F Work BLM
abdirahimsave@
Combainall.docx2 Narrative
Thought Part 1
Read Our Limits Transgressed Chapters 4-6
Though the book title is terrible, Our Limits Transgressed is a comprehensive, academic view into the development of environmental political thought in the United States. It develops a framework for the reader to understand the underpinnings of how environmental thinkers view government’s role in managing natural resources.
These baseline frameworks of environmental policy theory can be boiled down to a few basic issues of the roles of the federal government. Is an authoritarian or democratic government better suited for the distribution and management of limited natural resources; or is a mix of some government controls with the promotion of individual freedom more effective? Should the environmental policy choices be looked at from an anthropocentric or biocentric perspective? In other words, should environmental policy and regulation focus more on how humans should manage and control nature (anthropocentric); or should rules be driven to allow nature to move and exist for the benefit of itself (biocentric)?
It should also be remembered that environmental political theory is relatively young when compared to other administrative and political theory principles. Though it began to be developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it really didn’t begin to mature until the 1960s. The rise of the industrial age and increased leisure time allowed people to think more about natural resource management and its impact. Because it is in its infancy, environmental policy theory and thought is still evolving.
Chapter 1 uses two major figures to lay the ground work for two environmental traditions that gave rise to philosophies discussed in the rest of the book. Henry David Thoreau represents the Pastoral perspective of environmental thought, while Gifford Pinchot represents Progressive Conservationism.
Thoreau
· Pastoralism
· Biocentric
· Nature can teach us moral lessons; it can educate us
· Nature plays the moral role of providing refuge from worldly immorality; e.g. simplicity of lifestyle
· Deep ecology (Links to an external site.) : advocacy of the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs
· “In wildness is the preservation of the world”
Gifford Pinchot
· Progressive conservationism
· Anthropocentric
· Nature supports a liberal democratic society
· If managed properly, natural resources are limitless.
· Scientific management, rational planning, and bureaucratic processes
· Natural resources should benefit all and create equal opportunity
Chapters 2 and 3 focus on those thinkers that lean toward the progressive conservation end of the environmental political spectrum but differ from Pinchot in how it should be implemented.
Chapter 2 delves into the politics of scarcity and the fears of those that prescribed to the thinking that began with Thomas Malthus: that the earth has a finite amount of resources on earth; there is a carrying capacity to earth and at some point when the earth’s population grows too large, there will be a crash to the system. For more about Thomas Malthus, click here (Links to an external site.)
Neo-Malthusians believe that resources can be managed in a scientific manner; however, they don’t believe in the democratic ideals like Pinchot. They believe that a more authoritarian government is needed in order to properly manage earth’s natural resources.
Chapter 3 discusses liberal reformulations of Neo-Malthusians. These thinkers prescribe to the idea that progressive conservationism does not do enough to protect natural resources; though they may be too pragmatic for pastoralists. They hold on to democratic idealism and that nature should be endowed with “rights” because of its intrinsic values.
Some of the more well known of these thinkers are Rachel Carson (Silent Spring), Steward Udall (former Secretary of the Interior), and Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac). These men and women railed against commercial exploitation of the environment which they saw as utilitarianism's weakness. They advocated to rid the world of capitalistic abuse and sought out a new land ethic. This came mostly in the form of getting people to see not only the commercial value of nature but also its non-utilitarian values. Preservation would be needed in order to protect the last remaining wild places. The Wilderness Act of 1964 is an obvious by-product of this thinking during that time.
Narrative - History of Environmental Political Thought Part 2
Our Limits Transgressed Chapters 4-6
Chapters 4 and 5 begin to explore the more biocentrist point of view of environmental theory. Chapter 4 focuses on the spiritualization of nature, or nature as a type of religion. At the forefront of this movement is John Muir in the early 20th century. He explored the idea that nature is less important as a resource than it is a teacher or educator. Muir was a transcendentalist: nature transcended materialism; nature is the source of our values and experiences; nature is the pure expression of God’s love.
