Is Wilderness Lost? and 2018 Endorsements

Every time I’m going to write something about wilderness protection, it seems like I always have to remind readers that one of the missions of PaddlingLight is “we believe growing paddlesport participation advances wilderness protection. Part of our mission is promoting the protection and preservation of our federal, state and local lands.” I have to do it even though that mission statement appears on every page of the website, because for some reason writing about wilderness protection triggers a certain subset of paddlers who are against wilderness protection and I have to put up with name calling and disrespectful comments. I’m leaving comments on despite knowing better. I wonder how many death threats I’ll get this time…

I’m going to try and keep this one short even though I feel passionate about the issue. In 2016, we did our first endorsements of candidates because it was so blatantly obvious on where the people stood on the issues of public land and wilderness. We said vote straight Democratic. I had someone argue with me that the Republicans, if they won, would actually protect the lands better than Democrats. That was laughable and the actions of the Republican administration has shown that to be true. So, here I could just say, Vote Democratic this election if you value our public lands. And, while that is essentially true; it is also a bit more complicated than that and I’ll try to explain why.

But, first, the reason that I say that Voting Democratic in the coming election is the only way to protect our public lands is because over the last two years, we’ve seen the government under Republican control systematically undo protections on our public lands and not only that but also the Republican Party supports transferring our federal public lands to the states where the states will then sell them off (we even saw a scandal in this administration where they tried to sell off public land to one of the President’s biggest supporters from Utah. The land they were selling him was from a national monument right next to the guy’s ranch). The Republicans have even tried — something against the law (this is currently in court) — to reduce national monuments across the country and allow those lands that were protected to be mined and drilled. By doing this, they put at risk monuments everywhere including the canoe-related monument Grand Portage National Monument. If a President can snap his fingers and remove a monument’s protection — a power not given to him in the Antiquities Act — then he can make any monument go away. And, heck, they want to put a wall on the Mexican border, which would destroy the paddling opportunities on the Rio Grande River and cause lots of environmental issues. It’s easy to write about everything that the Republicans have done over the last two years that harms our environment and our public lands, but I’m going to stop because you can Google it. So, if you value public lands and want to keep them public then vote Democratic. It’s simple.

Planks for the Party’s Platforms:

Republican: Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole.

Democratic: As a nation, we need policies and investments that will keep America’s public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, protect species and wildlife, and harness the immense economic and social potential of our public lands and waters.

But, then again it isn’t simple when a party makes it harder than it should be. I live near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The entire reason that I live in the small, remote town of Grand Marais is because I wanted to live near the BWCAW. We’ve made our lives here and have enjoyed living next to the most visited wilderness area in the nation. Things seemed pretty good until we started hearing about a new type of mining proposed in the BWCAW watershed. It was sulfide mining for base metals. Sulfide mining is one of the most polluting industries in the world. Everywhere they do it; it pollutes. There is no question that it will pollute, and that pollution will flow out of the mines (acid mine drainage) into waterways. It’ll either go to Lake Superior or the BWCAW (although there’s engineering that shows both will run into the BWCAW depending on whether you believe the mines or the tribes who use the same engineering model using correct numbers). The mines have said that it will take 500 years or maybe longer to clean up the water from their pit. Seems straightforward to reject a mine that could pollute for over 500 years.

But the state DFL (Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party) is controlled by an area called the Iron Range. Iron ore mining used to be a huge business and employed many people in the area with good paying jobs, and because the iron mining didn’t really pollute the area, they got the idea that any type of mining, no matter how dangerous, could be completed in the area successfully. They want the good paying jobs and who can blame them. This mine might create 200 to 300 jobs that would last for 20 years.

The trade off is 20 years of jobs for 500+ years of cleanup and significant potential of polluting Lake Superior or the BWCAW. An economic study from a Harvard professor actually showed that mining would decrease total economic output over twenty years in the area due to lost tourism and such. Again, it seems straightforward to reject the mine (I’m simplifying this a bit. I’ve read and read and read and talked to many people on this subject to become educated. It’s complicated and I’m not going to explain it, but the reality is the pro-sulfide mining crowd is pretty much wrong on this issue and the evidence shows that to be the case. You can believe me or not. Do the research yourself before making up your mind). And you’d think that the DFL candidates would reject this type of mining, but they don’t.

And that’s the complicated part. Who do you vote for if everyone is just as bad on saving wilderness areas?

But, it gets even more complicated.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as:

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Sounds amazing, right?

If you haven’t visited a wilderness area and lived in a wilderness area for a week, you should because it is pretty much a life changing event. It changed my life and the lives of many of the people I know.

Anyway, sounds amazing, right?

It is amazing.

And everyone wants to get their piece of it.

From the Wilderness Act:

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

In the Boundary Waters compromises were made to allow motorboats on some of the lakes, which was the first chip into the Wilderness Act. Snowmobilers have wanted a piece of that forever — and the border patrol can use snowmobiles in the BWCAW (chip). And mountain bikers who have been banned from Wilderness Areas are trying to get access into wilderness areas. If they get a piece of wilderness, then hunters will want the right to haul out their kills with wheels and so on (you can hunt in wilderness areas). I don’t know how many arguments I’ve read from different interest groups trying to get their preferred activity into wilderness areas, but I’ve read a lot.

I’m going to break my thought here and just go with this:

I think the world is a different place now. People want the world on their terms. They want access to everything and they want that access to accommodate their various versions of recreation and their various versions of what they think success is.

The problem is that that view is antithetical to the vision of Wilderness Areas. Wilderness Areas were designed specifically to force people to deal with them on the terms of the landscape and not to accommodate every person’s recreational desires. Wilderness Areas are just not what many people want in the early 21st Century.

And that brings me back to mining and the environment. If you desire a sulfide mine über alles because it will create a limited number of jobs for a limited number of years and if that sulfide mine would likely pollute a wilderness area, then wilderness doesn’t matter to you. And, if you want access to wilderness areas for your specific recreational activity instead of facing wilderness on its terms, then wilderness doesn’t matter to you. Personal desire and money über alles rules right now. And, the attitude that if-I-get-mine-I-don’t-care-and-if-I-don’t-I’ll-make-sure-you-don’t-either rules.

It’s sad, but I think we are on the verge of seeing wilderness lost. There aren’t many champions of wilderness left out there.

Our endorsements: Vote straight Democratic Party. While it can be flawed sometimes, it is the only way to make sure our remaining wilderness protectors gain positions of power within our government.