maybe you could organize an ongoing forum--"Common Ground" on your web site--where people who hunt or birdwatch or fish or hike or ranch can speak to each other as individuals and discuss steps to conserve and restore native landscapes on public and private property.
Keep up the good work,
Mark Gerard Hengesbaugh
Wilderness as a "fundraising machine?"
Jim--
Liz Thomas wants us to wait out the Bush administration, and then (maybe, no promises) we'll get some significant BLM wilderness designated in Utah. She's getting paid to wait, but for most of us the only reward is when the land is protected.
What if Grand Gulch, for example, had received wilderness designation when there were 7,000 visitors a year instead of upwards of 70,000? The BLM might have gotten an adequate budget to manage the area and initiate a permit system before it was too late.
Waiting has gotten us nowhere for 16 years. The national environmental groups have turned the Utah wilderness issue into a fundraising machine that is fueled by legislative gridlock.
Richard M. Warnick
Salt Lake City
Environmentalists or Recreationists?
Stiles,
The April/May issue of the Zephyr sets a new mark for excellence and thought provocation. I always enjoy what you write, but I usually come into each issue with a set of preconceptions of your take on whatever subject you happen to have picked. However, the depth and thoughtfulness of "It's Time to Look in the Mirror" surprised me. The idea that our ideology is sounding no different from theirs, and the fact that should we choose to look we may find that share more with rural westerners than we don't. I believe you. I was glad to see you put quotation marks around the word "environmentalist," at the beginning of your story. A point you didn't make because it may belong in a different story, is that all the outdoor recreationists are not necessarily "environmentalists."
Case in point. Count the SUVs with bikes on the roof you see pulling a trailer of OHVs. The outdoor industry succeeds by creating entertainment out of the experience most of us first came to Moab for. The original mountain bikes (as I remember it, there were two--the Specialized Stumpjumper and the Univega) were bought mainly by people who didn't own jeeps but who still wanted a way, a means of getting further into the great unknown in less time. It was when the BMX kids grew up and needed bigger bikes and bigger places to play, that the environment began to suffer.
Climbing--early climbers learned their skills as a way, a means, to get on top of an insurmountable peak or spectacular tower--somewhere no one had been before. While it's still that way for many of them, for some, a few molded fiberglass holds bolted to a wall in a tall room will do. Fifty years ago, skiing was mostly wild--mountains and snow and a strong, quick body.
Today, ski resorts cater to the Disneyworld and Las Vegas crowd by grooming the mountain to a shadow of its former self, smoothing out the rough spots, putting up ropes and fences to contain the masses, and passing out kleenex at the bottom to keep noses from running and crusting the fur collars of their new parkas. Outdoor sports are now more about ends than means.
Remember when Yellowstone was on fire and all the little shop owners in West Yellowstone, Cody, and the rest of the "gateway communities" raised holy hell over the "let burn" policy the Park Service subscribed to keep the park natural. They seemed to have forgotten that without the "natural" there would be no Yellowstone and without Yellowstone their towns and their businesses wouldn't exist. So why is it so difficult here for every business owner, every member of the county council, every citizen to acknowledge that without the wildness, the river, the National Parks, scenery the likes of which can be found no where else on earth, Moab would be Cisco (not that Cisco doesn't have some redeeming qualities but I wouldn't want to own a restaurant there)?
Why can't we see that if we don't all keep conservation and preservation in front of everything else we do, we lose, we fail. We die. If we do, we live, we thrive and if we do it well enough all those outdoor recreationists who come here for entertainment, might leave with an experience that could change the way they live the rest of their lives. So I dream a little.
Sorry to rant.
Brooke Williams
Castle Valley, UT
Actually, I thought the premise that many environmentalists are just recreationists in disguise was evident. It's a matter of commitment and conviction--their depth is often, to coin a phrase, "a mile wide and an inch deep." JS
The April/May Issue--Required Reading?