These ideas were revived later in the 20th century through the idea of Deep Ecology. Deep ecologists subscribe to the notion that modern science and technology have actually contributed to the exploitation of the environment. Humans have intervened in nature for too long and there is an imbalance; anthorpocentrism has perverted human life. Because deep ecology is centered on the experiential and goes beyond rationale thinking into spirituality, it is apolitical; which is one of its weaknesses when trying to develop policy. Some argue that deep ecologists are actually quite self-centered because of their extreme biocentrism.
Chapter 5 dives deeper into what biocentrists think about nature and government’s role in policy development with this philosophy. Biocentrists try to define the inherent value of nature in order to move beyond utilitarianism. Some biocentrists believe that these values must be based in ecology. These values will be realized through education of ecological principles and can cause us to be “self-enlightened” and have a shared interest in nature. Other biocentrists believe that we should focus on being more biologically grounded than ecologically; in other words, we should see the value of organisms as individuals instead of as a collective like ecology.
Chapter 6, “Restoring Political Vision” concludes the book by looking at where the environmental movement is at. This book was completed in the early 1990’s so this chapter offers some interesting perspectives on where the environmental movement was back then. The author makes a compelling argument that both the pastoral and progressive conservationism traditions had lost some of their political vision and commitment. He argues that pastoralists have lost their political orientation and were in danger of being replaced by primitivism. He also argues that Pinchot’s utilitarianism had not lived up to its promise to care for the economically disadvantage.
New ideas were emerging then. For example, by the 1990s, the public was tired of the overpopulation rhetoric of the 1960s and 70s. Environmental political thought turned to the paradigm that too many people isn’t the problem; it’s an issue with distribution of resources. Technology can be a problem; for example, it is developed to make a profit sometimes at the expense of resources. But it could also help resolve environmental issues.
Several new movements began at this time. The Green movement began to take hold in the 1980s and 1990s. Social issues began to meld with issues of the environment; social justice advocates became a very powerful movement for liberal equality. Advocates for stronger environmental regulations began to take a more tepid approach to policy than deep ecologists. These biocentrists wanted to integrate human communities into the world, not segregate it.
The author concludes with this statement: “Our ecological crisis is the product of an emerging, entirely novel, democratic culture. The issue is whether a democratized world can survive its own implications.”
(B) Narrative - History of Environmental Political
Thought Part 2
· Read the essay
"Wise Use: What Do We Believe?" by Ron Arnold
.
No discussion of environmental policy development would be complete without acknowledging those who rebelled against the environmental movement and the sweep of new regulations of the 1960s and 1970s. This revolt has been dubbed the Wise-Use Movement. Though this label didn’t stick until the late 1980s, the movement really began in the late 1970s.
This movement was the counter to pastoralism’s deep ecology; it swung the political pendulum to a more anthropocentric view of environmental policy. It particularly manifested itself in the western United States, where a majority of lands are managed by the federal government. Ranchers, miners, loggers, private property owners all began to reassert their belief that human ingenuity can solve environmental problems. This western specific part of the wise use movement was dubbed the Sagebrush Rebellion. This movement revolted against the federal oversight of natural resources they claimed to have been managing properly for generations. This movement manifests itself in the state and federal government rights debate which will be discussed later this semester. For more information about the history of the Rebellion, click here (Links to an external site.) .
The following case study will help illustrate what the Wise-Use movement is, its potential impact, and will be the focus of this week's discussion.
Case Study: Utah prairie dog
Some of the battles in the wise-use movement are being played out right here in southern Utah. One of these cases is the Utah prairie dog. Because it is right in our own backyard (no pun intended), the Utah prairie dog is an interesting case study in the wise use movement and the issue of private property rights, and environmental protection and stewardship.
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Links to an external site.) “is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.” The Utah prairie dog was placed on the endangered species list in the 1970s and then upgraded to “threatened” in the 1980s. To manage the species, the US Fish and Wildlife Service issues “takings” permits to remove the prairie dog from private lands. There are only so many permits issued per year so as to not adversely impact the species population.
Many see this as an overreach of federal powers especially as it pertains to private property rights. A group of Iron County citizens began PETPO and won a favorable decision in 2014 to allow more “takings” of the Utah prairie dog from private property because it is found in only one state (hence, the constitutional interstate commerce clause does not apply according to the appellants). The case is on appeal. In the interim, it is being hailed as a victory for the wise-use movement and environmentalists decry it as a weakening of important protections for endangered species. For more information about the case, click here (Links to an external site.) .
