Some radical wild horse advocates just keep repeating the same misinformation over and over, hoping people start to take it as truth. This is illustrated by this thread on a High Country News article.
A common WH advocate talking point is that horses are native to North America. EPA defines introduced species as “species that have become able to survive and reproduce outside the habitats where they evolved or spread naturally". The early American horse had been game for the earliest humans on the continent. It went extinct about 7,000 BC, just after the end of the last glacial period (as a poster mentions, this was a different species than the horses here now). Thus it did not evolve here or spread naturally but was spread by Spaniards and other Europeans who brought horses to the Americas in the sixteenth century. If WH advocates claim horses are native because an animal they descended from ran here thousands of years ago, then elephants are native too. But you know what? It really doesn’t matter. We humans manage native wildlife and we manage introduced wildlife. But WH advocates want no management of wild horses at all. This is an unreasonable position IMHO.
The second is that wild horses do not destroy native ranges. In fact, one advocate has even contended that they “enrich habitat.” What? Folks, this isn’t that hard. A non-native species in large numbers is not enriching habitat. Then we have a poster who contends that horses do not compete with native wildlife. Whoa. Really? Gee, I didn’t know the forage out there was labeled and horses left the forage assigned to the wildlife alone. These are not well-thought out assertions from people who are speaking from emotion. I agree with what many say about ranching and too much livestock on public land. But this in no way legitimizes their agenda to have thousands of wild horses running free destroying the range. This is like when a 5-year old child tells his parents it’s okay to do something bad because their friends do it. If we don’t let small children get away with this, we shouldn’t let WH advocates get away with it either.
The third talking point is that BLM is lying about science and breaking the law. However, WH advocates sue BLM nearly every time they gather wild horses and they almost always lose. Because the agency knows they’re going to get sued every single time they pick up a WH, they are very diligent in gathering range data in Herd Management Areas. WH advocates tried to stop the massive round up in Nevada several months ago. The judge, again, ruled in favor of BLM and the gather went on. If BLM data are cooked, why are they winning gather litigation? Dozens of judges are not part of this conspiracy. You are losing all these gather court cases because you’re lying about who has the accurate science. And the assertion that BLM is "managing wild horses to extinction" is laughable. There are currently 37,000 wild horses and burros still roaming public lands, up from 25,345 in 1971.
Wild horses are an extremely emotional issue. What we need are fewer extremes. We need logical solutions, not radical ones. We shouldn’t be considering euthanizing horses. That’s extreme. But radical solutions are the only ones acceptable to most WH advocates. In every single issue we see on public lands, there has to be some compromise. But too many WH advocates don’t seem to know the meaning of the word compromise.
Neely writes “Wild horse lovers tend to prefer contraception to roundups,” which is true. However, the fact is that many WH lovers also detest contraception, saying it’s cruel. So as far as population control options available, round ups are out, and so is contraception. What does that leave? NOTHING. No management of wild horses. Let them breed at 20% recruitment rates forever. Let thousands, then hundreds of thousands of horses destroy our native ranges.
Make no mistake, this is exactly what some WH advocates want. There are moderate WH advocates, who do a lot more good for horses than these radical ones: http://www.gjsentinel.com/lifestyle/articles/local_group_blm_work_together. Too bad these sensible voices are drowned out by the radical. There is room for WHs on our public lands. They have a place there. But these lies and extreme positions are not helpful in managing our ranges effectively.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Think international aid is helping Haitians? Think again.
Over the last 30 years or so, international “aid” NGOs have completely taken over Haiti. From 1990 to 2005, the international community has given Haiti over $1.47 billion in aid. International aid NGOs have taken over every aspect of government and civics in Haiti: education, security, banking, justice system, heath care, food, etc, all provided by donors. US has dumped so much subsidized rice on the country it has killed all incentive for Haitians to farm and grow crops for themselves. All this, and how has it helped the Haitian people? The 153rd poorest country out of 177. 75% of the population living on less than $2 a day. Donors have stripped the Haitian government and people of all normal responsibilities and duties. Haiti can’t stand on its own feet anymore.
This is what the international aid apparatus does. It sets up camp and starts the aid machine running. Once it gets running, it self-perpetuates and little can stop it. The mission of these huge aid NGOs is to stay in business. The NGOs need more and more money to keep up, or better yet grow, their staffs. They pitch any project, regardless of how much it will help the poor, because it can bring them money. They spin their reports, claiming success, or blaming the difficult Haitian masses for failures. They grow, and grow, making more Americans richer, and making the Haitian elite richer. The corrupt Haitian government and elite are plugged into the aid machine, who siphon off all kinds of international money. More corruption, more money for the bad guys, and the poor are left with nothing.
