THE EGA TAPES
The Wise Use Movement:
Threats and Opportunities
Beldon Fund, Washington, D.C.: [tape begins in the middle of a
sentence] ...as billed, "Threats and Opportunities," not dwelling
too much on the threats, but really looking at what it means for the
environmental movement. Deb Callahan and I are leading this, but we
really want this to be--turn into a participatory session. We don't
think of ourselves necessarily as the experts on this. We
both are east coasters, and I'm inside the Beltway--Deb is nearly.
[W. Alton Jones Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia]: Marginally
outside the Beltway.
Well, if you go to that second bypass, you'll be inside the
Beltway. So, it's our sense that you folks know a lot about what's
going on out there. You've experienced it yourself. Perhaps some
of you are already engaged in some very interesting grantmaking, and
I think those are the issues we need to start sharing. Our plan
here is to begin with Deb, who is going to be talking about some of
the information-gathering that's been going on about the Wise Use
Movement, the Property Rights Movement from all across the country,
just to give us a good grounding, that we're on the same wavelength
and to show what's being done in that regard.
And then we'll
move into a couple of case studies, a discussion of both the Wise
Use Movement and next the property rights movement. That's the
And we'll end by 2:15.
Yeah. And we plan to end by 2:15. Deb, it's all yours.
Okay, good. Actually we had thought that this was a small group and
we wanted to go around the room, but I don't know. What do you
Did we all read [indistinct]?
I think we'll dispense with formalities. Just very quickly for
point of reference, because it is real important when you're
engaging in this discussion, sort of, what is the level of knowledge
and interaction with Wise Use folks, so just as a point of
reference, all of you who know who Ron Arnold is, would you raise
your hand for me please?
Did anybody else beside Deb have a conversation with him when he was
The guy with the placards, the white beard and white hair.
Deb was unique in that regard.
Okay, do all of you have a general sense of what Wise Use is? Okay,
very briefly, I'll define Wise Use and a couple of terms that we'll
be using throughout the session. For a couple of years now there
has been a growing movement that you notice particularly in the
western United States that really occurs -- we're finding -- all
over the United States that is sort of generally referred to as the
Wise Use movement. In fact "wise use" is a term that was coined by
a figurehead named Ron Arnold who actually showed up here yesterday
or the day before with these people who had yellow placards and they
were walking around in a circle, and they were saying- - you know --
your grants are taking
away our jobs and that sort of thing. Before I go on any
further, I'd like to ask, are any of you associated with wise use
Unidentified male audience member:
Unidentified male audience member:
I attended a meeting.
Unidentified male audience member:
I was trying to form a local chapter of People for the West.
[Laughs] Fine. Alright. It's nice we have an exchange program
going on here. I tend to actually think of the wise use movements
as being more generically the environmental backlash movement,
because in fact around the country as you talk to activists on the
ground who are dealing with what we think of as wise use -- some of
these organizations are formally associated with the wise use
movement and Ron Arnold and really the vast majority often are not
formally associated with wise use and Ron Arnold. So it's really in
some ways sort of a mistake in nomenclature just to refer to this
stuff as wise use, but we do it, and so that's how we're going to
talk about it.
But this is really
-- what I think has really occurred here is the environmental
community has sort of adopted this term wise use to mean this
growing environmental backlash out there in the country that's
really being fueled in large part by a lot of the economic stresses
that have been brought to bear through environmental regulations or
because people would like to think that they've been brought to bear
because of environmental regulations and it's sort of the anti crowd
is what we think of as wise use.
Our foundation put
together a report about eight months ago that was circulated very
widely, which was our initial impressions of wise use, and for those
of you haven't read it, I beg your pardon that I'm going to sort of
jump off and go a little bit past that report but I'd like to update
you a little bit on what we have learned in about the last four
months in continued research about the wise use movement that has
been conducted that's here in this small book here.
What we're finding
is that wise use is really a local movement driven by primarily
local concerns and not national issues. We tend -- you know, when
you think of Ron Arnold and you think of Wise Use, you know, you
think of command and control, top heavy, corporate funded, front
groups that are organizing local people to get involved, get out
there and attack environmentalists.
And that was the
assumption I walked into this whole thing with. And in fact the
more we dig into it, having put together a fifty -- really
constructed over a number of months a fifty state fairly
comprehensive survey of what's going on with respect to wise use
organizing activity--we have come to the conclusion that this is
pretty much generally a grass roots movement, which is a problem,
because it means there's no silver bullets, it means this is, is,
you know, something that is going to have to be confronted in states
and communities across the country in different ways depending on
what the various local issues are that those wise use groups are
dealing with and campaigning on.
Ron Arnold and
these other figureheads like Grant Gerber and Chuck Cushman and some
of these other leaders -- Don Gerdts -- are not creating the
movement. They're trying to get out in front of something that is
going on, in fact. They're attempting to assert some control over
this grass roots movement that's going on. And they're having a
certain amount of success.
They're not having
success in coordinating the national wise use grass roots community
and coalescing it into one movement that has a common agenda, and
works together to fight legislation or to pass bills or to defeat
certain members of Congress.
national figureheads have done extraordinarily well is they have
imposed a language and a set of messages into the grass roots
community that is extremely effective.
And so what we
have here is not an organization, we have a movement. The movement
has a lexicon. The lexicon is very effective. And as I'm going to
go into in a minute, there are three different sets of messages that
the wise use movement employs to three different communities, that
is very effective.
The movement is
actually growing quickly at the grass roots as it finds its base.
What I mean is, the movement is growing quickly around the country,
in some states more quickly than others, but again, this is
happening in every single state. We think of this as being a
western phenomena -- it's not true.
It's in New
England. In New England it's about the Adirondack Mountains, it's
about private property right movements, it's about the North Eastern
forests. In the Southeast it's about coastal zone management and
coastal development. It's about shrimpers in Louisiana not liking
turtle exclusion devices. In the midwest it's about farmland. In
coastal Louisiana and Texas it's about, you know, minerals
development; it's about, you know, coal mining in those states.
All over the
country it's like a gas, this, this, it's filling -- it's, it's
filling the available space, you know, whatever it is in terms of
whatever issues exist there.
So the movement is
growing quickly as these people at the local level who are angry
about the environmental movement find this message and this movement
to tap into. So you're going to find, I think, there's a natural
threshold to which this movement will grow.
