Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter Three :: What Is Sustainable Management
To begin with, 'sustainable management' has nothing to do with 'sustainable yield.' Most people are familiar with the latter term. If not, it is not hard to deduce that 'sustainable yield' has something to do with managing the natural resources to ensure that there will be enough product for future demands. The promoters of the international parks and those who endorse restrictive environmental regulations use familiar terminology to advance their ideas but they mean quite the opposite.
During the conference, Paul Pritchard, President of the NPCA, talked about ways for the national government to take control of the land. His aim is not to maintain the resources to guarantee future yields. Rather it is to diminish our use of these resources, leading to an austere lifestyle. His references to 'changing ideas' and 'evolving techniques' are eloquent ways to say that we must use international pressure to circumvent our constitutional rights. In other words, a free market people cannot be trusted to impoverish themselves, so we must use world government to do this.
Our efforts to further protect the North Cascades ecosystem affords us an unheard of opportunity to work together as an international community. . . . Changing ideas about how to protect ecosystems provides evolving techniques and expanding perspectives for managing the human impact to the environment.[1]
He explains that our country needs international land use management because, "The North Cascades are truly an international ecosystem. . ." He also claims that grizzly bear, wolf and lynx populations are "internationally significant." He makes these claims without any supporting argument or documentation. Political economists and environmentalists, nonetheless, support this plan as a means for achieving a 'sustainable economy.' At the conference, several speakers backed him up with economic and ecological research.[2] They contend that we cannot have a sustainable economy without ecosystem management.[3]
We need a practical social and economic transition to sustainable economies.[4]
How do we have a 'sustainable economy' based upon a severely limited extraction of natural resources? My friend, Judy, has a saying that she is quite fond of repeating. "It takes a man, plus tools, plus a natural resource to equal a sound economy."
I have to question the credentials of any 'economist' that believes that an economy can survive on office jobs. Timber harvesting, mining, ranching, farming, fishing, processing, manufacturing and construction are the essence of any economy. It is foolishness to believe that we can remove the wealth producing sector and prop up the system with services.
Most people understand the importance of natural resources for survival. After man was created, God gave him the responsibility to manage the earth. That responsibility follows to us. That is why it is innately human to desire the soil.[5] Conversely, the economy proposed at the conference is socialism. The 'transition' to accomplish this change is using government subsidies, grants and welfare from the taxpayers that still have jobs. That, in itself, is not sustainable for many reasons. Here are a few:
- They will reduce or eliminate wealth producing jobs. Not only does this sector provide us with housing, food, clothing, paper, etc., but they provide the engine that keeps money and wealth dynamic.
- The national government will rob from the taxpayer to pay for the unemployment and retraining[6] of those who were formerly wealth producers. This will force an increase in taxes.
- The wealth producing sector provides the bulk of government revenues. Therefore, tax revenues will be reduced by diminishing or eliminating this sector. This will force another increase in taxes.
- As the wealth producing sector of the economy decreases, the taxpayers' monetary base becomes more static. Not that this is bad in itself, which is another topic. However, as deficits continue to mount, interest becomes dynamic. Static money cannot compete with dynamic interest.
- As the wealth producing sector of the economy decreases, basic necessities will become luxuries and will no longer be available to the average wage earner and family.
The park promoters depend upon crises to persuade the people to surrender control of the forests and resources. The best strategy has been to play up the guilt and create villains. There is no other way to persuade a freedom loving people to accept international intervention of their economy and resources.
Who are the Villains?
Industry is the easiest to target. During the 1980s, the media bombarded us with stories of disastrous leveraged buy outs and junk bond sales. Stories of poor consumers being ripped off by unscrupulous businesses continually make headlines. By portraying these abuses as the norm, the media has intentionally painted all business with the color of greed.
Profit is no longer considered to be essential to establishing a solid business and guaranteeing future jobs. Private enterprise is portrayed as a threat to our economy and ecology. We are conditioned to believe the reports of destruction without question.
