Contact
In a wilderness of political wilderness designations
Michael Swickard
There are plenty of nature-centric places in New Mexico to preserve, but not to exclude human entry. Preserve the nature-centric areas of New Mexico for all Americans but make sure all Americans can enjoy those areas.
Years ago, “wilderness” meant a place where man had not set foot. Now, after decades of wilderness legislation, no one can define wilderness. It means whatever politicians mean it to mean.
The intense politics around wilderness designations make winners and losers. The winners are the political operatives and lawyers who make their money in courts. The losers are the American public. It is a giant scam.
Take the wilderness problems of Tombstone, Ariz. Their water plant was built before any wilderness designation and served the town well. Last year a flood damaged the water pipes, which the town wanted to repair. They were told the land now was wilderness and they could not repair their water system.
How can wilderness mean iron water pipes, roads and water collection areas? It can, because the wilderness advocates and the thousands of lawyers who make millions of dollars advocating an odd sort of wilderness designation say it is.
Nature vs. urban
That got me thinking: We need new terminology to understand American wilderness issues. At opposite ends of a continuum are the concepts nature and urban. Nature-centric are areas whose attributes are those of nature as opposed to urban-centric whose attributes are those of the urban environment. Compare the wilds of Alaska with New York City.
Where we have problems is when the two intertwine either just a little or a lot. Some places in America are nature-centric with some urban intrusion. That is where we have the political rub. No matter what anyone says there are very little virgin nature landscapes, and all of them are in Alaska.
Other places have mostly nature-centric landscapes but there is always a little urbanization that creeps into nature. So it is the degree of blend that matters, eh? Speaking of creeps, politicians have perverted the language of wilderness such that wilderness can be a place where planes fly over, there are one hundred years of roads and if you are standing in a high place you can see Wal-Mart trucks on the freeway, but it is a wilderness. It is really nature-centric with urban intrusions.
The question that we have spent almost 50 years on is the purpose of our nature-centric lands. Years ago the idea was to have areas of our country where people could get a good nature-centric experience and then return to their urban-centric homes. We have lots of forests and mountains that are nature-centric. Then someone decided the deal was to exclude Americans and make areas where essentially no Americans can go.
This is the wilderness movement today. It takes land with roads and houses and cattle operations and attempts to clear the humans from the landscape by making it almost or entirely impossible for Americans to enjoy those nature-centric areas. It is done all in the name of “wilderness preservation.”
No ‘wilderness’ areas in New Mexico
To be blunt: there are no “wilderness” areas in New Mexico. All the areas have had roads; all have planes flying over, and all have lots of human pressure on them. They are nature-centric with some urban-centric intrusion. Not wilderness. There has not been wilderness in New Mexico for hundreds of years.
Even Alaska, as remote as it is, has planes flying over and into the wilderness areas such as the Brooks Range of mountains. It is the most like the wilderness stories of America in the early 1900s. But remember, even then there were lots of Native Americans already on the land. We have to go back 20,000 years or more to get land not trampled by humans.
So for those trying to curb the urban intrusion, is there some way to do so without scamming people into calling some place wilderness when it obviously is not? The limits of urban intrusion can be managed as long as it does not exclude Americans full access to the land.
There are plenty of nature-centric places in New Mexico to preserve, but not to exclude human entry. When entry must be by foot, it excludes the majority of Americans. Quit paying millions of dollars to environmental lawyers to exclude Americans from their own land. Preserve the nature-centric areas of New Mexico for all Americans but make sure all Americans can enjoy those areas.
Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.
9 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bernie et al, I have no problem with diversity of opinion and free speech. I completely agree that these fundamental rights are whats makes this country great, and what makes a free media great. I have a big problem however with someone like Swickard who continuously makes completely innacurate statements from being given a voice by a blog that fashions itself as a news source. Most places that provide news have some modicum of fact checking and editorial standards. Maybe thats not the case here, and Heath should just say “I will literally publish anything, no matter how blatantly false and misleading.” Than I might not be so shocked to see this junk in print.
A simple reading of the Wilderness Act will show that Swickard is factually incorrect on what qualifies an area for wilderness protection or not. And yet it is this fundamental mistruth that is the basis for this article and much of the other misleading propaganda out there by anti conservation folks.
I would suggest that we have far too much intentionally divisive and misleading “news” in this country today, and its a major cause for our country’s sad political state. Look at the birther issue for example. The worst part is, this is not coming from just misinformed journalists, its coming from people with a political agenda, who are trying to pass themselves off as legitimate journalists.
I think Swickard is trying nothing other than to make a name for himself as a darling of far right, and is willing to mislead and misstate the facts in any forum that allows him to do so. Hyperbole and venum sells, and Swickard is merely following this tried and true model.
So Bernie, lets not confuse rank hyperbole and misinformation, with ”diverity of opinion.” Thats a slap in the face to real facts and honest debate.
Bernie – thanks for the vote to hear all sides. I do not speak for anyone else. I am not a member of the Republican, Democrat or Libertarian political parties. My ideas are all my own, for good or bad. All of the posting commentators can write a rebuttal column, but sadly, will have to use their real name.
Desertdawg – I am not disappointed at all by the judge’s ruling which I did not know of when I wrote the column last weekend since the column was written before the ruling. I am quite busy during the week and so did not catch the judge’s ruling which I would have added if I had seen the report. Two weeks ago I spoke to someone in Tombstone about this situation and believe what I was told. Know this: just because a judge jumps into this issue does not convince me I am wrong. The question still is: if the water system predates the Wilderness designation, how can you decide something is Wilderness with all that technology on it including iron pipes, roads, etc.? DD, it is up to you to allow the federal government to tell you that excluding you from federal lands is the best thing for you; I do not concur and will fight that notion. I believe Teddy Roosevelt got it right when he protected public lands from commercial development but wanted everyone to come enjoy the Nature-centric experience. The core of the fight is about excluding Americans from their own lands.