The real question
here is, is this movement then going to expand beyond its natural
base into mainstream America? All right? Are you going to find
that suburbanites are beginning to associate with wise use, because
when you poll -- and I'm sure you heard this morning -- and Celinda
Lake who was supposed to be here today, who unfortunately was not
able to make it to our panel either -- what one of her messages was
going to be is, is that what people fundamentally want, what people
fundamentally believe about environmental protection is that, no
it's not just jobs, and no it's not just environment, why can't we
The high ground
here is capturing that message, ok? And in fact the wise use
movement is trying to capture that message. What they're saying out
there is 'we are the real environmentalists. We are the stewards of
the land. We're the farmers who have tilled the land and we know
how to manage this land because we've done it here for generations.
We're the miners and we're the ones who depend for our livelihood on
this land. These guys live in glass towers in New York City.
They're not environmentalists, they're elitists. They're part of the
problem, and they're aligned with big government and they're out of
touch. So we are the real environmentalists.'
And if that's the
message that the wise use movement is able to capture, we are
suddenly the equivalent of incumbents in this election year. We're
And so that's
really what the battle ground is that I want to talk about.
Very quickly, the
three messages that we have found through our study that the wise
use movement employs are first what you might call a vanguard
message. The vanguard message is for the true believers. And this
is, this encompasses this really hot rhetoric that we first became
familiar with Ron Arnold and some of these other leaders using,
things like "Environmentalists are watermelons, they're green on the
outside and red on the inside like communists." Things like
"Environmentalists are pagan worshipers or cow worshipers." Or
things like Don Gerdts in the northeast said, you know, "How do you
define private property? Well, private property is anything you
own, it's your house, it's your land, it's your wife, it's your dog,
it's your kids." You know, there's some pretty outrageous stuff.
That is the
vanguard message. That is for these people who are the heads of
wise use groups who are really the ideologues. Because we're
talking about real ideologues, we're talking about the John Birch
Society that organized a rally in Vermont in June, where what they
did -- this private property rights organization -- hung twenty
public officials in effigy from the ceiling and labelled them, had
Patrick Leahy's general election opponent there asking them for
their support while Leahy was hanging in effigy, and the governor of
the state was hanging in effigy there from the ceiling. And that
was organized by the John Birch Society who is involved in this
private property rights movement.
So there's this
crazy nut case element in this thing, you go, well, main street
people aren't going to buy into this, you don't do that in Vermont.
And that kind of activity is saved for people who're really
attracted to that extremist message.
basically, man's right to exploit nature, no matter what the cost,
is the vanguard message. We have a right to dominate the land and
we have a right to do whatever we want.
The second kind of
message is a conspiracy message. It creates an us-versus-them
mentality. The elitist environmental groups are locking up the
land, they're pushing people out of their jobs, they're in league
with big government. And this message is used to motivate the local
groups and the local leaders, but the vanguard message and the
conspiracy message are what you call narrow-cast messages in the
media business, it's what you use to talk to a narrow group of
people to get them motivated and sparked up.
Then you come to
the main stream message. And this is the one that really poses the
threat to the progress of our community. And what that message says
is man and nature can live together in productive harmony. We're
the real environmentalists. And it's a persuasive message for the
And for those of
you saw Ron Arnold when he was here yesterday or the day before --
I'm really losing track of time -- that's what he was doing. And he
had, you know, ten folks who are real people out there, with
placards, who've lost their jobs, who live in communities where
there's real economic stress because of transition, economic
transition, based on resource extracting issues.
And they were
saying, and they were lookin' us straight in the eye, and they were
saying, hey, because of the work that you've been engaged in, we're
hurting, we're losing our jobs and it's not right. And how do you
say to somebody, no, I don't want you to have your job.
And when Joe
Sixpack hears that message he goes, 'you're right, dammit, people
oughta be able to work, and the environment ought to be able to be
And the minute the
wise use people capture that high ground, we almost have not got a
winning message left in, in our quiver. So therefore, what I'm
going to be advocating, is that we have to develop our own
mainstream message. We have to develop case studies where
environmental regulation has in fact created jobs, where it's in
fact improved people's lives, because we have a lot of these same
kind of stories and we're not just getting them out there.
confronted with loss of jobs, with jobs versus owls, we are --
right, we're nodding our heads and say yeah we need to develop that,
we need to develop that information about economics and the
environment. But we also have to come back, and we also have to
have our own stories that talks about how environmental protection
is good for the human family.
Just side by side,
let me talk to you about a couple of different ways the wise use
people, advocates use message to promote their side and to hit us at
the same time.
With respect to
balance, the wise use advocates in this mainstream message say
they're for balance, man and nature in harmony. They're for
moderation and compromise about environmentalists. They're not for
balance. Only nature is important to these people. Wise Use people
say, people come first, jobs are primary, people are primary.
Environmentalists: people don't come first, all life is equal. Man
is the same value as an amoeba and they tie environmentalists with
the animal rights community.
Wise users say
they have a Can Do attitude. Technological fixes can solve
problems. Environmentalists have a Can't Do attitude. The sky is
falling and I can't get up. Wise users say we believe in freedom of
choice and individual rights. Environmentalists believe the public
comes first and the individual doesn't matter. So what it really
comes down to is wise use versus no use.
Ron Arnold says,
environmentalism is the last gasp of the old world view of man
against nature. He wants to move us into the post environment era,
man and nature can live together in productive harmony. So he's
saying, we're outa' style, we're outa' sync, were passť, and he's
really on the cutting edge.
Whereas in fact
their agenda is regressive, but it's not the way that they're
cutting it. It's not the way he's making it sound. So, to get to
the constructive side of the building blocks that I think our
community needs to put together to try and counter this wise use
movement, there are four components, or five.
The first is
message, and I hit over some of this. First of all, tell the
conservation story. Describe the victories, talk about how the
environmental movement has improved people's lives. Use human
interest. Give -- people perceive environmentalism as being
theoretical -- give it a human face, you know, the same thing
politicians do. They always tell stories about, you know, Joe
Mahoney and his community, you know, blah blah.
We have to
redefine the term Federal lands to mean public lands. Federal is
government, Federal is bad. Public is all of us, it's a concept
that we need to push. These lands that are at stake belong to all
our opponents and how they're ripping off America. They are the
public interest. A fine example of this is the 1872 mining act
where land is getting sold off at $2.50 an acre to these people so
they can go extract a lot of value out of it and not giving a lot
back to the public purse.
Fourth, we need to
side with the main stream. We're not the radicals. And that is
probably the most critical message for us to take away from this: We
don't want people to be jobless, and we don't believe it has to
happen, but we need to work towards that goal. And address
environmental economic concerns simultaneously.
