D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
February
2008
Wal-Mart "Flowers" and ATV Tracks
Idealists and pragmatists about wilderness usage have a lot more in common than they realize.
Perceptions are reality. If a person perceives something to be true, then it is true to that person. The only thing more stubborn than a rusty bolt is a person whose mind is made up, and nothing is more futile than trying to change the rusty bolt's nature, especially if the bolt has the stink of politics. Former British Prime Minister and Reagan doppelganger Maggie Thatcher put it best when she opined, "Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus." Mix fashionable politics with popular perceptions, and you come up with the emotional agendas currently being propagated statewide by self-appointed wilderness advocacy groups.
Anecdotally speaking, I think it's safe to assume that there isn't one single American who hates nature (with the possible exception of former Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who is documented to enjoy pan-fried spotted owl with his morning eggs). Nobody wakes up each morning and says, "Gee, wouldn't the world be a better place if we could replace all this messy environment stuff with more parking lots?"
Instead, the only real difference people have about wilderness is pragmatism versus idealism. A pragmatist believes that nature must exist with man, and an idealist thinks man must exist with nature. A pragmatist will put up a fence to keep rabbits out of his garden; an idealist will question the right of the garden to exist and hire legal representation for the rabbits.
The idealists perceive that the average man has a negative impact on wilderness, and only an above-average man (or woman) can change this. A plastic shopping bag stuck on a mesquite bush or a fresh all-terrain vehicle track is evidence that the average man cannot be trusted with our federally owned wilderness. Luckily, these idealists consider themselves to be above average, and perfectly capable of deciding which of their fellow citizens can enjoy public wilderness, and in what capacity. This philosophy was first framed in George Orwell's Animal Farm, in which "all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The pragmatist is a less-equal animal. They enjoy the charms of wilderness without worrying too much about what the idealists are up to. Joe Lunchbox, a charter member of the Public Lands Pragmatist Club, will load up his fishing gear a couple of times a year and tear off for the wilds, communing with nature and a cooler of domestic beer. Statistically speaking, Joe is a responsible user of public lands: He keeps his truck on existing roads, picks up his campsite, and pays his fees. Whether hiking, camping, horseback riding, boating or riding ATVs, the vast majority of our fellow Americans are enjoying wilderness responsibly.
The idealist will strap on the Eddie Bauer backpack, carb up on granola, and go hiking. When they come across the shopping bag and the ATV tracks, they will decry this as evidence of rampant environmental destruction and abuse. The only solution, they know, is to wield legislation that affects all because of the irresponsible actions of a few less-enlightened souls. Idealists have just the right amount of good genetics and education to make these kind of hard calls.
Judging entire groups based on the actions of the few is a stellar way to control uncouth behavior. I mean, that's the whole idea behind one of America's most popular law-enforcement tools, profiling! And frankly, who doesn't like to be singled out based on their appearance? Thankfully, the "more-equal" idealists are able to make judgments upon large groups of recreational users and their pursuits based solely on the plastic bag and ATV track. We should be grateful for their ability to screen out the riff-raff, and to have the courage to categorize people so effortlessly.
Meanwhile, the poor, silly pragmatists have been too busy cleaning their guns and watching NASCAR to make similar generalizations about the idealists. If they really thought about it, it's pretty obvious that every "tree-hugger" loves to spike trees and burn SUVs. If I were a "more-equal" idealist, I would sponsor legislation outlawing sledgehammers and railroad spikes, and prevent the sale of portable gas containers. I might even fund a few studies on the destructive erosion caused by hiking trails, and the wholesale environmental damage caused by horseback riding. Does anyone know if a wilderness area violates any ADA guidelines about handicapped access? I'm just asking.
Nobody is concerned with the environmental impact of hiking or bird watching, because that would be dumb. But aren't these the same arguments being used by the well-funded wilderness activist groups? And what is it about the purity of their wilderness mission that makes it impossible to work toward a compromise? I have read about suggested compromises by the ranchers and off-road vehicle groups, but haven't seen much acceptance for these ideas among the wilderness groups.
Late last year, a conclave of pragmatists came together for an event that wasn't much covered by the media, or attended by any of environmental organizations. In preparation for a BLM-sanctioned national-level event, off-road vehicle owners and enthusiasts came together to clean up some of the most littered areas in the deserts of Doa Ana County. These people didn't dump the garbage, or toss the sofas in the arroyos, but they hauled it all out, as they have done every year for the past several years. As a past participant, I am amazed at the outpouring of support and the quantity of debris removed every year. But I have never seen or heard of similar large-scale cleanup events hosted by any of the idealist groups currently deciding who can and can't use our public lands, and how they can use them.
My intent isn't to widen the divide between the pragmatists and the idealists, but to point out that the two sides have far more in common than believed. Both sides are wilderness enthusiasts, and both sides resent the petty vandalism, littering and abuse inflicted on our lands by an irresponsible few. No matter which side of the issue you are on, ask yourself whether your perception of this issue is a reality, or a belief. Our democracy is built on a model of compromise. Why is wilderness so different? (Well, there are a lot more bugs, and a marked lack of Starbucks locations, but other than that.) Perceptions are reality, and the reality is that there's enough room for everyone in our forests.