Guest Post: Letting Habitat Restore Itself

It is a rare occasion when I invite someone to guest post here, but when I read the following social media post by Justin Thomas, I knew I needed to share his message formally. I will have a few comments at the end, but here let us first hear his experience, without edits.

”Here are the woods by my house near Springfield, Missouri, USA, after six years of doing absolutely nothing but letting nature order itself over time.

© Justin Thomas, May 9, 2026, 6:05 PM.

A brief history: This is the crest of a north facing slope that drops off dramatically in the background (photo facing northwest). The road you can see is called "Bluff Drive," because of the steep slope. To the south the hill flattens for 60 meters or so and then becomes a large flat grown over field. The field was obviously plowed historically and the woods, on the edge of the field, were cut-over, but not likely ever plowed. The earliest aerial photography I've seen is from the early 1960s, and the woods between the road and the field (the woods in the photo) had begun to grow back and are now some of the oldest woods within many miles. They were probably grazed until the mid-1970s when the houses on this dead-end street (now a mile outside of city limits) were built.

The woods are largely early successional trees like Black Walnut and Hackberry that germinated after the grazing and probably brush-hogging, or Euro-American burning. There are also large Black Oaks, Maple-Leaved Oaks, and Chinquapin Oaks that are likely sucker sprouts from the stumps of the original woods, or sprouts from the stumps of the sprouts of an earlier cut, that though the same size as the early successional trees, are decades older. This last point is important because though there are big oaks, they are not yet colonizing, nor can they because the damaged system is not what they colonize into. Still, I suspect in the next 20-30 years, left to their own devices, they will recruit back into the system.

© Justin Thomas, May 7, 2020, 6:07 PM.

The woods in the above photo (taken in 2020) are full of Buckbrush, Missouri Gooseberry, Clustered Black Snakeroot (Sanicula ordorata), and little else. These are hallmark species of former grazing, especially in woods. My family and I moved onto the property in 2016 and I immediately expressed my desire, my NEED, to get in and cut all the Buckbrush in order to open the woods for floral diversity. My wife asked me to leave enough to maintain the privacy it provided us and our neighbors. That's how thick it was. I was too busy and, let's face it, too lazy, to ever do it.

Turns out laziness has many rewards. In the spring of 2020, and the reason I took the photo, I noticed that there was less Buckbrush and Gooseberry than the year prior. Over the next couple of years that decline increased substantially every year. Six years later the Buckbrush, Missouri Gooseberry, and Clustered Black Snakeroot are almost completely gone. As these short-lived shrubs died of old age, and minus any further ecological damage that would allow their seeds to germinate and replace their parents, slowly more and more sedges, grasses, and forbs colonized the woods.

Let me rephrase that, because the sedges, grasses, and forbs were already there, just at very low densities (as is usually the case in such places). What I should have written was: as the woods became less suitable to Buckbrush and Gooseberry it became more suitable for the sedges, grasses, and forbs that had been eking out their existence at very low densities in the micro-scale nooks and crannies that had not been highly impacted. These kinds of population lulls also afford many species an escape from pathogens, so when they do have the opportunity to recolonize, their metabolisms are more geared toward reproduction than defense.

While this was going on, young saplings, and some larger trees that were suppressed under the larger trees, also could not maintain their metabolic needs and they died. This further opened the canopy and midstory, allowing light to power the ground flora metabolisms. Simultaneously, with less canopy and midstory, air moves around more and the site dries out faster, decreasing the fungal load (fungi are the number one seed predators), increasing insect activity, and aiding both wind and insect pollination.

The point of this story is that no human did anything to increase any of the wonderful clockwork things that happened and that are happening. The only human part of the story is the negative impact and subsequent abandonment. The powerline cut in the background, just before the road, has Bush Honeysuckle, Japanese Honeysuckle, Multiflora Rose, and Eastern Red Cedar. They, too, are declining. Why? Because this is what nature does. Damaged systems are colonized by species that thrive in the damage (largely driven by nutrient availability). When damage/disturbance stops, the nutrient availability declines and eventually the system becomes the sort of place where damage-dependent species cannot persist. This is why most damage-dependent species have short lives, long distance dispersal mechanisms, make lots of seeds, and have seeds that bank longer than stability-dependent species. It is a core natural phenomenon inherent to all living systems.

I'm sharing this because it isn't a freak occurrence. I see this everywhere, and I hope that after reading this you may see it, too. It is so beautifully encouraging to realize that so much of what we worry about in conservation/ecology comes from a lack of understanding of how magical living systems actually are. When we understand how they work, there is so much less to worry about (and so much less "work" to do).

This is my 30th year as a botanist/ecologist and the greatest joy of doing it this long is revisiting sites I've known for decades, and seeing them benefit vastly more from no human intervention than from too much human intervention. I don't see these healthful trends and trajectories in many places that are "managed". Sorry, I won't pretend that I do.

This idea is going to upset people. This is not the conventional perspective. I was resistant to it myself, but as someone whose job it has been to collect data and monitor ecological management, from thinning and fire to controls, this is a vastly overlooked truth of the natural world: that it can do it better without us.

Maybe that isn't fair. I'll rephrase: it can do it better when we appreciate and understand how it can do it better without us, AND we follow its lead and offer a bit of assistance. Not to get political, but when you love something correctly you ask for consent and anticipate your love's needs, rather than telling it what YOU like, what it likes, and forcing it to comply. Love, patience, understanding, and compassion are ecological principles, not freaky hippie nonsense.

I know a lot of woods that look like the 2020 photo. I'm so excited to see them when they hit the point of transcendence, and so happy to know that I don't have to do anything for it to happen.”

--------------

What struck me from reading this is the concept of “disturbance-dependent” flora; and the idea that further disturbing a parcel of land, even in the act of removing invasive species, frequently makes things worse, or prevents reversion to natural conditions. Is this true in every ecological situation? No. Should it be considered in designing and implementing restoration and mitigation efforts? Definitely.

This is also the kind of philosophy we should be using in addressing all kinds of environmental, economic, and social problems. We have to start questioning the validity of the systems that are dictating certain ways of acting, and suppressing alternative methods. We cannot continue to use only profit and costs to determine the best solutions. “Scaling up” is not necessarily the best way to go. In fact, it might exacerbate the problem.

This blog respects dissent as well as validation, so please do not hesitate to enter your own thoughts into the comments, in a respectful fashion. Share *your* experiences. Thank you.

Justin Thomas is the co-founder and Science Director of NatureCITE, and the co-founder and Director of the Institute of Botanical Training. He has a BS from the University of Missouri and an MS in botany from Miami University – Ohio. He has 30 years of experience conducting ecological and taxonomic research, instructing plant identification workshops, and serves as a scientific advisor to several conservation organizations in the central and eastern United States.

Earth Day Thoughts

On this 56th edition of Earth Day, I feel compelled to reflect on how we got here, and where we are going. In many ways, it seems we have taken more steps backwards, especially recently, but I also see hope and promise, if we have the collective will.

© NASA from Artemis II mission

How amazing, if not coincidental, that one of the images that inspired Earth Day was Earthrise, a view of Earth from the orbit of the Apollo 8 mission in 1968, a photo taken by astronaut Willam Anders. Fast forward to earlier this month, and images of our Blue Marble taken by the astronauts aboard the Artemis II mission leave us in awe all over again.

That awe needs to now translate to reverence, something fundamental to Indigenous cultures, and which has been nearly absent throughout the history of Western Civilization, replaced instead with fixation on attainment of gratuitous wealth, and increasing economic growth.

I was nine years old when the inaugural Earth Day occurred in 1970, too young to appreciate the fact that the major purpose of the celebration was to preserve the planet for future generations like mine. All I knew was that I loved going exploring, looking for insects, spiders, snakes, and other creatures that nobody else liked. Today, I cannot escape the observation that we treat whole sectors of humanity as badly as we do “bugs,” and sometimes even worse.