The North Cascades are subjected to the effects of mineral exploration and the threat of future mining. . . . These same types of cyanide heap leaching mines have already killed thousands of birds and fish in Nevada, Colorado and California.[7]
Overlogging, mining, grazing, roads, agriculture and dams within the North Cascades all endanger what remains of the ecosystem. Just as the grizzly bear knows no borders, neither do threats to the ecosystem. Even with the protection afforded to the region through the establishment of the parks and forests, the ecosystem cannot escape the impacts of industrial development, urban encroachment, and air and water pollution in the surrounding areas.[8]
Mining companies with private inholdings on public lands seek approval to remove millions of tons of rock. . . . have already killed thousands of birds and fish. . .[9]
By establishing the premise that business is evil, the next step is to justify public extortion. In other words, we tax the life blood out of our entrepreneurs and employers. That's okay because we have the national government to look after us when these businesses go down and the jobs are gone.
Along this same line of reasoning Senator Patty Murray stresses that these are the people's parks. If we, the people, allow any business to operate within them, we deserve 'our fair share.' With no risk and no investment, our outrage alone, qualifies us for a return of the profits.
You. . . have a right to expect a fair return from businesses for the right to earn money in the parks. . . . I think this region is headed in a very positive direction in forest management.[10]
Who gets this money our fair share? It will not be the producers the businesses and employees. The money will go to the regulators and paper shufflers. In the name of environmental justice we will abandon a wealth producing economy and favor of a system of wealth consumers.
"Classical economics must be reworked because it 'defines productivity narrowly and encourages us to equate gains in productivity with economic progress.'"[11]
Favoring Tourism over Production
For the sake of 'public lands' and 'public revenue,' Senator Murray and other politicians and bureaucrats have decided to regulate our loggers out of the 'destructive practice' of timber harvesting. They mitigate this crisis by giving lip service to the loggers' plight. This is only done to transfer the blame from their destructive regulations to a so called decrease in resource supply. They hope to appease them by promising to give them taxpayers' money. Their goal, nonetheless, is to bring these productive people into the national government dependency class.
As timber supply has decreased, people in the timber communities have been rightfully concerned about what economic opportunities will be available in the future. For many towns, some of the real opportunities will come through tourist and recreational use of the public resource. This means providing services for people who visit the forests and the mountains for the outdoor experience.[12]
Timber supplies, however, have not decreased. We have more forests in our land than we 'need.' Currently there are over 230 billion marketable trees in our nation. That is more than 1000 trees per person. Furthermore, about four million new trees are planted every day.[13] Yet, we have curtailed domestic logging and we are importing most of the logs we need for housing, furniture, publishing and packaging.
Like a true politician, Sen. Murray makes the waves then tries to convince us that the government is the only one that can save the ship. She wants us to believe that this experiment will not damage our economy and that if we will just look to the national government, they will come through with the money and jobs.
If we believe her, we will forge another link in the chain of government dependence. This chain is hard to break. Russia ought to be a good lesson for us. Once people are accustomed to government dependency, it is difficult for them to assimilate freedom and take responsibility for their lives.
According to Sen. Murray, recreational jobs will be the hub of this new, 'sustainable economy.' Recreation based industries will thrive.[14] Life will be better than ever before. Careers will be fulfilling as we focus on pleasure rather than production. This theory is supported by the Cascades International Alliance, the National Parks and Conservation Association, Paul Pritchard and Governor Lowry;
The lifestyle and beauty of the Pacific Northwest draw people and businesses. As timber and mineral supplies dwindle, the communities whose economies are dependent on them turn to alternative and sustainable livelihoods. Every year millions of people retreat to the North Cascades for renewal and recreation. The businesses who supply services and equipment to them are growing. The North Cascades are among the most stunning mountains in the world. Climbers dream and plan for years to ascend [various peaks]. . . Mt. Baker Snoqualmie national Forest receives over 5 million visitors each year. Day hikers, backpackers, anglers, hunters, photographers, birders and climbers they all come to revive their spirits in this powerful and majestic land.[15]
This North Cascades ecosystem which spans the US Canadian border is the life of the Pacific Northwest. People flock here to be inspired by the landscape. Economists consider the environment and wildlands to be a key to the Northwest's thriving economy.[16]
The economy of the region thrives, in part because of the myriad of recreational opportunities. . .[17]
Governor Lowry sees the North Cascades as the 'backyard' of the international Vancouver Seattle metropolitan area.[18] The forests are the playground for the city dwellers. Geraldine Payton, writing for the Columbiana magazine, says that the demand for recreation has already exceeded the supply. She is not, however, arguing for 'supply side' economics.
