What do public lands mean to you?
Posted: Oct 26 2012 5:24 pm
In this election cycle, the inevitable question might get asked: which candidate is better for...blah, blah, blah, blllooooooorp!?!? Since the two parties often have very different views on public lands, with one having members so extreme as to suggest that Federal Lands revert to the states so the lands can be sold off, mined, logged, or otherwise consumed for the short term benefits of jobs and economic gain, I ask the non-partisan question of: What do our public lands mean to you, be they forest lands, desert, range, or some other type?
My answer is a view which I have had for some time; essentially, be they desert to forest to alpine tundra, public lands should first and foremost, be about maintaining biodiversity and habitat or ecosystem maintenance and management. I say management, since for as long as we have had our Holocene ecosystems, humans have been here and they have directly exerted a force on the forests, grass and shrub lands, and savannas, by the use of fire, but also have hunted (most likely exterminating most of the continents mega fauna) and exerted pressures that had an impact on those systems. Though these pressures were likely not as extreme from the time of the demise of the mega fauna up to the 19th century. Today, as we all know, fire as been excluded, and when one occurs in southwestern forests, the result is more often an aberration over the last 10,000 years, rather than a simple renewal. With oaks, shrubs, and other fire resilient species resprouting and occupying lands formerly dominated by fire resistant species like ponderosa pine. Only if lucky will any sky island except the Rincons not resemble the Chiricahua in 30 years. I again feel it is import to note that if a large area, such as 100,000 acres as in places like the Gila Wilderness, was prepared and returned to a wilderness like state, with roads removed, grazing ceased, and thinning successful, I would be in favor of a hands off policy of essentially allowing all fires that began in the area to run their course, and lighting fires on the periphery to enter the area to mimic a natural fire if a large portion had not hosted one in a certain period of time.
Watershed management is the second most important use, with water being the primary driving force for the human population in the west, it seems that water would be close to, if not thee most import use for our public lands, or at least for those that can yield water. The loss of Flagstaff's Inner Basin Water Line for 2 year had a significant impact on water supplies, and added cost to the water supply by the city by requiring additional pumping from the citie's surrounding well fields. Due to infrastructure costs, pumping can still be cheaper than building, maintaining, and importing water from far off surface supplies. In many places, such as along the lower Salt River, water harvested from Lake Roosevelt is a critical part of the supply, just as in the Sierra Nevada, and here in Alamogordo, with wells and springs tapped to sources coming directly from the Sacramento Mountains. It is critical to maintain the surface vegetation to minimize reservoir siltation, and also to control mining, road construction and use, and grazing as well as types of logging, to ensure the soil stays where it should, toxic heavy metals and chemical leachates remain in the rock or do not enter the water supply.
Recreation is the last area I see as an important use, simply because we could live without it, and the lands would still benefit humans and exist if properly maintained, namely through producing water for utilization. Hiking is fairly benign, but surely no one would claim ATV, 4x4 off roading, and heavy motorized use equates to the same level of quiet, unobtrusive use. I'm not saying it needs to be outlawed (though I favor strict limitations on Public Lands), but 4 people on 4 ATVs is not the same as thing as 4 hikers. Even horse riding has an impact, as they are rougher on trails, introduce stool with potential noxious weeds, and could spread disease (pretty rare). Point is, I see recreation as the least important use of public lands, but still important.
What I don't think public lands should be. Public lands are often abused and frequently viewed today as a waste of public money, as though any square of land not producing revenue is somehow a burden on society. I guess my aged Grandfather who died last January at 92 was a burden on the family, but no one ever thought he should earn his keep by paying for his care by being "mined" for an organ, or harvested for his accounting knowledge. Point is, public lands are something requiring attention, love, and respect, not something which should be viewed simply as an area for resource extraction. There is a difference between harvesting water, and hard rock mining or fracking. Fortunately, most of our lands are not capable of being used in this manner, and while I am not saying send it all to Chile, Public Land is not my preferred location for mining.
Logging is a gray area. While logging is necessary to thin the forests and restore their structure to the early 19th century densities, few would argue that the forests of the southwest on Public Land are productive enough to be industrial forests, nor should they be. Harvesting in Lodgepole in Idaho or Colorado at 50 to 80 year intervals is one thing, requiring mixed conifer forests and ponderosa pine forests in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado to be logged for revenue and "job creation" is entirely different. Indeed, if one wants to consider economics, the more productive private and industrial forest lands (many of which are tree farms on very short rotations and replaced formerly highly biodiversity rich natural forests) of the PNW and SE are far more logical places to carry out these sort of operations. Harvesting need not be completely excluded 100% across the forested public landscape, but it is important to recognize that many, if not most sites on Public Land are not productive in an economic sense and have far greater utility when used for other alternatives, namely biodiversity, watershed, and potential low invasive forms of recreation. That might sound elitist, but how many people really enter these sites today, other than perhaps hunters on motorized vehicles? This however is a complicated issue. Still, simply saying logging will restore our forests is like saying alcohol will sober our alcoholics.
No, I am not anti-hunting. In fact, I feel we have too high an herbivore population. In large part due to management practices for stock, such as tank construction, large areas of the forest have too many deer and elk. I do favor predator reintroduction, but that is the perennial environmental bashing issue, and not a likely pillar of the biodiversity house.