When did Homo sapiens first begin to imperil our one and only home? Some will point to the Quaternary megafauna extinctions of large mammals at the end of the Ice Age, 10,000 to 50,000 years ago. A good argument could be made that the Industrial Revolution, at least the second one, was the beginning of the holocaust. Widespread environmental damage was certainly accelerated by the burning of fossil fuels, which continues to this day.

Every human revolution magnifies the impact of the previous one, and so the Industrial Revolution led to an enormous increase in the scale of the Agricultural Revolution that preceded it. Machinery replaced draft animals, and permitted enormous plots of monoculture crops to be grown. The Third Industrial Revolution began to automate jobs that were not already outsourced to cheaper labor pools elsewhere, and the current Fourth Industrial Revolution is being defined by the widespread employment of artificial intelligence (AI) to replace most other functions in industry, business, and even the service economy. The end goal appears to be reducing most of humanity to the category of consumers, who take little part in the production of goods and services.

Overall, it appears that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are actually colonialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and racism, not necessarily in that order. There are certainly additional players, but here are your lead actors. They have all been behind conquest, war, famine, and death. Those four characteristics of human society must be extinguished if we are to have future Earth Days.

The good news is that more people are waking up to the realization that the systems of power, wealth, and governance are not working for them, or any other living thing, and that there are alternatives that are more just, participatory, and sustainable, or at least less damaging. There is renewed interest in permaculture and regenerative agriculture, for example. Community gardens, urban farming, food forests, and foraging are helping address food deserts in cities. Cooperatives and credit unions are looking a lot more humane, and less extractive, than corporations and banks.

Elevating Indigenous people, people of color in general, women, and other marginalized demographic categories into positions of power and leadership will help immensely in changing the trajectory of our world, for the betterment of all species. Priority must be given to enact change at a local scale, where experimentation is less risky, and results more immediate. There is zero room for politics, only teamwork.

Much as we may feel demoralized, replaceable with technology, and seemingly powerless to change any of it, we must begin living differently. Sometimes, that means dropping out of the systems that are destroying us. Your innovation and example are needed now more than ever.

Book Review: The Home Place: Memoirs of a Colored Man’s Love Affair With Nature

I cannot help but see the irony in writing a review of a book written by a self-described “odd bird” in a blog entitled Sense of Misplaced. Perfect. What author J. Drew Lanham manages to convey brilliantly is that biophilia is a desirable affliction that transcends all colors of human diversity. The Home Place is a clarifying window into what it means to be an outsider among the privileged Caucasians who dominate the fields of biology, ecology, and wildlife conservation. Even casual birding presents challenges, but Lanham offers hope for a more integrated future.

Dr. Lanham and I are close in age, so it was intriguing to see what similarities of experience we shared given graphic differences in our home places. He is a Black man. I am not. He has siblings, and now children of his own. I do not. His upbringing was rural, mine urban. I am certain, however, that we both colored the same mimeographed songbird outlines in our respective elementary schools, even though there are no Northern Cardinals, Blue Jays, or Rose-breasted Grosbeaks in western Oregon. No “markingbirds,” either. Ok, end of anything “me,” here, though a literary memoir would fail miserably if it did not spark memories in the reader’s mind, and evoke empathy and agreement.

The ecosystems of place, time, family, faith, academia, economy, and wild nature are all woven together seamlessly in The Home Place. Each one influences all the others, none standing alone. Through it all, Lanham expresses an ethical philosophy and physical and emotional vulnerability that is obviously authentic. He would never call himself brave, let alone heroic, but in many ways he is exactly that. Lanham carries a reverence for life that applies to every aspect, from familial relationships to hunting, birding, and conservation research.

The book is organized along the trajectory of Lanham’s personal and professional life, beginning as a member of a familial “flock,” and progressing through “fledgling” to full-blown “flight.” Today, Dr. Lanham is positively soaring, having recently received a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, recipient one of the prestigious “genius grants” the foundation awards to exceptional individuals. Indeed, Lanham is one of those rare birds able to effortlessly navigate both the creative and scientific realms, bringing a unique perspective to both academic and public spheres.

No one would fault the author for having an angry tone given past and present injustices to their demographic. Instead, Lanham manages to tread that fine line between justified hostility and denial that historical and personal transgressions hindered their life at all. He is properly assertive, mournful for the lives of his ancestors, and insistent that things be made right.

We can all be better allies for reading The Home Place, a John Burroughs Medal Finalist as a "Nature Book of Uncommon Merit." It is an invitation to explore ourselves as well as the world around us, and to advocate for both biodiversity and human inclusivity.

In case you could not already surmise, I am highly recommending The Home Place for your personal library. It is like adding the work of an esteemed artist to your office wall. Whenever I am feeling a loss, be it mourning the loss of a favorite wild place, or simply at a loss for words, or way to communicate powerfully, I can pick up this book and be inspired all over again. The Home Place was published by Milkweed Editions, a non-profit entity located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2016. The book is 217 pages.

Economies Are Warped Reflections of Ecosystems

If ecosystems are what the planet is made of, then economies are the funhouse mirrors that wildly distort the principles the two have in common. A diversity of species fill all the niches in a natural ecosystem. Humans fill most of those roles in urban ecosystems. Humans fill all of those roles in economies.

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum. The elimination of apex predators, parasites, and competing species do not leave voids. Those niches are filled by human equivalents. This becomes abundantly clear in urban ecosystems, but we do not think of it that way. We prefer to think we are civilized, that we can somehow rise above the laws of nature, that in fact we do not even need natural systems to flourish. Should we regress to the village living in fear of lions, to an era before medications rendered disease merely a chapter in history books? No, of course not, but the marvels of our modern age have conveniently allowed us to imagine we are now immune to ecology.

We have further complicated matters by overlaying economics on top of nature, failing to acknowledge that economies are themselves a type of ecosystem, in which all the niches are filled by people. The currency of nature is energy. That energy is parceled out into three basic categories: organismal growth (metabolic), movement (kinetic), and rest (potential). The currency of economies is money. It, too, has several functions, including growth (interest and investment), movement (the marketplace), and rest (savings, retirement). The ideal form of economics would operate much like a natural ecosystem in terms of energy flow, but this is not what is happening. The predatory lenders, the parasitic scam artists, the diseases of poverty and addiction, among many other villains, derail economies time and time again. Capitalism and socialism alike are prone to rampant corruption, resulting in the hoarding of wealth (financial currency) that starves the system.

The energy of nature is requisite, finite, and circulates freely. The currency of man is arbitrary in the value it assigns to objects and resources, and it does not flow as freely as it should. "Precious metals" and "precious stones" are only so because we say they are. Nature assigns equal value to all of its components. Our human economies now look at everything from land to certain categories of humans in terms of whether they can produce financial profit. This is in direct conflict with natural laws and so we see deforestation, desertification, poverty, climate change, endangered species, pollution, invasive species, mass incarceration, and racism and genocide. These are just the intolerable conditions that come immediately and randomly to mind. You can probably add to the list.

Our final failure lies in a stunning denial of the fact that no matter what we do, we answer to the whims of planet Earth. We started to see the effects of our economic practices on nature shortly after the Industrial Revolution, but now that we are in the digital age, we believe that technology can save us. Computers and cell phones still rely on the extraction of natural resources, which leads not only to pollution with the disposal of the outmoded generation of products, but to ruthless competition to harvest materials for the components, among other complications we conveniently turn our heads away from.

