Loving the West to Death

Comments

• expat wrote on December 05, 2008, 12:18PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  As a person who grew up on a ranch near GJ I can say that what has happened to the western slope with the natural gas boom and the development that came along with it is incredibly sad. The western slope of Colorado is one of the least populated and most beautiful places left in the lower 48. I am an environmentalist but I also cannot excuse the green liberal elites who demand their little piece of wilderness and buy up ranch and mountain land to build their western getaways. But if I had to choose between the two, I would take the greenies and recreation people over the gas development any day.

• consternationist female wrote on December 05, 2008, 03:42PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  I'm a Westerner born and bred, and harbor a respect and fierce love that I inherited from my father for the wild places. I've been a dedicated environmentalist since I was very young. Thirty-five years ago I was privileged to help found an important environmental organization, the Idaho Conservation League; and spent many active years helping it to grow, to educate others about our natural heritage and to fight for protective legislation.
  My somewhat purist beliefs are now archaic, it seems, though I continue to hold them and am so reluctant to compromise. Nonetheless, at almost 69 years of age, I am forced to acknowledge the truth in Gessner's article: there are no easy, sharply-defined answers to the dilemma of preserving ("locking it up", if you will) the environment or loving it to death. There will always be those selfish persons who don't care about their impact, unfortunately. But we can't give up. Education on these issues still seems to me to be the key towards protecting what we love.
  I physically no longer can backpack for two weeks at a time in Idaho's central wilderness mountains, even with a successful artificial hip implant. But I can continue to be a responsible steward. I can still enjoy day hikes in our mountains and carefully poke amongst the tidepools in my now-home town by the ocean, and attempt to have as little impact as possible wherever I go. I can recycle and compost and pick up others' trash. I can volunteer with local organizations who build greenway trails that channel would-be nature lovers, and with those who run environmental research/education centers. I can work with the children in the schools to help their new selves see and understand and appreciate the value of (and ultimately care for) these wild places that still thrill my heart - I want my beloved places there for my grandchildren to learn to love.
  It seems I've become a realist rather than an idealist. In this transformation (of myself and hopefully of others) lies one modest answer to preserving the intrinsic necessity resident in our lovely lands, in nourishing our human spirit. This is now my legacy.

• Tom Holub wrote on December 13, 2008, 04:50PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  I was struck by the image on the magazine cover; Moab is one of my favorite places on the planet. I was further amused to see the reference in the article to the Moab MUniFest, for that is the event that first drew me to the area, back in 2003. I've returned every year since.

  The challenges faced in the West are similar to those faced by eco-tourist areas everywhere; eco-tourism itself has an impact, but often the alternatives involve more onerous and impactful development; slash-and-burn farming, resource depletion, cattle grazing. Clearly a balance must be struck. Moab continues to draw me, and dozens of my friends, to appreciate the natural beauty of the area, support the local economy, and, yes, ride on trails and occasionally disturb the soil or plants. Any use has an effect, even though our group has a strong environmental conscience. But if there were no tourists to appreciate the place, who would protect it from drilling, strip mining and worse?

  The one issue I have with the article is the implied equation of non-motorized adventure sports (mountain biking/unicycling, hiking or rafting) with motorized off-road sports. The environmental impacts of mountain biking are essentially nil compared to the impacts of Hummer tours, so those activities should be considered distinct when considering the potential uses of public land.

  The article suggests that public use of these lands is increasing, but the reality is that attendance is down at nearly all of our national parks. It may be the case that demographic and cultural shifts are bringing people to places like the Slickrock Trail and other BLM lands more than to Arches or Canyonlands. Our current concept of wilderness and parkland, partly inspired by Stegner, has created a situation where the parks are viewed as places for serious, almost academic study, rather than places to experience and enjoy the outdoors. One thing is sure; if those who manage our wild lands fail to find a way to connect with the younger generations who are charged with the future stewardship of those lands, at some point there will be no one left to speak for the land.

  I'll be back in Moab in March: riding the trails, appreciating the breathtaking beauty, and, to the extent that it is possible, leaving no trace. And I'll continue to speak for the land.