To the Zephyr:
I have been a respectful intruder on the beauty of Southeast Utah for many years. I do not live there--nowhere close, unfortunately--but I have certainly observed the profound changes that have occurred. The April/May issue was simply the best overall presentation on the issues confronting the "new west" that I have seen. Jim's "It's Time to Look in the Mirror" column should be required reading by all who claim concern about the area. Just a tad of respect can make a huge difference.
The labels which we put on each other may give the lazy convenient tags, but they only magnify our fears and do nothing to resolve the problems at hand. It only plays into the hands of those who would exploit both us and the land. But above all, we must never feel that we cannot make a real difference in our own communities. That is the ultimate weapon of our common foe.
Jim Essler
Austin, Texas
A Reply to Maxine Newell's Views on Japanese Internment in WWII
Dear Jim,
I can't let Maxine Newell's letter (Feedback, April-May 2001) go by without a response either. The bare facts are that during World War II, for more than 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry, citizens and non-citizens alike, the due process protection of the U.S. Constitution was suspended based on nothing more than race. The President, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court acted in concert to deny guaranteed rights without legal justification during a time when fear trumped justice.
According to the 1940 U.S. Census, persons of Japanese ancestry residing in the continental U.S. made up less than one-tenth of one percent of the total U.S. population, yet the War Department deemed that removal and internment was a military necessity. Persons of Japanese ancestry were not the only ones targeted by our government's actions. Though not en masse, persons of Italian and German ancestries were also interned or had unconstitutional restrictions placed on their liberty rights as well. To the contrary Ms. Newell, criticism of the internment camps in America is not what is unforgivable; what is truly unforgivable is that internment camps in America existed. The larger theme that connects the wartime camps to us here and now is that prejudice and hatred based on differences remain with us.
The camps were a manifestation of racial hatred. Hatreds based on racial, ethnic, religious differences and on sexual orientation continue to target individuals and groups, and are manifested in the form of violence and discriminatory practices that directly of indirectly touch most of us still. The article by Lloyd Pierson (February-March 2001) was not America bashing as Ms. Newell writes. I just don't see how shedding light on the Dalton Wells C.C.C. camp bashes America. Bringing about awareness of events in the past is the duty of historians. Likewise, it is an obligation of those who experienced the camps. These events are what we should be learning from and stories of this shared history belong to us all, regardless of whether barbed wire fences encircle your family's past or not. Ms. Newell mentions the reparation of $20,000 to World War II internee survivors as a help to start life over again. This is not true. The redress was a payment in recognition of the serious injustice that was done to Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. Our legal system uses economic payment as one way to make an individual whole again after some damage has been done or a wrong has been committed against that person. However, in the more than fifty years that it took to gain this recognition, thousands and thousands of internees died. They never received a formal apology nor redress from our government. The personal and monetary losses resulting from internment are incalculable. I don't believe many people would trade four years of liberty rights for $20,000 if given the choice.
A little known action by the U.S. government during World War II was the actual kidnapping and imprisonment Japanese Latin Americans. This injustice has been brought to light in the case of Mochizaku v. U.S. This federal class action lawsuit, filed in 1996, sought a formal apology and reparations from the U.S. government for the forcible kidnapping and imprisonment of Japanese Latin Americans. Ms. Mochizaku was one of more than 2,000 Latin Americans of Japanese ancestry who was taken from their homes, forced to come to the U.S., and imprisoned in Department of Justice camps. This kidnapping and imprisonment was initiated and carried out by the U.S. government in order to secure human barter for use in prisoner exchange with Japan during World War II. More than 800 people were exchanged for U.S. citizens during the war.
In Ms. Mochizaku's case, she was a citizen of Peru, living there with her family when in 1943, without due process of legal justification she was taken without her consent, transported to the U.S., and imprisoned in a detention camp in Crystal City, Texas. She was not released until December 1945. Not only is it hard to believe that our government could conceive of and carry out such a plan, but the terror and hardship inflicted upon Japanese Latin Americans by our government is hard to imagine.