Despite the seemingly endless vastness of the Cascades demand for primitive backcountry recreation already exceeds the available supply.[19]
Since the days of the kings, it has been recreation that has delimited the blue blood from the blue collar. The promoters of the park are seducing us into this new economic structure using leisure as a carrot. Nonetheless, we, the common working taxpayer, will only work in these recreation based industries. It is the elite who will enjoy the leisure.
Furthermore, the elite, the politician and the bureaucrat do not enjoy the masses making a livelihood off them. They do not mind dependency but they abhor independence. So they must prevent this new economic sector from becoming independently profitable. One way to do this is to repaint these retrained workers with the evil colors of 'corporation.' Then they can tax them and get their money back.[20]
Professor Irving Fox laid the foundation for this strategy. He warned the conference delegates against allowing corporate interests to supersede those of citizens and indigenous people.[21] Sen. Murray outlined a plan to get the loggers back to work, then tax them for the opportunity.
As you know, Sen. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas has introduced legislation in the Senate to reform the process of granting contracts for visitor services in and around national parks [SB. 208, the National Parks Concessions Reform Act]. In this time of tight federal budgets and heavy use of our national parks, reforms are needed. We must be especially mindful of the need for strong stewardship. And you, the taxpayers, have a right to expect a fair return from businesses for the right to earn money in the parks.[22]
She is not very stewardly minded when voting against balanced budgets. Nonetheless, she declares stewardship to be of paramount importance when there is a good potential for federal revenues. This 'stewardship' will tax the retrained workers right out of their new enterprise.
I just read some bad news in the Seattle Post Intelligencer newspaper.[23] Despite the growing popularity of ecotourism, the Pacific Northwest is lagging behind in their market share of the tourist industry. According to the article, this lag is due to our State being "the most frugal in the union when it comes to promoting tourism."
If we plan to concentrate our economy around tourism, we are going to have to give a high priority to marketing this industry. That means that we will have to increase taxes to pay for this overhead expense. This is another point that could be added to the list earlier this chapter, of reasons why this new economy cannot be sustainable.
Keynesian Economy
The promoters claim that establishing an international park will be a boon to the service industry. Dr. Thomas Powers assured the conference delegates that despite the decline in extraction based employment, communities east of the Cascades have already experienced an increase in jobs within the service industry by 150 percent.[24] He is a professor of economics, but he failed to assess was why this has happened. Who provides wealth for this growing service sector? There has never been a simultaneous increase in the service sector with a corresponding decrease in the productive sector.
The simple fact is that Western Washington has driven businesses away through the Growth Management Act, wetlands ordinances, and extensive and costly permit and mitigation processes. It often takes as long as five years to obtain approvals for manufactory and warehouse expansions. The simple solution for these industries is to take their businesses to the Eastern Washington communities. The wealth producing employment base is moving eastward and this accounts for the rise of service sector jobs.
The eastern communities will process commercial permits in more reasonable time frames. They will do this without extensive Environmental Impact Statements and costly mitigations. They have good access to major highways, rail and air. Several colleges work cooperatively with the new industries, producing a sufficiently qualified labor pool. This labor pool is able to work for lower wages than the western side of the State, largely because of the reduced cost of housing on the eastern side.