For more information about PETPO, click here (Links to an external site.) .
For a copy of the 2014 ruling, click here (Links to an external site.) .
Supplemental information:
· Environmentalism's Article of Faith
· More information about the Sagebrush Rebellion
4 Narrative - Tragedy of the Commons
Tragedy of the Commons
For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual.
–Aristotle
The term and concept of the “Tragedy of the Commons” was first used by William Foster Lloyd in 1833. It was later developed and popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. Taylor, in Our Limits Transgressed, mentions Hardin and his Neo-Malthusian writings in Chapter 2.
This is a critical concept to understand in the context of natural resource policy and regulation. In its most basic form, the “commons” is an unregulated resource shared by the public (or “commoners” as Lloyd phrased it). Hardin uses this framework to discuss the problem of overpopulation, which was a very popular issue in the late 1960s. Whether or not you believe overpopulation is an issue today, focus on what this theory is trying to teach.
Hardin argues that the “invisible hand,” as promoted by famous economist Adam Smith in 1776, is insufficient to protect the capitalist economies and the public from exploiting resources. In the commons, each person/institution/company will seek to maximize profits from that resource. We get locked into a system that compels people to use a resource until it no longer exists.
The example he uses is a commons pasture used by several different people for livestock grazing. Without any regulation, each person will steadily increase the number of livestock in that pasture because they know the other person will do the same; they don’t want to be left behind as another entity is using a resource they could use.
After reading about this concept,
consider what Hardin states towards the end of his paper: “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” What do you think of this? Is there more freedom when shared natural resources are left to the individual choices of those who use it, or is there greater freedom when resource policy wisely uses and conserves what we have? If the latter is the case, then to what extent should it be regulated, conserved, or preserved?
The tragedy of the commons plays out in many policy making decisions in environmental regulation. One of the more obvious examples is the regulating livestock grazing of public domain lands in the western United States. The wide open spaces and unregulated public domain lands of the west were appealing to farmers and ranchers in the 1800s. The Homestead Act of 1862 provided settlers with 160 acres of public lands that could be converted to private land after meeting the Act’s requirements. 160 acres of land in the Midwest compared to the Intermountain West are quite different in terms of forage productivity for livestock grazing. Ranchers needed more land in the arid west to sustain their operations so they used public domain lands adjacent to their homesteaded land. This use of the “commons” lead to battles and “range wars” between competing operators and also lead to serious degradation of public domain lands. When the Dust Bowl in the 1920s and 1930s pushed the resource to the edge, the “commons” needed to be regulated and the Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934. Signed by President Roosevelt, it was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range."
The Taylor Grazing Act created the U.S. Grazing Service, which when it was combined with the General Lands Office in the 1950s, became the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 pre-empted the Taylor Grazing Act and became the organic act for the BLM.
Click here for more information about the Taylor Grazing Act, see the following supplemental information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Grazing_Act_of_1934 (Links to an external site.)
Case Study
The tragedy of the commons continues to be played out today. Somewhat prophetically, Hardin saw the day when there would be too many people in National Parks, leading to resource and experiential degradation.
On Memorial Day weekend in 2015, Arches National Park had to close its gates as too many people were trying to get into the park and a public safety issue emerged. The park superintendent has proposed requiring people to make reservation before they come to the park. They have been approved to charge higher entrance fees during peak-use hours. Read the following articles before participating in this week's discussion:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1288&sid=35605726 (Links to an external site.)
http://www.westernslopenow.com/news/local-news/arches-national-park-changes-reservations
5 Narrative - Iron Triangles and Sub-governments
Iron Triangles and Sub-governments
In nature, when two types of living creatures benefit each other, they create a symbiotic relationship (e.g. bees and flowers). In the world of politics and regulatory policy, the theory of Iron Triangles describes a social/political relationship between the bureaucracy, congressmen and lobbyists that results in the mutual benefit of all three of them (see graphic above). Each group does some action that will help the other group, creating a lasting and unbreakable bond between the three. In academic literature, these actors are sometimes called subgovernments.