The 1998, the Department of Justice settled with the former internees. Under the settlement agreement, the U.S. was to issue a former letter of apology signed by President Clinton to the survivor or the internee's heirs was to pay $5,000 in redress from the fund created by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. This is the same fund that payments to Japanese Americans were made from. The original Civil Liberties Act denied redress to Japanese Latin Americans. I hope that recounting this event this is not wrongly construed as America bashing. It is another story of injustice that must be told and should be learned from.
Sincerely,
Carol Inouye-Matthews
Vancouver,WA
Thanks for setting the record straight...JS
Making the Ultimate Sacrifice?
Dear Mr. Stiles,
My family and I have just finished reading your recent issue of the ZEPHYR. Congratulations of effectively tackling the difficult, unpopular, and pressing issues revolving around the impacts that recreationists have on public lands. The articles were informed and moving, and forced us to look hard and in new ways at our own use of the Manti-LaSal National Forest and the BLM's San Juan Resource Area in San Juan County (where we most often recreate).
Your articles have helped reveal our misuse of the area. Like Sue Tixier's parents, we had little idea how we were impacting the land. And like Anne Wilson, we have much work to do to achieve a greater harmony with our outdoor playgrounds. As a result of your fine issue, and the points so cogently made by the authors, my family has made the following changes to our recreational patterns.
* Our ATVs and trailer are now for sale
* I am looking for articles that explain why we need to stay on established trails
* I have cancelled my subscriptions to OUTDOOR and ADVENTURE magazines
* My son's rock climbing gear is for sale
* My daughter has decided she will not work this summer for the river company
* We will not make another donation to the environmental organization we've supported
This may not be much, when viewed from the Colorado Plateau perspective, but we feel that it is an important beginning for us. I hope others will examine their own land use ethics and take the small personal steps that will lead to protecting our public lands from further degradation.
Sincerely,
C.T. Lyman and Family
Monticello, Utah
Now if you'll just stay home and watch tv, you'll be the PERFECT environmentalist...JS
Ode to Moab: A Eulogy
Dear Jim:
You can count me out. I won't be moving to Moab. In fact, I don't even like to visit there anymore. This is my farewell to the place I fell in love with more than thirty years ago. She was lovely then. I've held her in my heart all these years. I should have acted more decisively then, but waited too long—fantasizing about someday moving there, when the time was right--now its too late and I lament that unconsummated love. She has morphed into something else, undesirable, almost unrecognizable. The sweet thing that caught my eye and held my attention for so many years now resembles a gaudy whore. Sure, I saw it coming at least a decade ago, but was in denial for much of that time. My visits became less frequent and less satisfying. This last one a few weeks ago finally drove it home—my dreams and fantasies about Moab and the surrounding canyon country have run into the ugly reality of what the place has become, and it breaks my heart.
Your penetrating April/May issue of the Zephyr ("It's Time to Look in the Mirror") hit the nail on the head. I've been painfully aware for years of the impacts to canyon country from recreation and population growth, and appreciate your spelling it out, even though you are preaching to the choir. The great herds of fun hogs will keep swarming over the canyon country of southern Utah in ever increasing numbers for a long time to come—that is unlikely to change in our lifetime. What you and other patriots have been doing there to stem this menacing tide and mitigate its impacts is admirable, but I fear the inexorable forces of greed, affluence, and unchecked population growth will prevail despite all efforts at sustainability and sanity.
I have seen the future, it is here—an apocalyptic invasion of millions of tourons and fun hogs in their RVs, SUVs, ATVs, Humvees, ORVs, and all manner of contraptions with which to trample the earth into a barren wasteland. These pilgrims of excess on their crusades to the canyons are a great, crushing multitude, seemingly without end. You ain’t seen nothin' yet.
