Nate's Corner -ARE THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY SCAMS CREEPING INTO CLASSROOMS?

Check out the
CYBN Flash Intro!

www.oxygenhealth.com

ARE THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY SCAMS
CREEPING INTO CLASSROOMS?
Nate Dickinson

The 2002-2003 issue of Wilderness, the once a year publication of the Wilderness Society, has a promotional piece on its back cover appealing for a donation of $50 to help bring Mother Nature into the classroom. It asks "Let Mother Nature teach our kids a thing or two." Each subscribed student would receive a copy of Wilderness and an information packet.

This sounded so interesting that it prompted a review of the annual to find out if they truly were interested in teaching school children what the natural would was all about. Efforts were to made to achieve objectivity, but it was suspected that the evaluation might end up negative, knowing that the Wilderness Society was another of the many well-heeled, ultra-green environmental groups that dabble in bad science or no science at all, play on emotions, and practice deception. At times these groups assume the role of social engineers, effecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans.

The review focused on passages questionable in respect to appropriateness as lessons for young students. In the President's letter mention is made of a group, Businesses for the Northern Forest, which consists of "business leaders" in northern New York and New England, who make the case that safeguarding the region's forest land will pay dividends for local economies. How much effort has been and will be made to sincerely consider the interests of local people and the long-standing industries. A lot of hostility exists, especially as a result of tactics being employed. The track record of organizations such as the Adirondack Park Agency are a dismal commentary on civility and the Northern Forest Alliance, of which the Wilderness Society is a member, has all the earmarks of a self-appointed savior of the Planet Earth alliance whose main goal is power and control. Children really should be encouraged to ask questions about problems and needs, before buying into programs that have major impacts.

The President of the Wilderness Society then notes that they have been working alongside the Gwich'in Indians of northern Alaska to help support their source of food and to keep oil rigs out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Is this to suggest that oil drilling is not compatible with these people's interests? Is not there much support for drilling from the natives, especially in light of their anemic economy? And, are not efforts being made to make it clear that only an extremely small percent of this tundra refuge would be involved, there is little valid evidence to indicate any adverse impacts on wildlife and flora, and that the United States has an ever-increasing need to become more energy independent? Why does not the Society care to encourage any type of usage that does not conflict with the primary purpose of various public lands? One would hope that school children would be presented with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Reference is made in the letter to their quest to protect national monuments, which of course is a noble undertaking when they are threatened and one that should be the representatives of the people's undertaking. School-age children must be told that a monument is a site that does not require a vast acreage to protect it. And, will they be informed of the abuses of authority in designations of monuments by the previous administration, and how they ran roughshod over the local people and their interests, such as in southeastern Utah? Obviously, this discussion is getting way off course in respect to teaching children what Mother Nature has to say. Could it be that the Wilderness Society has little interest in consulting Mother Nature?

The 2002-2003 edition of Wilderness contains a highlighting of the notable achievements of the past year. As might be expected, politics was bound to enter the scene. The Bush administration is attacked for undermining many land protection laws and policies, but no explanation is given on just what they are referring to and whether or not such was justified. However, despite whatever these might be, they had much to celebrate with increases in wilderness acreage. Do you suppose that they will encourage children to ask pertinent questions as to how much wilderness is needed and for what reason? Will the Society explain to them that humans also have needs that must be met for survival? Or will they explain that their great country has a superabundance of open space to meet all sorts of needs?

Another notable is the 58.5 million acres of road-free, roadless areas, whatever that designation means. Is the Society prepared to make an objective case to the students for maintaining road-less areas with an honest discussion of the pro's and con's? Will the admission be made that due to their status, very few people will ever get to see the bulk of the acreage? They take pride in preventing logging proposals from going forward in the Tongass National Forest of Alaska, which for emotional appeal they label as the only largely intact rain forest left in the world's temperate zones. Will they explain that the economy in the Ketchican area depends on logging and that the federal government broke its promises to the people? Will they relate to the school children what Mother Nature has to say about this, and that she adapts very well to logging operations? And will they point out that the enabling legislation for the creation of National Forests specified that they were to guarantee future supply of wood?