Ultimately, the future of nature comes down to the willingness of Homo sapiens to exercise restraint, in our sheer numbers, and in our economic impact. Every species dreams of being in our shoes, able to eliminate mortality factors, eliminate competitors, reproduce astronomically, and thoroughly dominate the landscape. It is an impossible "success" story, however, when you erode the foundation of your castle. We will adapt and truly evolve only if we recognize value beyond financial profit. The marketplace is artificial. The Earth is not.

The Kinds of (Landscaping) Codes We Really Need

© Naplesgov.com, Naples, Florida

I have reached wit's end with code enforcement in cities, towns, and other municipalities. Do not even get me started on homeowner's associations (HOAs). The emphasis is clearly cosmetic and does more harm to our environment than even simple neglect of yards and gardens in this age of climate change. We need a total overhaul of the statutes.

Were I a conspiracy theorist, I would be claiming that local governments were in cahoots with landscapers to create standard urban and suburban landscapes that feed the landscaping industry, as well as pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer manufacturers. Why do we continue to insist on models of landscaping that are no longer sustainable, if they ever were to begin with? The only thing "sustainable" about lawns and exotic shrubs, trees, and flowers is the heavy upkeep they require simply to stay alive. That usually necessitates contracting with lawn care services and other businesses that feed our addiction to showy gardens and pristine lawns.

Let's face it, lawns alone have become a status symbol, especially in the western U.S. A large, uniform expanse of grass says that you have the large sum of money needed to cover the water bill, and pay for a landscaper. What that speaks to me is an attitude of "I don't give a damn about water scarcity, native vegetation, or the future of the planet." You would rather spend money creating what amounts to an advertisement of your wealth. Wow. How responsible of you.

Meanwhile, municipal code enforcement tends to center on "weeds," many of which are actually native wildflowers that sustain pollinators and other desirable wildlife. If your grass gets too high it is subject to fines until you are in compliance. Tall grass and herbs are ironically considered a haven for mosquitoes and other disease vectors, as well as being "unsightly." This, in my opinion, is an overblown argument, if not even fallacious. You have undesirable rodents, for example, in urban areas lacking any vegetation. Feral pets are more likely to carry diseases than most wild animals, save for skunks, the odd raccoon and, sometimes, bats.

Were I writing the codes, they would be almost the polar opposite of what is in place now. I would limit the size of lawns to a percentage of your total outdoor landscape. I would enforce strict outdoor water use limitations, regardless of the current weather conditions because most regions are becoming more arid, with no end in sight for that trend. I would mandate that a percentage of landscape plants be native, drought-tolerant, and wildlife-friendly. I might require a permit for the use of any chemical treatment outdoors. This may be an area where contractors could really benefit because leaving chemical applications as do-it-yourself (DIY) has accident-waiting-to-happen written all over it. Failure to follow label instructions for applying pesticides and herbicides is a leading cause of household poisonings, let alone environmental hazards.

I would raise fines for feeding wildlife other than birds, and require anyone in bear habitat take down their feeders every night. I would raise fines for neglect of swimming pools and other water features, even including bird baths, as stagnant water is a breeding environment for mosquitoes and other biting flies. I would reduce outdoor lighting to prevent the interruption of normal behavior by nocturnal animals. Using wildlife-proof waste disposal containers would discourage raccoons, opossum, and other mammals from doing damage and maybe even frequenting urban areas at all. Ok, that is probably wishful thinking.

No entity raises my ire more than HOAs. They are entirely consumed with keeping up appearances, and have complete disregard for the mental health of residences and the environmental health of their communities. Raising property values is their bottom line, even if it means tearing out everything green except lawns, as our own townhouse property management agency is in the process of doing. HOAs put forth arguments for "improved security" as justification for removal of shrubbery and increased outdoor lighting. Baloney. You want increased security? Hold informal events so everyone can get to know their neighbors. Enforce codes of personal conduct instead of landscaping rules.

We need to collectively begin calling for changes to codes that begin to address what could be called environmental impoverishment. We deserve better, more diverse landscapes in our communities, but that cannot happen without some major alterations in governmental mindsets.

Guest Post By Jessa Thurman - Vegetarianism

This week I fortuitously intersected a Facebook post by Jessa Thurman, a graduate student in entomology at a university in the Pacific Northwest, and invited her to allow me to post it on this blog. Vegetarianism is socially awkward for many non-vegetarians, and this may be the best explanation I have come across yet, eloquently written and free of the contempt too many folks have for anyone with a different diet than they themselves have. I thank Jessa for letting me share this, and I hope she keeps writing.

Around 7 years ago, I stopped eating mammalian meat. At the time it wasn’t a decision made for any other reason outside of how it was making me sick. After eating beef or pork, I would feel sick to my stomach, as though the meat had become stone, and would often have to sleep for 5 to 7 hours after the pain began or just revisit what I ate. It was easy to pick out the other foods that followed this trend: mammals or ‘red meat.’ What was even simpler was the decision and action to stop eating these kinds of meat. Meat was more expensive and there were plenty of cheaper, healthier alternatives. Chicken or fish worked as one substitute if I ever needed one, and I didn’t have to give up my favorite meals. Soon I felt much better and even lost a bit of weight. I continued the diet to avoid other mammals whenever I encountered them like lamb, deer, and kangaroo, even though the last one had peaked my interest. And I followed through with this choice because it just wasn't worth how bad it made me feel.

Simply saying I was allergic to the meat or couldn’t eat it immediately calmed those who challenged my dietary choice and at the time I didn’t think much of those challenges. Once I started college and began my studies in biology however, I started considering human impact on the Earth. The majority of our agricultural land is devoted to growing livestock feed with the main feed ingredient, corn being grown on 90 million acres of land (USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture) and according to the FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations], livestock grazing occupies 26% of Earth’s ice-free land. This translates into most habitat destruction for agriculture being driven by our high demands for meat. On top of the habitat destruction, livestock are also responsible for about 7% of total greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global climate change (FAO). The increased frequency of dramatic climatic events like drought which has led to the recent intensity of forest fires tearing across the US or Hurricane Harvey which is currently causing floods in Texas, are all linked to global climate change. In light of these major issues, not to mention animal cruelty, my once simple decision became more philosophical. It was a small change I could make to decrease my Carbon footprint - a personal decision.

My life choice to not consume beef or pork became more of an environmental choice and I adapted it to include buying more of my groceries from local farmers and limiting my other meat consumption. All of these changes, for me, were very easy to make. The recurring problem was instead having to explain and often defend my choice to others who eat a lot of meat. Their challenges, I understand now were made more so out of defense for their meat-eating rather than malice, but I think it should be repeated that I and many other people who have made dietary or life changes, make these choices for ourselves [italics mine]. I've witnessed more intense challenges for vegetarians and vegans for their dietary changes, but why do they seem to threaten your way of life? People who make these life choices 1) are not suffering for it and 2) are not harshly judging all meat eaters. Everyone's life is different and sustainability is a goal we continuously work towards rather than a line we cross.

It’s been a long time since I made this original change and I have debated posting about it in the past because from the same critics, I feel like they perceive this dietary choice I've made is a status I want to flaunt. Instead I just want to share how and what I am doing to lessen my Carbon footprint, and this particular change is one that came easy for me. I know I am imperfect in many other ways, but I'm working on that. I assume everyone is and want it to be known that I and others like me, be they vegetarians, environmentalists or others, generally aren't 'Nazis' for the planet who glare and gossip about how you are enjoying that burger right now. So next time, please don't roll your eyes at our dietary choice or challenge our philosophical basis for making it. It's our life and we're all making different changes.

I could stand to take several lessons from this: Be less judgmental period. Eat even less red meat than I do now, and strive to eat less meat of any kind. Read more things from Jessa Thurman.

Non-profits: We don't need "free gifts!"

