My question is this: who do you think is listening to Dave Foreman and his ilk? For all of the many, many environmental groups I belong to, I have not heard anything about him or his activities for at least a decade, so I can’t imagine who his power base is supposed to be. It does not seem to me that any of the actions he is advocating have any steam at all…what am I missing?
Great point AND questions, Bob! Who is listening? Lots of folks – you’ll see.
Who is Foreman’s power base? If you don’t count the nongovernmental organziations and major environmental foundation funders, the gubmint is Foreman’s power base, Bob. Yes, federal, state, regional, and sadly, sometimes even local.
Foreman’s not center stage in mainstream environmental discussions these days, but his principles and goals VERY MUCH are. The philosophy, science, and big picture came from him, Soule, and others. The big picture’s responsible for much of what we’ve seen (and will see) take place on federal and state lands and resource management and planning. It drives planning commissions and County Boards of Supervisors too, though few of them realize it.
We don’t realize that what we’ve seen and done so far is part of a larger plan. We adopt new ordinances, prepare new plans – to protect wildlife and improve habitat. We experience new regulations, management changes, and access restrictions on federal lands and see them as random actions to address localized problems and/or improve the environment, habitat, and benefit wildlife. But when you superimpose rewilding goals and principles on the changes here over the last twenty years, a pattern and greater purposes emerge.
Here? In Tuolumne County? For example, did you know that there is already a wildlife corridor planned by California Dept. of Fish and Game and Caltrans for habitat connectivity that covers a broad swath of the Stanislaus River watershed roughly from the Sonora Pass area down to the foothills and the Central Valley? And you know that a good deal of the land below the forest is private… Wait ’til you see the map.
Corridors are to be areas where wildlife can pass unmolested by noise, impassable fencing, and crossing as few roads as possible. While the corridors are said to be “voluntary” when crossing private lands, documents repeatedly note the need to “guide” local land use decisions. That likely means California Department of Fish and Game will require significant mitigation for negative impacts to wildlife for any building activity on private land. Many uses will likely be restricted and/or prohibited.
Further, in July 2010 the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition with the USFWS to compel them to prepare a recovery plan for the gray wolf that includes California and it appears, Tuolumne County. The CBD, an extremely effective litigation organization to promote and protect biodiversity, identifies Tuolumne County on that map as a likely host for wolves. Don’t believe me? Go see the maps on pg. 13.
So besides that, what’s my point?
Well, Bob, the point of this series is that the policies that are driving our federal, state, and local actions come directly from folks who take their cues from Foreman, Michael Soule, and others. They want to take us further than I think most of us are willing to go. If we don’t wake up and question what’s happening, we’ll get there: where we don’t want to go.
No one is talking about Foreman and conservation biology because mainstream America will react exactly like you did in referring to Foreman as “him and his ilk”. The folks who are pushing this don’t want to compromise their progress by talking about Foreman. But once you investigate the dots I’ve connected, I don’t see how the rewilding big picture plan can be denied.
The evidence I’m presenting isn’t from some conspiracy theory. It’s from the rewilding folks: in their own words, on their own websites, and it’s validated by links I’ll provide to implementing agencies , the gubmint, if you will.
I think most environmentalists aren’t pushing this stuff, but are being propelled along without knowing about it. It’s the radical ones that are embedded in federal, state, and regional governments and universities. We’ve got a few here locally too, Bob.
Normal environmentalists – you and others – have much more in common with industry folks doing their best to be light on the land than you do with the radicals. You care about your community. The radicals, quite frankly, don’t.
We’ve got to band together. But unfortunately, every time industry folks talk about good stewardship in grazing or logging, all environmentalists recoil in distrust and disgust. And every time someone mentions “green” or environmental values, the other side recoils in distrust and disgust.
This plays to the benefit of the radicals. The conflict we experience as a result, tears apart communities that could be working together to take care of their natural resources and the economy.
This conflict and the radicals’ disregard for human communities and socioeconomic interests are evident in the controversy over de-listing the gray wolf ( see Rift between the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Defenders of Wildlife). Who could argue that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation isn’t concerned about wildlife or effective in conservation? Read it and see.
The fact of the matter is that communities working with county government, environmental organizations, state and federal agencies, individuals, and others can come up with workable solutions to longstanding and bitter conflict. I’ll publish a posting about that effort – the Owyhee Initiative – soon.
Interestingly, some of the groups that support rewilding were part of the Initiative, a successful process that was signed into law by Pres. Obama last year. It seems they felt that what they got outweighed what they gave up.
My concern in all of this is that we desperately need to wake up and understand where we are being driven and work toward balance instead. But rural communities and their residents, via the local governments that represent them, can’t get to balance without having some leverage: a legitimate seat at the table that allows at least as much influence as those who litigate.
We’ve tried so-called collaborative processes for years and the overall trend hasn’t been good for rural communities and traditional rural ways of life. That’s why I asked industry folks at a Board meeting recently, “how’s that collaboration been working for you?”). They didn’t answer.
The evidence I’ve found will be in my postings over the next few days. Like I warned the other day, connecting the rest of the dots will come together staccato-quick from here on out. And to minimize what you have to read I’ll give it to you in small chunks, in outline form.
You’re about to discover exactly who it is that listens to Foreman and his ilk. Get ready to read, click on links, and connect the dots.
You too, Bob.
Loading... 