We need to engage
in coalition building with working people, farmers, sports people,
main stream religious denominations -- and that's critical because
they are, are in their elitist messages saying that we're not
Christian, we're pagans, we're cow worshipers, blah blah blah. And
in fact we worked in coalition on toxic spills on the Clean Air Act
and a lot of really important legislation with lobbyists side by
side from mainstream religious organizations. We need to pull these
groups in to help us with this fight on wise use because they are
our best defense because in fact religious organizations do support
a strong environmental agenda very often.
Third, attack wise
use. They're aggressive in our direction and we need to be
aggressive back. Now I don't mean constantly engaging in negative
campaigning because we have a real knee-jerk reaction to that, and
in fact probably rightly so. But we need to find the ideological
divisions in the wise use movement and exploit them.
Why are ranchers
and miners in a coalition together? They have very different
interests. But in the wise use movement they work together. Wise
use versus wise use. A lot of these groups hate each other. A lot
of these leaders really are fighting for the microphone. The Farm
Bureau says they won't have anything to do with Ron Arnold because
they believe he's extreme. Grant Gerber thinks that investigators,
has actually suggested to certain investigators they should
investigate Ron Arnold and he'll give 'em everything he's got to
help them with their investigation.
These people don't
get along really well in terms of internals. And finally, wise use
versus labor. Because if this is a jobs issue, again who's better
addressed the jobs issue than the labor community, than the working
class, than working people. And wise use, part of its agenda is the
dismantlement sometimes -- certain organizations -- of OSHA laws, of
worker protection laws.
When you get into
the takings issue, part of what's at stake here is industry's
regulation for worker safety, so there's some really important hooks
that we can talk with these communities about and try and find some
wedge issues at least neutralize them if not bring them over to our
We need to reveal
the extreme positions of the wise use movement, talk about the Wise
Use Agenda. We need to expose the links between wise use and other
extremists: the Unification Church, the John Birch Society, Lyndon
We need to talk
about the foreign influences in the wise use movement. There's a
lot of Japanese motorcycle industry money in the wise use movement.
And I don't think mid-stream Americans want Honda and Yamasaki to be
talking, to be dictating public lands policy. I mean I think that
really drives the heart of the sort of nationalism that you're
seeing showing up in polls that's popular right now in middle
We need to
re-invigorate the grass roots, which is critical, and Judy is going
to talk more about that and we need to facilitate the communication
of information among all of us.
Later on I'll talk
about some specific programs that are going on around the country
that are pretty exciting, that are addressing wise use issues. And
so I'll move off the general presentation and let Judy move on.
You saw the hook, heh?
Unidentified audience member:
Can I ask a question? How much money are we talking about?
From who, they have? That's been a really rough question. And
there's been-- It varies. If you look at People for the West, they
raised over $2 million dollars, 90% of which has come from
primarily, mining companies. You can buy a seat on the People for
the West Board for -- I believe it's a $25,000 contribution. And
actually People for the West was started as a spin off from the
Pegasus Gold Company. It started out as a spin off from a mining
company and its primarily mining companies that sit on their board.
And Canadian mining companies.
And Canadian mining companies to boot. If you look at some of the
original wise use organizing meetings, they were co-sponsored by
Exxon and a couple of other oil companies and they were sponsored
by, you know, various and sundry resource extractive companies. We
don't have a dollar figure. It's very hard. Some of these guys
aren't (c)(3)s. A lot of these organizations don't have reporting
requirements and its very difficult to determine just how much money
are that we're talking about.
The bottom line is that its more than we have.
It's more than we have. Some of these grass roots groups are dirt
poor. And some, in fact at the last Wise Use Conference -- while we
were down in Rio, at the Earth Summit, they were in Reno having a
conference. And there were more environmental spies at that thing I
think than there practically were wise use people, I mean they were
everywhere [laughter] and there was one person -- and I talked to a
bunch of these folks -- and one of these folks said they were
sitting down with a wise use person and one of the speakers up there
talked with great mirth about how the environmentalists were
portraying them as being front groups of corporations and how they
were just rolling in money and apparently the room just burst out
hysterically laughing. It was about as funny as us hearing them
say, oh those guys are corporate backed and they're just rolling in
dough, which they're saying about us right now.
Where do you
really find the money and the resources are some of these other
groups that are based in Washington, that are coalitions of special
interest groups, like the Wetlands Coalition, where the American
Farm Bureau is a member of it, the Cattlemen's Association, the NRA,
some of these existing associations have banded together around
particular issues and they're working with the Wise Use grass roots
operations. So, who knows, but its more than we've got is the right
Tom ________, audience member:
There's another question which I wonder if I could ask now, that is,
I wonder if the whole wise use movement is a disinformation campaign
in a certain element, that is -- let me just pursue this because I
think it's pretty relevant to interface what's happening next door
here, with what we're doing here to make this really a productive
meeting here. I wonder if the wise use movement allows big
corporations to disassociate themselves from the wise use extremism
and to take the high ground with the theme of balance that we heard
was so important this morning in how it plays in the American
public. And I draw your attention to today's newspaper and
yesterday's newspaper, Seattle newspaper, full page Weyerhaeuser ads
which the theme is balance. Weyerhaeuser is taking the ground, the
high ground of balance between people and the environment while
never mentioning any of these themes in wise use of private
property, admiring the new Forest Practices Act in Washington which
allows clearcuts of 240 acres, which is larger than we've ever had
for the last twenty years in California in State forest [drives?],
as reform. I wonder how much these major -- we saw the same thing
in British Columbia where MacMillan Bloedel wrote a letter, the CEO
of MacMillan Bloedel wrote a letter explicitly disavowing
connections with the Share group and taking exactly the same
message, we are into balance between people and the environment. So
it allows the major players, the big--here on the west coast--the
timber corporations to appear as wonderful people while allowing the
local groups to agitate for these themes which support the major
corporations. I just wonder what your reaction is to that.
I think it might be a byproduct. It's hard to say what goes on
inside, Tom, but I don't think its calculated, it might be an
upshot. Like someone said a long time ago when John McPhee said in
Conversations with the Archdruid, thank god for David Brower
because he makes the rest of us look moderate. You know.
Somebody's out there, that makes the rest of us look like we're
moderates so it has that, whether or not it's intentional, it has
[Last name unknown]: That would be corporations that pull up on that
and use their PR devices to...