'Tis the season of giving, but I have to wonder sometimes whether material generosity, while perhaps well-intentioned, does not undermine more important principles and charitable efforts. Is it just me, or do others also find it annoying that otherwise worthy non-profit organizations use the promise of a "free gift" to encourage you to join? Personally, I would rather have as many of my membership dollars as possible go directly to the cause.

Here is a list of all the "free gifts" that I have found enclosed, or for which I am eligible with membership to organizations varying from Natural Resources Defense Council to Audubon to Nature Conservancy to World Wildlife Fund:

• tote bag
• Address labels (enclosed)
• bird guide app
• fleece blanket
• plush toy animal
• bird feeder
• lunch tote
• a penny (enclosed)
• umbrella
• travel cup
• water bottle
• calendar (enclosed)
• petition (enclosed) Hey, asking something more of me is not a bad thing!

Ok, I get that you want me to advertise your non-governmental organization (NGO) by sporting that tote or knapsack, drinking from that cup, or hanging that calendar in my workplace. Since I have now collected four unsolicited calendars, I can have one at home, too, plus my summer house....Wait, I don't have a summer house. Who do you think I am?

Even the address labels would be fine....if any of us actually used "snail mail" to deliver anything any more. I doubt the utility vendors, loan providers, and credit card companies even glance at the incoming bills we are remitting. I think if I saw "free annual report enclosed" on an envelope, whereby I assume you would account for all of your spending of our membership dollars, I might even open it up and take a look.

Two pieces of mail did get my attention with what I hope is the future of membership recruitment, at least in part. The American Indian Relief Council, which is now Northern Plains Reservation Aid, promises a $2-for-$1 Matching Gift Challenge. The American Indian Education Fund wins me over a bit with their persistence: the first, and so far last, time I donated was back in 2008. They also promised a "matching gift offer enclosed." The Audubon Society finally jumped on this bandwagon and is offering a dollar for dollar matching gift, with a deadline of December 31.

The real gift we all want is the gift of accountability. Literally, in the financial sense of accounting. We want to know our hard-earned dollars are doing what we think they should be, be that providing relief to indigenous peoples, purchasing land that will be set aside in perpetuity as wildlife habitat, or some other noble, tangible outcome.

We recognize you have overhead in the form of employees, offices, travel, legal representation, utility bills, publicity, and other necessities in this day and age of business competition realities. What you may be lacking is marketing research, focus groups, and more tech-savvy means of membership recruitment, judging by how archaic your mass mailings have become. I have been getting the same offers since at least the 1980s. Get innovative already. Get to know who your members, or prospective members, are and what they expect and desire. Really, how many tote bags do I need?

Happy (Belated) B-day NPS

I am overdue in wishing the National Park Service a happy 100th birthday, which they celebrated back on August 25th. Apparently it is more properly the centennial anniversary, but whatever. My own love affair with our national parks dates back to my childhood, and I don't see the passion ending anytime soon.

Growing up in Oregon, we did not have many national parks or monuments in the 1960s and 1970s, but I found my way to them anyway. My father enjoyed driving, and made sure to get me to Oregon's scenic wonders like Crater Lake and Oregon Caves. Through the Boy Scouts (traditional and Explorer Post) I also explored other areas like Newberry Crater in central Oregon. In 1990, long after I left Oregon, the crater became Newberry National Volcanic Monument.

At the end of my junior year of high school, my mother took me on a cross-country vacation to visit relatives and friends in St. Louis, Missouri, New York City, Washington, DC, and Florida. Obviously, we hit a number of national landmarks along the way. One highlight I still remember vividly was visiting Everglades National Park. Before we embarked from Oregon, I tried to secure a permit to collect insects in the park, or at least a visit to the Archbold Biological Research Station. Neither of those things happened, but it did not diminish my experience.

Me at the Everglades in June, 1978

We took a route through Homestead, Florida to the park entrance there, and then headed for the Anhinga Trail. Ironically, the Royal Palm Visitor Center there had a wonderful insect collection on display. Outside the door, an armada of dragonflies was engaged in a swirling feeding swarm over the lawn. Strolling the boardwalk, I remember thinking it was just like Wild Kingdom, the television show hosted by Marlin Perkins. You could see fish, the occasional alligator, birds of every description....There was even a soft-shelled turtle basking right beside the trail.

Since I could not collect inside the park boundary, we drove just outside, where I found a pair of Eastern Lubber Grasshoppers, huge insects that, though harmless, are still intimidating to a kid from Oregon who is not accustomed to such giants. I saw a big Black Ratsnake, and mud dauber nests coating the underside of a bridge. This remains, however, one of only two times I have stopped collecting or observing insects....because of insects. Biting flies were whining incessantly in my ears, and I was sweating off repellent by the gallon.

Most recently, my wife and I visited Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. We entered on the South Rim. Thirty dollars buys you seven days of sightseeing there. That may sound exorbitant, but trust me, it is worth it, if not downright underpriced. No sooner had we left to kiosk where we got our visitor's pass than we almost collided with a coyote that was about to cross the road. Not even one hundred yards later, another car had pulled over, the occupants enjoying a view of a small elk herd.

Heidi at the Grand Canyon in August, 2016

The Grand Canyon gets a lot of hype, but it backs it up. The scenery is indeed spectacular, but the wild flora and fauna are plentiful and engaging. No one is in a bad mood. Few people are loud. The park literally creates a silencing awe and commands respect that transfers over into interpersonal relations with other tourists. It is the United Nations of nature.

That's it! The national parks are our parks, yes, but they also belong to the world, and people come from all over the globe to experience them. They are also treated, usually, to the best in American hospitality. The lodges and restaurants in our national parks are magnificent structures, offering comfort, cheer, and familiarity. Our servers in Grand Canyon were both from Thailand. That may seem insignificant to us as U.S. citizens, but what a great joy it must be for visitors from Thailand.

Knowing how underfunded the National Park Service is, it is remarkable how well it does what it does, overcoming obstacles both natural and political to deliver once-in-a-lifetime memories for millions each year. This, this is the face the U.S. we want people everywhere to see. Something we have done right, arguably better than any other nation on Earth, and inspiring other countries to do the same, or at least similar.

Were I ever, by some quirk of fate or destiny, empowered to save only one federal government program, the National Park Service might just be it. It is too impactful on our nation's heritage, freedom, and sanity to allow it to wither due to lack of a robust budget. Meanwhile, here I have been living in Colorado for nearly five years and I have yet to visit Rocky Mountain National Park. Shame on me.

Frack Off

© Propublica.org (Canada)

I was already aggravated by the incessant television commercials here in Colorado that are promoting fracking, a method of natural gas and oil extraction that uses pressurized chemicals to fracture bedrock in order to "free" the desired natural resource. This week, we get Gale Norton (yes, that Gale Norton) stumping for Protect Colorado, the greenwashed front for the oil and natural gas industry. This raises my degree of ire even higher.

Gale Norton is the former Secretary of the Interior. You heard me correctly, this woman once oversaw the National Park Service, BLM, and other public land management bodies. Even when she was appointed by George W. Bush to serve as the 48th Secretary of the Interior (2001-2006), her ties to the energy lobby elicited vocal criticism.

She also served as Colorado's State Attorney General, 1991-1999, and has returned here where she is apparently her own corporation, Norton Regulatory Strategies. She also served as general counsel to "Royal Dutch Shell Unconventional Oil, 2007-2010. She was a member of Shell’s global legal leadership team, and handled legal, regulatory and governmental issues for Shell’s oil shale and in-situ oil sands projects, primarily in Colorado and Alberta." That according to her Norton Regs website.

Norton has managed, successfully, to greenwash herself, masquerading as someone who truly cares about the environment and sustainable energy, thanks in large part to her former employment overseeing public lands. No wonder Protect Colorado finds her to be such a perfect spokesperson.