• Green Biker wrote on December 14, 2008, 08:03AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  David Gessner can hardly conceal the ax he's trying to grind on the backsides of mountain bikers. First he tries to establish his own credibility by saying he was once one of them. Then he tries to cleverly tie them to the extraction industry and the ORV crowd.

  Regardless of what they're wearing, those *lycra-clad* folks have often been on the leading edge of land protection movements. In fact, dozens of mountain bike groups all over this country have worked tirelessly and successfully extraction industries, ORVs and developers from gobbling up even more of our precious resources.

  This article is right in a lot of cases, but Gessner can barely hide his disdain for the clothing bikers choose to wear, which is immaterial to the larger issue of protecting the land.

  And, unless I'm mistaken, he drove a lot of miles to do this story. Wouldn't that further contribute to the degradation of the places he portends to protect?

• Mike Vandeman, Ph.D. wrote on December 30, 2008, 06:30PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  As someone who has witnessed Tom Holub poaching trails closed to mountain biking and unicycling, I have to say that his claims and those of mountain bikers aren't honest. The science confirms that mountain biking and unicycling are very harmful to the land, and much more so than hiking (see http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7). The damage that he and his peers do to the land also gives the lie to their claim that those destructive sports cause people to care about the land and want to protect it. The truth is that they only care about vehicular access and the thrills that it brings them, and not about protecting the land and wildlife from their extreme sports. I wonder what the REAL reason is that they are unwilling to visit the parks on foot? I have been asking for 14 years, and have never heard a good answer to that question.

• Buzz wrote on January 04, 2009, 10:33PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  This is a very long article, interesting to read, yet I can never tell what the author is saying. Maybe that's considered literature; I don't know.

  What I do know is this - - -

  Moab (Grand County) was all about resource extraction and building roads. The County Comish really wanted to build a highway across the Colorado River to Island in the Sky, and then across the Green into the Maze. And much more. Then a bunch of bikers and rafters moved in and two things happened: 1) The votes shifted; the old boys couldn't win every election; 2) It no longer made sense to build roads everywhere because they could make more money selling scenery.

  Good! So in case anyone remains as unsure about this point as this article is, recreation was, is, and will be a FAR better economic development path for the environment than the resource extraction model that Grand County was avidly pursuing prior to the bike boom. One could say that bikes saved the place. To continue, the Bush Administration has proposed major new gas leases for the area, a fight which has been joined by the bike lobby, which has votes (riders) and money (the bike industry) to lend to the battle.

  And that's the way the game has always been played. John Muir founded the Sierra Club with two functions: 1) Take trips to enjoy the high country; 2) Protect the high country. A simple yet important plan: until people are appreciating and enjoying nature, they won't get passionate about protecting it.

  Somehow in modern times this simple plan is being questioned. Our modern society seems to have fostered an unconscious "People are bad" mentality. This strange and unhealthy psychological state now subtly permeates the environmental movement, with really bad consequences. Now instead of "bicyclists", we have "lycra-clad bikers". What the heck does that mean? What does that add to the conversation, except to start the article by revealing one's personal bias, to abandon scientific language, and to alienate the people who you really should be enlisting to help the cause?

  I think it would be terrific if we all were rich and retired, and used all our money to buy millions of acres out west and turn it all into nature preserves. Then put a really big fence around it because the other 99% of the citizenry needs to work for a living, a nature preserve doesn't do much for the local economy, it doesn't pay any property taxes either, so people will be really hungry and a huge fence like we're building on the Mexican border is the only thing that will "save" it.

  Maybe that's not such a terrific idea after all. Maybe some hikers and bikers and rafters aren't such a bad deal. The deer couldn't care less. Why would anyone else?

• alexa wrote on February 04, 2009, 07:26PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  This article was really interesting to me. I am hopeful that the land will remain untouched by large corporations and sustain its natural beauty. I have traveled out west a few times, mostly to Arizona and New Mexico and have been amazed at the sheer vastness of certain spots.

• austin wrote on February 04, 2009, 10:04PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  i agree that one of the greatest things about the west is the scale at which nature can be enjoyed. It definitely puts you in your place to be in the presence of such large surroundings and I think on some level people crave that momentary realization of how small we are. As the west develops I hope that the complete largeness of it all is maintained and the humbling experience of being part of it continues.