Now the international aid community is licking its chops now after the devastating earthquake. They’ll definitely capitalize on the bleeding hearts and try to push for even more takeover of the country. International Monetary Fund (IMF) director Dominique Strauss-Kahn wrote a piece for the Huffington Post entitled Why We Need a "Marshall Plan" for Haiti. Strauss-Kahn asserts:
Sweet! Any guesses on how many token Haitians are at that conference planning the future of their country? One or two? I’d say 50:1 ratio of donors to Haitians, if we’re lucky. This is exactly what got Haiti into trouble in the first place. How can we trust these people to plan for Haiti. We know what they’re going to say “MORE AID! Hurrah!”
The less the US medals in Haiti’s affairs, the better off the Haitian people will be. Stop influencing their elections and overthrowing leaders who won’t carry our water. Support who the people voted for, even if they don’t want to move all their people to the cities for manufacturing jobs. Quit dumping cheap American goods in the country, rendering their economy useless, and correct unfair trade laws. Start pulling all international aid NGOs out of the country and let these folks stand on their own two feet. Or, at least we need a filter to make sure only good, effective aid takes place. The kind that builds capacity instead of giving things out. The kind that provides small loans so people can start businesses.
Don’t take this as opposition to giving money for disaster assistance. That money goes directly to saving lives. But if you want to help Haitians more than that, I’d urge you to do some research on who you’re donating to and think about how it might hurt Haitians more than it helps.
References and some other reading:
Why Foreign Aid to Haiti Failed, a report by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
To Help Haiti, End Foreign Aid
This is what the international aid apparatus does. It sets up camp and starts the aid machine running. Once it gets running, it self-perpetuates and little can stop it. The mission of these huge aid NGOs is to stay in business. The NGOs need more and more money to keep up, or better yet grow, their staffs. They pitch any project, regardless of how much it will help the poor, because it can bring them money. They spin their reports, claiming success, or blaming the difficult Haitian masses for failures. They grow, and grow, making more Americans richer, and making the Haitian elite richer. The corrupt Haitian government and elite are plugged into the aid machine, who siphon off all kinds of international money. More corruption, more money for the bad guys, and the poor are left with nothing.
Now the international aid community is licking its chops now after the devastating earthquake. They’ll definitely capitalize on the bleeding hearts and try to push for even more takeover of the country. International Monetary Fund (IMF) director Dominique Strauss-Kahn wrote a piece for the Huffington Post entitled Why We Need a "Marshall Plan" for Haiti. Strauss-Kahn asserts:
A first donors' conference is scheduled to take place in Montreal next week, in preparation for a larger conference in the spring that will mobilize financing for Haiti. I hope the contours of such a plan will start to take shape through the process begun in Montreal.
Sweet! Any guesses on how many token Haitians are at that conference planning the future of their country? One or two? I’d say 50:1 ratio of donors to Haitians, if we’re lucky. This is exactly what got Haiti into trouble in the first place. How can we trust these people to plan for Haiti. We know what they’re going to say “MORE AID! Hurrah!”
The less the US medals in Haiti’s affairs, the better off the Haitian people will be. Stop influencing their elections and overthrowing leaders who won’t carry our water. Support who the people voted for, even if they don’t want to move all their people to the cities for manufacturing jobs. Quit dumping cheap American goods in the country, rendering their economy useless, and correct unfair trade laws. Start pulling all international aid NGOs out of the country and let these folks stand on their own two feet. Or, at least we need a filter to make sure only good, effective aid takes place. The kind that builds capacity instead of giving things out. The kind that provides small loans so people can start businesses.
Don’t take this as opposition to giving money for disaster assistance. That money goes directly to saving lives. But if you want to help Haitians more than that, I’d urge you to do some research on who you’re donating to and think about how it might hurt Haitians more than it helps.
References and some other reading:
Why Foreign Aid to Haiti Failed, a report by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
To Help Haiti, End Foreign Aid
Monday, January 18, 2010
Follow up: Muslim women and the veil
So I was thumbing through my January/Februry Playboy and flipped to my favorite part of the magazine, the reason I continue to spend $30 a year to keep my subscription, the Forum. This month the featured a fascinating piece by Malise Ruthven called “Decoding the Veil: There’s more than meets the eye when it comes to the women of Islam.” Timely, considering my rant on the same subject. I really wish I could find it on-line so I could share it with you, but a summary should do, along with a few words about how it confirmed my opinion on France proposing to ban the burqa.
Ruthven’s history lesson started in the days of slavery. In the days of Islamic colonization, they took many slaves in the communities they conquered. These slave women, who were often hired as concubines, were allowed to bear their entire body, except from bellybutton to knee (the men had to be able to see what they were purchasing). When they got married they were no longer considered to be slaves. They would proudly wear the veil, a status symbol of respectability that told people they were wives, no longer slaves.
This symbol of emancipation is still alive in Islam today. “A thousand years of history in which women are the guardians of family honor and respectability is equated with concealment and physical display with slavery are not going to fade overnight,” Ruthven writes. He goes on to explain how the veil also symbolizes resistance to foreign conquest. This connection still stands today. Ruthven states:
So, as in most issues, there is much more to the story than we might have thought. This all reinforces my point that the veil is not strictly religious; it’s also a powerful cultural symbol with multiple meanings. France can talk a mean game about keeping religion out of the public sphere, but do they know, or do they care, that they’re also keeping other’s culture out of the public sphere? It also explains why so many Muslim women want to wear the burqa. It’s not that all of them are brainwashed by their religion or forced by their husbands. Because of the deep history of the veil, many women in Islam are proud to wear it. They should have the choice to do so.
