MORE ABOUT THE "GREENING OF WILDERNE$$"

Dear Jim:

I have been a regular reader of the Zephyr for several years now, and I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed your articles. The topics, particularly the "New West vs. Old West" debate, are always very relevant and interesting. I apologize that some of my comments pertain to an article (The Greening of the Wilderne$$) that is several months old, but experiences of the past few months have given me another perspective from which to comment. A warning, however: brevity isn’t my strong suit. As a flatlander from Nebraska, I fell in love with the Moab area almost ten years ago, when I was barely a teenager, and in the years since my first visit I returned on various Spring Breaks and summer trips. The growth of the town was apparent with each subsequent visit, and I wondered about the possible "Aspenization" of Moab: another chain motel, another gift shop, another adrenaline junkie in an oversized jeep. The idea that "There’s Money in Wilderness" rings more true, and is more alarming, every year.

If you haven’t already guessed, I’m part of a demographic that’s increasingly familiar in these parts: the young, middle-class, college-educated urbanite. The usual type, I suppose. And one who happens to be an environmentalist and a huge Edward Abbey fan as well. Sure enough, a year after graduating from the University of Nebraska I became an "amenity migrant"--I moved to Moab, looking for work and hoping to lose myself in the canyon country. I lived in a trailer on the north side of town and spent most of my time solo hiking. Channel-surfing nature-lovers might call me a "waffle stomper": in the national parks, Gold Bar Canyon, Bartlett Wash, the list goes on and on.

You write, "What one rarely hears mention of when talking about any form of recreation these days is silence. Or tranquility……When was the last time anyone used the reverential aspect of wilderness as an argument for preservation?"

To expand your point: the problem lies not with recreation, per se, but with the types of recreation--and the subculture that develops around these types of recreation. I hesitate to call many of these users "well-meaning" when it comes to the land itself. What the environmental groups choose not to realize is that the adrenaline junkies--of course the jeepers and ATVers, but also many of the climbers and mountain bikers--are not, by and large, environmentalists. What is environmental about the bolts defacing the rock at Wall Street? What is environmental about the hordes of bikers on Monitor and Merrimac, where social trails have carved up the landscape? Nothing. Is there anything reflective or philosophical in riding the slickrock benches above town? Not for most users--the ecosystem becomes a glorified skate park, the land as much a tool as the wheels at their feet.

I respect many of these people as individuals. I have close friends who are climbers and bikers and who strenuously disagree with me on this point. But environmental organizations need to stop pretending that the presence of these user groups in Moab is somehow benign, because it’s not. Many of the people who come to Moab possess little or no environmental ethic and see the landscape simply as a playground. These types of recreation have far-reaching and long-lasting impacts. Contrast this with the relatively low-impact hikers and "welfare backpackers" (Abbey’s term), who, in Roderick Nash’s words, are "notoriously low spenders." Low spenders participating in low-impact recreation, and respectfully doing so, don’t contribute much to an amenities economy, and they don‘‘t contribute much to environmental degradation. But they’re more likely to have a connection with the land and a desire to protect what they’re using.

Of course it’s about the money, and there’s no need to repeat your excellent points. But I think there’s a larger economic issue involved here. You quote Lance Christie: "……The major reasons for designating wilderness arise from non-economic values." Well, of course. But let’s face it. Many environmental leaders are well-off if not plain rich by most standards. Their wealth itself is not the problem. But in many cases that wealth inevitably results in a conflict between their alleged environmental beliefs and their lifestyles: What kind of car do you drive? Do you have a huge house in the foothills? Did you make your money through an anti-environmental vocation? Mainstream environmental groups may perceive this argument, and your argument, Jim, as "radical." Hence their silence on the matter. But what are labels when the problems require discussion? People who build McMansions are not environmentalists: they’re just really rich people who are woefully ignorant of, or are unconcerned with, the damage caused by their need to flaunt their wealth. If you have an enormous house, especially in an environmentally sensitive area, you are not an environmentalist. CEOs of large corporations, which are rife with environmentally-unfriendly practices, are not environmentalists no matter how many wetlands they artificially create. When real estate agents and land developers--land developers!!--start calling themselves environmentalists, we have a huge problem. There are still some enemies out there. They can call themselves whatever they want, but their actions speak much, much louder. They’re only as green as much as they can fake it, or as much as they can fool themselves.