What I'd like to do now -- sorry to cut you off Phil, that's my job
-- is just, I want to get it into an open discussion, but I want to
use as a case study Montana. Anybody here work and live in Montana
right now--or fund? Good. I can say whatever I want. [Laughter]
No, please correct me if I make the, this thumbnail sketch any way
But Montana is a
place where you've got a progressive coalition already, with labor
and environmentalists working together, and have a history of
working together. Although you have an environmental community
that's not terribly unified, unfortunately. But you find that
Montana is a place
where there is a tradition of grass roots organizing on the part of
the environmental community, with many groups employing field
organizers who really know what they're doing. It's a place where
there has been some thinking already, that's been going on about the
economic future of how to make the transition from a state that is
heavily dependent on resource extractive industries to -- something
else. Studies, you know, responsible studies have been done on
that. But it is still a heavily resource extractive industry with
grazing and timbering and gold mining.
The other pieces
of the puzzle is that--I'm sure my boss will like this--it's a
pretty hot political context there right now--contest--with the two
incumbent Congresspeople--they happen to be men,
congressmen--battling it out for the single congressional seat that
will remain after redistricting. And those two fellows happen to be
polar opposites on most issues. and finally, it's a state that has
been very fertile ground for and because of that last point, it's
been very fertile ground for wise use organizing. There are some
paid field organizers there for at least a year working up the
So what has been
the response by the existing organizations in the state, by national
organizations to what's been going on. What are the -- What's been
going on, what have funders been doing?
One has been to
beef up the amount of grass roots organizing that's already going
on. It's kind of a base line concern, to just make sure that we're
still, it's neighbor to neighbor, that we're talking to each other,
adding additional field organizers on our side.
information, there have been discreet polls that have been funded to
find out if the people's perceptions, or the assumptions of what
people think about say the 1872 Mining act are really true, and
that's been very useful information in a political sense as well as
strategic sense for the environmental community there.
Folks have gone
through some media training so that they can better respond to
what's been going on and have a maybe more active aggressive
strategy on how to deal with media.
There's been one
national group, the Wilderness Society, that has set up a mini-grant
program that has been able to direct $563 dollars to a particular
group for a particular action at the right time and it's much faster
response mechanism than I think any of us are able to do, including
the Beldon Fund.
And so that's been
very helpful. It's helped at least a half a dozen groups there in a
very key and quick way. And Montana, because of its location as a
progressive state generally, or at least in the past, is beginning
to play an important regional networking role. Because as Deb has
said, this is not an isolated phenomenon in just a couple of states,
it's national, although the issues do vary across the region.
As so the groups
in Helena and Bozeman and Missoula are connecting with groups in
Wyoming and Idaho and Colorado, and cross fertilizing and exchanging
information and that's also a very important function. So there's
all kinds of opportunities for funders to be involved at any of
those layers. And that's just a single state.
And I think we
need to throw it open now to see what thoughts and actions perhaps
this room can generate on other responses to the threats that Deb
has laid out.
Or what kind of projects other people are funding.
What other opportunities do you see out there that...
Recording Service tape. Short break in tape. Next Conference
Recording Service tape spliced here, begins in mid-sentence.]
Unidentified male audience member:
...a major opportunity is on the tactics used in the 27 rural
counties in Southern Oregon and Northern California. You have a
committee of Wise Use advocates goes to our county board of
supervisors and asks for emergency amendments to the County Master
Plan to incorporate what Wise Use Agenda as an emergency into it.
It's been very difficult given the short time frames that they used
and the pressure tactics they've used for the local environmental
groups to respond with numbers of people like the usually one or two
hearings the boards have held on this. And strategically I think it
would be very important to have a rapid response group to fund and
assist the local people to respond to these initiatives for
emergency, these demands for emergency amendments to the County
Master Plan, which basically are [indistinct] you can't do anything
to interfere with private property rights.
I think that's right. I think there's a vast difference, staying
with Montana, in what happened last year when there were hearings on
the Greater Yellowstone Vision Document, where basically the
environmentalists got blown away by opposition, and just vehement
opposition. This year there were important hearings on Wolf
Reintroduction to Yellowstone where environmentalists blew away the
other side, because they were really geared up, they put a lot of
emphasis on it. It's, and I mean, their hearings had been called by
the right wing just as a opportunistic--to turn out their own side.
Well, they were wrong. We were fortunately better organized this
time. So it is being prepared for those hot organizing
opportunities. I'm sorry, you should go.
Unidentified female audience member:
Basically I have questions either for Montana or also more
generally, I wonder whether those most active in the wise use
movement, whether there's an age range that, you know, whether
there's any demographic profile, whether it's men and women or
primarily men, to what extent it overlaps with the right wing
community that is active on other social issues, and particularly
with the fundamentalist community in this country, and also, last
question, to what extent it has infiltrated--I think that's too
strong a word--but to what extent it has been active within the
[Laughs] There's a bit of confluence.
Yeah. It, it it... Alright. Boy. It's so, this is a, such an,
it's a such a difficult movement to track in a lot of ways. First
of all, I guess, some of the demographic questions. I would
say--this is flying by the seat of my pants, because we haven't
commissioned a poll of wise use members about, to find out who they
are. It would be great to get a list so you could do that, though.
speaking, you see as many women as men. Again because who
this is appealing to is, is families who are associated with the
impacts of logging, with the impacts of mining -- miners' families.
And so it's not just the people who tend to be men who are directly
associated with that activity. And in fact there are groups that
are -- Women in Timber is a wise use group. There are some women's
And so I believe
that you're not going to find -- as far as age range -- same thing
is true. Some of these groups were started by people who are in
their late teens, early twenties. And some of these groups you see
are headed by older people. So I don't -- again I think you're
getting a cross section. If you're gonna find a demographic it's
either gonna be, you know, region and what your economic base is.
And also, you know, you don't see rich people aligned with the
western wise use movement. In the east, when you're dealing with
property rights, it's developers and real estate people. And there
you find the money. So it's very different based on what is the
issue that you're lumping in as wise use.
With respect to
the Republican Party, I'm getting into real deep water here because
I'm getting into some conjecture. And I do have an opinion that I'm
not going to share, but what I can say is that on the face -- we
do know that the head of the Vice President's Council on
Competitiveness went to and addressed and received an award at this
Reno conference, the most recent wise use conference, organizing
And you have seen
figureheads like Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, Pat Buchanan, Pat
Robertson using the same words, and you don't know -- see if I want
to talk, it's really easy to get into conspiracy theories here and
you gotta get really careful. And you wanta pursue it, but it's
very hard. But if you look at the right wing fundamental movement,
it was really fueled by the communist threat, all right? And it's
been fueled by some other issues of the day like abortion.