Ruthven’s history lesson started in the days of slavery. In the days of Islamic colonization, they took many slaves in the communities they conquered. These slave women, who were often hired as concubines, were allowed to bear their entire body, except from bellybutton to knee (the men had to be able to see what they were purchasing). When they got married they were no longer considered to be slaves. They would proudly wear the veil, a status symbol of respectability that told people they were wives, no longer slaves.
This symbol of emancipation is still alive in Islam today. “A thousand years of history in which women are the guardians of family honor and respectability is equated with concealment and physical display with slavery are not going to fade overnight,” Ruthven writes. He goes on to explain how the veil also symbolizes resistance to foreign conquest. This connection still stands today. Ruthven states:
In Western cultures, where personal worth is often judged by appearances, [the veil] still symbolizes a type of resistance. The veiled woman defies the tyranny not so much erstwhile colonial masters (though the associations may be there) but of a globalized fashion industry that diminished women who fail to conform to its youthful and elegant norms. Young women who don the veil in Western countries often explain that it gives them back control of their bodies, making them feel less like sex objects.
So, as in most issues, there is much more to the story than we might have thought. This all reinforces my point that the veil is not strictly religious; it’s also a powerful cultural symbol with multiple meanings. France can talk a mean game about keeping religion out of the public sphere, but do they know, or do they care, that they’re also keeping other’s culture out of the public sphere? It also explains why so many Muslim women want to wear the burqa. It’s not that all of them are brainwashed by their religion or forced by their husbands. Because of the deep history of the veil, many women in Islam are proud to wear it. They should have the choice to do so.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Banning the burqa: progressing freedom or limiting it?
It’s been a while since I ranted. I read a stat the other day that 70% of blogs in the US haven’t been updated in 4 months. Better make sure that freshconsciousness doesn’t fall into that category.
You might have heard about how the French government is considering a law that would ban the burqa anywhere in public.
France Moves Closer to Banning Burqas
It wouldn’t ban the Muslim headscarves, just Islamic dress that covers the face. The proposed law states, "No one may, in spaces open to the public and on public streets, wear a garment or an accessory that has the effect of hiding the face.”
The French see it as a religion in the public sphere and as symbol oppression of women. “Here, it is widely viewed as a gateway to radical Islam, an attack on gender equality and other French values, and a gnawing away at the nation's secular foundation.” This isn’t unprecedented in Europe. France previously banned Muslim headscarves and other "ostentatious" religious symbols in the classrooms of French public schools, and Switzerland recently banned minarets.
This is a complicated topic and I’m somewhat conflicted. Ultimately, I think banning certain clothing is an affront to liberty and the freedoms western democracies were founded on. If I certainly can’t agree with Muslim women being forced to wear the burqa like they are in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, I also can’t agree with a government forcing women to not wear them.
The burqa may be a symbol of oppression to some people inside and outside of Islam, but not to everyone. And while some claim the burqa is a religious symbol, it’s also a cultural symbol to some. Some women claim they like to wear one, to show their pride in their culture, or to be more spiritual.
It seemed like most people who commented on the Huffington Post article agrees with the ban. Some raise the point that all governments regulated dress to some degree, and Germany even banned Nazi symbols. Good point; the issues are similar. Even though the burqa might not carry the same hate, violence, and evil, it does to some degree. So if you forced me to be consistent, even though banning swastikas is easier to digest, I guess I wouldn't support that either. The article states that the proposed law to ban burqas “cites public security concerns, thus includes all face-covering clothes, in a bid to head off challenges from those who might claim such a law would violate constitutional rules on individual rights…” So now we’re banning things out of fear? That makes it even worse. If fear for public safety is the reason they’re banning burqas or Nazi symbols, I can’t support that.
One poster commented that “Ban the burqua and ban all fundamentalist religious sects which express hostility to secular Western values and democracy.” Excuse me? Since when is BANNING things is “Western values?” Where does this stop? This puts liberty on a slippery slope where governments get to decide what constitutes “Western values” and force society to comply. That sounds more like fascism than democracy. It’s also an affront to diversity. In the name of assimilation and conformity, the French aren’t willing to accept people that are too different, cultures that challenge their secular world-view. They want to maintain their “French flavor.” Coming from a melting pot country, that sounds elitist, intolerant, and bigoted. Slip any further down this slope and you’re talking about banning religious or cultural practices. Additionally, as far as liberating women goes, it might have the opposite effect, keeping Muslim women even more hidden:
Muslim women should have the freedom to wear what they want. In progressive Muslim cities like Cairo and Istanbul, women can wear a scarf, a burqa, or nothing. (Granted, there may be some bad stigmas attached to women who don’t cover). We should help fight for this right, as way too many Muslim women don’t get a choice. We should assist Muslim women in their fight within Islam to force this change. Forcing a change from outside only increases atomicity and can sometimes lead people to dig their heals in and resist the outside pressure.