In all honesty, I'd rather have the mining, grazing, logging and other extractive industries which seem relatively quaint by comparison. At least I could find solitude then. I think Abbey would agree with me on this preference for far fewer people, except for the ladies of course ("A pretty girl can do no wrong"). I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I saw a few years ago in Santa Fe: "More Strip Mining--Less Tourism." I know something about industrial impacts on the planet, having worked many years as an environmental professional in regulatory agencies, and I am serious in preferring them to what we have now. You may surmise I am, like Abbey, a bit misanthropic. This is one reason I have always been drawn to the wild, empty, lonely, quiet, desolate canyon country of southern Utah—-it was, until recently, a place where I could always find solitude and freedom. Sartre's admonition that "Hell is Other People" has always resonated with me in this crowded world with which I am stuck, and now, sadly, even the canyon country is turning into another crowded version of hell. Having witnessed the same repeated ruination of every place I've ever lived or loved, misanthropy seems a natural response.
A few years ago I'd say to companions that I would not hike, camp, or do anything within about twenty miles of Moab because that country is over-run most of the time. Now, I'm revising my range of tolerance out to at least fifty miles based on recent observations of fun hog impacts. Anyone with eyes and ears can corroborate that the impacts are nearly ubiquitous. The damn place is being not just loved to death, but plumb wore out! It’s getting very difficult to find any place around Moab that is not trampled and scarred with tracks of all kinds, and as you know, these don't go away for a very long time. Footprints, bicycle tracks, motorcycle and ORV tracks, jeep and SUV tracks—-you name it, some fool has been there, and is probably still nearby (you'll hear his noise soon—-the dirt bike snarling, the yuppy yipping, dogs barking, car stereos blasting in camps, ad nauseam.)
On my recent and perhaps last camping trip to the area, during which I sought out remote and seemingly unpopular places, I saw and heard people nearly everywhere I went. And the signs of their passing were shockingly abundant. It was taken a few miles south of Moab near the old airport and shows major 4x4 vehicle scars made on a steep hillside very recently—probably during the insane onslaught of the jeep jamboree that had just blown through the area. What a plague of locusts that has become. A curse rivaling anything Biblical in my opinion. How ironic to think that the area was "saved" from the greedy clutches of extractive industry to meet its fate at the hands (wheels, actually) of the tourism/recreation industry.
But let's not unfairly pick on poor Moab here—the devastation is also occurring across the Colorado Plateau. For example, look at the changes in recent years on Cedar Mesa and Grand Gulch. Its coming soon, to a canyon near you! Pay your fees and make your reservations (years in advance will soon be the reality). Camp only in designated spots and drive/hike only on designated roads and trails. No dogs. No campfires. Defecate, urinate, and fornicate only in approved locations. Leave no trace. Don't forget your film and guidebooks!
Your point about the evils of backcountry guidebooks is well taken, but in my experience people learn about the neat, secret places whether these places are touted in a guidebook or not. People just can't keep secrets—-it is human nature to want to share this stuff. Word of the secret places spreads like noxious weeds. Even the Park Service knows a policy of secrecy is futile. It only takes one person, not necessarily a guidebook, to put an obscure place on the public’s radar screen. Now to fall off my soap box and point out the absurd hypocrisy of all this—-I admit to being an author of a guidebook. I justified it by clearing the locations with land managers and including a strong conservation education message, but perhaps that is all self-serving bullshit too. Perhaps I should be ashamed. What was I thinking? I can't take it back now, even if I wanted to. I have looked in the mirror. I have met the enemy. It is me too.
I pity the poor, raped land and sympathize with the few agency staff who must feel helplessly and hopelessly overwhelmed trying to stave off the damage and protect natural resources from this madness. The abusive invasion of canyon country by idiots riding machines of all kinds is totally out of control. These people have no self control or awareness of the damage they do, and they are riding their machines literally everywhere except cliff faces and the sky (and I bet that is coming next). I could give many examples, but one from my last trip should suffice. I wanted to hike into the head of Hell Roaring Canyon to see an ancient pictograph. The top of the canyon is a great place to camp, but for the first time I had to share it with another vehicle camped there. The canyon is not casually entered here—involving some tricky route-finding down a cliff, crawling along a narrow, exposed ledge, and descending a steep talus slope. The pictograph is in an awesome setting that must have been a powerful, sacred place for the archaic shaman who came here millennia ago for religious rites. So imagine how I felt standing in that shrine, after the strenuous hike/climb to get there, to look out from that magnificent, hidden alcove and see recent tracks of motorcycles and ATVs ripped across the desert's fragile skin at this holy place. Some fools had found a way to ride their goddamned machines into here! Tears of rage and grief are about all one can do in the face of such travesty. At least the offensive machines and their idiot drivers were gone, otherwise I admit to having homicidal fantasies at such times.
