Snow Bowl Protesters

[Tough_Boots]

not sure if this is affecting Humphries access but protesters are up there this morning keepin' things interesting halting construction.

http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2011/06/l ... wbowl.html

[Tough_Boots]

Its funny to see a bunch of outdoors enthusiasts respond more strongly against people for defacing a wall then against something that can potentially destroy a beautiful area of land. No wonder our environment is totally screwed. Just think of all the things corporations and the government told us wouldn't have negative environmental impacts and then turned into disasters... Remember how safe off-shore drilling was supposed to be? I don't typically condone vandalism but the irony of the situation is absolutely laughable. We accept the easiest answer possible that allows us to go back to lives as quickly as possible and with the least amount of confrontation. Oh, hey... gotta go. 30 Rock is on.


Plus... the protestors would consider their church to be being vandalized... so why care about someone else's church? Doesn't make sense.

[big_load]

Its funny to see a bunch of outdoors enthusiasts respond more strongly against people for defacing a wall then against something that can potentially destroy a beautiful area of land. No wonder our environment is totally screwed.

If I wanted my neighbor to join me in opposing the snowmaking, I wouldn't start by spray-painting his church. If somebody else spray-painted his church in ostensibly the same cause, I would make a more sincere effort to distance myself from such actions. It's not just the decent thing to do, it's less likely to be counterproductive to the cause. You're entitled to your opinion on the snowmaking, which I suspect is no different than mine, but I reject being chastised for not endorsing vandalism.

[Tough_Boots]

and if you were one of our indigenous peoples, you would have hundreds of years of history proving that playing nice doesn't work...

[JimmyLyding]

This reminds me of the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) protesters here in the Bay Area. Some idiots were shot and killed by BART police (separate incidents) after brandishing weapons, and this cadre of protesters have taken up the notion that the BART police needs to be disbanded. This disparate effort ranges from Anony**** releasing the names, phone #s, and addresses of BART cops to protesters virtually shutting down BART stations during the evening commute. Messing with people's lives is not any way to get them to adopt your viewpoint. Anyone who has ridden BART most assuredly appreciates the cops who keep the stations and trains safe. Any reasonable person would conclude that releasing police officers' personal information is a dangerous and criminal act. No reasonable person likes getting home at 9:00 PM rather than 6:30 no matter how just the protest that kept them standing on the street is.

I don't have a problem with any protest movement that doesn't disrupt their fellow citizens' lawful use of a resource whether it be the Kachina Peaks or BART.

Thinking about this another way: what if Snowbowl's plans included eliminating the Humphrey's Trail? Or charging for parking? I imagine every person who regularly posts on these boards would be incensed. I don't think it's productive to denigrate one group's use of a mountain because that group is small and has virtually zero political power, and I don't think anyone here has done that. However, why is skiing viewed as having more importance than Native American religious beliefs? Because skiers and boarders far outnumber Native American activists who are ticked about Snowbowl, and contribute far more to Flagstaff's economy. Is it right? I don't know. Is it the way things are almost always done in this country? Most assuredly yes....

This is ultimately a failure of leadership. Environmental groups that are regarded as being "fringe" by mainstream America and Native American interests argue for one solution (for different reasons), but commercial interests argue for another. Commercial interests dangle the dollar with the argument "More ski days = more hotel visits = more restaurant revenue = more condo/2nd home sales = larger sales at local retailers ad nauseum." Environmentalists argue that the Kachina Peaks are being despoiled and the water supply is being endangered while Native Americans argue that their sacred mountain will be desecrated. It's easy to see which argument wins in the court of Public Opinion. The leadership void is exemplified by the lack of prominent individuals (at least to someone who doesn't live in Flagstaff) who cogently argue their side's points. It all comes down to environmental impact statements and court rulings. We have no one to rally public opinion on most of the issues similar to this one, and we all suffer. I'm not referring to someone who can find a solution that appeases both sides of the argument, but someone who can make their argument without resorting to soundbites, fearmongering, and name-calling.