With regard to the elitist Cloudrock proposal, you write, "How could such an opulent, consumptive and arrogant plan even dream of winning the acceptance of environmentalists?" The question answers itself if we believe that "environmentalists" own timeshares, fly private jets, and require comfort with their scenery. But I don’’t buy it. The problem is that these so-called "environmentalists" are the consumptive types that make developments like Cloudrock profitable.

It’s a matter of degree. A person from a Third World nation would have a good case against everyone in American society, including me. But there’s a huge difference between modest materialism and outright hypocrisy.

There’s another issue here. You mention David Brower. Brower stated that the number one thing that doomed Glen Canyon was that no one knew about it. The common denominator in many successful preservation and wilderness struggles has been that people visited a threatened place, experienced it, and knew that it was worth saving. Hopefully, this narrow-minded, anthropocentric (human-centered) view of nature will one day die out. An ecosystem doesn’t have to be scenic or have any value to humans to warrant protection. But it may take recreation--albeit low-impact forms--to give people a reason to support preservation in some areas. Respectful recreation is not necessarily detrimental. The opposite of a human-centered view is not the complete exclusion of humans. Complete exclusion ignores the fact that humans, in limited numbers, are part of the ecosystem too. The goal should be low-impact, relatively limited use--the antithesis of what is occurring in many growing areas of the West today.

As we face "The Greening of the Wilderne$$," an even larger view of the situation may be necessary, and for most people it’’s probably a tough pill to swallow. We decry the corrupting influence of money in all of this. But is it simply a matter of the mainstream environmental groups "selling out"? What are the larger forces that cause them to do so? The truth is that capitalism, an economic system based on exploitation and driven by greed, runs contrary to the core values of the environmental movement. Capitalism requires exploitation of the land, and the motives of the resource extraction corporation and the recreation outfit are exactly the same--to make money. The "adventure" business entrepreneurs in Moab and elsewhere care less about the environment than their bottom line. When faced with a choice--ecosystem protection or the chance to increase profits--these recreational capitalists will choose the latter at the expense of the former every time.

Your article and Lance Christie’s insightful response both deal with aspects of the larger issue. But at some point in the future--it may be years and years--the environmental movement will realize that capitalism as currently practiced, of which the "commodification of nature" is merely a symptom, is ultimately unsustainable and detrimental to environmental protection. I believe that the mistakes made by mainstream environmental organizations are, more than anything else, a function of the economic system in which they operate. This doesn’t justify their mistakes, but it does provide a further explanation of them. Environmental destruction caused by corporations and politicians angers environmentalists, but most of us don’t look at how our economic system encourages and rewards this destruction. I find it hard to believe that the necessary "paradigm shift" that Christie describes will be possible as long as environmental decisions continue to occur in a capitalist framework.

In the tradition of Thoreau and Abbey, we need more people who are unafraid to challenge the underlying values of American society in pursuit of environmental protection, regardless of their perceived political ideology. Your article is very important. Keep up the great work.

I should mention also that I thoroughly enjoyed the "re-wilding" debate and "Westward Ho! Christian Soldiers." The tragedy of the treatment of Native Americans has long been an interest of mine, and I’m glad you took the time to write about it. Some quick points, however. "Indian resistance to white Christian culture" did not end at Wounded Knee, as you claim. Overt military resistance did virtually cease, but up to the present day a cultural resurgence among tribes--including in many cases an implicit rejection of Christianity--is apparent. Secondly, the history of indigenous peoples from 1492 to the present can be summed up in one word, though you don’t use it in your article: genocide. There is no other way to describe it. The cultural and political aspects of this genocide continue today, as Native Americans are relatively few in number and thus largely ignored by politicians. On many reservations--including those here in Nebraska and in neighboring South Dakota--Third World conditions prevail. That such conditions can exist in 2006 in our own backyard is a sad commentary on our nation’’s history as well as modern American life.