I think I’ve put forward a pretty good case that banning the burqa slights liberty, it does not expand it. However, I will leave you with a comment that almost made me change my mind:
You might have heard about how the French government is considering a law that would ban the burqa anywhere in public.
France Moves Closer to Banning Burqas
It wouldn’t ban the Muslim headscarves, just Islamic dress that covers the face. The proposed law states, "No one may, in spaces open to the public and on public streets, wear a garment or an accessory that has the effect of hiding the face.”
The French see it as a religion in the public sphere and as symbol oppression of women. “Here, it is widely viewed as a gateway to radical Islam, an attack on gender equality and other French values, and a gnawing away at the nation's secular foundation.” This isn’t unprecedented in Europe. France previously banned Muslim headscarves and other "ostentatious" religious symbols in the classrooms of French public schools, and Switzerland recently banned minarets.
This is a complicated topic and I’m somewhat conflicted. Ultimately, I think banning certain clothing is an affront to liberty and the freedoms western democracies were founded on. If I certainly can’t agree with Muslim women being forced to wear the burqa like they are in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, I also can’t agree with a government forcing women to not wear them.
The burqa may be a symbol of oppression to some people inside and outside of Islam, but not to everyone. And while some claim the burqa is a religious symbol, it’s also a cultural symbol to some. Some women claim they like to wear one, to show their pride in their culture, or to be more spiritual.
It seemed like most people who commented on the Huffington Post article agrees with the ban. Some raise the point that all governments regulated dress to some degree, and Germany even banned Nazi symbols. Good point; the issues are similar. Even though the burqa might not carry the same hate, violence, and evil, it does to some degree. So if you forced me to be consistent, even though banning swastikas is easier to digest, I guess I wouldn't support that either. The article states that the proposed law to ban burqas “cites public security concerns, thus includes all face-covering clothes, in a bid to head off challenges from those who might claim such a law would violate constitutional rules on individual rights…” So now we’re banning things out of fear? That makes it even worse. If fear for public safety is the reason they’re banning burqas or Nazi symbols, I can’t support that.
One poster commented that “Ban the burqua and ban all fundamentalist religious sects which express hostility to secular Western values and democracy.” Excuse me? Since when is BANNING things is “Western values?” Where does this stop? This puts liberty on a slippery slope where governments get to decide what constitutes “Western values” and force society to comply. That sounds more like fascism than democracy. It’s also an affront to diversity. In the name of assimilation and conformity, the French aren’t willing to accept people that are too different, cultures that challenge their secular world-view. They want to maintain their “French flavor.” Coming from a melting pot country, that sounds elitist, intolerant, and bigoted. Slip any further down this slope and you’re talking about banning religious or cultural practices. Additionally, as far as liberating women goes, it might have the opposite effect, keeping Muslim women even more hidden:
"We won't be able to leave the house," said Oumeima Naceri, a 19-year-old convert draped in black garments, including a filmy "sitar" veil covering even her eyes. "That frightens us enormously ... It's like asking us to go naked."
Muslim women should have the freedom to wear what they want. In progressive Muslim cities like Cairo and Istanbul, women can wear a scarf, a burqa, or nothing. (Granted, there may be some bad stigmas attached to women who don’t cover). We should help fight for this right, as way too many Muslim women don’t get a choice. We should assist Muslim women in their fight within Islam to force this change. Forcing a change from outside only increases atomicity and can sometimes lead people to dig their heals in and resist the outside pressure.
I think I’ve put forward a pretty good case that banning the burqa slights liberty, it does not expand it. However, I will leave you with a comment that almost made me change my mind:
IF you had been born female into a family that believes that you cannot go against Islam in any way--for instance the kind of family where one goes into the streets to protest against a cartoon drawn by some Danish guy (and how many thousand did exactly that?)
THEN you would have learned from a very young age that you don't challenge a religious obligation, you don't show any religious dissent whatsoever
THEN you would know that the person who feeds you and keeps you has all the power and could go ape-shit on your ass at any time
THEN you might be talked into a burka and feel safer with it than without it
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT
If France--where I live--we believe in religious dissent and freedom FROM religion in the public sphere. We know damn well that as soon as young Muslim girls go home they are subjected again to a steady regime of ask no question, comply, pray and obey. But we demand to see their faces and look into their eyes because they are people, not shadows.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
International conservation NGOs
So like a good liberal I was brousing The Huffington Post the other day. I came along this article: Ashley Judd: Please, Population Control is Not the Answer for Congo.