[DarthStiller]

Its funny to see a bunch of outdoors enthusiasts respond more strongly against people for defacing a wall then against something that can potentially destroy a beautiful area of land.

What specifically do you believe is potentially destroying the land, the development itself or the use of reclaimed water? I would agree with the idea that development isn't the best thing, but I think the use of the reclaimed water is what the protesters seem to be the most riled up about. If you're saying that the use of the reclaimed water is environmentally irresponsible, then I would say you need to educate yourself further on that particular issue. But you're being kind of vague there.

and if you were one of our indigenous peoples, you would have hundreds of years of history proving that playing nice doesn't work...

I got the impression from this article that the graffiti wasn't done by tribe members. Although I guess that doesn't mean it wasn't. But the quote at the end of the guy, like, saying, like whatever dude, gave a strong impression of this being kids with more free time than common sense.

[azbackpackr]

I would be more against them tearing up the hill to make more ski runs and parking lots. I think they are actually going to do just that. To me it seems the reclaimed water is an issue only in that it could be used elsewhere. Bringing more people to Snowbowl is not practical in terms of the traffic. If they want to enlarge the ski area and bring in more people they should also have a mandatory shuttle bus system. Hwy 180 just can't handle the traffic.

[azdesertfather]

and if you were one of our indigenous peoples, you would have hundreds of years of history proving that playing nice doesn't work...

What we did to the Native Americans was horribly wrong; no one other than racists would disagree there. But of course with your statement above, that doesn't make the opposite true, either...you can ask the Palestinians on that one. Their horrible plight is only made worse with violence. I'm not assuming you are saying the opposite is true, just thought it was important to clarify that hurting others to get what you want doesn't pay, and it shouldn't. Jesus, Ghandi and MLK all showed the world in the end that you can disagree with the establishment of your day and win through non-violence — by peacefully, persistently getting your message across and by doing it in the right way, so that others will join you and do the same. That's the only way to get a minority opinion to become a majority opinion, IMO.

[DarthStiller]

the protestors would consider their church to be being vandalized

This is another thing that I think is a distortion of the issue. The San Fran Peaks are not a church. A church is a manmade building/structure that people worship in. If we really were talking about a Navajo church in that literal sense, there would be no argument that it should be left alone. But the Peaks are public lands that are currently being used by several other groups of people. Other uses of that land (skiing, development for revenue, or hiking trails) all seems to be in conflict with their use (or intended use) of that land. The tribes are trying to make the argument that their religion gives them exclusive authority over this public land to the exclusion of everyone else who isn’t of their religion and/or ethnic background. That is really the core of their argument that the objections to reclaimed water use and development depend upon as a valid argument. That is very different from saying that their church is being violated, and I think it’s a dangerous and irresponsible way to blur the real issue.

[big_load]

I would be more against them tearing up the hill to make more ski runs and parking lots. I think they are actually going to do just that. To me it seems the reclaimed water is an issue only in that it could be used elsewhere.

I agree on the expansion. I also wonder not only whether the water could better be used elsewhere, but also whether it's being sold too cheap. I mentioned a few years ago that a perennially unsuccessful (serially bankrupt) ski area near me got the right to pump over a billion more gallons a year of ground water for snowmaking while residential water supplies have been experiencing seasonal shortages. Their argument was that additional snowmaking capacity would make them viable. The truth is that they're not viable even with the enormous handout, but there's always a new sucker when the latest ownership goes under or sells out to stop the bleeding.

[Jim]

Use chalk, it washes off. Problem solved, crisis averted. You're welcome.