Eastern Europe for all intents and purposes is really not a
coalescing issue for that right wing movement any more. The
abortion issue is not quite, it appeals to a lot of people like it's
somewhere down the road. And the terms that they use, they call us
communists, OK? So I think that you can theoretically hypothesize
that this movement makes a great next step for the fundamentalist
right wing because it's about the same issues. It's about
individualism versus the Federal government, it's Federalism, right
to regulate. A lot of the same issues here. And you do find the
John Birch Society and some of these same groups crossing over. So
again, it's not something formal, but you can, your gut level you
instinctively sort of say there's a lot of movement. And that's
where you draw your membership from. Again that's your base-line I
Anybody want to talk about other thoughts they have on strategies
that we need to be pursuing?
Unidentified female audience member:
When you call groups a wise use, I mean do they, do you have to join
like an EGA of wise use people, or is it just you're applying the
term wise use to just whatever groups are out there?
I'm using the term wise use very loosely. There is a wise use
organization, and that is Ron Arnold's organization, it's the Center
for Defense of Free Enterprise. And in fact it's not a hugely big
membership organization. They're the folks who convene a lot of
these coalition building national meetings. Those folks don't join,
but they do work together or talk, or try to work together. I think
of it as a confederation. In fact there's some indication that
there's the multiple use movement, and the wise use movement. And
these two factions hate one another.
And then there's
the Farm Bureau and this that and the other thing. So we're using
the term loosely, but it -- again the tie that binds is the message,
the language, and this anti-Federal regulation, and
anti-environmental regulation place that they want to get to,
Pat __________, audience member:
Back to strategy again. One observation and then a question. The
observation is that it's not just the greenies who are in the
opposition at the local level. It's the elk hunter that goes back
and finds clearcut all across where his favorite hunting spot was.
So there's potential for local coalitions that stretch across what
would be traditionally environmentalist tags. My question is this,
Deb, if you're right about this being grass roots movement, I don't
think hardly any foundation in this room can actually get to the
grass roots with grantmaking activities, and that brought up the
re-granting possibility. Whether or not those small grants, whether
they're $500 or $250, which in some cases can make an extraordinary
difference in public education, whether there are vehicles in
different states for re-granting, should one be interested in that
sort of program.
I have a list of things that people who don't do direct grass roots
funding might be able to--just some suggestions, and for what to
watch out for. But I'm going to preface this with a statement that
in fact what I would consider to be some of the, probably the
majority of the best wise use organizing being done around the
country a) isn't done as like in a vacuum anti-wise use organizing,
it's done in the context of an issue campaign, it's done in the
context of endangered species protection, it's done in the context
of wetlands protection. It's done in the context of other things.
So probably most
of you in this room have actually, or many of you in the room, have
actually made grants that have supported environmentalists whose
adversaries are largely wise users. So in fact you may already be
engaged in some of this. And some of the best, you know, most
effective organizing that we're seeing done is at the grass roots
level, but there is an important role that I believe at every level
of this community for activism on this wise use issue. So I'm just
going to throw out--I'm new here, and I'm not sure how proper it is
to name names and things , so I'm going to do it anyway, because I'm
just not sure if that's right or wrong. [laughter]
Anybody want to tell her? [laughter]
First of all, there is in the making right now, a Western Meeting on
Wise Use that is going to bring together groups from all over the
Western states, together to discuss this and share information.
Information sharing is critical so you don't recreate the world
Yellowstone Coalition and Southern Utah Wilderness Association are
gonna be co-sponsoring that meeting and it's not fully funded yet.
Ruth Hennig with
the John Merck Fund up in New England has put together -- is in
process of putting together a really wonderful program that is again
a New England state coalition building effort of organizations that
are working on wise use, and that's an effort that's being
organized. It's gonna be very strategic and I think it's gonna be
really powerful up there, up in New England. They've got some
pretty heavy issues up there.
and Cushman all just went up to Maine about four weeks ago for a
meeting. And they've been up there twice this summer and we know
something is percolating up there and we're not exactly sure what it
is, but we're getting organized anyway.
So the funding opportunities for regional networking is --
big up in New England --
We only have two regions covered right now.--
So contact Ruth Hennig at the Merck Fund if you're interested.
In the Southwest, Southeast, Pacific Northwest.
Unidentified male audience member:
Pacific Northwest. You have a group here, I'd be happy to give you
any help you need.
Yeah, there's ga-jillions. Let me keep moving through.
I'm just letting others think...
Mostly constituency groups. There's Western Organization of
Resource Councils: These guys do interesting kind of work. They
have been organizing for a long time with ranchers and miners and
resource based people, farmers, who are being fought for by the Wise
Use people and what they're doing is getting their members to engage
in peer to peer organizing, which is the best way to deal with this,
at the grass roots level. If you have a wise use organizer in your
community and they're trying to organize miners on this, who better
to go talk to them than a bunch of miners to slow down that
progress? And environmentalist or another miner? Well, they've
been working with these people for years. So the Western
Organization of Resource Councils is one multi-constituency group
that in a number of states wise use programs.
Now just do the sub-title: More Grass Roots Organizing.
More Grass Roots Organizing. Sorry. [laughter] Another thing that
is going on is that there is a national group collaborative effort
that is going on right now between Sierra Club, Audubon, and
National Wildlife Federation and Wilderness Society, for those of
you who only fund national organizations. And that is going to be a
grass roots effort, that is going to be funded through those
national organizations. The New Voices Wilderness Society
campaign -- the Wilderness Society has a pot of money and they're
giving out mini-grants to grass roots groups--
Throughout the west.
Throughout the west. Trustees for Alaska, for those of you
interested in forestry, has a very interesting battle that they're
waging up there right now. there's a forest products company has
private land. Alaska Forest Practices Act says you have to leave a
hundred foot buffer strip between a clearcut and a stream and so
this forest company up there says, "Fine, if you want us to leave up
those trees, we want the state to compensate us to the value of
those trees that we normally would have cut.
END TAPE SIDE ONE
BEGIN TAPE SIDE 2
...collecting a lot of information. This project has been going on for
years and now they're focusing very heavily on this sort of wise use
activity. And you'll be seeing over the next year a number of
stories in the national press that has been generated by information
from the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Those of us who
were just up in BC, there's the Share movement up in Canada which is
actually founded by Ron Arnold, our buddy down here in the lower 48,
and they're very active and very powerful. There're opportunities
Environmental Defense Fund put together a coalition of takings. So
that's another opportunity for those who don't fund at the local
level. I don't know how many rules I just broke here, but--
Unidentified male audience member:
I want to mention The Fund for Wild Nature which has a ten year
track record as a foundation of funding small groups in the eleven
Western states, in the rural counties of those western states and is
an excellent, excellent way -- Some of the things they've funded
have been counter newspapers where people working in industries
could write in anonymous letters to the editor when they found
themselves censured in their own company, to express their views.