I posted a comment, this time with my credentials, and the author Georgianne asked to chat with me about international development NGOs working in the region. She sent me two interesting reports:
A Challenge to Conservationists
MID-TERM ASSESSMENT OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REGIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (CARPE)
It brought me back to grad school. One of my professors, Dianne Rocheleau, used to tell us about this kind of conservation. She dubbed it “guns and fences conservation.” Erect fences, and guard the reserve with guns so none of those destructive peasants can get in. Besides being unethical, it just doesn’t work. I’d ask you all to boycott donating to these agencies, but unfortunately, these NGOs derive extremely little of their funding from private donations, so there’s little we can do as normal citizens.
I found the critiques of TNC interesting, as TNC is one of the conservation organizations in the US I respect the most. As opposed to some other big national and regional NGOs, they do work directly with local communities in the west. They pay attention to all science, not only the stuff that suits their cause, and they hardly every exaggerate or lie, which is the MO of many other organizations. They put their money where their mouth is, spending it on buying land and putting conservation easements in place instead of lobbying above the communities’ heads and suing agencies. This is how the conservation movement game is played in America. While The Wilderness Society and Colorado Environmental Coalition is hated by locals in rural Colorado (some for good reasons, some not), TNC is not viewed as a “radical environmental organization” and is (relatively) well respected by the rednecks. I definitely consider myself an environmentalist, but after working years with some of these big conservation NGOs, I’ve become quite jaded. Like international aid, it’s all about the money.
As the author Chapin infers, we must work with communities not only because building the capacity of these communities to prosper, but because no matter how many fences you put up, no matter how many men with guns guard your sanctuaries, the disenfranchised people will use their traditional resources and you won’t meet your conservation goals. I also liked the fact that Chapin mentions that the true goal of an NGO is to work yourself out of a job. This NEVER happens. That’s not the way The Aid Machine works.
It’s all about keeping The Aid Machine running. People have jobs that they want to justify. NGOs have to keep spending money, regardless of the effectiveness, or the money dries up. They take the money and hire more people. They flail around for several years because doing true community-driven conservation is hard. But they will never refuse the money and say “sorry, this project just isn’t working.” That would mean no more funding stream. This is why I call it The Aid Machine. It is self-perpetuating, always feeding itself. It hardly every shrinks, only grows. Chapin had some startling insights on where these NGOs get their money and how that relates to their mission. These groups HAVE to keep getting money to survive, and soon they don’t care where it comes from, or what projects it goes towards. They just need to spend it, or next year they don’t get any. This is the problem of international aid. It’s not about helping, it’s about spending.
As far as the assessment of the CARPE program, it seems to me working with local communities was never really a goal of this program in the first place. Sure enough, this is called out several times in the report.
“Progress in working with forest concessions and in establishing community based natural resource management (CBNRM) reserves is limited.”
“Capacity Building: The mix of NGOs and federal agency service providers has not effectively addressed the capacity building objective. NGOs have strengthened park management and surveillance capacity, but impact on Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and local NGOs has been much less effective.”
By focusing more on enforcement and less on communities, it becomes clear that these agencies are doing “guns and fences conservation.” It seems that inviting the local communities to participate in conservation isn’t even a goal of this program. Look at the second strategic design element:
“2. A set of mostly US-based organizations that work across landscapes in common thematic areas such as multiple-use planning, forest monitoring, policy and governance and uncontrolled hunting;”
More enforcement. No where in the strategic goals is anything about working with local communities; no where is there anything about poverty reduction. The people of Congo are largely ignored and forgotten.
I found the constraints that were identified quite interesting:
“The main constraints to progress at the landscape scale include: remoteness, difficult access to the sites, lack of an information base for planning/management, lack of infrastructure, lack of agreements in place to work with government agencies mandated to manage lands outside of PAs, low tourism potential, and low local partner capacity. In several landscapes, insecurity makes access impossible or dangerous in parts of the landscape.”
First, we are told it’s hard to get white people into these places, and it’s dangerous. Um, why not leverage the support of the local communities then? It is inferred that the natives are difficult. “If those damn Africans would just get with the program and build roads, quit fighting, and partner with us, we would be fine.” No sign that the program itself is the problem. To them, Africans are passive recipients of aid, not active agents in change.
It's really too bad international conservation NGOs play the game this way. No wonder aid to Africa isn't working.
I posted a comment, this time with my credentials, and the author Georgianne asked to chat with me about international development NGOs working in the region. She sent me two interesting reports:
A Challenge to Conservationists
MID-TERM ASSESSMENT OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REGIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (CARPE)
It brought me back to grad school. One of my professors, Dianne Rocheleau, used to tell us about this kind of conservation. She dubbed it “guns and fences conservation.” Erect fences, and guard the reserve with guns so none of those destructive peasants can get in. Besides being unethical, it just doesn’t work. I’d ask you all to boycott donating to these agencies, but unfortunately, these NGOs derive extremely little of their funding from private donations, so there’s little we can do as normal citizens.
