Pearce's conservation bill: What's not to like?
Posted 7/03/2008 07:40:00 AM
By Jim Scarantino The Doña Ana County Wilderness Coalition deserves congratulations for Rep. Steve Pearce’s proposed legislation to protect more than 300,000 acres of federal land in
I am the former chairman of the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness. I was also a board member and executive director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. I helped lead the effort to win protection for the Ojito Wilderness in
In a blog I kept a couple years ago, I expressed concern about the Doña Ana wilderness campaign led by the Wilderness Alliance. There’s no point in rehashing what I think went wrong from the campaign’s very first steps. What’s done is done, and wilderness activists simply have to deal with the political situation they face today.
Tom Cooper, co-chairman of People For Preserving Our Western Heritage, saw my blog entries and contacted me. Though Tom is regularly described in news reports as a rancher, he is more accurately considered a businessman. He has run a successful accounting business in
I had met Tom when working for the Wilderness Alliance in 2003 on issues related to Otero Mesa. Tom has a ranch on the western end of those grasslands. Our conversations back then could not be described as friendly. Respectful, yes. Friendly, no.
But because we had always treated each other honestly, Tom felt he could reach out to me. He told me of the frustrations and fear the ranching community was feeling, and how much the agricultural community in general distrusted the Wilderness Alliance because of the people who controlled its board of directors. That operative fact is a big problem in this controversy. I will return to that issue later.
Tom insisted his group wanted rural
The birth of the legislation
I gave him two pieces of free advice: One, don’t give up. You and the members of your group are well respected. You have deep roots in your community. Don’t let yourselves feel helpless. And, two, if you really mean what you say about wanting to protect
That’s just what they did. Pearce’s proposed legislation, H.R. 6300, is the brainchild of Tom’s group.
To say the least, Tom’s group exceeded all expectations. The wilderness coalition, for its part, has enjoyed the services of several full-time employees and a large organizing and advertising budget. People For Preserving Our Western Heritage has relied solely on volunteers who have other full-time jobs. No outside foundations have been sending them five-figure donations to launch a media and lobbying campaign.
The group has assembled a coalition more than three times as large as what the wilderness professionals accomplished. Tom’s group has peeled away governments and organizations that initially supported wilderness. The chambers of commerce of
There is more support for the proposal drafted by this committed group of volunteers than New Mexico has seen for any other conservation initiative in a generation, with the possible exception of the professionally run campaign to protect Valle Vidal from energy development.
The proposal from People For Preserving Our Western Heritage has drawn so much support so easily because it has a vision that can work. Once you tune out the rhetoric and partisan bickering and actually read Pearce’s bill, as far as preserving
Scarantino has been recognized as one of the country’s best political columnists by the American Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. His work has been published in more than 50 newspapers. You can contact him at jrscarantino@yahoo.com.
Labels: Doña Ana County, Growth and development, Scarantino columns, Washington
16 Comments:
There is always more than one side to any story. It is refreshing to see an article without an obvious strong political bias. The facts are what is needed so that everyone can understand the real issues. The panic charged words and wild emotion so common in today's media are completely annoying, not to mention articles like that are actually marketing material and not "news". Looking forward to more information on this important issue.
The EcoElites (environmental and wilderness orgs, etc.) have championed locking-up the people's land. Their claims are always to save and protect the land. The question is who are they protecting the land from? Is it developers (natural resources, ranchers and home builders, etc.) who provide tomorrows economic needs (jobs)?
Their way of justifying locking-up the land is by using scare tactics. Their so-called scientists always use -- could, might and may -- to justify saving the land from nasty, no-good people.
After at least 30 years of their legislated regulations, where we can no longer even breath without having to obtain a permit and pay their green fees how have the people benefited? The answer is staring us all in the face -- lost jobs, destroyed dreams and abundant poverty.
I am an average resident concerned about the Organ Mountains. Representative Pearce's bill (HR 6300) is an abomination. It clearly ends all current wilderness areas. See Sec. 204. It even allows the Secretary of Interior to get rid of land the size of present Las Cruces without any public input (Sec. 401). There would no federal funding to protect the Organ Mountains. This barbaric bill is an insult to all the residents of Dona Ana County not just conservationists. Residents should rant! Mr. Scarantino is just a republican yes-man hoping to get a pat on head from Mr. Pearce for his wrongheaded column.