Wow! It must be so disappointing to the Dr. that real, solid information and facts have gotten in the way of his simplistic and half-truth based story! Hate it when good right-wing propaganda gets deflated by the real story! Obama produces a birth certificate, now this! I believe he talked about this on his radio show…but neglected to mention the ruling of a court. Just those evil Feds denying much needed water to a dying-of-thirst Tombstone.
Hmmm….maybe I had left my car by the time he mentioned the court ruling…and the fact that the Feds have been working with Tombstone to remedy the situation. (sounds a lot like Tombstone and other AZ politicians trying to force a “test case” rather that a town simply needing it’s water supply, doesn’t it?)
But you gotta love someone who makes a definition about a term…wilderness…that no place in North America could qualify for, and then is outraged that people use the term on lands that don’t meet his impossible criteria.
“Years ago, “wilderness” meant a place where man had not set foot.” When WAS that “years ago”, Dr Swickard? When you were a kid? 1854? 1776? 1491? Where is a place, outside of parts of the poles, where “man has not set foot”?
” So, I guess the whole continent is just a big parking lot…might as well pave it so everyone can have access! LOL
There are definitions of Wilderness on federally controlled land. Here are a couple links:
http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm
Link to Section 2 (c) referred to in the above NPS document: http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/wildernessAct.pdf
And that, Dr Swickard, is the government’s definition of Wilderness on land in possession of the evil Feds. On your own private land you can determine your own definition, but on public land you (and Tombstone’s right-wingers) have to live with the law as enacted, as galling as that may be.
Show Me – If you look back at the columnists Heath has had his non-partisanship is apparent. He allows writers from the entire civil spectrum to write and publish on his site. As far as inferring that Mr. Swickard should not be allowed to publish his particular brand of politics on the site I can’t disagree more. It is imperative in an open society that the free exchange of ideas take place, no matter how radical or without merit they may be. Not doing so is far more destructive and dangerous. We need more, not less, forums where people who espouse the sorts of ideas that Mr.Swickard does can put forth their work for the public to read and respond. Otherwise we don’t know what they think and don’t have to opportunity to contest their writings with facts. We want Mr.Swickard to continue to write what he thinks so we can bat down the bad information and faulty rhetoric and reasoning with facts and logic. It allows those who may not disagree with him to see the other sides of an argument that is made using facts and reason, which is what dialogue and discourse is all about.
This Tombstone incident is another example of the conspiracy minded mentality and anti-federal government rhetoric permeating the right wing. Here is Gina Miller of the far right “Renew America” group: “we have been watching the nightmarish infiltration and takeover of the United States of America by evil, communist enemies within, I have dreaded seeing each step they take to impose their iron grip on the American people. These criminal traitors in the current federal government are no longer even trying to pretend that they are not the America-killing, communist poison we know them to be.” She is addressing the Tombstone water problem.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miller/120517
This extremism is scary and does not even address the real issues in Tombstone.
Mr. Swickard’s simplisitc idea is wilderness involves the federal government so it is fait accompli wrong.
Heath, you pretend to be non-pratisan, but you’ve lost all credibility publishing the work of this right wing hatchet man. Swickard writes nothing other than blatantly false propaganda, and you are one of the few left who give his distructive efforts a voice locally.
Here is a “nature-centric” video for Mr. Swickard enjoyment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/okanokumo?v=BaMBQSsdnxo
Mr. Swickard easily forgets that wilderness adds an intricate value to the quality of life in New Mexico bringing millions in tourist revenue. It also protects our forests, mountains, and desert vistas from sprawling development. Theodore Roosevelt warned us of “…short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things…”
Having no sense of history Mr. Swickard has no vision of the wilderness idea that shaped our character and our history. It is part of our DNA as a nation. To preserve the last vestiges reminds us of that fact and our heritage.
I think U.S. District Judge Zapata is a better judge than clueless Mr. Swickard of the situation in Tombstone. This week he rejected a far right group’s claim that Tombstone faces a water crises because the U.S. Forest Service refuses to allow crews access to a wilderness area to repair springs damaged by wildfire and mudslides. He ruled that that the group’s “claims of a drastic water emergency related to public consumption and fire needs are overstated.” The Forest Service has “continually worked with plaintiff to attempt to resolve their water issues…. Defendants have attempted to accommodate plaintiff’s requests to repair water structures, have consistently encouraged plaintiffs to submit site specific information with details as to the work that needs to be performed and the equipment needed such that defendants could properly assess any impacts in the wilderness, and defendants have been receptive to plaintiff’s requests and have changed certain requirements after considering plaintiff’s concerns.”
Mr. Swickard has no knowledge of the real situation and believes in a conspiracy. Here is an article on the judge’s ruling: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46545.htm
Mr. Swickard writes: “They were told the land now was wilderness and they could not repair their water system.”
Here is a link to the actual court ruling language. As you can see, the court finds that no such thing was told. Mr.Swickard has presented a falsehood. It undermines any and all claims he makes in the rest of the article. If one cannot present an article without resorting to falsehoods to support the premise one should not even be writing the damned article in the first place. What ever happened to integrity?
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46545.htm