Maybe these businesses did not move far enough. Had they moved out of the State, the State coffers would have suffered severely. Then, maybe, our public servants would have learned a good lesson. Rather than learn from this clear example of over regulation, the bureaucrats continue to make the people more dependent upon the national government instead of local businesses for their livelihood.
According to the bureaucrats and the media, industry and private enterprise is unable to provide the 'aid' that local communities need. It is not enough that businesses provide jobs they must also take care of people. Since business cannot solve everyone's problems the government must, ". . .[work] towards an economic strategy to aid local communities around the North Cascades. . ."[25]
This is an eloquent way of rationalizing the over regulation of enterprise. It also serves to exaggerate once again the selfishness and greed of entrepreneurs and industry. This is drilled into us on every front so we do not question it anymore.
. . .decades of excessive logging and grazing in both Canada and the US have destroyed habitat necessary for bird, animal and fish species common to the North Cascades.[26]
Is it possible that our overzealous, greedy, capitalistic entrepreneurs have overlogged and overgrazed our lands? Have we harvested more trees than we need for housing, publishing, shipping, medicines, food additives, etc? Have we grazed more cattle than we eat? Where have we dumped the excess?
A more important question is, why? Why would any entrepreneur or industry, especially a greedy one, produce more product than needed, when this would only reduce profit margins? Why would a greedy capitalist want to reduce his profit?
Most economists do not understand the dynamics necessary for a functioning, productive society. They have been indoctrinated with the socialistic theory that economies cannot survive without government intervention. So they go along with the absurd speculation that we will replace productive, wealth building jobs with leisure oriented services.
In the real world, services without a raw material can not make an economy. If we are all ski instructors, who will make the skis? Who will mine and process the materials for the manufacture of the skis? Who will build the equipment to make, process and ship the skis? Who will feed the people who are making the equipment, making the skis, giving instruction and taking the lessons?
Look around yourself at work. Every job is dependent, directly or indirectly, upon harvesting natural resources. It requires wood to build a house and to make the paper. If your job is dependent upon a computer, do you know where the plastic case came from? Where did the sand for the microchip come from, or the ore for the copper wire? Maybe you drive. The automobile body was mined from iron, quartz or other ores. The steering wheel was processed from trees or oil. Your tires came from trees and ore, and was processed with heat from fossil fuels. Any occupation we have originates from a wealth producing enterprise.
These new economists tell us that wealth is static, that it is derived by one person at the expense of another. If wealth was static, would not all our financial resources have dried up years ago? Instead, as human populations increase, wealth has made corresponding increases, especially in free countries where private enterprise is encouraged.
On the other hand, when civil government impedes the harvesting of wealth producing resources; when they regulate the production and shipping; when they license and restrict the employment of the labor pool, the economy will quickly stagnate. Regulation cannot be justified on economic or productive merits. So they rationalize it by claiming that it is necessary to stabilize the economy.
Rachel Nugent,[27] Ph.D., a professor of economics at Pacific Lutheran University, expands this theory for the international park. Somehow, managing ecosystems will give us stable economies. We will, however, preserve the aesthetics of the environment at the cost of jobs.
An ecosystem approach to managing the North Cascades region is not concerned only with preserving the natural environment for the pleasure of tourists, or even future generations of residents. Instead, community economic enhancement and stability are the goals.
This eloquence attempts to persuade us to believe that 'stability' will be reached when we cease the 'destructive practices' of cultivating and harvesting the natural resources. Once again, their idea of sustainable management is not sustainable yield. Their interest is not in working to secure adequate resources for the future. It is to reduce our lifestyle so that we will be compatible with third world nations right now.
A nonproductive society is not stable; it is stagnant. Mankind is inherently dependent upon natural resources for survival and wealth building. We are innately creative and productive; we emulate our Creator.[28] Our creative abilities are demonstrated through managing, harvesting and processing our environment. This is wealth and it is not stagnant.
