Preservation Falacies; Nature Knows Best

[Grumpy]

Preservation Falacies: Nature Knows Best

January 30, 2013 12:01 PM
Op-Ed by Dan Thompson

This is the first in a series of articles that will examine the preservationist agenda and attempt to sort out fact from fiction in that agenda. What are the fundamental assumptions of the preservationists? Are they supported by factual information? Are there internal contradictions and inconsistencies in this point of view?

Those of us who have participated in meetings and discussions with people who advocate for the "green" agenda are aware that, eventually, it will come down to claims that things that are "natural" are good and things that involve human activities or intervention (typically labeled as "unnatural") are bad. For example, wildfires are good because they are "natural" and logging is bad because it is "unnatural." When applied to issues of public land management, this "Mother Nature Knows Best" point of view tends to be a matter of faith with many preservationists and forms the core of their belief systems. Preservationists will point to logging projects that occurred 60 years ago, detail the adverse environmental consequences of those logging projects, and conclude that all logging is bad. When confronted with more modern logging projects that enhance the stability and sustainability of the ecosystem, they will suggest that such practices should be avoided because they are unnatural and are bound to have adverse environmental consequences. It certainly is true that for many years we undertook timber projects that were environmentally irresponsible and unsustainable. It is equally true that, with modern technology and practices, timber projects can enhance the ecosystem, reduce the susceptibility to intense wildfires and produce more resilient forests. The fact that responsible active management of our public lands and resources is beneficial is just as inescapable as the fact that irresponsible management can be harmful. Yet preservationists categorically reject active management because it is not, in their view, "natural."

Preservationists' claims that humans and our ability to manipulate our environment are "unnatural" lead to some problematic conclusions. The bubonic plague, small pox and polio are "natural," but we are all thankful that human ingenuity has prevailed over these afflictions. Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creation, the indisputable fact is that the human species is the dominant species on the planet and we have achieved that status through entirely natural processes. Admittedly, we don't always exercise our dominance and abilities wisely, but to claim that our abilities to do so are "unnatural" is ludicrous. To deny that our natural abilities as humans to manage our environment are "bad" is equally ludicrous. The homes we live in, the automobiles we drive and the cell phones we use are all just as "natural" as a tree that grows in the forest because they are all the direct or indirect result of natural processes. The fact that preservationists apply the "Nature Knows Best" philosophy only to issues of public land management and not to their everyday lives is hypocritical. If one fundamentally believes that all human intervention is "bad," then he or she should not take advantage of the products of human intervention: No automobiles, supermarkets, electricity or visits to medical facilities. To be consistent, preservationists would have to reject all of the conveniences that human ingenuity and intervention provide. None do.

In pursuit of their agenda claiming that all human activities on public lands are "bad," preservationists advocate that public lands should be restored to the conditions that existed at some previous time. Most frequently, they propose to "put it all back" the way it was before Europeans settled the area. Basically, this requires the restoration of public lands back the conditions that existed about year 1800. This agenda has become so pervasive that it has actually been incorporated into some Federal legislation such as the Clean Water Act. So how could this be accomplished? First of all, all residents of the western states - except full-blood native Americans and including preservationists themselves -- would have to be relocated east of the Mississippi River. And why restore to the year 1800? Why not year 1400 or the year 1100? That way we could also empty out the East and get rid of horses and other introduced species and make our country even more "natural."

The fundamental preservation agenda is based upon a seriously flawed hypothesis that human activities and interventions on public land are "unnatural" and "bad." Adoption of this hypothesis as a matter of fundamental faith and belief leads to contradictions and conclusions that even the preservationists themselves are unwilling to accept. And the preservationist agenda sets goals that are arbitrary, undesirable, unachievable and unreasonable. Since the "Nature Knows Best" argument is so fundamentally flawed, the incorporation of this agenda into Federal land management practices and policies will lead to serious adverse environmental, social, and economic consequences.

###