I found the critiques of TNC interesting, as TNC is one of the conservation organizations in the US I respect the most. As opposed to some other big national and regional NGOs, they do work directly with local communities in the west. They pay attention to all science, not only the stuff that suits their cause, and they hardly every exaggerate or lie, which is the MO of many other organizations. They put their money where their mouth is, spending it on buying land and putting conservation easements in place instead of lobbying above the communities’ heads and suing agencies. This is how the conservation movement game is played in America. While The Wilderness Society and Colorado Environmental Coalition is hated by locals in rural Colorado (some for good reasons, some not), TNC is not viewed as a “radical environmental organization” and is (relatively) well respected by the rednecks. I definitely consider myself an environmentalist, but after working years with some of these big conservation NGOs, I’ve become quite jaded. Like international aid, it’s all about the money.
As the author Chapin infers, we must work with communities not only because building the capacity of these communities to prosper, but because no matter how many fences you put up, no matter how many men with guns guard your sanctuaries, the disenfranchised people will use their traditional resources and you won’t meet your conservation goals. I also liked the fact that Chapin mentions that the true goal of an NGO is to work yourself out of a job. This NEVER happens. That’s not the way The Aid Machine works.
It’s all about keeping The Aid Machine running. People have jobs that they want to justify. NGOs have to keep spending money, regardless of the effectiveness, or the money dries up. They take the money and hire more people. They flail around for several years because doing true community-driven conservation is hard. But they will never refuse the money and say “sorry, this project just isn’t working.” That would mean no more funding stream. This is why I call it The Aid Machine. It is self-perpetuating, always feeding itself. It hardly every shrinks, only grows. Chapin had some startling insights on where these NGOs get their money and how that relates to their mission. These groups HAVE to keep getting money to survive, and soon they don’t care where it comes from, or what projects it goes towards. They just need to spend it, or next year they don’t get any. This is the problem of international aid. It’s not about helping, it’s about spending.
As far as the assessment of the CARPE program, it seems to me working with local communities was never really a goal of this program in the first place. Sure enough, this is called out several times in the report.
“Progress in working with forest concessions and in establishing community based natural resource management (CBNRM) reserves is limited.”
“Capacity Building: The mix of NGOs and federal agency service providers has not effectively addressed the capacity building objective. NGOs have strengthened park management and surveillance capacity, but impact on Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and local NGOs has been much less effective.”
By focusing more on enforcement and less on communities, it becomes clear that these agencies are doing “guns and fences conservation.” It seems that inviting the local communities to participate in conservation isn’t even a goal of this program. Look at the second strategic design element:
“2. A set of mostly US-based organizations that work across landscapes in common thematic areas such as multiple-use planning, forest monitoring, policy and governance and uncontrolled hunting;”
More enforcement. No where in the strategic goals is anything about working with local communities; no where is there anything about poverty reduction. The people of Congo are largely ignored and forgotten.
I found the constraints that were identified quite interesting:
“The main constraints to progress at the landscape scale include: remoteness, difficult access to the sites, lack of an information base for planning/management, lack of infrastructure, lack of agreements in place to work with government agencies mandated to manage lands outside of PAs, low tourism potential, and low local partner capacity. In several landscapes, insecurity makes access impossible or dangerous in parts of the landscape.”
First, we are told it’s hard to get white people into these places, and it’s dangerous. Um, why not leverage the support of the local communities then? It is inferred that the natives are difficult. “If those damn Africans would just get with the program and build roads, quit fighting, and partner with us, we would be fine.” No sign that the program itself is the problem. To them, Africans are passive recipients of aid, not active agents in change.
It's really too bad international conservation NGOs play the game this way. No wonder aid to Africa isn't working.
Monday, October 26, 2009
H.R.2807 - America's Wildlife Heritage Act: Changing our public lands laws
CSU professor Barry R. Noon wrote The greatest good for the greatest number in Saturday's Denver Post. In this piece Noon advocates revising the laws that govern public land managent to emphasize resource protection over use. While I agree with his thesis that land management should shift from use towards conservation, I don’t believe rewriting our public lands laws is the way to accomplish that goal.
The laws and policies which currently guide our land management agencies already allow agencies to do the things you’re advocating. The two overarching laws governing use on Forest Service and BLM land (National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA)) direct agencies to manage lands sustainably and to protect natural resources. There is a lot of decision space to work with within the existing regulatory framework. How do you want “advance environmental stewardship on our public lands?” Stringent stipulations on uses? Closed to logging and oil and gas development? All these things and more can be done within existing laws.
Congress and the Obama administration already “have the opportunity to advance environmental stewardship on our public lands” through our existing laws. Congress can do almost anything they want. Want more wilderness? Updated oil and gas On Shore Orders? Congress can do this with the stroke of a pen; they don’t need an overhaul of land management laws. We can “develop land-use policies that emphasize science-based management of our public lands—that is, policies that promote science based tools to sustain fish and wildlife populations and the resources and ecosystems on which they depend” through existing laws. In fact, land management agencies are already doing these things. Recent studies on greater sage-grouse are leading to more stringent restrictions on oil and gas development. Agencies rely heavily on scientific data to make decisions. When they don’t, they lose lawsuits. Using science is necessary to show impacts of agency actions when complying with NEPA.
