Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter Four :: Nature Has No Borders
One argument for promoting international jurisdiction over American soil is that the borders are placing the 'public' lands in peril.[1] In other words, the contention is that national boundaries destroy ecosystems. At the conference, Mr. Pritchard called for an end to all borders because they are limited by "compartmentalization" and "nationalism."[2]
Is international protection a revolutionary idea? No! Rather it is the border that is revolutionary. We can start right now to build a revolutionary plan together. . .[3]
Why does he claim that the 'no-borders' concept is not revolutionary, then invite us to join this revolutionary plan? Maybe he has confused the words 'revolution' and 'revolting.' He may find the border 'revolting' but it is not 'revolutionary.' Man has always had borders.
The earth has survived six thousand years of man. Civilizations have come and gone while the 'ecosystem' has remained intact in spite of war. The promoters' own publication admits, "that the grizzly bear, gray wolf and lynx exist at all is evidence of the wilderness of the North Cascades."[4] Conservationist Pritchard also admits that, ". . . today, in the greater North Cascades ecosystem still reside every known species that was here before European settlement."[5] Nonetheless, the park promoters want the nations of the world to eliminate borders for the sake of animals, which are not actually in peril.
Pritchard is correct in his observation that animals do not recognize man's borders.[6] However, he certainly must know that animals do have borders that they jealously and mortally protect. It is a revolutionary idea for us to change our economy and our politics to accommodate the ever changing borders of the various species.
The basis of the no borders concept is to tie up large tracts of land. One strategy to accomplish this is codifying environmental statutes dealing with water and endangered animals. Bruce Babbitt confirmed that environmental regulations will have a far reaching role in restricting the right of property. He claimed that passage of the Clean Water Act was a good tactic because it permitted the federal government to assume powers that did not belong to them. He says that this will tie up everything that is wet, and some that is not. The Endangered Species Act is inventive law. These two acts will be used to tie up large regions of land and destroy industry and jobs.[7]
Another strategy is to shift our priorities away from the needs of man and toward the needs of the earth. The tool to accomplish this is a young, unproven and deceptive 'science' called 'landscape ecology.'
Landscape ecology is a young science that looks at ecological patterns and processes across large areas.[8]
This 'science' gives broad powers to bureaucracies in the name of ecology.
A number of federal agencies and non government organizations are working through the Interagency Ecosystem Management Coordination Group to coordinate and conduct a broad ecological assessment of major ecoregions of the US. The total cost of the five year project is estimated at $100 million.[9]
This expensive assessment will tie up large areas of land. The 'landscape ecosystem' approach is used because it exposes almost limitless areas to bureaucratic and international control. This will be a more effective tool than the archaic strategy of habitat protection.
A good way to protect large, fully functioning ecosystems is to provide for species that run their length and breadth. . . the wild salmon, who require clean water from mountain to sea. . . the solitary and selective lynx, who need a wide roadless range.[10]
GEA's landscape outlook broadens our horizons for protecting the wild areas of the Northwest.[11]
Nationalizing Private Property
In the United States, the federal government's first attempt to conserve the region and its resources came in 1893 when the Pacific Forest Reserves were created. Disregard for regulations spawned the creation of the Washington Reserve which contained the Washington Forest Reserve, running from west of Mt. Baker to south of Lake Chelan and the Mt. Rainier Forest Reserve of more than a million hectares. Thus began nearly a century of national, regional and local activity and controversy of how to best protect the North Cascades.[12]
The North Cascades International Park encompasses a significant portion of the State of Washington, as we learned in the first chapter. The business and population centers along the Interstate 5 corridor, from Everett to Vancouver, are included within this park. There are also hundreds of small cities, towns and communities.
Not satisfied with national parks and forests, the environmentalists aim to get control of all lands, including private property. The Growth Management Act of 1990[13] restricts rural residential development. This, along with tolled roads and other tactics will be used to drive the people out of the country areas and into the cities. Nonetheless, the promoters claim that private property will be safe from international intrusion.[14]
The Cascades International Alliance, however, claims that, "These valuable public lands are in peril. . . so that the integrity of the entire ecosystem is at risk."[15] These 'public lands'[16] that they refer to is the entire region of the international park and the special management area.[17] There is no distinction between private and public property.