Understand that we are treated to at least one pro-fracking television commercial in prime time every single night. It is the industry's right, of course, to exercise their free speech. They are paying handsomely for the chance to broadcast their message, but that is exactly my point. They can afford to make their case publicly, night after night. Not so for any group opposing them. Just because you are the loudest voice, doesn't mean you should be the only voice.

It is common courtesy to allow both sides to have their voice in debate of an issue. In my opinion, it should be the law. On issues as contentious as this one, both views should be granted equal time to make their case. This is also why the Supreme Court case of Citizens United needs to be overturned. The essential outcome of that decision was the "money equals free speech" doctrine that now dominates public discourse, certainly skewing the course of said discourse.

Advocacy groups involved in issues of free speech need to brainstorm another way to circumvent Citizens United until we get a constitutional amendment stripping corporations from the overwhelming advantage they have in the court of public opinion on issues like fracking that threaten public and environmental health.

Can you imagine where we would be today if oil and natural gas corporations were not so greedy in pursuit of profit, seeking from day one the elimination of competing, renewable, energy industries like solar and wind? It isn't just energy, either. The automobile industry has steadfastly opposed funding for public transit, while garnering huge government subsidies and outright bailouts. The cotton, pulp and paper, and plastics industries have all convinced us that hemp is a drug threat needing regulation if not prohibition, when in reality hemp is nothing but a more durable and preferred alternative in the manufacture of products from clothing to acid-free paper.

Back to Norton and her spokesperson role. We have apparently not yet graduated as a culture from the era of snake oil salesmen and other con artists. In fact, we are now appointing them to office and allowing them to swindle our faith in those who govern. It is up to us not only as consumers, but as citizens, to do a background check on those who purport to have our best collective interests at heart.

My Disdain for "Sense of Place" Explained

A couple weeks ago or so, one of my friends from the internet expressed concern over my disdain for the concept of "sense of place." He is doing dutiful, important work documenting the organisms of his home city on the east coast, and I sincerely admire him for that. He made a good point that I have not adequately explained the title of my entire blog, and so I offer you that in this post, along with a humble apology for not doing so a lot sooner.

The Missouri River at Leavenworth, Kansas

What I object to has nothing to do with any individual person who chooses to live in one particular place and develop a deep relationship with the land, its wildlife and plants, and human neighbors. We need more of that if you ask me, or at least more of the ideals that come from that sense of rootedness, and reverence for a place.

What galls me is the "sense of place" in the context of nature writing. There is an intolerable overemphasis in the literary community on the idea that you cannot write intelligently and responsibly about a place unless you have lived there a very l-o-o-o-ng time, preferably your entire life. This romanticism is baloney. It probably goes back all the way to Thoreau, or even farther. It was a reciprocal concept, too. The land gave inspiration to the writer, and the writer in turn fostered a greater appreciation of the landscape and its ecology. Some of our best contemporary writers still work off that very principal. Aldo Leopold and Wendell Berry in particular come to mind.

Me? I am a semi-nomad. I tolerated the rain of Oregon for my first twenty-seven years, in part because I had little choice. I moved to Cincinnati, Ohio for a job, and while that didn't last, I remained in the Queen City for a total of eleven years before moving to the rural town of Forsyth, Missouri for another job. The job lasted eight months, my stay about a year or so. From there it was off to Tucson, Arizona on pure whim. By the time I was finally making friends and getting to know the area, I met my now spouse and moved here to Colorado Springs to be with her.

Now, because I have lived so many places, does that mean I cannot write about any of them with any sense of familiarity or understanding? Hell, no. In fact, I would argue that you cannot readily write about any place without having another place to compare it to. Travel leads to better understanding of the last place you were. Immersion in a community is certainly recommended, but maybe that is difficult because of the very nature of the place. Tucson is not a welcoming city, for example. People are friendly enough, but mostly superficially. They already have their circle of friends and are not generally prone to expanding it. This is due in part to sheer demographics. There is the geriatric set, and then there is the collegiate set at the University of Arizona. There are also the "snow bird" retirees who migrate to avoid the cold winters of their native states. So, only a few people are "desert rats" who stay year-round, and those folks exist in small, close-knit circles.

I lived in the land of "Taneycomo" (Taney County, Missouri) for a very short time, and had there been sufficient job opportunities I might still be there. However, anyone with the slightest degree of observational skills could have reached the same conclusions about the region that I penned in Orion magazine. It is not that Forsyth and other towns there are "simple" or somehow less worthy of attention and appreciation. It is just the opposite, in fact. Easily overlooked, residents are rightly insulted by stereotypes, and tired of being dismissed.

So, nomadic I may be. I suspect I am less like Thoreau and more like John Steinbeck writing Travels With Charley, but on a much slower pace. It is not the place of anyone in the arts to tell another artist, especially a young one, how to approach their craft, or dictate to them what they can or cannot do. Limitations have no place here. The whole enterprise of art flourishes by the uniqueness of its participants. Write on your own terms, and don't be afraid to call out those who would bind you with expectations and rules (aside from grammar, anyway).

I will leave you with one last personal experience that illustrates how expectations of a new place can be colored by a familiar one. When I arrived in Cincinnati, I was encouraged to visit Mount Airy Forest, second only to my hometown of Portland's Forest Park as the nation's largest and mostly undeveloped city park. Well, in my experience of coniferous forests, I found very few insects and other animals in a forest. When I finally broke down and took a hike through Mount Airy Forest, I obviously found the deciduous woodlands to be far richer in diversity than dark, evergreen forests. Now I long to get back to those woods, or at least travel to them regularly.

How do you define "sense of place?" How do you reconcile your personal lifestyle with the public perception of your locale? Let me know, I am nothing if not open-minded on concepts like this. I would once again like to thank my friend for taking the initiative (and risk) in asking me for a proper story about this topic. Carry on, "Thomas of Baltimore."

Strawberry Fields (and Hills) Forever?

Heidi and I had the privilege today of touring the parcel of land in western Colorado Springs, Colorado known legally as Strawberry Hills, and affectionately as "Strawberry Fields." This is the 189 acres destined to be transferred to the Broadmoor Hotel if a proposed land swap occurs between the City of Colorado Springs and that private corporation.

© Heidi Eaton

The tour was led by Rick Skorman, better known perhaps as the owner and founder of Poor Richard's, a series of adjacent downtown storefronts with a bookstore, coffee house, restaurant, and toy store.

© Heidi Eaton

Last week I wrote my opinion about the land exchange, and if anything my sentiments are stronger after traversing the meadow myself. I can only imagine what it would look like in spring and summer when wildflowers are in bloom, and the landscape greener. Here is a video of another tour, including some stunning overhead footage shot by a drone, and a bit of history.

There is precious little time for the public to make their case against this land swap. There have been many public "meetings," but citizens have had little time allotted to express their opinions at these gatherings. At least one more meeting will be held at Goldcamp Elementary School on Wednesday, March 30, at 6:00 PM.

© Heidi Eaton

Meanwhile, the best thing you can do is write, call, or e-mail the Mayor and City Council directly. Here is information for doing so:

• Andy Pico, District 6, (719) 385-5491, ApicoATspringsgov.com
• Bill Murray, At-Large, (719) 385-5485, bmurrayATspringsgov.com
• Don Knight, District 1, (719) 385-5487, DknightATspringsgov.com
• Helen Collins, District 4, (719) 385-5492, hcollinsATspringsgov.com
• Jill Gaebler, President Pro Tem, (719) 385-5483, JgaeblerATspringsgov.com
• Keith King, District 3, (719) 385-5470, KckingATspringsgov.com
• Larry Bagley, District 2, (719) 385-5493, lbagleyATspringsgov.com
• Merv Bennett, President, (719) 385-5469, MBennettATspringsgov.com
• Tom Strand, At-Large, (719) 385-5486, tstrandATspringsgov.com
• Mayor John Suthers, (719) 385-5900, jsuthersATspringsgov.com
• Entire City Council(?), (719) 385-5986, allCouncilATspringsgov.com

Remember to replace "AT" with the "@" symbol when e-mailing. It is especially critical that Mayor and Council hear from those residents who do not live near Strawberry Hills. There is a strong perception that no one else cares about this parcel of public land and we need to correct that assumption. Lastly, it might help to lobby the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which will ultimately vote on the proposal: (719) 385-5940, jkriskoATspringsgov.com.