If anyone's interested in the Fund for Wild Nature I'll be happy to
give you more information about that after the end of the meeting.
I just wanted to shift your initial laying out of the issues a
little bit. I think it's helpful to look at this, the whole wise
use movement, to separate out the parts of it that address real
concerns and the parts of it that don't, because our strategies
should be different in those two cases.
The way I look at
it is there is -- look at it three ways. 1) there is the right wing
and its interplay with the wise use movement, and ideologically, the
wise use movement provides a vehicle for the far right and that's a
concern, a danger, and there are groups that monitor that and try to
expose the connections between the right wing, the organized right
wing and wise use.
the backing, the financial backing which is largely from extraction
industries. And there's a need of course to expose that, to make it
clear whose movement this is, who's paying for it, in whose interest
But third, there
are, as Deb has made clear, ordinary people, grass roots
organizations who obviously feel their needs are being addressed by
this movement. And I think when we think -- so, leaving the first
two aside, for a second -- when we address that third issue, which
is I think where we should be thinking, putting most of our
thinking, and most of our money. We have to have a strategy that
also is addressing those concerns. And that cannot come simply from
environmentalists. And that's, I think that's -- it can come just
from us. That's the -- I think that's the dilemma here. People
it's not simply that they don't get it, it's that they do get it.
They're losing their jobs. And in one way or another,
environmentalists have to, have to address that issue. And I think
if we hold, if we for instance pay for meetings where
environmentalists get together to forge a strategy to counter wise
use we may be going down the wrong track here. We have to be
encouraging meetings where environmentalists and
non-environmentalists, you know, and people who are losing their
jobs talk about their real, both of their concerns and together come
up with a local solution, and of course in the process the
connections to the right wing have to be exposed, the connections to
the extraction industry have to be exposed, and that probably has to
be done on a local basis and you know, it's not that they're -- and
it's different in the west than it is on a legal takings issue. I
mean all these things are different. Thinking about the west just
for a minute, I think we really should be thinking about all the
ways in which we can bring those two communities together. Barbara?
Barbara Dudley: Executive
Director, North Shore Unitarian Universalist, Veatch Program, Plandome, NY]: I just want to add to that and I want to use a
different kind of case study, because I think it's important not to
just think about what we might fund to counteract this movement, but
we need to think about what we shouldn't be funding. And I will
give you -- because we have done a lot of funding of the family farm
movement and let me tell you they are not fond of
environmentalists. And deservedly so. There is a major
environmental funder who is very big into sustainable agriculture
whose quotation is now being spread throughout the family farm
movement and it is: "I don't give a damn if we're left with only one
farmer as long as he farms without chemicals."
And that, I can't
tell you, from the work we've done with the family farm movement,
how many times I have been embarrassed to be associated with
environmentalists, and with environmental grantmakers and there are
projects like -- I don't know how many of you funded the Beyond
Beef campaign, but that project has done more damage to any
potential alliance between family farmers or ranchers or cattlemen,
and the environmental movement. And that follows from a pretty good
alliance being built up around bovine growth hormone and other
additives and things like that.
don't screen our own funding and think about what, what is this
group saying about people's livelihoods and incomes and what are
they saying about the jobs. What are these wetlands groups saying,
you know? I mean, and how are they projecting themselves? If we
see this as a battle, we're gonna loose. And I think that's just
another aspect of what Karin was saying, but it's very important
that we think about this question in all of our funding. We don't
put it over here in this box called 'counter the wise use movement'
and we fund something over there to do that. We have to live that
notion. And it means we have to face the economy as a question.
And what does sustainable development or a sustainable economy
really mean, and we have to look at what every piece of the
conservation funding might be doing as well.
This is a class issue. There is no question about it. It is true
that the environmental movement is, has been, traditionally as
someone said over the last three days sitting up at the podium, this
has been in the past an upper class conservation, white movement.
We have to face that fact. It's true. They're not wrong that we
are rich and, you know, they are up against us. We are the enemy as
long as we behave in that fashion. And I think that is the
portrayal of the national environmental movement but when you get
down to the state level you don't have it.
Unidentified woman (?):
That's right. You don't need to do it. But we need to watch that
we're not undoing the good that we're doing on the one hand with the
funding on that we're doing on the other.
Yeah. Go ahead.
female voice, possibly Hispanic: Do you think that adds to our
opportunities to fund grass roots movement and social justice, to
see that the whole environmental movement has evolved and has become
a people-oriented movement. I think that's very fundamental, too.
Thank you, Arinbe. Frank, you were going to say something.
_________: As Phil _________ said in better words that I could use,
but I tend to be a middle of the roader and more mediation oriented,
and the guidelines of our foundation. And I guess I'm hearing the
us-and-them theme played out among people who I believe need to step
back and be objective. So I really appreciate your comments.
Because the Wise Use People are not a hundred percent wrong. And
the environmentalists are not a hundred percent right. Somewhere in
there we have to find a common ground. And I was going to ask the
question, given the evolution of just the terms "wise use" and
defining how they describe environmentalists, what are the
environmentalists and the funders of those organizations doing in effication of those charges. And I think that that again is,
stepping back and saying, "What are we funding? Are we funding
Anti? Or are we funding Pro-people? Who's down there hurting?
What's the need. And what's the ultimate long-term need of this
community. And how are we dealing with them? And is all this
through the environment?" That I think we tend to get caught up in
the fight and lose the battle. And yet we possess the most powerful
tool of all, and that's in addition to money, that is objectivity.
Of helping in the guidance of how these organizations are
Perhaps you're always entirely objective, but...
Unidentified male audience member:
You know, there's a funding partner here that I think isn't tapped
fully, and that's the community foundations in this country. There
are 350 of these community foundations. They tend to be pretty
broad based. They're viewed in many of their communities as being
impartial. And I think there's a great potential there to get to
the grass roots using the community foundation system throughout the
Should we shift now to the private property side of things, the
takings side of things? Are people ready for another twist of the
dial? I don't want to cut anybody off, I really wanted to go
forward on --
female audience member: I do want to say one thing. I think that
some ways in the other meeting that's taking place this afternoon,
in spirituality: aspects of the environmental movement, is something
and how that gets represented through churches or other kinds of
ethnic and cultural expression is a very positive aspect of what can
be there to fill some part of peoples' needs. A positive aspect
that can stand in contrast to "what are we going to do against
Bring in the value issues. Why don't you do a quickie on takings.