There are numerous designations available to protect open space. Wilderness is one tool, and it happens to be the most restrictive. Locking up a resource is one way to protect it, but it is not the only way. The US already has between 700 and 800 MILLION acres of federally designated wilderness. And many, perhaps even most, of those areas really qualify as wilderness - remote, vast, untouched areas. Our areas here do not really qualify for wilderness, but they DO deserve permanent, legislative protection. Wilderness is not the best way to accomplish that. Especially in areas so close to a growing community. Let's protect these areas AND let people enjoy them.
One more thing Mr. "Hemingway". Please do not be so arrogant as to attempt to speak for all Dona Ana County residents. I am a resident, and I am pleased with Pearce's proposal. I think it is a much more rational and sensible approach to land preservation than federal wilderness for the areas in question. If I were to be offended or insulted, it would be from your emotional bordering on irrational comments and your rude accusations and personal attacks on others. An issue can be discussed on the issues merits and the facts, without resorting to juvenile name calling and lies. You claim "residents should rant". Seems to me that calm, rational debate of the merits and faults of the issues would be much more constructive.
Mr. Cummins - I think you need a dose of Teddy Roosevelt. He had a great vision for the country and preserving some wilderness for future generations. This would give you a historical perspective.
(if this is a duplicate, please ignore)
I would like to submit one more comment, for "Mr. Hemingway".
You claim to be an "average resident". Somehow, I find myself doubtful. I respectfully request that you do not continue presuming to speak for all Dona Ana County
residents. You claim this bill is "an insult to all residents of Dona Ana County". I am a resident, and I am most assuredly not insulted, nor do I see this legislation as a "abomination".
I am very pleased to see an approach to land protection that actually takes the needs of the community into consideration and the evaluates the specific uses and needs of each area.
There are already between 700 and 800 million acres of wilderness in
the US. Many, if not most, of these areas are "true" wilderness - vast, open, untouched, remote. Our areas here clearly do not meet the qualifications for wilderness, but they DO deserve protection. Thankfully, there are numerous land designations other than wilderness.
We can protect our resources without making them inaccessible and unavailable to people. That is the heart of the issue.
You call on residents to "rant". Resorting to juvenile name calling and outright lies may be the best way to reflect your personal style, intellect and character. That is certainly your right. However, I assure you that you do NOT speak for everyone in Dona Ana County.
In my opinion, an honest debate on the pros and cons of each proposal would be much more constructive and much more valuable. It would certainly be wonderful if that could occur on this issue.
M- In 2006 over 55 percent of the Dona Ana County residents surveyed said they supported a proposal by area conservation groups to create 330,000 acres of wilderness in Dona Ana County. Now we have Pearce and a small minority of wealthy ranchers and developers undermining wilderness for the Organ Mountains – this is an outrage. Wilderness for the Organ Mountains has been "rationally" discussed since 1984 when a comprehensive study was done. M- Is it not time we did something? Or do you want twenty more years of discussion?
According to Scarantino, "Underlying the problems with the Dona Ana County Wilderness campaign is the fact that the persons ultimately calling the shots, behind the screen of a legitimate-seeming coalition and local organizers, hail from the most radical wing of the environmental movement.
They include persons who founded and participated in EarthFirst!, the nation's first eco-terrorist group." So since I support Wilderness, I am an eco-terrorist. M- this is "emotional bordering on irrational comments and rude accusations and personal attacks on others".
There is an old Greek Aesop fable that can be applied to the Organ Mountains and should be considered by anti-Wilderness folks and Mr. Scarantino.
A man and his wife owned a very special goose. Every day the would lay a golden egg, which made the couple very rich.
"Just think," said the man's wife, "If we could have all the golden eggs that are inside the goose, we could be richer much faster."
"You're right," said her husband, "We wouldn't have to wait for the goose to lay her egg every day."
So, the couple killed the goose and cut her open, only to find that she was just like every other goose. She had no golden eggs inside of her at all, and they had no more golden eggs.
In Dona Ana County we have a small minority of wealthy developers wanting to develop land immediately without consideration of the residents, open spaces to preserve the beautiful Organ Mountain heritage, water availability or a gradual smart growth plan. In addition some ranchers are wrongly fearful about losing their grazing rights. So these groups want to end Wilderness. In other words kill the goose. It is a sad fate for the poor goose and the Organ Mountains.