Socialism and Self esteem
There is very little difference between democracy and socialism. This is especially true when democracy is perceived to be the right to determine how to spend the 'collective wealth.' In our nation 58 percent of the people are living off this collective wealth, through grants, welfare, bureaucratic employment, etc. The few producers that are left are being tyrannized by the collectors.
Within this socialistic environment, wealth diminishes. In a socialist economy wealth is static. If there is no wealth producing industry, then truly one man's wealth is built upon the loss of another. It is not the one who collects the public handout who is taken to task. Instead, the producer is condemned for taking his wealth from the 'public assets.' We are brainwashed to believe that these assets belong to the collectors, who are not willing to produce for themselves.
Senator Murray capitalizes on our inborn laziness by focusing upon collecting the public revenues from those who work on our public lands. The modern economist, college professor, journalist, environmentalist and park promoter believes that we need a democratically or government regulated economy to circumvent this 'static.' Only then will we have hope and find fulfillment in our careers, which will be centered on services to the leisure class. The quality of life's experiences are preeminent to the quality of life itself, or productive careers.
The effort to find and agree on sustainable ways of managing, and in some cases preserving, natural resources in the region must be aimed at maintaining and improving the quality of life's experiences for those who live in the North Cascades region.[29]
People who work hard and are productive, will find time for leisure. However, when our economy focuses upon leisure, we will most certainly collapse. The promoters do not understand this and use 'democracy' and the self esteem of the community to advance a socialistic society.
The sensible principles that apply to long term maintenance and improvement of the natural environment of the North Cascades apply as well to the human social and economic environments. The most important first step is developing an approach and outlook that allows broad based community decision making that gives outcomes consistent with the forces of economic, social, and environmental change. . .[30]
By concentrating on the alleged industrial damage to the environment, the park promoters seek to paint private business as violators of public lands. Profits by private enterprises are portrayed as a threat to our resources. So the democratic solution is to use the rangelands for setting community goals instead of raising cattle. This theory assumes that we will all decide how everyone else will run their businesses and then we will all divide the checks. What happens when the producers don't want to go to work anymore?
Rangeland Reform '94 is a call to take a broader view of how public resources are used and managed. It asks to restore the health of the land. . . . The purpose. . . is to carry out a rangeland management program that improves ecological conditions, while providing for sustainable development. . . . Manage rangelands in a manner that is compatible with principles of ecosystem management. . . . Consider the needs of local communities dependent on livestock grazing. . . . effective public participation in rangeland management.[31]
As we mentioned before, Senator Murray has a theory that we "have a right to expect a fair return from businesses for the right to earn money in the parks." This is given the flavor of being 'democratic.' The park promoters use this 'democracy' to pave the way for direct governmental control of our industries and all productive enterprises.
This 'public' ideal will expand to bring private industries on private lands under the control of bureaucratic restrictions. We see the precedent being set with wetland ordinances affecting manufacturing, farming and housing. These sensitive private lands are portrayed now as 'public' because they have a public interest. The promoters are using environmental democracy to promote a self absorbed socialism.
Are more bureaucracies the answer to our social, environmental and economic problems? We need to understand that our Constitution does not call on the civil government to satisfy the needs of the people. That is the moral obligation of families, churches and communities. Empowered by this democratic ideal, government bureaucracies will grow in numbers and grow in power.
A recent example of bureaucratic growth is the newly established National Biological Survey (NBS). President Clinton called for the creation of this new bureaucracy on Earth Day, 1993. Within one year, the new NBS had 1850 employees, 4 Ecoregional offices, 13 Research Centers, over 60 Cooperative Research Units and 100 field stations.[32]
This new bureaucracy is supposed to "serve as the non regulatory arm of the Interior Department."[33] Its stated function, however, is to "provide leadership in gathering, analyzing and disseminating the biological information necessary to support the sound management of the nation's natural resources."[34] The BLM goes on to explain that this division of the Interior "will offer the essential tools for solving natural resource problems before they become a crisis."[35] The 'essential tool' is the power to regulate. Without regulation the bureaucracy has no power, no hammer, if you will. To claim that any bureaucracy is non regulatory is an oxymoron.