The clincher was waiting for me when I got home from my Utah trip last week. On the kitchen table was the latest Sunset magazine, and on its cover was a photo of Canyonlands National Park with a caption that crowed "Uncrowded National Parks." I don't think so! Certainly not much longer. I guess "uncrowded" is a relative thing these days. For instance, the trailhead parking lot to Devils Garden in Arches National Park was full at 9:00 a.m. recently when I naively thought I'd enjoy am early morning hike (Wrong!). When I opened the Sunset magazine, there was a catchy, colorful ad selling the all new Ford Explorer 02, against a detachable photo background labeled "Moab." EXPLORER 02. The next territory. No Boundaries.
They got that right. No boundaries to human numbers and techno-arrogance that makes people think they can drive anywhere? I know my boundaries, and I've had enough. Utah as I knew it is doomed. If you don't believe me, watch closely where so many TV commercials are now being filmed. Red rocks and canyons have become THE way to sell stuff to consumers now. We can hope that insidious fad will eventually die (they all do), but the damage is being done. The only ray of hope I can discern is the prospect of a true and prolonged energy crisis when gasoline and diesel fuel might cost, say, $10 a gallon, or better yet, be rationed. That might slow the carnage of what’s left of the canyon country, if it comes in time.
So, farewell Moab. We had some great times together. I should have known it couldn’t last. You won't be lonely-—you'll be courted by the swarming masses, the human termite colonies that don't seem to mind crawling around on top of one another. But not me—I’m not an insect or a herd animal. I'll have to find another place where it is still quiet and empty. It just won't be as scenic, and the people won't be as hip and beautiful as they are around Moab. Believe it or not, there are still places on Turtle Island that have stable or declining populations. Me and my antisocial Dingo-dog will hide out in such a refuge, and I'm not saying where it is. Good luck to you old-timers who hang on there. Thanks for listening to another grumpy gray-beard bitching about the way it used to be.
Dennis Slifer
Santa Fe, NM
Loving the Land by Staying Away...
Jim,
Congrats on the best issue ever, great essays throughout about truths we don't want to admit. I've been going to S. Utah for 27 years and now I see that the best favor I can do to places I love there is to stay away, not add my footprints, however well-intentioned and careful, to the mess. Of course now there are many others who do not seem to care or notice the tracks they leave, or else they leave them by intention, to lay some kind of claim. It is true that numbers are the problem. But also, what we lack, and have no doubt always lacked as we Euro-Americans have invaded the desert West, is reverence and humility. We all use the land we inhabit, whether for recreation, livelihood or spiritual renewal, but a dose of humility would help us use it in a way that doesn't destroy it.
Best to you and thanks for the thoughtful issue.
Susan Marsh
Jackson, WY
Enviros are NOT part of "the problem"
Dear Jim,
Thank you for starting a dialogue in your April/May issue on two very important topics: 1) development and 2) Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. I’’d like to respond regarding the more general topic of development first, then get into the specifics of a housing development in Southern Utah for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
My journey toward being a developer
Trying to become a developer has been a very interesting personal journey. When I first moved to Escalante I had the usual environmentalist panic over sprawl, and worried that the alfalfa fields around Escalante would turn into housing developments. I invested a lot of volunteer time educating ranchers about land trusts and working on a plan for Escalante City to manage growth. When locals torpedoed my work, apparently suspecting that it was part of a Communist plot -- or maybe even ““of devil”” -- I had a chance to re-think.