Jason Thiemann

Blair, Nebraska

WALKING THE CHRISTIAN TALK...

Hello Jim,

You ask the question "How is it possible that war-mongering greed-heads have become the spokespersons for Christianity?", well, let me count the ways….

It’s easier to say you’re a Christian than it is to be a Christian.

It’s really tough to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Jesus’ answer to the Pharisee who had asked him what the core of the law was—this is the 2nd commandment, according to Jesus, right after "love the lord"), so people listen to a hate-monger like Rush Limbaugh because his message is so much easier.

People hear what they want to hear, and this includes "hearing" Jesus reaffirm our way of life. How very nice if Jesus had said our income was ours to keep instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Jesus’ message was radical. Right-wing "Christian" screwballs have an easy sell in a culture that is every day more selfish, rather than selfless.

The relevance of Christianity to most Americans has far more to do with the promise of salvation from this world than with any desire to practice the teachings of Jesus while we’re here.

Okay, they’re all really elaborations of #1. ….plus there really is a great big empty place in many peoples’ lives that pre-technology values, myths and traditions once filled*. (*Most religious scholars believe that the rise of fundamentalism, in whatever form, is a reaction to the industrial revolution and the ascendancy of science and technology. It is seen as the desperation of people trying to hold onto traditional values, morals, etc. that are perceived to be devalued by modern thinking.) Just as radical Muslims find themselves hating everything Western because it represents change and causes people to question the teachings of their elders, our home-grown right-wing Christians find themselves in a similar situation, except they aim their rhetoric at anything perceived to be "liberal", because it represents change and causes people to question the teachings of their elders.

It’s hard to understand how anyone, no matter how fundamentalist, could truly want a world so hate-filled and paranoid, but I think there is great appeal in a victim mentality. For one, it’s easy. And second, once you perceive yourself as a victim, almost any behavior is excusable. Our leaders, and this is true whether they come from the right or the left, seem bent on enhancing this nation’s fearfulness. We are constantly being told that we are in danger. If al Qaeda doesn’t get you then the bird flu will. We teeter on the brink of catastrophe barely surviving from day to day, if you listen to our political, religious and medical professionals. All this paranoia buys them our compliance. We give up our freedoms; we sacrifice our sense of self-responsibility. We let hate-mongering spin-meisters like Rush Limbaugh inform the public, and allow chicken-hawks like Cheney, Ashcroft & Rumsfeld to make the most horrendous decisions in our name. And why not? Our education system flounders while local boards of education attempt to replace science with theology. The dumbing down of America is working. Who knows or cares what the facts are anymore? Who will question these leaders? Who will hold them accountable? Who will stand up for not just our own rights but the rights of the people we invade and kill and torture? After all, we’re just innocent victims. Just good Christians trying to live in an un-Christian world. (!)

Anyway, I’m not sure it hasn’t always been this way. We seem perilously close to the brink of something. But I don’t know that that isn’t what is always needed to evoke real change. I’m a child of the 60’s, and I believed all that stuff back then about peace and changing the world. What I remember most about that time was how empowered people felt. Just the opposite of now, when there is so much apathy and thinking you can’t do anything anyway, so why try? And if bombing the rest of the world buys us another cheap gallon of gas, who cares? These Christian greed-heads, as you so aptly called them, are giving people direction and a sense of purpose that their lives apparently lack. (Not that different from the religious fervor of some environmentalist movements, or the more extreme elements of our Islamist brethren.) So, it’s our materialist, rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer, cog-on-the-wheel culture, honey. The Christians are just as morally and intellectually impoverished as everyone else. What else do you want to know?