© Heidi Eaton

Oh, I almost forgot. Your most up-to-date source of information about this ongoing saga is Save Cheyenne on Facebook.

This "deal," a product of premature action, in the absence of biological inventories, without channeling through the Planning Commission, and largely without public input or avenues for recourse, would set a terrible precedent if allowed to pass. Today it is Strawberry Hills. What will it be tomorrow?

Land Swapping in the Springs

A proposed land swap is in the works between the City of Colorado Springs and the Broadmoor Hotel. The following is my personal assessment of the deal based on my own experiences with the parties involved.

Full disclosure: I have been interacting with the City Parks department and Trails and Open Spaces Working Group to try and get a large parcel of land in my own neighborhood designated as an Open Space. I have found department personnel and committee members to be very receptive to citizen initiatives; and I have nothing but good things to say about them.

Unfortunately, I have no nice things to say about the Broadmoor, which is owned by the Anschutz Corporation, a large conglomerate headquartered in Denver. Since I have lived here, the Broadmoor has demonstrated nothing but arrogance, bullying, and whining when it doesn't get its way.

The company put its name on the World Arena, a venue for many entertainment acts and sports events. "World Arena" was a fine name all by itself, if you ask me, and everyone knew the Broadmoor before that publicity anyway.

The Broadmoor later exerted leverage to essentially turn the public Bear Creek Regional Park into its own private trail-riding club. The kicker here is that the Broadmoor already owns riding stables up on Cheyenne Mountain. Neighborhoods around Bear Creek fought back, and the idea has been tabled.

When the Broadmoor does not get what it wants, it often throws editorial temper-tantrums in the Colorado Springs Gazette, which....surprise, surprise, is also owned by the Anshutz Corporation. Gee, I wonder how critical that newspaper is going to be concerning the proposed land swap.

City and county officials paint a glowing picture of this land exchange proposal, consistently repeating how the City is getting more acreage than the Broadmoor wants in exchange, and at how the property being acquired is worth more than what is being sacrificed. We are assured that this will make all the trail connections seamless now, with any future extensions much easier to carry out with the new rights-of-way.

Were it not for the Friends of North Cheyenne Cañon, and the recently-created Save Cheyenne, we would not know what we stand to lose in this transaction. Locals know the 189-acre parcel slated to be turned over to the Broadmoor as "Strawberry Fields." I'd never heard of it, but many people who are long-time residents haven't, either. It may be the most scenic piece of real estate in the Front Range foothills, and perhaps the closest thing to true wilderness this close to the city.

Aside from my contempt for the Broadmoor, I have two additional concerns. The City puts an overwhelming emphasis on "active" recreation, which I prefer to call "speed recreation" since it mostly means trail runners and mountain bikers. One "perk" of the land swap being touted by the City is that the trade will still preserve access to Hully Gully, an ice-climbing route. The City would also get to finally claim the "Incline," a nearly mile-long, almost vertical (2,000 ft. elevation gain) staircase of railroad ties that is immensely popular with the athletic crowd.

What about those of us who like to hike leisurely, without being run over by runners or mountain bikers? In fairness, the majority of mountain bikers I have encountered are conscientious, and observant, and will stop if they see me taking pictures of a bird or something. Some are even genuinely interested in what caught my eye. Still, there are those blind curves where cyclist and pedestrian risk colliding. And then there is the erosion issue.

Lastly, I am unaware of any natural heritage inventory to inform us as to what may be compromised in terms of natural resources should this deal go through. The Broadmoor has thusfar not declared what developments will happen on the Strawberry Fields property, or where they would happen. There is the promise of a picnic shelter where the Parks Department can conduct fundraising events free of rental charges. The Broadmoor may or may not want stables and a riding arena. They will certainly build equestrian trails for their use only.

My bottom line is that I would really, really hate to see Strawberry Fields become yet another playground for the wealthy, forever closed to those who cannot afford to visit. Further, enacting this plan would continue the practice of the Mayor and City Council putting the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals ahead of the public good. You have a chance to make your own voice heard via an online response form at Speak Up! COS, but there is not a lot of latitude for "freestyle" comments, and you have to create an account to participate. Still, I recommend it.

Sources:Hazlehurst, John. 2016. "Broadmoor land swap proposal divides southwest neighborhood," The Colorado Springs Business Journal

The Malheur Incident

Imagine my dismay to learn, while trying to spend quality time with my spouse's family, that one of my favorite places on the planet is being occupied by an armed militia in apparent retaliation for a perceived unjust jury sentence for ranchers convicted of arson. There is so much conflicting information, and such visceral reaction to this incident, that it is difficult to know where to start. I can only speak for myself, so here it goes.

© Bev Wigney

I have visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge a handful of times. It is located in extreme southeast Oregon, and is so remote that it is a long haul from anywhere. The Center Patrol Road is just about guaranteed to give you a flat tire every time you drive it. Still, it is worth the effort and trouble to go. The birds and other wildlife are astounding in their diversity and abundance.

Malheur NWR hosts a wide variety of birds like White-faced Ibis and Great Egret© Bev Wigney

My gut-level reaction to hearing of the takeover of the (at the time vacant) headquarters building was "Get the hell off of my refuge!" It is, of course, your refuge, too, but thanks to this "protest," the refuge is closed until further notice. You are being deprived of your right to visit a public facility paid for with your tax dollars.

Refuge headquarters contains instructive dioramas like this one....© Bev Wigney

That, I believe, is the essence of this whole conflict. The protest is selfishly motivated, hostile, and pits private interests against the public good. This is not what I would classify as domestic terrorism, yet, but there are better ways to publicly appeal a court verdict, if that is what this is really about, and certainly better venues. This is only the tip of the iceberg, though.

....and fragile, historically important collections like these eggs© Bev Wigney

The uneasy truce between the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies and private landowners is our current American model for averting what is known as the "tragedy of the commons." This principle dates back perhaps to Aristotle, but certainly to English economist William Forster Lloyd in 1833. His pamphlet was the genesis of the recognition of the potential for abuse of common resources. It was ecologist Garrett Hardin who popularized the term "tragedy of the commons" in 1968 in his essay of that title in the journal Science.

The gist of the argument is that when access to a common resource, such as a cattle pasture, is granted to several stakeholders, each person will act in their own best, short-term interests, such as increasing the number of their own herd. This leads inexorably to the deterioration of that resource.

It can be argued that the leasing of federal lands to ranchers for cattle grazing has prevented irreparable damage to rangeland as a whole by expanding the acreage available for grazing. This is not without consequence, naturally, and success hinges on the cooperation of lessees in the proper, agreed-upon management of the resource.

Violation of laws regarding burning of invasive plants led to the charge of arson when a burn on private land expanded into public land. That much seems to be acknowledged by both parties involved here. What happened in the aftermath is debatable. Here is one side's argument. I would hesitate to call the occupation of refuge headquarters "civil disobedience." It is anything but civil, especially when guns are involved.

It should be noted that your taxes dollars also subsidize the grazing of privately-owned cattle on public land....and at a fraction of the cost a private landowner would charge for grazing. See this story for more about the great deals ranchers get as part of our "socialist" government practices.