I was moved by an article in the High Country News entitled ““My Beautiful Ranchette.”” The author explored the contradictions of being an environmentalist and living on a 40-acre ranchette in Montana’’s development-threatened Bitterroot Valley. One thing she said particularly struck me: Wildlife is flourishing on her 40 acres, whereas the ranch that was subdivided to create her ranchette had supported only a monoculture of cows.
Then, an environmentalist friend taught me that properly developed homes using water conservation and xeriscaping would be better for the environment than the alfalfa fields around Escalante, which are sprayed with water day and night, come wind or hot weather, and which support the cattle that are trashing the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Boulder Mountain. What he said was so obviously true that I had to look at development in a new light.
Then I attended a Utah Wildlife Board meeting and learned how many wild animals were trapped and shot in Utah in 1999: 4,340 coyotes, 435 mountain lions, 92 bears, 2,090 bobcats, 5,602 red foxes, 870 gray foxes, 169 kit foxes, 2,950 beavers, 21,895 muskrats (what did muskrats ever do to deserve this slaughter?), 7,766 raccoons, 319 badgers, 6 martens, 346 mink, 33 weasels, 3,230 skunks, and 144 ringtail cats. The only places these animals are safe are national parks and private land.
Most of the bears, mountain lions and coyotes died because ranchers think they kill livestock, and the ranching ethos underlies the rest of the ongoing massacre. From then on I knew I could no longer support preserving working ranches as open space. The toll of ranching on wildlife is too high.
Development: the existential question
I agree with you that we need to protect all public land and not just focus on designating wilderness areas. I don’’t agree with you that environmentalists in Southern Utah are part of ““the problem””. What are we supposed to do? All move to the Wasatch Front? I don’’t think you would want to do that. I certainly can’’t live there.
From the Indigenous perspective, the continent would be a lot wilder and better if the rest of us moved back to Europe, Africa or Asia. However, I don’’t think we’’d be welcome there, not to mention there isn’’t enough room for us.
For at least 200,000 years, humans have been part of the earth’’s ecosystem. We belong here. Some of us like to live in cities and towns where we are stimulated by cultural interaction. Others need the quiet and solitude of rural landscapes. Both lifestyles are natural and can be sustainable. However, less of us would be better. Utah has the nation’’s highest birthrate. Are environmentalists to be blamed for the population pressure? I don’’t think so.
On the contrary, Mother Earth needs every environmentalist she can get. No environmentalist who moves to the West from the East, or to the country from the city, should ever feel guilty. Huge environmental battles are being fought in the vast public lands of the West, and there aren’’t enough of us to fight them. We need MORE environmentalists in southern Utah, not less.
We need to reconsider why we are preserving open space. The most important function of open space should be to preserve biodiversity, not merely to look pretty. If my choice for preserving an open space is between keeping a ranch functioning –– with the attendant coyote-killing, cougar-killing, bobcat-killing, sagebrush-poisoning, pinyon/juniper burning, wasteful alfalfa irrigation, and so on –– and subdividing the ranch among wildlife-lovers, I will choose the subdivision.
How people live in developments matters. Do they remove all the native vegetation and put in exotic, water-guzzling grass? Do they turn cattle loose on the vegetation and cats and dogs loose on the birds and wildlife? Or do they try to minimize their impact, living in harmony with nature as much as possible?
Another development issue for me is whether the homes in a subdivision are needed. I oppose the construction of monster vacation homes, or third or fourth homes for the rich. I have mixed feelings about people building a second home. Migrating south in the winter and north in the summer is a very old human tradition that could be argued to have merit. I support the construction of homes for people with low incomes.
Now, here’’s an opinion that may surprise you: Patrick and I think Escalante should double in size, so it could provide more services to its residents. The nearest hospital is 70 miles away.. We don’’t have a drug store. The high school could offer more electives if there were twice as many students.
Most Escalante residents want the town to grow and prosper. People have worked hard on ordinances so the growth will be good. The most vocal opponents to growth are very reactionary and right-wing. Be careful with whom you take sides.