On one hand the promoters assure us that private property will not be affected. On the other hand they claim that we need to protect the entire ecosystem. These two claims appear to contradict each other, but they do not. We, the common people, are confused by the traditional definitions of public and private lands, which are not the same as the bureaucratic definitions.
If an ecosystem does not recognize international borders, it will not likely recognize private borders either. When the laws are changed to grant status to the international park, private property will lose its status. This will be due to the prevailing 'public interest.' Therefore, it is the 'truth' that no private lands will be taken, because our property will no longer be private.
Along this line of reasoning the judicial system has begun to reduce the status of private property. A few years ago, a Federal District Court ruled that private ownership of land did not preclude the right of the public to access these lands for aesthetic or recreational purposes. Additionally, a very recent court ruling granted Indians the right to harvest shell fish on private beach lands. That 'right' is preeminent over the rights of the property owner because it allegedly involves Indian treaties.
Steve Gorton warned in his newspaper column, "The proposed ecosystem act [Ecosystem Protection Act] would protect any geographical area the federal government believes is in danger of being harmed by human activity, regardless who owns the land."[18]
Peace at the Non Border
International cooperation for shared landscapes is not unique between Canada and the United States. Even before the establishment of Waterton Glacier International Peace Park in 1932, park staff of the two national parks cooperated with each other in stocking fish and other activities. The purpose of joining the two parks was to establish 'an enduring monument of nature to the long existing relationship of peace and goodwill between the people of and governments of Canada and the United States.'[19]
The idea of an international park and preserve created and operated as a cooperative venture between the United States and Canada is one I can and do support. Our two nations have much to gain from such a park by linking parks and other wild areas that exist on both sides of the border. What better way to tell the world of our two nations' friendly heritage than to establish an across border park that symbolizes and extends the cooperation that infuses our daily concourse now?[20]
Governor Lowry made a blanket claim that, "Our two nations have much to gain from such a park." He never explained what gains he had in mind. Clearly, no nation has ever benefited by removing borders or allowing another country to help them run their forests and industry. We have nothing to gain by relinquishing our sovereignty over all our cities, towns, resources and industries.
Nevertheless, he is not alone in his claim. Many of the promoters have used the umbrella of 'much to gain.' If they ever mention what the benefits are, it is environmental justice, biodiversity protection and other such ideas that do not benefit humans.
The promoters of the park claim that national divisions, with separate and sovereign laws, are placing our animal habitats at risk.
These valuable public lands are in peril. The various parks and forests divide the region into a disjointed patchwork of laws, politics and management practices so that the integrity of the entire ecosystem is at risk.[21]
The biological diversity of the North Cascades is divided by a patchwork of jurisdiction, management priorities and laws so that the entire ecosystem is at risk. Overlogging, mining, grazing, roads, agriculture and dams within the North Cascades all endanger what remains of the ecosystem.[22]
To them, mutual cooperation for managing the animal habitat on both sides of the border is not enough.
Although the history of exploitation of the North Cascades ecosystem has been partially mitigated by efforts at protection on both sides of the border, species and ecological processes remain insufficiently protected to maintain the values that characterize the area. A unique strategy is called for. A new methodology that recognizes the common nature and culture of the North Cascades one that transcends compartmentalization and nationalism.[23]
The 'unique strategy' that Mr. Pritchard called for, is the voluntary surrender of our constitutional rights and property within these borders. After all, the United States negotiated the surrender of the homes and lands of Israelis living within the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.[24] Certainly we can negotiate a similar surrender for our own American citizens living within the international non borders. We have yet, however, to see the Israelis leave their land, and we may yet discover that the freedom loving people of the United States take their Constitution seriously.
Animal Rights and Roads
Arnold Roth used to draw single frame cartoons called "Poor Arnold's Almanac." These were oftentimes political commentaries. I clipped one[25] that defines the lunacy of the animal rights movement. It had a caption stating: "Animal Rights:" and a footing that read: "The Right To Climb Trees." The drawing portrayed a rhinoceros shinning up the trunk, while a hippopotamus and an elephant were sitting on the ground holding two very bent over branches. This is a perfect picture of the absurdity of the animal rights movement.
Animal rights will be a major strategy used to tear down our borders, tear up our roads and coerce us to relinquish our property.[26] Large quantities of land will be surrendered to the animals and to 'protective,' international jurisdictions.