Debra Callahan: I
can't. Okay, takings, conceptually you probably all know what this
is about. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that the
federal government shall not take private property without just
compensation. And originally the interpretations that the Supreme
Court handed down said that meant the taking of physical property.
In the last couple of decades the courts have determined that that
also means a legislative taking of the value of property. Have
begun to cut into that area. Therefore, as regulations for example
restrict someone's ability to build a home on a piece of coastal
property that is now being interpreted to be in some places a taking
under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
And there is an
aggressive movement both at the national and the local level to
continue to push that takings clause farther and farther and
farther. So if you played it out to its very ultimate extent, it
would really restrict local, state and federal governments'
abilities to impose regulations restricting individuals abilities
to, well, they would not be able to regulate individual activities,
taken to the farthest extreme. There's a lot of activity around the
Can I just ask how many lawyers are here in the room?
Unidentified audience member:
How'd I do?
Judy Donald: Just
Alright. So far 28 states have considered takings legislation in
their state legislatures. Just this year three states passed
conservative takings bills: Delaware, Arizona, and Washington State.
around the country, that we have been able to find, have considered
takings bills at the county level and over 50 counties thus far have
That's last year.
We're coming up on a new legislative year in most states and we
know, I mean it's as easy as counting the fingers on your hands,
there's going to be a lot of activity with introducing these takings
bills in state legislatures and local government level.
In Arizona, the
environmental community attempted to place a referendum on the
ballot to repeal that takings law which was passed by the
legislature and signed by the governor. And I keep hearing it's
back and forth, back and forth. A week ago I talked to the woman
who was heading up that effort, and she said, "Deb, you know, we
don't think we're going to get enough signatures. I looks like we
might get just enough and a lot of them are going to get bounced
off. And then I heard yesterday from someone that had spoken to
her, and they got 15,000 more signatures than they needed to to get
the referendum placed on the ballot. That would be historic in
Arizona. Only twice before has Arizona had referendums placed on
the ballot and both of them had to do with Martin Luther King
holidays. So this is really something. you know, it's exciting to
have environmentalists really pulling together down there. And
they're actually looking to do some focus group work and polling
that could be very crucial for these other states where they're
battling takings bills both at the state and local levels. So
that's one thing that I want to put in front of you. There's also a
national effort right now with national groups talking about
The other thing
I'll just raise and then stop. There's something that I hadn't
heard about previously till we had this report. It's called R.S.
2477. It's something I think we're going to be hearing about a lot
pretty soon. It's a pre-Civil War statute that says, quote, the
right of way for the construction of highways over public land not
reserved for public uses is hereby granted. And this law was
repealed in 1976. What it means is that if you can prove that there
was a road or a hiking path or a donkey trail that went through what
is now public land pre-, if that was there previous to 1976, then
it's a right of way. And if you can go out in a proposed wilderness
area, show that there was a donkey path or there was a cart road or
something, then you can argue that this is not really going to be
able to be considered wilderness area. It really going to impact
some wilderness fights. And this is something which a lot of--and
other kinds of protective actions. So this is something that a lot
of these local Western counties and state governments takings
advocates are starting to spend a lot of time is trying to track
down these old roads and pathways so they can use that in these
Did you want Chuck
to talk to them about the national trust?
What? Was that all clear to everybody? No, we'll see if it comes
up. And why don't we tackle this one, tackle takings. And what
ought to be done about it. Any thoughts out there? Otherwise, I'm
going to turn to Chuck.
Unidentified female audience member:
I was going to ask to what extent has [indistinct] the takings as
regards states rights laws in the environmental area that can be
used for environmentally positive things. I mean the other flip
side of this.
There's a conversation that we should be pushing something called
'givings' where in fact environmental regulations protect the public
interest and therefore we should be using those arguments in Supreme
Court cases and other cases and it hasn't been developed a lot yet
in the briefs that have been filed to the best of my knowledge.
Unidentified female audience member:
Like in North Carolina they had a more stringent law passed about
the water quality which then was triggered under federal
regulation. And that allowed the group to use the [property of?]
building a hazardous waste incinerator and so I mean, the same
principle, I mean it's sort of the state's rights thing being used
to go forward with things we think are environmentally beneficial.
Chuck, why don't you talk about the national trust?
_______, National Trust for Historic Preservation: There are
essentially two kinds of problems we're facing with takings, and one
is far worse than the other. The first is reversible, and that is
the legislative finding of a taking. That is, a legislative body,
whether it be a county board or the U.S. Congress, saying that from
now on something is a taking when in the past it was not. Some form
of regulation on the use of land is now a taking. That's a big
problem because, as Deb was saying, these kinds of laws, statutes,
ordinances are being promoted throughout the country. But another
Congress or county board or state legislature could reverse it. The
other kind of taking matter that's going on is the further
definition of taking through the courts. And all of you have heard
about the Lucas case in South Carolina, which Deb was implying at
one point and my understanding of the Lucas case is that we neither
won nor lost on it, it was not a definitive case in the end.
Although it may have been a narrowing of things that was not
beneficial, but if, with the Supreme Court that we now have, that
the definition of a taking is broadened through time in the case
law, there could then be no reversal. It could be far worse than
say, the choice issue where there actually is a Congressional fix if
the Supreme Court does the wrong thing on Wade v. Roe. We could
just be out forever. Or at least for a very long period of time.
Were we to have a Supreme Court many years to come that would some
way find its way back to redefine it.
Then I just wanted
to point out that these are two kinds of things with much the same
impact, potentially. But the courts is a far more serious matter in
the sense of its potential permanence, where our ability to
effectuate very much of what we've tried to do in the environmental
arena could be just out the window forever. Or practically forever.
Want to talk about some of the happening at the national level in
the environmental community?
Well, I don't quite know what all you want me to say about the
national trust, but the National Trust for Historic Preservation has
set up an advisory committee that is attempting to bring at least
some constituencies together. I'm a member of it. It has invited
representatives of the environmental community, parts of the
planning community, land trust community. And the idea is to try to
form or to identify some common ground, at least among these
communities, and work together on this whole variety of wise use
They are most
interested in these taking issues as they apply to potentially
eliminating their ability to promote regulation for the protection
of historic structures or properties.
On the other hand
they are certainly, I think, concerned and share the public land
kinds of issues that are coming up with the wise use movement.