Best regards,

Gwendolyn Zeta

White Canyon, Utah

MISSING JIMMIE CARTER

Jim,

That was awesome putting that Carter speech in the Zephyr. How very relevant; and disconcerting. It is amazing how completely blinded by consumerist culture the American public has become. "Greed is good". But, as I've told my wife on several occasions, it's only a matter of time until that system is no longer economically, environmentally and socially feasible. It will run its course, and then American culture will have to do some self examination. Priorities will change. I hope. The Carter speech reminds me, unfortunately, of when I was in Mr. Grua's social studies class at Vernal Jr. High in 1978. Mr. Grua was an out and out Democrat, and had a large poster of Jimmy Carter on the wall in his classroom. Doing this in Vernal was akin to having a poster of Chairman Mao or Fidel Castro, and I'm sure he received his share of comments and criticism from fellow staff at the school. Well, my friends and I used to love to torment Mr. Grua, even though I liked him and he wasn't a bad teacher. He was probably the only "progressive" in Vernal at that time, and a very kind and thoughtful person. The daily ritual in class was to fire all manner of projectiles at the poster of Jimmy Carter, including, but not limited to, rubber bands, spitwads, used chewing tobacco and paper clips. One day, after months of this, he finally blew up, lost his temper and actually started crying in class. My rowdy "wrong side of the tracks" friends and I smirked and tried to keep our laughing under our breath. The "good kids" in class couldn't understand why he reacted that way, being oblivious as they were, and my friends and I thought we had achieved our goal of pushing him over the edge. Then a realization of sorts fell over the class, bringing a pall of shame and remorse. Some of us in the class realized that what had caused our teacher to be moved to tears wasn't just disrespect of him per se, or the Carter poster even, but also of the disrespect for American institutions and history. I still feel bad about having been part of that. Sure, we can pass this off as a bunch of small town kids doing the inevitable, but looking back, I think it's actually a small part of the larger story that Carter was pointing out in his speech.

Ron Weales

Vernal, Utah

SAYS GROWTH IS GOOD...STOP WHINING

Editor,

Your on line article concerning the loss of the Denny property to developers back in the 90's is the same lament that we hear coming from most areas whose economy is based on tourism. The community that has an attractive natural resource nearby works hard to draw tourist dollars and prosperity for its citizens, but soon forgets the poverty of pre tourist years and regrets the loss of yesteryear when it was all so much more quiet, quaint and pretty. Well, guess what? You are remembering things the way that you wish they were, not the way they really were. The town of Moab in the 70's had few redeeming features. Well, in truth, it was a pit. Moab was a place to gas up as you passed through and to then get out of... fast.

Tourism and related construction projects such as condos, hotels and restaurants brings money into your community. That means jobs, better schools, fire and police protection, and modern health care. All of these were lacking in the "good old pre tourist days". People, learn to enjoy and appreciate your prosperity. If not, you are surrounded by a number of impoverished towns that you can relocate to so that you may sample the joys of living in poverty.

Peter Ouimette

Cape Cod

ps: I love visiting your town and the canyonlands. Been vacationing there and leaving my money since the 70's and can testify "you've come a long way Moab". Nice job! Learn to enjoy what you've accomplished!

Editor’s Note: Mr. Quimette’s assessment of Moab is based on his experiences as a tourist, not as a resident. It may have been "a pit" to him but it was beloved Home to many of us. Yes, he’s right when he says that tourism brings more money—Moab certainly has a higher tax base now than 1986. But twenty years ago, a family or couple or individual with a modest income could afford to buy a home here, taxes were low, crime was low, congestion was low. The "wealth" we had here then can never be measured by the Peter Quimettes of the world. Our wealth was un-quantifiable...JS

ANOTHER VIEW OF NATIVE AMERICANS AND WHITE CHRISTIANS

Dear Jim:

Your piece on how the good and bad Christians treated the American natives was most interesting and most one sided. Indians, unfortunately, were much like the whites, not all good, not all bad. The two cultures were much different from one another in most respects, but both believed that force was the way to settle disputes, and this they did.