The Society takes credit for creating a network of western Maine artisans to show how local forests could yield quality products without harming the environment. Are they prepared to give sound, objective reasons why some activities do harm, while others do not? And, they should explain that for eons Mother Nature has shown her astonishing resiliency to man's activities and then provide a valid definition of environmentally sound. Are they prepared to explain why some sites are natural treasures and others not? Any answer is bound to be subjective and place arbitrary values on the works of nature. Are they not all treasures despite the fact that many may not be pretty? It is stated that habitat vital to the survival of the Florida panther and other species that depend on the National Wildlife Refuges was protected. Is this a valid statement in respect to what really is vital and do you supposes that Mother Nature might show otherwise? Students should be encouraged to let her make the statements. So much for the notable achievement section.

This discussion is obviously getting carried away. Apologies are in order, but this is usually the case when one reviews the writings of any of the liberal environmental groups, the bulk of which are short on common sense.

"Notes From the Field" follows the lead of previous sections of the annual, with unsubstantiated statements about the need for more wilderness resulting from their insatiable appetite-packrat mentality; the evils of timber harvesting; the need for more special areas to protect ecological, recreational, and historic features, which incidentally are common to all sites; protracted conflicts from logging and snowmobiling; the growing need for wildlife habitat, clean watersheds, and backcountry recreation areas; the need for locking areas into the National Wilderness Preservation System; the hazards to local water quality; the wonders of biodiversity; and on and on. The impression is created that man either does not belong or when present he should not leave any evidence that he was there. Just what are they trying to teach the school children? This obvious brainwashing effort is certainly going to encourage objective thinking, a commodity in short supply throughout much of academia.

Then comes an article by John Daniel's; an Oregon poet, essayist, and environmental journalist; entitled "The Newest Crown Jewels." The piece begins in a very pleasant and impartial manner stating that when George W. Bush's presidency was only days old a fit of moaning and gnashing of teeth arose from his Secretary of Interior Gale Norton, certain members of Congress, and otherwise gleeful extractive industries. The cause of their loud anguish was identified as the National Monuments and the protection they are afforded. Credit is given to the pen of Bill Clinton for the new crown jewels. Of course they could be characterized as such long before the past president was born. This article makes it clear that the society is a political animal and just who they feel are the good guys. It is also stated that Secretary Norton's pitch is little more than a smoke screen to facilitate major resource extraction. This, of course. is utter nonsense. The objection to Clinton's actions was the expansion of a monument site to a vast acreage surrounding it where other uses are compatible. If the Wilderness Society is interested in expanding its realm into the schools, they could at least set a decent example of how individuals with different interests can quietly sit down and work things out, without name calling and the throwing of rocks. This is a great nation with a wealth of resources and there is more than ample room to meet all needs and desires. This should be the message. And, Daniels should be asked to identify those he refers to as despising monuments. He certainly has it all wrong. They do mean a lot to the President and Interior Secretary.

The next article is entitled "Wilderness Advocates Pursue Coast to Coast Agenda" which is indeed revealing in respect to the Society's goal. Such was launched by the Wildlands Project, one of the most radical elements of the environmental movement back in 1993. Are they going to bother to explain to the students that the goal was the rewilding of 50 percent of the North American continent, to a large measure as a result of a disdain for people and their industry and technology. Then comes "Trying to Tame the Wildfire Debate." Good luck on this one, with the mess that has been created by mismanagement. If the truth were told, the students would learn much about Mother Nature. It becomes more and more obvious that this school-involvement program has little to do with teaching students, but rather how to effectively brainwash them,

Next in line is "Adventures on Roads Less Graveled" which has to do with Bill Clinton's Roadless Area Conservation Rule. It would appear that the aim is to create the impression that roadless areas are in short supply, whether they involve public or private lands. Questions are raised regarding supply and demand and as to just how many acres of land must be set aside to meet the needs of one skier, mountain biker, hiker or whatever. A good lesson for students would be involvement in true planning and decision-making, rather than encouraging a more, more, more attitude. This, of course, would not be in line with the Wilderness Society's agenda.

This review has now covered close to one half of the 2002-2003 edition of Wilderness . The remainder was read over and it was decided that any other comments would be redundant. The necessary points regarding the appropriateness of the Society's literature for the stated purpose of letting "Mother Nature teach our kids a thing of two" have been made. Mother Nature, has much to say, and one must take the time to listen closely. Apparently the Wilderness Society does not have the time. More important things are on their agenda. It is suggested that, if they are sincere, they totally alter their campaign and focus on the scientific aspects and the workings of the natural world. The thought process must be stimulated so that the younger generation will be in a position to sensibly manage America's valuable natural resources.

February 26, 2003 Nate Dickinson

Printer Friendly Version

HOME | CONTACT | STORIES | SEARCH