Let’s look specifically at the H.R.2807 - America's Wildlife Heritage Act. I’m looking at the summary here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2807&tab=summary
Agencies already have a body of guidance regarding native species. It looks almost exactly like the broad, squishy language above, telling agencies natives are preferred while leaving room for non-natives. (Our politicians wouldn’t want to mandate that all species are native or their friends in the agriculture business would not be happy). Direction like this in a law is ambiguous and meaningless.
We need a law just to tell land management agencies to work together? Is that really a good use of our legislature’s time and energy? Agencies already work together. There are processes in place (such as Cooperating Agency Status) that deal with agency cooperation.
As for NEPA, it’s a very simple law (it’s only a few pages) and should not be tampered with. NEPA says nothing about what course of action an agency should take. It does not give guidance on whether to allow use of resources or to preserve them. NEPA merely tells the agencies that they must make the public aware of the impacts of their actions and affords the public the right to participate in these decisions. No one can argue those are not very important things for a public land agency to do. It doesn’t matter how old it is, these important principles will always stand. NEPA should not be “polluted” with opinions on how to address specific resource uses. Policy, guidance, and land use plans should address those tough issues.
Maybe some tweaks around the edges could be warranted. But I would caution totally revamping our laws that govern public land management. The laws aren’t broken, only some administrations which implement them. This problem of mismanagement will not go away regardless of how many laws are changed or added. This effort might make folks feel good, but it means nothing. We would be better off with Obama’s Secretaries of Ag and Interior issuing guidance to the agencies which emphasizes protection of natural resources and makes certain practices/approaches which do this a priority. Their ability to do this is well within existing law. We saw how much Bush did within existing law (and some outside law) to make use a priority. Obama can do the same to further his administration’s environmental goals the opposite side of the spectrum.
The laws and policies which currently guide our land management agencies already allow agencies to do the things you’re advocating. The two overarching laws governing use on Forest Service and BLM land (National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA)) direct agencies to manage lands sustainably and to protect natural resources. There is a lot of decision space to work with within the existing regulatory framework. How do you want “advance environmental stewardship on our public lands?” Stringent stipulations on uses? Closed to logging and oil and gas development? All these things and more can be done within existing laws.
Congress and the Obama administration already “have the opportunity to advance environmental stewardship on our public lands” through our existing laws. Congress can do almost anything they want. Want more wilderness? Updated oil and gas On Shore Orders? Congress can do this with the stroke of a pen; they don’t need an overhaul of land management laws. We can “develop land-use policies that emphasize science-based management of our public lands—that is, policies that promote science based tools to sustain fish and wildlife populations and the resources and ecosystems on which they depend” through existing laws. In fact, land management agencies are already doing these things. Recent studies on greater sage-grouse are leading to more stringent restrictions on oil and gas development. Agencies rely heavily on scientific data to make decisions. When they don’t, they lose lawsuits. Using science is necessary to show impacts of agency actions when complying with NEPA.
Let’s look specifically at the H.R.2807 - America's Wildlife Heritage Act. I’m looking at the summary here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2807&tab=summary
America's Wildlife Heritage Act - Sets forth requirements concerning the maintenance of viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species within each planning area in the National Forest System's or the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) public lands. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to adopt and implement a strategically targeted monitoring program for determining the status and trends of native and desired non-native species populations on System and BLM lands. Defines: (1) native species to mean species of plants and animals indigenous to a planning area; and (2) desired non-native species to mean those wild species of plants and animals that are not indigenous to a planning area but are valued for their contribution to species diversity or their social, cultural, or economic value.
Agencies already have a body of guidance regarding native species. It looks almost exactly like the broad, squishy language above, telling agencies natives are preferred while leaving room for non-natives. (Our politicians wouldn’t want to mandate that all species are native or their friends in the agriculture business would not be happy). Direction like this in a law is ambiguous and meaningless.
Requires the Secretaries to coordinate the management of planning areas of the System and the BLM with the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park System, other federal agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, other state agencies responsible for management of natural resources, tribes, local governments, and non-governmental organizations engaged in species conservation. Requires the Secretaries to issue regulations implementing this Act within one year of its enactment.
We need a law just to tell land management agencies to work together? Is that really a good use of our legislature’s time and energy? Agencies already work together. There are processes in place (such as Cooperating Agency Status) that deal with agency cooperation.
As for NEPA, it’s a very simple law (it’s only a few pages) and should not be tampered with. NEPA says nothing about what course of action an agency should take. It does not give guidance on whether to allow use of resources or to preserve them. NEPA merely tells the agencies that they must make the public aware of the impacts of their actions and affords the public the right to participate in these decisions. No one can argue those are not very important things for a public land agency to do. It doesn’t matter how old it is, these important principles will always stand. NEPA should not be “polluted” with opinions on how to address specific resource uses. Policy, guidance, and land use plans should address those tough issues.