The greater North Cascades ecosystem comprises a region thriving in geographical and biological diversity. Rivers originating in the North Cascades flow through Canada and the US irrespective of international borders. Salmon migrate from ocean to river often through two countries; grizzly bears, gray wolves and lynx traverse the 49th parallel without stopping at border crossings. The North Cascades is an international ecosystem; nature without borders.[27]
A good way to protect large, fully functioning ecosystems is to provide for species that run their length and breadth: the free roaming grizzly, who travel vast distances and utilize nearly every habitat in the ecosystem; the wild salmon, who require clean water from mountain to sea; the solitary and selective lynx, who need a wide roadless range to find enough snowshoe hare, their main prey; and the remaining ancient forests, who stand scattered throughout the region, sheltering many endangered plant and animal communities.[28]
Can you see that this argument can be used to tie up all lands? Promoters use catch words such as: 'length and breadth,' 'mountain to sea,' 'roadless range,' etc. I wonder if we shouldn't be working to protect smaller animals from the 'free roaming grizzly,' who utilizes and obliterates 'nearly every habitat?' What do we do when we have too many lynx and they threaten the survival of the snowshoe hare?
Furthermore, they try to make us connect all forests with ancestry or heritage. This is to make us feel that there is a sacredness of all trees and that their preservation is more important than the resources within the park. Thus, the park lands, public and private, will be surrendered for the 'benefit' of the entire ecosystem.
The foundation of a Cascades International Park & Reserve offers us, as Canadians and Americans, a rare opportunity. Never before have the boundaries of a park & reserve been based on the needs of an entire ecosystem. . . . The North Cascades ecosystem transcends the US/Canadian border and so must the protection and management of these valuable public lands. This can be achieved through a Cascades International Park & Reserve.[29]
If these lands are public domain for both nations, the next step is for this region, of vital international significance, to be 'public' for the rest of the world. I can think of a couple of rare occasions, in the history of mankind, where the situation was ripe for the wholesale seizure of a society's institutional and educational philosophy. In this century, Lenin and Hitler were available at just similar opportunities. Now we are at the third such window. This time it will be tyrants who masquerade as spokesmen for the animals.
GEA[30] is. . . Taking the lead in monitoring the federal government's North Cascade Grizzly Bear Recovery process.[31]
Of all animals, the Grizzly is a useful device for confiscating large areas of land. It is purported that every grizzly requires 70 square miles of habitat. The current North Cascades population is around twenty bears, but projections call for this to increase between 500 and 1000. So we import them into the North Cascades to give environmental substance for driving the people out.
Why haven't the grizzlies known that this was their natural habitat and come here on their own? These bears are dangerous and present a hazard to those who use the forest lands for hiking and camping.
This is not to say that humans won't have to make sacrifices. . . Recreationists will have to bear a part of the burden.[32]
Gordon Chandler certainly bore his share of the burden. He is an experienced hiker who stumbled across a grizzly bear defending a huckleberry patch. He was mauled but fortunately survived. According to the newspaper account the incidents of attack have been low.[33] Bear in mind, however, that until recently this area had no grizzlies to speak of. Occasionally there was the stray, which does not a habitat or ecosystem make. Now that we are working to proliferate the area with grizzly bears, the occurrences of assaults upon people will accelerate in direct proportion.
As animals gain more rights, people have fewer rights to defend their property. California State representative Dana Rohrabacher described how bureaucrats impaired the efforts of homeowners to protect their property from the recent fire that swept the area. They were told that it was against the law to clear tall grasses and brush next to their homes. Environmentalists claim that tall grasses are necessary for the protection of endangered rodents.
In addition to this the Laguna Beach council thwarted efforts to construct a larger reservoir that would have provided much needed water for the firefighters. To compound matters, millions of gallons of water were spilled over the Prado Dam, amidst a severe drought, to protect some vireos (songbirds). However, the vireos were not even there. They were wintering in the Bajas.
Victims are looking for those responsible for the more than 200,000 acres and 1,145 homes turned to ashes by the fire in Southern California in October 1993. It wasn't an arsonist or Mother Nature. As the smoke cleared, burned out homeowners and weary firefighters were pointing to a surprising culprit: environmental extremists.[34]
Forest workers ran a full page ad[35] documenting the importance of selective logging to prevent and control fires. They contend that if the timber industry had been allowed to harvest the lumber, the fire that ravaged the Boise National Forest in the summer of 1994, may never have happened. At worst, it would never have grown out of control.
