by Peter Hanlon, NCFA Member
and retired U.S. Forerst Service
July 2001
The Sierra Club’s defense of the Clinton/Gore Roadless Initiative ("Forest protection popular with public... but not administration" Asheville Citizen, May 19) sparked some observations that I believe would be interesting to your readers.
During my career with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in many capacities, including Supervisor of North Carolina National Forests, I had the pleasure of working with many of the early leaders of the environmental movement. These included the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society and other longtime environmental advocacy groups. I had much respect for their perspectives and they, in turn, had much respect for the USFS and our efforts to balance congressional mandates and public forestland management activities. These men were motivated by a sincere conservation ethic in the management of our country’s natural resources which recognized that people were, indeed, an integral part of the natural process and management considerations should always include the human elements.
Over many years, particularly the last 10 years, I’ve witnessed a change of philosophy throughout the environmental movement that basically excludes human considerations altogether. There is no better example of this anti-human philosophy than the Clinton/Gore Roadless Initiative that would permanently restrict human activity on 58 million acres of our national forests.
Unfortunately, the environmental movement has been taken over by anti-human, money-driven zealots who rely on deceit and litigation to advance their radical agendas.
A series of five investigative reports was recently published in the Sacramento Bee newspaper, authored by two-time Pulitzer-Prize winner Tom Knudson, revealing a very rancid contemporary environmental movement. Knudson spent 16 months traveling throughout the country to piece together this very unflattering picture of a dishonest, dollar-motivated movement that has lost its grassroots energy upon which it was founded many years ago. You can read the entire series for yourself at the papers Web site - www.sacbee.com/news/projects/environment/index02.html.
I find it interesting that this investigation was spawned during the long debate over these "roadless" areas. During this time the environmental movement revealed time and again their propensity to fund massive mailings, radio and TV ads, and produce slick public relations people for interviews and contact with the media. And, according to the Sacramento Bee report, these campaigns were worked out far in advance utilizing expensive marketing/public relations firms. Sooner or later someone had to ask the question - where is all this money coming from?
Ironically, while the environmental movement has used the "corporate greed" strategy to sway public opinion against business interests standing in the way of their agenda, Knudson’s investigation reveals that they are just as money motivated as any free market enterprise. He also points out that their fund raising efforts are based on fictitious, emotional environmental scenarios that tug at our hearts and our purse strings.
The Sierra Club’s defense of the "roadless initiative" in their May opinion piece was predicated on a poll saying "voters support" the proposal. Who do you think paid for the poll? Don’t you wonder how the poll questions were asked and to whom? The rest of their defense can also be written off as bought and paid for.
What the movement can’t get accomplished through misleading media campaigns, they have batteries of lawyers ready to use vague language and deadlines in our environmental laws to promote their anti-human agendas. And, we’re paying for some of it with our tax money. According to the Bee investigation we paid out $31.6 million in attorney fees for "citizen’s suits" brought by various environmental organizations during the 1990’s. An example cited in the report revealed that we paid one environmental attorney $350 an hour to sue the government in the name of the environment.
Sadly, the environmental movement has already lost any credibility with natural resource professionals and it is quickly losing credibility with the public and media. As the Sacramento Bee editors point out - "No one can deny its many successes in preserving precious natural resources, but they have come with a price. In fact, some say the environmental movement is searching for its very soul." I predict that what little credibility they have left with anyone will be lost as the pantheistic motives behind the dishonest tactics and their hidden agendas are revealed to the American public.
As I recall my fond experiences with those honorable gentlemen of yesteryear nursing a young environmental movement, I can’t help but believe they would be totally disgusted by the current state and direction of environmental activism. I know I am.