Optimally, new residents would buy or rent an existing, vacant house in town, as we did. Doing that helps preserve the old homes, which have historic and aesthetic value, and prevents them from being torn down and filling up the landfill. The second best alternative for growth without sprawl is infill. Escalante City contains very large lots (1-1/4 acres each). If a drinking water hookup is available, the City allows dividing such lots in half and building a second home on the other half.
Unfortunately, most of the historic old homes in Escalante are standing empty, while locals (not newcomers) are building new houses along a road that heads south out of town toward the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The subdivision that Patrick and I and others proposed would follow that trend and be along that road.
A safe community for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
One of Patrick’’s and my objectives has always been to help Escalante’’s economy escape the trap of relying on either natural resources or tourism, both of which have boom and bust cycles. A healthy economy has multiple industries. We have looked into various environmentally-friendly industries that could help locals prosper, such as tamarisk removal, a native plants nursery, computer programming, and a retreat center for people who need exactly what this area offers: clean air.
I moved to Escalante hoping that its clean air would help me recover from the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) that had plagued me for ten years. It has helped me more than I imagined. Now I want to help others who have the same disability
We conducted a market survey to see if people with MCS would be interested in living in such a remote area. We learned that there are hundreds of people with MCS who would move anywhere if they could get clean air.
In case your readers don’’t know, MCS is a progressive, debilitating, non-contagious condition that is recognized as a disability by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). People with MCS have difficulty functioning around airborne chemicals, including pesticides, fragrances, automobile exhaust fumes, the "new" smell of carpets or synthetic furniture, paint and other volatile organic compounds, etc. Extreme sensitivity to chemicals often makes it impossible for MCS victims to work or even shop for themselves.
Every year more and more people develop MCS. This trend is likely to continue, since 3,000 new chemicals are manufactured each year in the United States. Very few of those chemicals are checked by the government for health effects. Anyone can get MCS (I don’’t know why I got it), but people who work with chemicals are most vulnerable. I have met people with MCS who used to work as chemists, hairdressers, and agricultural workers. Many people have come down with the condition after their home or vehicle was fumigated for insects.
Many people with MCS languish housebound in cities. Others who can no longer tolerate indoor environments live in vans, RVs, or tents on public land. Living out-of-doors is very stressful for people who are severely ill, but currently they have no other options.
Patrick and I and the other board members of Escalante House would like to give these victims of modern civilization a chance to recover by providing them specialized housing and medical care in our remote desert location. Our proposal builds on the experience of soldiers who came to the West after being exposed to chemical weapons in World War I to recover their health in our clean air.
Originally we planned to build a single building as a convalescent center for people with MCS, but the overwhelming number of respondents to our survey said they need to live in a separate house surrounded by at least one acre so they won’’t be impacted by smells from their neighbors. We then looked for a larger piece of property that is at least a mile from any developed area and is surrounded by as much protected public land as possible. We feel that if anyone should be allowed to live next to a Monument, it is these people who so desperately need the clean air.
The MCS community will have a long list of covenants and restrictions to protect the environment and to protect the residents from chemical exposure. This list is so restrictive that no one without MCS (except a spouse or child) would want to live in the community. It’’s even too restrictive for me.
The MCS housing community will create about 25 environmentally-friendly local jobs. The first jobs will be in construction. Over time, the community will also need a director, doctor, nurses, psychologist, massage therapist, dietician, cooks, activities coordinator, bookkeeper, fundraiser, groundskeeper, maintenance person, housekeepers, shoppers, drivers, etc. Some of these positions will be full-time, others part-time. The medical personnel would be available part-time to the local community.
Issues we encountered
Now we come to the question of working with SITLA (Utah’’s State Institutional Trust Lands Administration). Several people have warned us to not get involved with SITLA; apparently they can’’t be trusted. At the same time, we are not aware of anyone organizing a boycott of SITLA developments.
We looked at all the private land for sale around Escalante, as well as the three parcels of SITLA land in our area. The SITLA land south of Escalante comes closest to meeting our criteria.