Your piece was mostly about the Plains tribes and their difficulties. Plains Indians were aggressive enough before they got the horse from the white man but once they were mounted they were a menace to each other and the whites. The Plains culture emphasized warfare and a young man could only gain power and notoriety by his war exploits. They had no means of transportation except the dog until they acquired the horse, mostly by theft, from the Spanish. Dogs also were eaten, another gastronomic delicacy that turned the whites off.

Indian women were mostly treated like chattel, they performed most of the camp duties while the men hunted and fought. That was one reason so many Indian women easily took up with the white trappers, it was a better life for them.

The Indians really had little to offer the general welfare other than some of the plants they used. This included tobacco and hallucinogenics like peyote and datura, better off not adopted by the whites. They were a stone age people until the whites introduced steel, guns, gun powder, and several diseases like small pox, but the Indians passed on syphilis to even the score. They had no real responsible form of government except that exercised by strong men or mystics. Territory belonged to the tribe that could control it by force. Stealth and intertribal tribal warfare was constant. For example, here in Utah the Utes and Navajos were constantly fighting, stealing one another's women, capturing slaves and booty.

Indians were always willing to join up with the whites to fight other tribes or even their own people. Cortez was fortunate that he found tribes mad at the Aztecs who joined him to defeat them. Indians were willing to join either the British or the French as they fought their colonial battles. Some Apaches were willing to act as scouts for the U.S. Army and killed their own people. Kit Carson used Ute warriors to capture and kill the Navajos during his campaign in the 1860's.

As the white settlers looked at it, the amount of land it took to keep and Indian alive was excessive and wasteful. It was and as the buffalo declined it was obvious that the Plains Indians were too dependent for livelihood on one resource. The whites entering the new world came in simply as a new tribe to be reckoned with. Unfortunately for the American aborigines the whites were numerous, had superior weapons and resources and liked to fight too. Mans affinity, all men, for warfare is why we have had so many wars and are involved in one at present.

The Indians who still exist in much their old tradition and with a degree of independence and are self sustaining are not the macho Plains types but the quiet Pueblo types who also had their moments of machismo but were able to adapt in a way that satisfied both cultures. All in all it is not a simple or one sided as you would have us believe.

Lloyd M. Pierson

Moab, Utah

Editor’s Note: I don’t believe I tried to portray the Native American as saints. I merely recounted the way White American Christian soldiers dealt with their presence on the North American continent—and did it all in the name of Jesus Christ, who in my opinion was a pacifist. To suggest that Native Americans "had little to offer the general welfare other than some plants," is white man’s hubris at its worst...JS

THE ANONYMOUS KIND OF IDIOT

What a ridiculous forecast of the future of Moab. (Return to Moab: 2020 AD, printed about 10 years ago but still available on-line)) Johnson's up on Top couldn't support a runway for a Boeing 737, let alone your vision of an 827. I don't have time to comment on all of the unrealistic projections in this story. Tourism, while it will certainly grow to some extent, will only grow so big. Industry is very limited due to location. Oil and other minerals might raise the bar sometime in the future, but not remotely to the scale you describe.

It sounds to me like you don't like progress. I say bring Walmart in. If I have to buy my groceries from an out-of-town company, it may as well be fom a company that doesn't price gouge like City Market. The good old days were nice, but this is now.

See you around town.

P.S. If your son doesn't know what an orchard is, buy him a better education.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why must I endure morons like this? I write a futuristic fantasy 10 years ago and this guy says I got my facts wrong. Who KNOWS what the facts will be? They haven’t happened yet! But for the record, I placed the airport on Johnsons-up-on-Top because it was discussed as a possible airport site in the 60s. If this anonymous bonehead represents the REAL future, we’re all in trouble...JS