During this fire several firefighters were killed. Now the trees that we preserved by regulation are gone. With wise management, we could have put the trees to good use, creating more wealth and jobs. The families of the local loggers would be better off. The families of the dead firefighters would have been spared enormous grief.
The promoters of the park not only want the people to abandon their property within the non borders, they want to tear up the roads as well. They assert that the survival of the lynx depends upon undisturbed habitat.[36] They contend that roads prevent the lynx from finding food.[37] Logging roads "cause erosion and landslides and provide poachers access to wildlife."[38]
The highest priority for region wide restoration should be to obliterate roads. . . . we believe the decommissioning of unneeded, neglected and high impact roads is the most urgent and significant restoration need on public lands in the range of the Northern Spotted Owl.[39]
Do not think for a moment that they are only talking about abandoned logging roads. These grow over and meld into the environment. The 'high impact roads' which are in range of the Spotted Owl, are the very roads that lead to our suburban homes.
Footnotes:
[1]"These valuable public lands are in peril. The various parks and forests divide the region into a disjointed patchwork of laws, politics and management practices so that the integrity of the entire ecosystem is at risk." op. cit. "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[2]ed. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[3]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[4]Greater Ecosystem Alliance, For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[5]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[6]". . .that species do not distinguish artificial national boundaries, but move within a range dictated by need, certainly not politics." op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[7]ed. cit., Babbitt, p. 939, 940.
[8]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[9]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: Interagency Ecoregion based Ecological Assessment Agencies." Listed agencies that are cooperating in the funding: National Biological Survey, Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, Park Service, Department of Defense, National Association of State Foresters, EPA, Fish and Wildlife," etc.
[10]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[11]id. GEA is the Greater Ecosystem Alliance.
[12]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[13]Washington State Legislature, ESHB 2929 (1990).
[14]"Although no boundaries have been drawn, the proposal will not include privately owned lands. Only federal lands will be considered." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[15]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[16]"The North Cascades ecosystem transcends the US/Canadian border and so must the protection and management of these valuable public lands." op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[17]"SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA: lands excluded from park designation, but of equal importance to the ecosystem, managed to ensure the protection of areas that are vital for the preservation of biological diversity and the integrity of the ecosystem while allowing sustainable economic activity." op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[18]op. cit., Gorton
[19]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[20]op. cit., Lowry.
[21]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[22]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[23]id.
[24]Although this land is claimed by the Palestinians, it is possessed by Israelis and their modern suburban homes.
[25]Arnold Roth, Creators Syndicate, "Poor Arnold’s Almanac," The Herald, (08 Nov. 1989).
[26]"WILDLIFE INTO THE FUTURE: That the grizzly bear, gray wolf and lynx exist at all is evidence of the wilderness of the North Cascades. Lynx need remote, high elevation forests, while grizzly bears and gray wolves use virtually all habitats within the North Cascades ecosystem. Enough land must be safeguarded to support these wide ranging species. Recovery of the bear and wolf populations will require an ecosystem wide plan for restoring and protecting habitat." op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[27]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[28]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[29]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[30]GEA is the Greater Ecosystem Alliance
[31]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[32]Matt Norton, "Futile Fear and Loathing of the Cascades' Grizzly," Northwest Conservation, News and Priorities magazine, Greater Ecosystem Alliance (Summer 1994), p. 6.
[33]J Todd Foster, "Hiker Mauled," Spokane Review (30 Aug. 94).
[34]Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, "A Bird In The Brush," American Spectator (Mar 94), p. 86.
[35]Forest Workers of the Intermountain West, "One Of These Idaho Forests Was Selectively Logged In 1994. . . One Of Them Wasn’t," Spokane Review (30 Aug. 94).
[36]ed. cit., Sean Cosgrove, "The Lynx Symbol of a Wild Park" Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[37]". . .lynx who need a wide roadless range to find enough snowshoe hare, their main prey. . ." op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[38]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[39]op. cit., "GEA Stalks The Forest Service In The New Age Of Ecosystem Management," Northwest Conservation, News and Priorities magazine, Greater Ecosystem Alliance (Summer 1994), p. 18.