Another reason to work with SITLA is that we wouldn’’t have to buy the land outright. SITLA will form a joint venture with a developer, in which the developer only has to pay for the infrastructure. SITLA gets paid for the land one piece at a time, when residents buy lots. This option was attractive, since we don’’t have millions of dollars to spend on the project.
A big problem with SITLA developments is that the agency tries to maximize income when it sells property. This encourages them to approve expensive projects like Cloudrock. It has been hard for us to negotiate with SITLA, since we want to sell the land for as little as possible to our low-income constituency. SITLA prefers to sell the land for as much as possible. Maybe the citizens of Utah should demand that a percentage of SITLA developments be set aside for affordable housing.
When we chose the SITLA site south of Escalante we didn’’t know that the Utah Wilderness Coalition proposes to preserve it as wilderness (it is unroaded). Our other nonprofit, the Escalante Wilderness Project, is a member of the UWC, and we support the designation of 9.1 million acres of wilderness in Utah. Since the SITLA land is not federal land, it is not part of the 9.1 million acre wilderness proposal.
If we were to move forward with our proposal at this site, we would talk to UWC about it first. In order to be responsible developers, we would restrict the development to the flat half of the property. The fragile slopes below the Straight Cliffs would remain wild. We would like to turn the wild part over to the Monument, but I don’’t think Garfield County will stand for that. (They would see it as private land lost to federal control.)
SITLA currently leases the land for grazing, and the flat areas have been so overgrazed that an environmentally-conscious subdivision would be a welcome relief for the land. We would restore the deeply downcut gullies. Not only would the residents not have any cows, they would have no domestic animals of any kind (due to allergies). They would be the quietest, most environmentally-sensitive neighbors you can imagine.
We also encountered problems with Garfield County regulations, which are very rigid (at least for ““outsiders”” such as ourselves). We would have to build a road to every house, even though some of the residents would prefer not to have a road -- much less a car! -- come near their house. The roads would have to be much wider than we need. Roads make a big impact on the environment, and they are expensive.
People with MCS need to live in homes constructed entirely of natural materials. Some of them would like to use adobe, rammed earth, straw bales, and other alternative materials. Garfield County has no provision for alternative building materials.
Planning ordinances and building codes were created to protect people from substandard housing. However, it would be better if they were more flexible.
Current status
We will probably not go forward with our proposal to subdivide the SITLA land south of Escalante. We commissioned a water study and found that there isn’’t enough groundwater under the land to support the community we envision. Unfortunately, we also learned that the air may not be as clean in Escalante in the future as it is now. Since we launched the MCS housing project, we have learned that the Forest Service plans to cut and burn 42% of the Aquarius Plateau and Boulder Mountain over the next several years (starting this summer with Pretty Tree Bench).
So currently we’’re looking for a different community to host our MCS housing project. If any of your readers know of a community that would like to extend a helping hand to MCS sufferers and receive the economic benefits of hosting an MCS community, we would love to hear from them.
Thanks again for opening up this discussion, Jim.
Sincerely,
Tori Woodard
Escalante, Utah
Changes are coming... Let's talk.
To the Editor:
We read all the varied opinions on the treatment of the land and find great value in the diversity of experience. In our Northern Arizona region we spent several years yelling at each other at "consensus" meetings. What we finally discovered was that we had many things to teach each other, once we started listening to each other.
We now live in Southeast Utah and are feeling like natives after five years. All the things we say about how we feel about the land should be managed need to be brought together or we will be victims of the condition of this area in the future.
We may never agree but it is about time we tried to find out if we can. There is power in agreement. Some of us are against change and some of us initiate it. We are all users of this area and impact it. Whether we like it or not, changes are coming. More people will be coming. Will we be part of the driving force that shapes that change, or will we just continue to complain about each other?
We would like to invite all citizens of this area to meet and discuss our differences and what we wish for our futures and those of the land. Anyone who is interested can call 1.877.868.4262.
Thank you,
Gary & Claire Dorgan
Valley of the Gods, Utah
