OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 environmentalists who sue because they claim management of public lands is not carried out in a manner that is consistent with current law designed to protect the land from abuse and misuse. When Governor Leavitt and the Utah Congressional delegation announced the lawsuit against the BLM, the Deseret News said in an editorial, "Ten years may seem like a long time, but it's a lot better than the alternative - unproductive wrangling that pits the state against the federal government with no resolution in sight. Let the legal process begin" ("Take Road Dispute to Court" 2000). To COMPROMISE OR NOT To COMPROMISE? As I have shown so far, SUWA, local officials, and the BLM have all disagreed over how to best manage Utah public lands. The actions of each of these three groups have generally proven to be unsatisfactory to one or the other, or both. For example, while the counties believe that the BLM re-inventory is far too much, SUWA holds that it is not enough, and the BLM thinks it is just right. In this case, none of the groups have come close to each other in reaching an agreement. However, in other ways we have seen traditionally opposing factions work together for what is seen as a mutually beneficial end. Volunteers from the Sierra Club recently built a pole fence across a dirt track in Emery County that had been closed by BLM officials with the support of Emery County leaders. As the activists built the fence, local rancher Lee Jeffs stood by and watched approvingly. He said: "I'm glad to see the BLM doing something about these damn four-wheelers. They are riding the things everywhere. They're kind of like lice on a cow. You can take a healthy beautiful cow and introduce one [louse] and pretty soon she starts losing weight, then her hair falls out, and in six months she looks like she's ready to die" (Miller, 2000). Although ranchers and wilderness groups share the common goal of curbing OHV use, both have antagonized and alienated each other to the point that they can't work together. Rural residents who depend on the land for their living have particularly felt threatened by environmentalists because they think they will take away their ability to support themselves. The same article that quotes Jeffs said that BLM officials were surprised at the support that members of the community had given to some road closures. However, the article ended, "but many members of the environmental community are opposed to [the closure] because they believe it doesn't go far enough" (Miller, 2000). At a Senate hearing on a bill being supported by local officials that would protect public lands in the San Rafael Swell, Emery County Commissioners told how in coming up with the plan they invited members of the environmental community only to be met with the response that SUWA was not interested in working with them. The parameters of the opposing groups, or better said, the parameters of the more extreme members within those groups, may be what is holding them back from working together. For example, local leaders, and Emery County officials in particular, have stuck their necks out to curb OHV abuse, and take steps to preserve the land. However, when many county officials go out on a limb to condemn these abuses, they sometimes lose favor with their electorate because of their stand. Joe Judd, a Kane County Commissioner who originally opposed GSENM, then worked with monument managers when he saw it was inevitable, recently said, "I'm about as popular as the plague. But that's OK because I think I'm right" (Kemp, 2000). Unlike Joe Judd, many local leaders are unwilling to risk losing popular support by working with environmentalists even though there is some common ground. Furthermore, there are some members of the OHV community who disregard rules designed to protect pristine land as evidenced by new tracks in a number of previously untouched areas. Inability to compromise comes also comes from environmentalists. In an editorial, the Deseret News said, "SUWA has never met a compromise it could support.... That seeming inability to compromise has damaged SUWA's credibility" ("Five Year OHV Plan Has Merit," 2000). Recently, federal and state land managers agreed to begin a five-year process to better manage OHV use. SUWA attorney Steve Bloch merely dismissed the agreement as "a meaningless exercise" ("Five Year OHV Plan Has Merit," 2000). In this case, the BLM and local interests were trying to work together to make progress on OHVs but SUWA was unwilling to work with them. SUWA and other groups may be missing an opportunity to engage in quality land preservation. The counties are beginning to offer to give up things they are not legally required to do for the sake of reaching some kind of agreement. For example, in the San Rafael bill mentioned above, local leaders have agreed that they will close a number of roads, some of which have valid existing rights. One point that must be made in regard to compromise is the fact that it may not be in the best interest of SUWA and other wilderness groups. We have begun to see a greater willingness on the part of local leaders to move further to the center on public land issues. Perhaps environmentalists think that if they keep up the pressure and don't give in to calls to compromise, they will be able to achieve all or most of what they want. They might even sense vulnerability on the other side, which explains why local interests are more interested in compromise. It is possible that with a change in the political climate in this country, SUWA could get everything it wants and more. Therefore, lack of compromise on their part may be a viable political strategy. Finally, it can also be observed that by holding out and making sure nothing happens, SUWA is effectively winning the game. To this point, SUWA and other groups have been able to work at the public opinion level and at the policy level to stop many actions they have disagreed with. Since WSAs are managed as de facto wilderness, there will essentially be at 39 |