|
|
|
|
Political pragmatism trumps |
|
|
Thursday, 03 July 2008 |
It isn’t all that hard to understand the passionate responses on display at Inyo County public hearings last week on the Northern San Gabriel and Eastern Sierra Wild Heritage Act.
At Independence and Bishop proponents of increasing wilderness areas and those who fear such designation will infringe on traditional recreational uses wore their hearts on their sleeves.
The political reality of this proposed federal legislation rather than its scientific basis is the cause of much of this passionate response.
There are inarguable facts that must be considered, and while they help explain the confusion and anger on the one hand and the smug arrogance on the other, those facts dictate the reality of this situation.
The confusion and anger comes from people who don’t understand the reason for labeling some 423,000 acres of the Eastern Sierra “wilderness.” Nobody has explained the compelling reason for this addition.
People have often heard the word “protection,” but not from what, other than to ensure that the Eastern Sierra doesn’t turn out to look like the coastal ranges (as if all the socioeconomic cards stacked against such an eventuality weren’t enough).
In fact, nobody has even asked to put this proposal into some sort of scale. Does 423,000 acres double the current wilderness area? Or is it more like 10 percent?
It is, in fact, a veritable drop in the wilderness bucket in comparison to just Inyo County. While it’s relatively insignificant, it’s not hard to understand how those who treasure motorized access might wonder, “When is enough enough?”
But those issues are not relevant for the Senate bill’s original sponsor. For her this is a numbers game. While Sen. Barbara Boxer has been adamant about the 423,000 acres, her staff has been amazingly agreeable to changing where those acres fall.
When the Mono County Board of Supervisors held its public hearing in Lee Vining, a number of areas were identified where the impact of designation made no sense. Every one of those areas has been taken out. Of course, other more appropriate acres have been added to keep the total number constant.
That process has been consistent with other areas in the state where Boxer introduced wilderness bills in the Senate and local congressmen have introduced companion legislation in the House.
Those areas have seen amazing collaboration and rapid passage.
People have asked over and over why this proposal is being “fast tracked” through Congress. While Boxer has been introducing this kind of legislation ever since the junior Senator was elected, she was putting those bills up as a member of the minority party and they went nowhere. In those days her willingness to compromise was unbridled.
Over the past three years, with her party holding the reins in the Senate, her bills have more traction and her willingness to compromise and negotiate has reflected that power.
Next year, anticipating that her party’s grip on both houses will be veto proof, her willingness and need to compromise can be expected to dwindle further.
So, the fact is, if there is a rush to see this bill become law, it’s driven by the fear that next year she might introduce a bill that has no protection for traditional snowmobilers, no release of Wilderness Study Areas and all of her original 800,000 acres back into the bill.
While those counties, such as Mono, that have negotiated with Boxer have reaped concessions, there is no history that leads one to think that she’ll forgive and forget those who wouldn’t compromise.
Another fact is that while we live and love living in the Eastern Sierra, we have no special claim on the federal lands around us. We have no more stake than people in New Jersey. These lands belong to all Americans, and the decisions on how they’ll be managed will be made by representatives elected by people who’ve never seen a mountain.
And, the final fact is that Sen. Barbara Boxer identified her core constituency – the people who donate and volunteer to elect and re-elect her – as the people who, for their own reasons, want more and more wild places designated as wilderness.
This ongoing effort on her part is Sen. Boxer’s legacy legislation, a tribute to that core constituency. It is no different than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who shares that same constituency with Boxer. She began her legacy legislation with her California Desert Protection Act in 1994.
It took seven years for that law to pass, and had it not passed that year; the “Republican Revolution” that took control of the Senate and the House just eight days later might have derailed that bill until now.
Because the final, sad fact in all this is that while speakers and letter writers turned out by the hundreds to show their passion in the past weeks, only those who have pointed out specific areas in need of change, as was the case here in Mono County, have played a role in the process. The rest can celebrate a system that allows them to speak freely, but the actual process is pure pragmatism.
Whether or not this proposal will become law by the end of this, Congress has nothing to do with what’s right, necessary or fair to us in the Eastern Sierra. It has no biological or scientific driver.
This is about one U.S. Senator’s drive to make her political mark and the knowledge that if it fails this time, next time she’ll have the clout to do whatever she wants.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Mammoth Times Editorial Board.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 10 July 2008 )
|
|
|
|