The folks holed up in the refuge headquarters building are not terrorists. They are mostly whining cry-babies with guns who think they are getting a raw deal when in fact the feds bend over backwards to appease them. They are hopelessly confusing their "rights" with the privilege of using federal lands for private gain. Yes, ranching is a risky business, but a minority of ranchers do not wish to assume any risk. It is telling that not one of the local communities near the refuge has come out in unanimous support of what is happening. Those engaged in this misguided occupation are clearly extremists.

© Bev Wigney

Do governments have all the answers when it comes to managing resources like rangeland? Of course not. But this kind of behavior threatens to backfire. I can see a day when an incident like this results in the revocation of grazing permits for individuals who participate in unlawful protests; repossession of equipment purchased with government loans; and even more "aggressive" government expansion of public lands as these protestors accuse the feds of doing already. Frankly, at this point, I'd be all for it.

Scale

Few people agree with me (or want to admit) that capitalism in its present form is the source of most of our economic, environmental, and institutional ills. We want desperately to cling to our belief that the "American Way" is the *right* way, the *best* way, the only way; but we might be wrong. At the very least, we have an escalating problem with the sheer scale of capitalism. It no longer benefits everyone, and that puts at risk something far more sacred than capitalism: democracy.

Let us look at what corporate capitalism has done for us (or to us) lately:

• Reduced consumer choices

The bigger the corporation, the fewer the choices for the consumer. What results from mergers and acquisitions is the illusion of choice. Take television for example. Mergers of various networks insure that we will see the same content distributed over several channels instead of new content on those other channels. Sports are increasingly televised on stations for which the consumer must pay extra as part of a cable or satellite package. This amounts to consumer coercion, whereby formerly free broadcasts are now held in virtual ransom. More disturbingly, news media are being concentrated into fewer and fewer outlets controlled by corporations that filter the news to further their own corporate, political, and economic agendas; or distract us with fear-mongering and celebrity status reports.

• Suppressed technologies

When you have an existing industry firmly entrenched in the status quo of the marketplace, it will exercise all its power to maintain its dominance. Hemp is an example of a raw material that would compete very favorably with cotton, paper, even plastics and some metals. Those existing industries act to suppress the hemp industry through lobbying our government representatives and agencies, and spreading false information to consumers. Hemp is a relative of the marijuana plant, but contains only a fraction of the chemical compound that gives marijuana its pharmaceutical and recreational properties.

Only recently have alternative, sustainable, and clean energy technologies been allowed to blossom. Even these have come under attack because of the scale of those enterprises. Giant windmills kill birds and bats, but all resources for wind energy are directed to those large-scale models. Bird-friendly, small-scale alternatives are ignored.

• Fewer consumer, labor, and environmental protections

Most major corporations on the Wall Street scale honor only their monetary bottom line and increased revenue for shareholders. The consumer, employee, and environment all take a distant back seat to those goals. To that end, lobbyists argue for erosion or outright repeal of existing laws aimed at affording labor, consumer, and ecological protections. "Studies" are rigged or altered or biased to reflect business interests. Conflicting research is suppressed. Recalls of dangerously defective products are postponed. The Clean Air Act is constantly under fire, as well as the Endangered Species Act and other landmark legislation that is arguably among the best ever enacted by *any* government on a national scale.

• Corporate Welfare

The welfare distributed to individuals and households in poverty is nothing compared to the dollars delivered to corporations and industries annually. We pay lip service to, and worship, the "free market" as the God of the economy which, left unfettered by regulation, will allow businesses to flourish; yet we prop up failing industries with subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts that seem to always be lavished on CEOs and shareholders without even a trickle down to workers and consumers. We protect ailing industries with import restrictions and tariffs. Left to the "free market," those American industries would wither and die. They do anyway, of course, as manufacturing is transferred overseas to cheaper (read "substandard") labor forces.

• Perpetual definition of the "American Dream" as the attainment of material wealth

It can be argued that the accumulation of wealth is in itself a goal not worth pursuing, and at worst a lifestyle that threatens the well-being of others, and even the planet itself. Consumption and economic growth as we are accustomed to in this century are definitely not sustainable, and take resources away from more vulnerable human populations. One would be hard-pressed to refute the idea that the Earth could benefit from fewer numbers of Homo sapiens, and certainly from less "development" of natural resources.

• Increased stress and decreased physical health

Our physical and mental health are at risk from social, cultural, and economic pressure that are inflicted upon us or that are self-generated. We are valued in the marketplace only for what we can consume, not what we can produce, unless it is more consumers in the form of children. Our labor is consistently undervalued to the point of corporations balking at a raise in the minimum wage; and suppression of collective bargaining to insure workplace safety and fairness. The end goal of industry is production without labor, but the unemployed cannot afford to purchase products.

How we value ourselves is just as important as cultural expectation. I, myself, constantly struggle with the idea that my wife is the major breadwinner in our household. This flies in the face of the "standard" I was brought up with. It takes a major effort to remind myself that my ego is not the point of our marriage; and money is not what strong relationships are built on in the first place.

There is reason for hope. All is not lost. In fact, there are surprising trends that indicate a potentially bright future ahead. Community gardens and farmer's markets are springing up almost daily, taking our food production back from corporate agri-business and returning it to local roots (literally). The "tiny house" movement is spreading, and demonstrating that a lifestyle with fewer material possessions means stronger personal relationships and an enhanced sense of community (while going off the grid in many cases). There is increasing demand for better public transit, more walkable neighborhoods where one can work, live, and play without dreadfully long commutes in a vehicle powered with fossil fuels. We still have power, folks, beyond the voting booth, and the internet age allows us to quickly find friends and support for what we believe is important. Thanks to crowdfunding, we can even find money for making those inventions and community projects happen, without dependence on institutions firmly entrenched in the status quo. Go for it!

Geometry

Chessboard clearcuts
With power-tower pawns
Protecting
Electric station queen.
Checkmate,
Progress wins again.

Nazca lines
Make no sense
Only cars know their destinations.
Circle fields
Rolling
Along tangent roads.

Bridges
Bisect rivers,
Span lakes.
Dams
Divide streams,
Diverted water is confused.

Eric R. Eaton, circa 1982.

The "History" in "Natural History"

Much is made of the need to conserve wildlife and preserve wildlands for the sake of future generations. I would argue that there is just as strong a need to be good stewards of the planet for the sake of past generations. We talk of “natural history” with an emphasis on “natural.” We practically ignore the “history” involved.

Here in the United States, we have a legion of icons who built the foundation for our modern environmental movement. Do we owe them nothing for their unique visions, legislative action, scientific research, and passionate protests? What about artists like Ansel Adams who brought images of wilderness to the masses who had never seen Yosemite? Aldo Leopold gave us a “land ethic.” Rachel Carson cautioned against the indiscriminate use of DDT. We would not be where we are today were it not for the likes of these heroes and heroines.

We can erect monuments to such people, honor their work in film documentaries and written biographies, but what better way to leave a legacy than to insure their efforts were not in vain? Yes, more wilderness has been preserved, more parks created, and more species discovered, but then there are challenges like the reintroduction of predators into parts of their historic geographical ranges.

The debate over wolf introductions is incredibly volatile, but I have heard no one speak of how doing so would bring history back to life. The national park system, at the very least, should be dedicated to preserving a historical spectrum of habitats and ecosystems. There is Colonial Williamsburg, there are civil war re-enactments, and countless other examples of “living history” in the human context of the term. What about the history of wildness?

Recreating in a museum diorama that which used to be is not enough. Resurrecting the mammoth, or even the Passenger Pigeon, may be a bit too much, as we also need reminders of our extreme human mistakes. Still, I feel impoverished that I have been deprived of even the opportunity to see a Carolina Parakeet, a Great Auk, or a Sea Mink. The California Condor once flew over the Columbia River, according to Lewis and Clark. We should consider restoring its presence there.