Wow! Jim Scarantino seems to be the a credible voice of reason on this very complicated issue of wilderness protection. Here we have a former leader for "NM Wilderness Alliance" speaking up for a "Win Win" proposal for both ranchers and the environmental movement and what does Jim get in return? Attacked with the same kind of verbal abuse we witnessed by Steve Fischmann's "Quality Growth Alliance" used on developers, politicians or anyone that got in their way. Mr. "Hemingway" and Mr. Fischmann should go have a beer together and trade notes on how to destroy good peoples reputations by the use of this broad characterizations like of rich ranchers and developers along with those bad Republicans
Hemingway quote:
"Now we have Pearce and a small minority of wealthy ranchers and developers undermining wilderness for the Organ Mountains – this is an outrage"
Hemingway demonizes the ranchers and developers here by implying, with his rich guy characterization, that successful, tax paying business guys like ranchers and developers all must be rich and buying influence all over the county.
This kind of Dived & Conquer tactic used here by Hemingway is as dark minded as it gets. In fact, this kind to tactic was used against the Jews in World War II. You know the familiar theme: The Jews have all the money and influence so therefor they are the ones responsible for all of Germany's economic problems at the time.
Jim Scarantino is a brave person, he worked and led
the New Mexico Wilderness movement and left when he was attack, like we are see here in this blog, for trying to include the rancher side of things in the wilderness protection process. In return Scarantino has be under a relentless attacks by members of the wilderness organizations he led.
Our community needs to stand up to these kind of
dark minded attacks and demand they stop! It get us no were on important issues like protecting our beloved Organ mountains. The leaders of the wilderness movement need to come to the table and show some respect for the kind of process that
Scarontino and others are calling for.
When you look at the facts, which can often times become obscured within competing rhetoric, it is clear that a 'majority' of the actual constituents in Dona Ana County support the 'citizen's wilderness proposal.'
The Dona Ana County Commission, Las Cruces City Council, Las Cruces Home Builders Association, League of Women Voters, numerous hunting and conservation organizations, businesses, local and statewide papers, as well as many others, all believe that Wilderness is the right way to protect the county’s wildest public lands.
Wilderness designation has a proven track record of working in tandem with ranching. The 1990 Grazing Guidelines specifically work to incorporate ranching operations in wilderness areas, especially those in the arid southwest.
Wilderness is not this restrictive monster that Congressman Pearce and his supporters lead you to believe. Their entire argument is based upon the notion that wilderness locks people out of the land and makes ranching extremely difficult.
Wilderness permanently preserves America’s last, best wildest public lands for every generation that is yet to come – giving access to the public to enjoy and appreciate the legacy of our natural heritage.
That’s the whole point of wilderness. It is here for ALL of us to love.
The notion that grazing is locked up or that public access is restricted is truly absurd. One need only look to many other areas in New Mexico where ranching operates in tandem with wilderness (Pecos, San Pedro Parks, Manzano’s, El Malpais, etc.).
We should respect the public majority and not deal them a disservice by dwelling in a discussion based upon fear or misinformation. Wilderness is something that ALL of us can appreciate and embrace, and it’s high time that we owned up to our stewardship of the land.
Maya has written a clear and concise case for Wilderness. Great job. Anti-Wilderness proponents should read this carefully.
None of Mr. Scarantino's comments regarding this issue should be even taken under consideration since he has a strong personal bias against the Wilderness Alliance leadership which distorts his objectivity.
Anti-Wilderness folks should be aware of these seven vital statistics: 1. About 9% of U.S. south of Alaska remains in a road less and wild condition. 2. About 2½% of the lower 48 states is legally protected Wilderness (46 million aces). Including Alaska, about 4½% of the U.S. is protected Wilderness (104 million acres). 3. Over half of the national forest domain has roads and is developed. Less than 1/5 of the 191 million acre system is protected Wilderness (34.7 million acres). There are roughly 55 million acres of unprotected road less areas up for grabs. 4. Roughly 30 million acres of BLM road less lands qualify for Wilderness designation in the 48 contiguous states. 5. National Park road less and unprotected: over 10 million acres in the U.S. south of Alaska. 6. National Wildlife Refuge road less and unprotected: over 4 million acres, not including Alaska. 7. Public land road less areas disappear at the rate of about a million acres per year. I hope the Organ Mountains don't become victim of seven!
M says "We can protect our resources without making them inaccessible and unavailable to people. That is the heart of the issue". In other words kill the wilderness with housing developments, off road vehicles, mining operations, etc. Wilderness protects the land for all residents as a natural heritage from abuse by a minority. HR6300 is anti-wilderness. I insist you read the 1984 and 1999 BLM stdies. It clearly indicates ranchers would be help by wilderness.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Published comments have been deemed by Heath Haussamen to be in compliance with this site’s comments policy. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Heath Haussamen or this site. If you know of a person who is abusing this site’s comments system by impersonating someone else or in other ways, please report it by clicking here.