In any case, there
have been several meetings of this group, and it has three
subcommittees: Presently, one--and the one that's probably doing the
most work and most productively--is a subcommittee of basically a
group of lawyers who have been working on first of all trying to
track all the court cases nationwide about the takings issue. And
they had a number of meetings before the Lucas decision came down
about message, and after that interpreting what actually had
happened and so forth. And they I think have now received some
funding for their ongoing work, and I think they're looking for some
more. And I think the National Trust would be a kind of a
Secretariat of sorts for a group that includes groups like National
Audubon, EDF, National Wildlife Federation and others.
subcommittee that is active has been trying to do an inventory of
all the activities going on about these legislative taking kinds of
bills in state legislatures and the county-local government level.
And anyway, they are talking about having, trying to have some kind
of ongoing monitoring capacity and some kind of capacity to get the
word out to all those who care about this and want to be involved in
trying to counteract it. And to actually trying to have some kind
of action network of alerting people to where problems are and what
they can do about it.
A third committee,
which I happen to chair, was set up to try to define the commonality
of the communities that are represented on this advisory committee,
and to come up with a positive statement that could be used in
return of what we stand for versus what the wise users stand for.
And a number of people have talked to me and have worked very hard
and we have a draft of a statement of principles about that. And
our mission has been broadened to try to do some of these things
that Deb was talking about at the beginning of her first
presentation about the defining message and so on. We have not
really gotten to that part. And I'd be happy to talk to anybody
individually afterward. And we're looking forward to a whole lot of
help because we're going to need it.
But the original
concept was to see whether we could form a broad alliance to try to
counteract the problem of the wise use movement and their
activities. And we have been having some real trouble within our
subcommittee and the broader advisory committee in that there are
some of us who define the problem more or less the way Deb did at
the beginning as for looking at it as a broad environmental backlash
movement in general in its broadest sense, which would go to things
like protection of health and safety codes in the workplace and etc,
Many on the
committee do not really want to go beyond the area of real estate
whether it be private or public. And this has gotten to be kind of
a big debate and I guess that during the many discussions we've had
during this conference, I guess I feel all the more reaffirmed in
the position I've been taking there that we ought to be doing this
broader and that we ought to be doing it even with a much broader
potential coalition that involves certainly the equity questions and
broader set of groups with other parts of society and really trying
to instead of just talk about why regulation of land or regulation
in general is good, really trying to define our vision of
sustainability or whatever.
So in any case, at
the last meeting, we sort of went round and around and around about
all this and we're far from any consensus. And, but it's just one
more forum where this debate we were having this morning and
yesterday and so and so I'll be pointing out, it seems like every
meeting I go to, we end up basically in the same kind of discussion.
I want to go back to what Ann was asking. Were you saying, were you
asking or saying that the takings legal strategy had been used to
I was just wondering whether that had been the case. We've had a
number of, you know, instances in the past which, where states
rights had superseded, you know, federal legislation and the result
has been very beneficial. So that states had rights to determine
some kind of environmental law and to adjustments, [indistinct long
I guess it would have to be that the government was taking something
we had, our environmental well being [laughs]. It was for the
preservation of open space which benefits society, or whatever.
That's the fundamental, that's always been, that's always been the
basis of the Supreme Court cases. Historically has been this tug of
war between the public interest and individual rights. And, and I
guess what you could say is with the Supreme Court composition now
being more conservative, this, this is the fundamental, it's going
more towards the individual rights side and away from the public
interest side where the more liberal courts have gone more towards
the public interest side and away from the individual rights side.
So it's sort of, that concept is part of the fundamental construct
of the argument. And I don't know, you know, about the specific
part of using, invoking the states rights or other rights over the
Well, this is sort of off the top of my head, but it seems to me
that this takings issue is kind of the ideological soft underbelly
for the wise use movement in a way if we use it properly, in that it
does -- it doesn't speak to the interests and the needs of the
workers who are losing their jobs in whatever fashion. It speaks to
the interest and needs and wealth of the owners and I think if we
use it properly, as opposed to just going and litigating it quietly
in a corner somewhere, if we use it properly and publicize it
properly and talk about it in those terms, that you start to -- I
think that the fundamental problem for the wise use folks is that
there is no real convergence of interest between, if I might be
blunt, the ruling class and the working class. [Barbara chuckles]
Just in case you were wondering where I came from. [laughter] I
mean in the end, the people who own the timber and own the mines are
not in the same camp as the people who are working for them and they
haven't done them very many favors over the last four centuries. So
this temporary convergence against the environmentalists--
Unidentified male audience member:
Remember one thing: they're doing a better job.
They are doing a better job. That's right. And at lower and lower
pay any chance they could get and they've introduced as many
technologies as they could to displace as many of them as they
possibly could. I mean they don't do it as a favor. So, if in fact
we could separate those two parts of the wise use movement, i.e.,
the owners, who are fighting, you know, the timber companies and the
mining companies are fighting the environmentalists, from the people
who work for them by saying "Who's going to get this many millions
of dollars that the county or state or whoever is going to, or the
feds are going to have to pay back, from taxpayer money, i.e., all
of us, who's going to get that money. It's not going to be the
displaced workers. You can bet on that. No one's talking about
dividing that money up and putting it in the pocket of the coal
miners who aren't going to be able to mine or the loggers who aren't
going to be able to log. So, it really is to me a very divisive
issue for the wise use movement and that's how we need to see it. I
mean we need to play it that way if -- I mean, we're gonna lose it
in the courts, we might as well admit that to ourselves. I mean the
Supreme Court's not on our side on this one.
(NTHP): I think it's an important reason to comment. It would be
great if we could pick the battles that get played out to determine
whatever the court cases are. If it could be an issue like you were
just describing, that would be wonderful. But it may be over some
ridiculous zoning statute that even isn't environmental. It may
even be anti-environmental, but we would be defending because we
have to defend regulation. And I think that's something that our
people should be really looking at. Is there a way to play the game
here so that the facts of the issue that's before a court, or the
examples or case studies that are used in the argument of the
legislative part are in fact things that play our way to really
broaden the support base for land or property regulation.
Well, we've hit 3:15. I think that means we're supposed to hit the
kayaks next. So, I feel we somewhat scratched the surface, maybe
dug a little deeper on some of the issues. But there's lots there
and I certainly hope that many more of you will be exploring these
issues in your grantmaking and continue networking among ourselves
to come up with better ideas. Thank you all for coming.
END OF TAPE
RETURN TO EGA TAPES
RETURN TO GREEN TRACKING
LIBRARY HOME PAGE