As far as the expansion, it is already happening. I posted some pics of it and mentioned smoke from fires at Snowbowl this summer. They were rather unpleasantly smoking out the trail with thick, viscous smoke and ash as they were burning green wood, tops, and so on. If completed as planned, the first phase of new runs will be useable this winter. As far as the water goes, I say, if Flagstaff has so much water that we're selling it to a recreation area for disposal, then conservation must be a burden and we really should use as much as we can, on lawns, on exotic water demanding vegetation, washing cars, washing sidewalks and pavements, waste it everywhere in a manner that can't be captured by the sewage system. Flagstaff is spending millions, certainly tens and possibly over a hundred million, to secure well fields and build pipelines to bring water to the city. Report after report say we don't have enough water to sustain the city (or growth )in 25 or 50 years. I guess that is all lies, and we have not only enough, but enough to embrace excess consumption. We don't need to recycle this water for consumption today or need to build advanced treatment plants for water conservation of the fresh ground water, we need to dispose of our excess burdensome water. We simply have too much. So, everyone come on up next winter (pipeline won't be done until 2012-2013) and enjoy the bounty we have. In fact, take some home with you. We have to much and it's crippling us.

[chumley]

I think Flagstaff should cease and desist. Obviously human life there is totally unsustainable. We should follow the Chinese model and limit reproduction. Nothing else should be built and we should close the roads to visitors. It's the only way the place can survive. A hundred years from now, the elk will thank us for our wisdom.

[Tough_Boots]

But the Peaks are public lands that are currently being used by several other groups of people.

Decided by who? The peaks have been sacred ground for much longer than they've been U.S. public lands. Might makes right?

you can ask the Palestinians on that one. Their horrible plight is only made worse with violence.

Comparing this to the Palestinians is oversimplifying both issues which are very very different.

The San Fran Peaks are not a church. A church is a manmade building/structure that people worship in.

OK... maybe not a "building" as church but differentiating it would be putting one culture's definition of a holy place over another.

Jesus, Ghandi and MLK all showed the world in the end that you can disagree with the establishment of your day and win through non-violence — by peacefully, persistently getting your message across and by doing it in the right way, so that others will join you and do the same.

Didn't the ruckus in Madison this year prove that the system gets what the system wants. I mean, seriously. Look at this graffiti thing. There have been protestors camping out up there in the national forest for weeks doing their thing peacefully and they get ignored by the media and quietly brushed aside by new "no camping" ordinances from the ranger district with almost no coverage. Then as soon as a couple bone-heads spraypaint a couple buildings, they're given a ton of state-wide negative attention. Exactly what are their options?

As far as the environmental impact goes. We can argue all day about how clean and safe the water is. Those who tell you its cleaned and filtered are the same ones who ignore all the things that we don't know how to filter out-- such as hormones, remnants of medication, and so on. We have no understanding of what these can potentially do to the environment when pumped in mass. Maybe nothing? Maybe disaster? What happens to an aspen forest after 20 years of absorbing a college town's birth control? I don't know and don't want to find out. The fact is that nobody know.

[DarthStiller]

Decided by who?

It's just a fact, it's what's going on right now.

Might makes right?

No, I'm saying that not allowing a single religion and ethnic identity to serve as exclusive authority over public land is what is right. As I mentioned earlier, if a conservative Christian group tried to make a similar argument that the goverment should or shouldn't allow certain things over other groups because their religion says so, I doubt that they would have this kind of support. And conservative Christians don't have the overt ethnic exclusions that the tribes do in this case. How is that even acceptable?

Comparing this to the Palestinians is oversimplifying both issues

maybe not a "building" as church but differentiating it would be putting one culture's definition of a holy place over another

Who's oversimplifying now?

[Jim]

Conservative Christians have a lot of influence over American life and currently have a much greater impact on the daily lives of a substantially larger percentage of Americans than any of the natives involved in this do. It's so insidious, we hardly even notice. I don't think the hormones will affect the aspen, but you are pretty much guaranteed there will be an affect on the amphibians that breed in what was formerly a high quality watershed: Hart Prairie, which is seasonally wet. I really question what analysis was done for the Environmental Assessment. We keep hearing about how awesome the water quality is. If it's so great, then send it back into the system. If not, why not? As far as I know, there are no municipal water treatment facilities that remove antibiotics, hormones, and medical waste. These things are detected in drinking water in cities that are down stream from other urban areas. Flagstaff is just cutting out the middle man and sending it straight to the source. But, there are other sources of chemicals that mimic estrogens, and people are exposed to those, too. So are other animals. We're really good at jumping at something becuase we claim that as we have no strong data it is harmful, it clearly must be un-harmful. Seems it should be the other way around with something being assumed to be harmful and only after clear data showing no evidence of harm is it deemed to be safe. But, we have a government ruled by corporate monied interests. Round-up is "safe" in the good old USA, but in Europe it's "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms". Here, we use it like water in agribusiness(large production farms). Blah blah, blah, you stopped reading long ago.

