Dear HCN,
The issue of grazing on
federal lands apparently is no longer a civil debate but, according
to Andy Kerr (HCN, 6/13/94), a call to arms, the newest cause of
ideological tribalism. The “greens’ versus the “grazers.”
Eco-terrorists engaging in actual battle with People For The West.
“Us’ against “them,” whoever they are.
Polarizing
an issue may force action more quickly in order to avoid the threat
of violence, but it is a dangerous, antisocial strategy, reflective
of both urban decay and international
dysfunction.
Not every rancher is a renegade and
not every conservationist believes in the exclusion of human
influence on the landscape. This newest rationalization for tribal
violence fails even to define the boundaries of the conflict; it is
reminiscent of other borderless wars, jihads, and assorted ethnic
struggles, and it has little if any place in a democracy, let alone
a courtroom.
Without rational debate, violence
will indeed infect the West, as it has in the past, as it does now
in our cities, and not only will the landscape suffer but also the
social fabric of the communities that are under attack. However, if
sensible minds can cull through the admittedly laborious process of
democratic debate, then there is a chance that a commitment from
our chosen, if not sometimes negligent, stewards of the land, the
Forest Service and the BLM, may yet be achieved to enforce the
spirit as well as the letter of the law.
While
the current grazing proposals do not impose strict enough penalties
on abusers, and may be too quick to reward average users, the
Colorado model is on the right track. The real question is whether
we should plan on monitored peace-keepers, patrolling for
eco-terrorists and vigilante range-riders, or find a method for
good science to be applied more evenly on the ground. We should not
underestimate the force of mere “social approbation,” as Aldo
Leopold called it, when applied to land ethic
issues.
The grazing issue is about the future of
the West, not only its natural qualities but its communities. Save
the rhetoric for fundraisers, Andy. What we need is a healthier
Western perspective, one in which tolerance replaces brute force; a
concept much better said by Wallace Stegner than I when he wrote of
a time when the West “finally learns that cooperation, not rugged
individualism, is the pattern that most characterizes and preserves
it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins.
Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”
Peter F.
Michaelson
Denver,
Colorado
The writer has been a
district attorney for 10 years and serves as volunteer chairman of
the board of the Colorado Wildlife
Federation.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Let’s get rational.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