When reporting on environmental disasters, the news media will try to paint a picture of greed or neglect by industry. They want us to believe that private enterprise does not have the desire, knowledge or ability to prevent these tragedies. So "the [NBS] will produce the map we need to avoid the economic and environmental 'train wrecks' we see scattered across the country."[36]
We need to wake up. The national government will not save us; it will only regulate us. Have we forgotten that it was a socialistic government that was rigidly regulated which spawned the Chernobyl disaster?
Economist Nugent is not deterred by regulation nor stagnation in her promotion of democratic socialism. She sets forth the necessary principles for us to abandon our freedoms in the name of our communities' self esteem. The "three guiding principles" that she sets forth for "community economic enhancement and stability" are:
- Define achievable societal goals;
- Accept and share the benefits and costs for change;
- Consider the outcomes of decisions and processes and whether they are consistent with the community's goals.[37]
'Achievable societal goals' refers to the amount of government regulation that the people are willing to endure. To 'accept and share the benefits and costs for change' means to be willing to lose our property, or the ability to use the property. We must also accept the higher taxes that will be necessary to make up for the lost revenues and subsequent higher demands for government services.
Lastly, an 'outcome' is a warm fuzzy for bureaucratic control of the economy. Community goals will be established by consensus, which is not a majority. Bureaucrats will draft regulations based upon their interpretation of these goals. Under this new socialistic 'free market' approach, we weave a larger entanglement of bureaucratic layers than ever before thought possible. Because enterprise is dangerous, consensus will protect us. Then we will all feel good about the additional restrictions upon our lives.
Nugent submits three avenues that "do not result from traditional, isolated economic decision making"[38] to accomplish her "three guiding principles."
1) Growing only as fast and in ways that the human population and natural resource availability and regeneration can support.[39]
This is not a promotion of supply side economics. I don't think she believes that the marketplace has the ability to predict and adapt itself to increasing, or decreasing demands and resources. She proposes bureaucratic control with emphasis on data collection.
2) Keeping track of current conditions and progress. . . . adopting 'indicator' or 'quality of life' measurement systems to provide information and guide policy decisions, from land use to educational resource decisions.[40]
Political indicators will control resource allocation. Government schools will be reduced from teaching to coddling; with emphasis on self esteem, sexual confidence and saying 'no' to drugs. Students will be focused on feeling good about themselves. They will not notice their lack of skills for making a living outside the career path selected by the public private partnership of government schools.
3) As life changes more quickly than before, and local, regional and global influences are more pressing, a system is needed to ensure maintenance for the community's priorities. . . . knowing how many jobs at what skill and income level are provided. . . natural resources are needed. . .[41]
This proposed bureaucratic management of the economy will bring industry, jobs and resources under the control of the national government and large corporations. Environmental propaganda will be used to protect large monopolies. Communities will operate as a cohesive unit, one with the earth and organized by bureaucrats.
Small enterprises will be a thing of the past as we eliminate "isolated decision making." Nugent also claims that we "must be prepared and have a mechanism to reject those enterprises and activities that are inconsistent with long term viability."[42] In other words, we must remove the remnant of private enterprise, making all industry a franchise of the state.
Who will decide what is good for the earth? If man's entrepreneurial spirit is hostile to the environment, what is his bureaucratic spirit? Is the character of bureaucracy more charitable than the businessman? Absolutely not! This is out of the realm of possibility and will be demonstrated in the following chapters. Bureaucracies produce regulations for managing the masses. They use the technologies of the masses to conform us to their crises rather than to promote our well being.
Eventually the crises will consume life itself. Resource extraction is presumed to be harmful to the earth, but we cannot survive without it. So the environmentally responsible course of action will be to limit people, limit life. If we believe that the earth is more valuable than man, we will accept abortion, euthanasia and suicide as acceptable alternatives. These will be the tools for, "improving the quality of life's experiences for those who live in the North Cascades region."