[big_load]

I mean, seriously. Look at this graffiti thing. There have been protestors camping out up there in the national forest for weeks doing their thing peacefully and they get ignored by the media and quietly brushed aside by new "no camping" ordinances from the ranger district with almost no coverage. Then as soon as a couple bone-heads spraypaint a couple buildings, they're given a ton of state-wide negative attention. Exactly what are their options?

This reads like an "ends justify the means" argument, and I think it rests on two false dichotomies: 1) the thing that got attention is not necessarily the only thing that would have worked, and 2) the thing that didn't get attention did not necessarily fail because it was insufficiently extreme. They got attention, but they didn't change the outcome. What's the next step? Keep escalating? How does that develop a broader base of public support? How can a decision-maker accede to the demands under those circumstances?

[Tough_Boots]

@big_load

I think part of the issue here is the assumption that the protesters think they are going to win this. The courts made their ruling, the media doesn't give a crap, and the general public doesn't like their easy answers being questioned. The protesters know that. A big part of what they're doing is taking part in America's long history of civil disobedience (funny enough this is something many Americans pride our nation on as long as it's something done in the past). I think there's something very valuable to be said for showing your "powers that be" that you're pissed off and not afraid of showing it in a real way. It might not change this ruling but it will make the governing bodies think twice the next time they want to tarnish what the indigenous community deems as sacred. Our government is not our parents and does not hold the power of God. We're supposed to kick it in the pants every now and then. As far as vandalizing private property, you would have to confront someone who takes part in that to find an argument there. These people are typically few.

[chumley]

Use chalk, it washes off. Problem solved, crisis averted. You're welcome.

Aw come on! Chalk is a finite natural resource and should not be exploited for petty human purposes. Not to mention the environmental and health hazards caused by it's dust when used as a crayon. And of course, when "it washes off" the non-native chalk is introduced to the local groundwater. There must be a better, more environmentally-friendly solution available to vandals whose sole purpose is to save the earth from human disturbance. Certainly they would see this irony? :roll:

[Jim]

Use chalk, it washes off. Problem solved, crisis averted. You're welcome.

Aw come on! Chalk is a finite natural resource and should not be exploited for petty human purposes. Not to mention the environmental and health hazards caused by it's dust when used as a crayon. And of course, when "it washes off" the non-native chalk is introduced to the local groundwater. There must be a better, more environmentally-friendly solution available to vandals whose sole purpose is to save the earth from human disturbance. Certainly they would see this irony? :roll:

Well, of course they walked to the protest site barefooted or wearing a hemp fiber sandal, and the chalk was produced from a sustainable mining operation in a shallow tidal environment. The chalk is free from dyes or inorganic buffers, and when it washes away, because it's just calcium mineral, it blends into the native kaibab limestone derived soils. Care was taken to moisten the chalk so no one's respiratory system would be impacted, and they were certain to make sure children were kept 50 feet from any potential dusts that might occur as it dried. Far better than I can say for the schools that use chalk, or Snowbowl burning piles.

[big_load]

A big part of what they're doing is taking part in America's long history of civil disobedience (funny enough this is something many Americans pride our nation on as long as it's something done in the past). I think there's something very valuable to be said for showing your "powers that be" that you're pissed off and not afraid of showing it in a real way.

Well, there's civil disobedience as in Martin Luther King and civil disobedience as in Bobby Seale. Different approaches, different outcomes.

[Tough_Boots]

@big_load

true... but I would barely compare graffiti to what the Black Panthers were accused of doing.