Once my own mentors pass away, you better believe I will remain dedicated to making sure their voices carry on, that their fights go on. I owe it to them. Another natural landscape destroyed by needless development, a dam, or pollution? Not on my watch. Allow another species to go extinct due to human greed or neglect? No way. I’ve got your back, John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, Bob Marshall, Dian Fossey. Your missions didn’t die with you.

Indelible

A funny thing happened the other day on my way to taking winter snow images in Garden of the Gods park here in Colorado Springs. Just as I settled into position for a great scenic shot of Pikes Peak between two rock formations, a commercial jet arced over the mountain, dead center, leaving a bright contrail in its wake.

Timing really is everything in a case like this. Had I gotten my butt on the road even a few minutes earlier, the morning light would have been even better, and there would have been no ugly airline graffiti. I am sure the navigator aboard the aircraft would argue the plane was not at all “misplaced,” but I would beg to differ, from my vantage point on terra firma.

I pride myself on not retouching any of my images with digital software like Photoshop or GIMP, and I am still debating on whether to bother in this case. People viewing a manipulated image would never know the contrail was there, but no matter what I do to obscure or erase the “defect,” I would still know. I literally “can’t un-see that!” It will always be an indelible vapor trail in the landscape of my mind.

That is what really bothers me, I think. Any time afield, no matter what the results, is time well spent, but a true wilderness experience is getting harder and harder to come by. It is nearly impossible to avoid litter of some kind, and then there are those planes. I have to wonder how many flights I have been on that spoiled someone else’s photographic souvenirs 30,000 feet below me.

Yesterday I walked the dog around our complex of townhouses, just after another snowfall. Ours were the first footprints, even on the sidewalk. I have to admit it was both exciting to be a momentary pioneer, and disappointing to spoil the pristine cover of white.

Of Birds and Blades

I like birds, I really do. I am also a strong proponent of renewable energy like solar and wind power. Imagine my dismay at finding many of my birding friends denouncing the huge wind farms popping up all over the place these days. Ok, the objections are mostly concerning the location of the big turbines, but the arguments are not going to end well if taken out of context as the press is prone to do.

There are two problems that occur to me immediately. One, if “environmentalists” first object to traditional energy sources like coal, gas, and oil, but then start whining about commercial pursuit of alternative energy, they lose credibility and are dismissed as “NIMBYs” (Not in my Backyard). Secondly, if we invest too heavily or too quickly in a technology that demonstrates itself to have severe detrimental side effects, then we are back to square one on all fronts.

No question, oil, coal, and gas involve truly horrific extraction procedures and equally risky transportation methods. Time and again we have seen the outcome in the form of petroleum-soaked pelicans, black beaches, mountain-top removals, and other disasters. Virtually anything is better than that. A recent online article and chart from Mother Jones purports to show that wind turbines kill just a few birds compared to the mortality inflicted by…..cats.

Naturally, any bird fatalities attributable to humans, or their pets, is intolerable to many in the birding community. Here is another article, in PDF file format, that offers statistics on bird fatalities associated with cell phone towers. There seems to be no end to the number of ways we are killing our fauna, including automobiles, airplanes, and wanton executions at the end of (insert random weapon here).

I am not saying I am in favor of preventable slaughter. There are alternative designs for wind-driven devices that harness power. Raymond Green has created one that looks promising. The roadblocks to its manufacture at any scale will undoubtedly come from the companies making money with the status quo. That is what must change: Our corporate addiction to whatever is making money at the cost of everything else. We need industries to be flexible to accommodate new findings and better ideas that benefit humanity as a whole, and are sustainable.

I will continue supporting wind energy, and promote safer designs. I will also always love cats, but agree that they should be kept indoors, and/or walked on a leash. I will also continue opposing the stock market as the driving force of our society. It is driving alright, driving down wages, driving through consumer rights, and driving our natural environment to hell. I’m all ears when it comes to an alternative to that.

Time for a new Environmentalism?

Charmlee Wilderness Park in Malibu, California

That is the question being asked in a popular article over on Slate.com. It seems that “eco-pragmatists” (aka “modernist greens”) are asserting that it is at best illogical and unhelpful to assume that pristine habitats are the only definition of “natural.” At least one even lauds GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and nuclear power as essentially to the continued success of our species. Others think invasive species are not all that bad. I believe the truth lies somewhere between the modern movement and the old guard that still clings to the belief the only good wilderness is….well, wilderness.

Here are the fundamentals that I believe we must collectively address if we are to move forward for a better planet:

• Recognize that Homo sapiens is itself an animal. That’s right, we continue to ignore that we are animals, subject to the same drives and instincts as any other animal species. We seek to reproduce, limit mortality factors, and accumulate resources. We are also subject to adversity like any other animal: competition, predation, parasitism, natural disaster, etc. Increasingly, as we conquer our natural enemies, we replace them with others of our own species who act as competitors, predators, and parasites in both the literal and economic sense.
• Agree that Earth’s climate is changing. What else do I need to say? It should be obvious by now, but we must continue seeking changes in natural resource extraction (like slowly eliminating it), and embrace any and all potential, sustainable solutions. We can have wind power without excessive avian fatalities. We simply need the will and the flexibility to follow new innovations, even if we find ourselves already producing some other device.
• Curb rampant consumerism. Our Western culture must cease to aspire to material wealth. We must revolt against advertising that attempts to convince us we need product such-and-such for our well-being or self-improvement. Self-improvement will come when we downsize our existing material possessions, share what we have left, and focus on physical and mental health. We can raise world standards of living by lowering our own at the extreme end of the spectrum.
• Assign higher value to all living organisms. We should hold living things in higher esteem than anything else, especially financial profit. We need to properly revere those organisms we rely on for food, and protect diversity above all else. There is a reason there are so many other species on the planet. We just don’t always know the “why” of it. We must also remember that we are living organisms ourselves, and treat labor and consumers accordingly.
• Establish a spectrum of ecosystems and habitats. Our national parks, for example, should have a mandate to reflect the historical natural spectrum of our lands. Re-introducing species that formerly occupied an area is in keeping with this philosophy. Eliminating invasive species from such areas is equally important. Meanwhile, creating parks at the national, state, county, or city level should reflect habitats that may not be pristine, but have varying degrees of human alteration.
• Remove barriers to local agriculture. It is appalling that there are still ordinances in some places preventing the erection of community gardens, backyard farms, and other means of self-sufficient food production. Our government has no responsibility to protect agri-business at the expense of the citizenry. Most of our future advancements in agriculture will come through experimentation at a smaller scale. Meanwhile, local agriculture may buffer us from the impact of large scale droughts and disasters on much larger farms (if one can still call agri-business enterprises “farms.”).
• Reduce federal budgets for weaponry. Homo sapiens has proved again and again that its greatest capacity is for destruction. We no longer have the luxury of invading other countries, in any sense. See “assign higher value to all living organisms” above. Yes, there may be need to deploy troops to make peace in places of conflict, but we have to eliminate all nuclear weapons at the least. I would gladly pay more in taxes for DISarmament.
• Cease an “Americentric” approach to domestic problems. The U.S. has an enormous ego problem. We can no longer dismiss the successes of other nations in solving common problems like unemployment and substance abuse. “Our way or the highway” is an attitude that leads to failure. There is no shame in adopting the ways of others when those solutions are demonstrably successful.

Perhaps one of the good things that will come from rising fuel prices (as a result of dwindling oil supplies) is that people will be forced to look at their immediate surroundings and lifestyle and realize that they need to appreciate what is close to home. I hope it doesn’t come to rationing and other extreme measures before we come to our senses, though. I truly believe that biodiversity begins at home. So does conservation, sustainability, and environmentalism.