Maybe some tweaks around the edges could be warranted. But I would caution totally revamping our laws that govern public land management. The laws aren’t broken, only some administrations which implement them. This problem of mismanagement will not go away regardless of how many laws are changed or added. This effort might make folks feel good, but it means nothing. We would be better off with Obama’s Secretaries of Ag and Interior issuing guidance to the agencies which emphasizes protection of natural resources and makes certain practices/approaches which do this a priority. Their ability to do this is well within existing law. We saw how much Bush did within existing law (and some outside law) to make use a priority. Obama can do the same to further his administration’s environmental goals the opposite side of the spectrum.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Problems with sports culture in the US: Who is responsible?
Denver Post printed a nice piece by a high school athlete today entitled "Why I can't stand youth sports anymore." It made me think about sports culture in America.
I hear a lot of blame going around when it comes to sports in 21st century American culture. Sports is HUGE business. Absolutely enormous. Never mind the billions the NFL makes every year, now make believe (fantasy) football is now a billion dollar business. The negative aspects are pretty apparent in all levels of sports culture: hyper-competitiveness in youth sports, devastating injuries to young athletes, parents assaulting referees, athletes making it through college not knowing how to read or write, poor sportsmanship, athletes who have learned that violence and aggression is the way to address life's problems, etc. Sports headlines crowd out “more important” news as the media fans the flames of every sports story. ESPN covers our 11 year-olds playing little league like there’s nothing more important in their lives than winning, and we talk about how there’s no child exploitation in America. The list goes on and on. I'm a huge sports fan, and I realize there are many positive aspects too. However, I think most Americans can agree with this well-written piece by Scott Martin that these negative aspects are getting worse.
So who’s to blame? The parents? The kids? The agents? The athletes? The owners? The media? To some extent, all of the above. However, in my humble opinion, none of those parties are more to blame than the American sports consumer. That’s me, you, and millions of Americans who park our butts on the sofa or in a stadium seat every weekend. We feed the gargantuan monster that has become sports in America. Make no mistake about it WE drive this bus. The negative aspects are reflections of American’s obsession with sports. These negative elements are manifestations of the market reacting to millions of consumers and their dollars.
So what will it take to change? What can we do to try to reverse some of these trends? To some extent, we can change things on the ground in the neighborhoods in which we live. Grassroots action can make your child’s soccer program better. However, to make large systemic changes to US sports culture, I fear that only a large shift in sports consumption will do the trick. People need to stop watching and stop attending. I, for one, don’t see that happening. I, for one, am not about to stop watching sports. As long as the US consumer continues to demand sports, parents will continue to drive their kids too hard and the media will continue to have a heyday every time Brandon Marshall has something to say.
It’s easy to point the fingers at others. But I feel that I’m a hypocrite if I attack sports culture when I’m sitting happily on the sofa soaking it up for 6 hours every Sunday. Anyway, just something to think about.
I hear a lot of blame going around when it comes to sports in 21st century American culture. Sports is HUGE business. Absolutely enormous. Never mind the billions the NFL makes every year, now make believe (fantasy) football is now a billion dollar business. The negative aspects are pretty apparent in all levels of sports culture: hyper-competitiveness in youth sports, devastating injuries to young athletes, parents assaulting referees, athletes making it through college not knowing how to read or write, poor sportsmanship, athletes who have learned that violence and aggression is the way to address life's problems, etc. Sports headlines crowd out “more important” news as the media fans the flames of every sports story. ESPN covers our 11 year-olds playing little league like there’s nothing more important in their lives than winning, and we talk about how there’s no child exploitation in America. The list goes on and on. I'm a huge sports fan, and I realize there are many positive aspects too. However, I think most Americans can agree with this well-written piece by Scott Martin that these negative aspects are getting worse.
So who’s to blame? The parents? The kids? The agents? The athletes? The owners? The media? To some extent, all of the above. However, in my humble opinion, none of those parties are more to blame than the American sports consumer. That’s me, you, and millions of Americans who park our butts on the sofa or in a stadium seat every weekend. We feed the gargantuan monster that has become sports in America. Make no mistake about it WE drive this bus. The negative aspects are reflections of American’s obsession with sports. These negative elements are manifestations of the market reacting to millions of consumers and their dollars.
So what will it take to change? What can we do to try to reverse some of these trends? To some extent, we can change things on the ground in the neighborhoods in which we live. Grassroots action can make your child’s soccer program better. However, to make large systemic changes to US sports culture, I fear that only a large shift in sports consumption will do the trick. People need to stop watching and stop attending. I, for one, don’t see that happening. I, for one, am not about to stop watching sports. As long as the US consumer continues to demand sports, parents will continue to drive their kids too hard and the media will continue to have a heyday every time Brandon Marshall has something to say.
It’s easy to point the fingers at others. But I feel that I’m a hypocrite if I attack sports culture when I’m sitting happily on the sofa soaking it up for 6 hours every Sunday. Anyway, just something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