Footnotes:
[1]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[2]"Throughout the conference, many notable speakers presented papers of their latest economic and ecological research of the North Cascades, supporting international land management on an ecosystem basis." cit., "Conference Focuses on Goals for Common Future," op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[3]"ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: A science based management approach that provides natural habitat for the benefit of all species and maintains the structural and functional integrity of an ecosystem while providing economic benefits at a level that the ecosystem can sustain" op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[4]Rachel Nugent, Ph.D. "Sustaining the Economy of the North Cascades," op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[5]Genesis 3:19, God told Adam that he would eat his food by the sweat of his brow. see also Genesis 2:15.
[6]According to the GEA, Congress allocated $15.3 million in 1994, to create employment for displaced timber workers. 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.
[7]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[8]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[9]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[10]op. cit., Sen. Murray.
[11]Al Gore, op. cit., "Senator Malthus," The Wall Street Journal.
[12]op. cit., Sen. Murray. She has difficulty delineating between diminished supply and over regulation.
[13]op. cit., Ray & Guzzo, p. 109.
[14]Just as this book is going to press, I had the privilege to talk with a couple of outfitters who apprised me of what is happening to their ‘tourist industry.’ One of these outfitters was recently denied their permit renewal in the Buckhorn Wilderness of the Olympic National Forest. The official reason was that they were not able to conform to the needs assessment of the Wilderness Act. In other words, they could not prove that they need to be there. According to the outfitter, they agree that the wilderness is subject to overuse, but the window for the outfitter is only 100 days per year. Other uses are not curtailed. It would seem to me that if the bureaucrats were really concerned with the overuse and abuse to the wilderness, they would widen the window for outfitters, who know the area and exercise responsible use, and reduce the window for other users. Another aspect that was brought up was the recent efforts to reduce the number of outfitters. In one year the permitted outfitters within the Olympic National Park jumped from eleven to thirty five. The government is trying to pare this down and will not be renewing many of these permits. Those who do renew will have to demonstrate why they need to be there and why they cannot do the same thing someplace else. Both of these examples bring out the hypocrisy or deceit of Senator Murray and the other promoters of the international park who promise that our disenfranchised loggers will find new careers in the tourist industry. The current policy is to dispossess the outfitters who are using the parks and forests now. Let’s look at this rationally. We are trying to pare down the less than three dozen outfitters within the Olympic National Park, but we are promising that dispossessed loggers will find new careers as outfitters and tour guides. How many loggers do we have in this State, ten thousand? fifteen thousand? With the recent curtailing of logging on the Olympic Peninsula alone, how many loggers are dispossessed, one thousand? five thousand? The promoters’ claims are less than honest. We are being mollified with positive sound-bites.
[15]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[16]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[17]op. cit., Gov. Lowry.
[18]ed. cit., Gov. Lowry.
[19]Geraldine Payton, "A Proposal to Establish Cascades International Park," Columbiana magazine, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 19.
[20]This money is really not theirs. It is the tax money from the masses.
[21]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[22]op. cit., Sen. Murray.
[23]Imbert Mathee, PI reporter, "Tourists From Abroad Stay Away From Seattle In Droves," Seattle Post Intelligencer, (03 Jan 95).
[24]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[25]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[26]op. cit., Payten.
[27]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[28]Genesis 1:26.
[29]op. cit., Nugent.
[30]id.
[31]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: Rangeland Reform ‘94."
[32]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: National Biological Survey."
[33]id.
[34]id.
[35]id.
[36]id.
[37]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter. Numbering added.
[38]"traditional, isolated economic decision making" is a politically correct term that is phrased such to get us to accept the premise that private entrepreneurs and industry are archaic concepts that no longer work.
[39]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[40]id.
[41]id.
[42]op. cit., Nugent, Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.