You don't have to agree with me, that is just my belief of them today, and how I see them.
What are public lands to you? As a presumptive hiker, how do you view them? Or in general, as someone living in Arizona, New Mexico, or wherever?
My answer is a view which I have had for some time; essentially, be they desert to forest to alpine tundra, public lands should first and foremost, be about maintaining biodiversity and habitat or ecosystem maintenance and management. I say management, since for as long as we have had our Holocene ecosystems, humans have been here and they have directly exerted a force on the forests, grass and shrub lands, and savannas, by the use of fire, but also have hunted (most likely exterminating most of the continents mega fauna) and exerted pressures that had an impact on those systems. Though these pressures were likely not as extreme from the time of the demise of the mega fauna up to the 19th century. Today, as we all know, fire as been excluded, and when one occurs in southwestern forests, the result is more often an aberration over the last 10,000 years, rather than a simple renewal. With oaks, shrubs, and other fire resilient species resprouting and occupying lands formerly dominated by fire resistant species like ponderosa pine. Only if lucky will any sky island except the Rincons not resemble the Chiricahua in 30 years. I again feel it is import to note that if a large area, such as 100,000 acres as in places like the Gila Wilderness, was prepared and returned to a wilderness like state, with roads removed, grazing ceased, and thinning successful, I would be in favor of a hands off policy of essentially allowing all fires that began in the area to run their course, and lighting fires on the periphery to enter the area to mimic a natural fire if a large portion had not hosted one in a certain period of time.
Watershed management is the second most important use, with water being the primary driving force for the human population in the west, it seems that water would be close to, if not thee most import use for our public lands, or at least for those that can yield water. The loss of Flagstaff's Inner Basin Water Line for 2 year had a significant impact on water supplies, and added cost to the water supply by the city by requiring additional pumping from the citie's surrounding well fields. Due to infrastructure costs, pumping can still be cheaper than building, maintaining, and importing water from far off surface supplies. In many places, such as along the lower Salt River, water harvested from Lake Roosevelt is a critical part of the supply, just as in the Sierra Nevada, and here in Alamogordo, with wells and springs tapped to sources coming directly from the Sacramento Mountains. It is critical to maintain the surface vegetation to minimize reservoir siltation, and also to control mining, road construction and use, and grazing as well as types of logging, to ensure the soil stays where it should, toxic heavy metals and chemical leachates remain in the rock or do not enter the water supply.
Recreation is the last area I see as an important use, simply because we could live without it, and the lands would still benefit humans and exist if properly maintained, namely through producing water for utilization. Hiking is fairly benign, but surely no one would claim ATV, 4x4 off roading, and heavy motorized use equates to the same level of quiet, unobtrusive use. I'm not saying it needs to be outlawed (though I favor strict limitations on Public Lands), but 4 people on 4 ATVs is not the same as thing as 4 hikers. Even horse riding has an impact, as they are rougher on trails, introduce stool with potential noxious weeds, and could spread disease (pretty rare). Point is, I see recreation as the least important use of public lands, but still important.
What I don't think public lands should be. Public lands are often abused and frequently viewed today as a waste of public money, as though any square of land not producing revenue is somehow a burden on society. I guess my aged Grandfather who died last January at 92 was a burden on the family, but no one ever thought he should earn his keep by paying for his care by being "mined" for an organ, or harvested for his accounting knowledge. Point is, public lands are something requiring attention, love, and respect, not something which should be viewed simply as an area for resource extraction. There is a difference between harvesting water, and hard rock mining or fracking. Fortunately, most of our lands are not capable of being used in this manner, and while I am not saying send it all to Chile, Public Land is not my preferred location for mining.
Logging is a gray area. While logging is necessary to thin the forests and restore their structure to the early 19th century densities, few would argue that the forests of the southwest on Public Land are productive enough to be industrial forests, nor should they be. Harvesting in Lodgepole in Idaho or Colorado at 50 to 80 year intervals is one thing, requiring mixed conifer forests and ponderosa pine forests in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado to be logged for revenue and "job creation" is entirely different. Indeed, if one wants to consider economics, the more productive private and industrial forest lands (many of which are tree farms on very short rotations and replaced formerly highly biodiversity rich natural forests) of the PNW and SE are far more logical places to carry out these sort of operations. Harvesting need not be completely excluded 100% across the forested public landscape, but it is important to recognize that many, if not most sites on Public Land are not productive in an economic sense and have far greater utility when used for other alternatives, namely biodiversity, watershed, and potential low invasive forms of recreation. That might sound elitist, but how many people really enter these sites today, other than perhaps hunters on motorized vehicles? This however is a complicated issue. Still, simply saying logging will restore our forests is like saying alcohol will sober our alcoholics.
No, I am not anti-hunting. In fact, I feel we have too high an herbivore population. In large part due to management practices for stock, such as tank construction, large areas of the forest have too many deer and elk. I do favor predator reintroduction, but that is the perennial environmental bashing issue, and not a likely pillar of the biodiversity house.
You don't have to agree with me, that is just my belief of them today, and how I see them.
What are public lands to you? As a presumptive hiker, how do you view them? Or in general, as someone living in Arizona, New Mexico, or wherever?