Class Discussion: Rooted in the Soil

I. The context – What’s this all about?  Environmental conservation versus use of natural resources.

a. Example 1: National forests (Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Alaska, etc.) – Forested land is owned public, by and large.  Preserving forest rather than harvesting for lumber protects natural habitats but threatens the local economy.  Lumber companies, school districts, and communities suffer from the loss of income (pg. 139).

i. Discussion: How do you strike a balancing between protecting natural habitats and human habitats?  Where will these people go and what will they do if their local economy is crippled?

b. Example 2: Private land – Endangered plants and animals are protected by public concerns over pest control methods, but the land they live on is often owned and used by private holders.  Forcing conservationism on these areas not only affects the economy, but the question of private property (pg. 139).

i. Discussion: At what point does the protection of a species trump the personal rights of a U.S. citizen?  Are landholders at the mercy of migratory species?  Is it any private citizen’s or organization’s responsibility to give up their property or livelihood for the protection of a natural habitat?

II. The problem – Private landowners do not engage environmentalists in the political arena.  Why?

a. Reason 1: Cultural bias – The media favors environmental causes and any individual or company with financial interests that threaten the environment are automatically considered evil (pg. 141).

i. Discussion: Is this untrue?  Can you name a single pop culture example of a corporation’s interests being given fair due in an environmental dispute?

b. Reason 2: Too globally minded – Environmentalism does not take local concerns into consideration.  It is so focused on the big picture of habitats and ecosystems that it is not accessible to the people who are directly affected, and possibly harmed, by conservationist policies.  The USFWS has no program in place for interacting with the public, for instance (pg. 141).

i. Discussion: Is environmental policy so important that it should be formed without consulting or accepting input from the people that it directly affects?

III. Case study – Endangered Species Act and the golden-cheeked warbler, this act and in the specific case of this species, the USFWS and the private landholders who own golden warbler habitat are caught in a catch 22. 

a. USFWS’ side: The USFWS has the authority to “force sale” of any land that they deem necessary for the protection of the golden-cheeked warbler, provided the owner for that land.  They do not, however, have the budget to buy the amount of land they need, so their only option is to attempt a cooperative agreement with the private landowners (pg. 143).

b. Landowners’ side: They do not trust the USFWS because of the lack of public forum in the organization and because forced sales make them appear to be an unregulated threat to private property (pg. 143).

c. Discussion: Is the authority to force sale an excessive amount of power for the USFWS to wield?  Would they be better off without that authority, since they cannot afford to wield it anyway?  What policies might improve relations between the USFWS and private landowners?

IV. Understanding the landowners – In order to help understand the hostility exhibited toward conservationist interests.

a. Methods: Informant-directed interviews – Ranchers and farmers are typically associated with a high degree of self-identification; therefore, an unstructured interview provides the best environment for those self-determined results to come out (pg. 145)

i. Discussion: Would a different methodology better revealed an understanding of the landowners’ perspective?

b. Analysis: Mythic criticism – The results of the study were compiled by identifying common themes, attributing significance to certain of those themes, and then identifying and forming mythic relationships between those themes (pg. 146).

i. Definition of “myth/mytheme”: A cultural value or worldview, common throughout a people (pg. 147).

ii. Discussion: Was this a valid method of analysis?  Would a more quantitative approach, to preserve the perspective of the interviewed landowners, been favorable?

c. Results: The farmers and ranchers considered good land stewardship to come from natural wisdom and practical experience.  The USFWS is not part of their world and so it cannot know the best way to protect their world.  Landowners do care about conservation but are threatened by any way of pursuing it other than their own way (pg. 148).

i. Discussion: How might an organization like the USFWS bridge this gap?

V. Landowner values – “Mythemes”

a. Common sense: Experience is the best way to learn.  This value is relevant not as a unique quality held by ranchers and farmers, but as an essential component of the other two values (pg. 149).

b. Independence: Because it is their responsibility, it is also their privilege to make decisions about the land (pgs. 150-151).

c. Human-Land Connection: Health of the land is connected to health of the self; they have grown up with it and owe it to the land to take care of it (pg. 152).

VI. Actual values vs. perceived myths

a. Frontier hero: The interviewed farmers and ranchers did not consider themselves to be “conquerors” of the land.  Restraint is better than domination (pg. 155).

b. Agrarian: The interviewed farmers and ranchers did consider themselves agrarian.  They believed in a moral and religious connection with the land or industrialization - such as seen at Arches National Park. (pg. 156).

VII. Stewardship over ownership 

a. A lifestyle, not a job: The ranchers and farmers were primarily concerned with maintaining their connection to the land, not necessarily with the fact that they owned the land (pg. 156).

b. Freedom to decide: Common sense lead different ranchers to the same end by different means, but all considered their choices good and all had a similar outcome.  Independence means not only taking possession of something but doing it your own way (pg. 157).

c. Healthy land equals healthy people living off the land (pg. 158).

VIII. Problems with the stewardship myth

a. Not all live up to the ideals.  There is no means for regulating those who abuse the land (pg. 158).

b. When forced to choose between the health of the land and the health of themselves, the ranchers will choose themselves.  Profit will logically prevail over self-imposed conservation methods (pgs. 158-159).

c. Common sense does not always measure up to science in determining what is best for the land, for the animals living off it, or even the people making their living off of the land and animals (pg. 159).

IX. Reconciliation of mythemes – The stewardship principles of the landowners can cooperate with the ideals of environmental protection.  

a. Aldo Leopold: His land ethic is a major inspiration to most conservation agencies. He argued that a successful land ethic relies on private landowners, not outside experts (pg. 160).

X. Improving public discourse

a. Against: An organization that operates on as large a scale as the USFWS does cannot afford to be a democracy.  It is an agency, not a government, and it needs to function on policies, not discussions (pgs. 161).

b. For: Cooperation of private landowners is needed, and it will not occur until they feel like they have some power to affect policy at the USFWS.  People will not cooperate when they feel doing so makes them helpless (pg. 162).

XI. Final discussion

a. Is the stewardship myth of the ranchers realistic?  Does claiming these values in an interview make them true?  Even if they are true, do these values outweigh the value of scientific expertise that an agency could provide?

b. Does the USFWS owe an increased public discourse to the people whose lives it affects?  Would it be worth the added complication to achieve cooperation?  Is cooperation even viable?

References

Peterson, T. R., & Horton, C. C. (1995). Rooted in the soil: How understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81(2), 139-166.