Most policy theorists today argue that this model is too simplistic to explain all the complexities and intricacies in contemporary politics. However, it does provide the student with a baseline framework from which to build on and give some insight into how policy is made and why it only changes incrementally or not at all.
We have learned about the Tragedy of the Commons and how livestock grazing regulations in the west (i.e. the Taylor Grazing Act) sought to stop the diminishing commons (i.e. public domain land resource values). What the Taylor Grazing Act did was establish an Iron Triangle relationship between Congress; a bureaucracy, namely the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and ranching interests like cattlemen and sheep associations. The BLM, from that point forward, was primarily seen as an agency that managed livestock grazing in the West. The passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 established the BLM as a “multiple-use” agency. However, very little changed in how the BLM managed its grazing program. This has recently changed though.
Below is an excerpt from a PhD dissertation called: Drill Baby Drill: An Analysis of How Energy Development Displace Ranching’s Dominance Over the BLM’s Subgovernment Policymaking Environment. It gives a good literature review of iron triangles/subgovernments and how they relate to natural resource management policy and specifically public land livestock grazing policy. The dissertation makes the argument that from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the BLM shifted from a livestock grazing focused bureaucracy to an energy extraction focused agency. We will discuss this argument and other aspects of this shift in our discussion of the New West vs. the Old West. If you are interested in reviewing the citations or the entire dissertation, you can click here
Excerpt from the dissertation:
So-called iron triangles are the classic model for describing policy subgovernments (Cater, 1964; Freeman, 1965; Lowi, 1979; McConnell, 1966; McCool, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1998). In the iron triangle model, relationships between interest groups, agency bureaus, and congressional subcommittees are described as “mutually supportive and harmonious” (Kelso, 1995). As suggested by the model’s name, the iron nature of these mutually supportive and harmonious relationships means they resist the influence of other actors. Academic research has long used natural resource policy as a lens into subgovernment behavior (Cahn, 1995; Castelnuevo, 1998; Cawley, 1993; Hage, 1994; Merrill, 2002; Yandle, 1995). And as public policy research—particularly environmental policy research—has grown more complex over time and these iron-clad relationships are now described as “open systems” (Kelso, 1995) Previously closed policy domains are now described as porous and susceptible to the influence ofcompeting players (Kelso, 1995). The increasingly complex relationships between policy actors operating within such “open systems” have been conceived of and tested by advocates of multiple models including: laissez-faire pluralism (Dahl, 1967; Truman,1971), elite pluralism (Lowi, 1979), issue networks (Heclo, 1978), advocacy coalitions (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999), policy streams (Kingdon, 1984), and punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993).
The theoretical shift from the simplicity of iron-triangles to the complexity of open-systems is illustrated in the historical domination of natural resource policymaking by large user interest groups. Charles Wilkinson (1992) describes the dominance of singular, large user interest groups in a variety of natural resource policy settings.
Critically assessing 19th and early 20th century natural resource laws, policies, and ideas, Wilkinson argues that “natural resources are governed by what I have come to think of as the ‘lords of yesterday’” (Wilkinson, 1992, p. xiii). Wilkinson notes that these laws, policies, and ideas were not always irrational, but “arose for good reason” at the time of their passage (Wilkinson, 1992, p. xiii).
In each of these natural resources settings, Wilkinson (1992) accounts for a “compounding problem,” “the capture of large interests of the laws and policies that comprise the lords of yesterday” and their ability to thwart reform through their substantial political and financial muscle (p. 22). Thus our collective understanding of subgovernment systems and how they operate within various policy settings benefits from researching the historical development of government responses to the use of natural resources. As Charles Davis (1997) notes,…natural resource issues, including water (Ingram, 1990; McCool, 1987), energy development (Rosenbaum, 1993; Jones & Strahan, 1985), agriculture commodities (Browne, 1988), timber harvesting (Clary,1986), and hardrock mining (Heclo, 1978) …were developed within a distributive policy context….[that] also spawned a protective subgovernment that restricts participation in policy decisions to public agency administrators, legislators, and interest group representatives with shared programmatic concerns. (pp. 7, 87)
Davis then asks, “How can we account for the continuing political strength of the range policy subgovernment in the face of opposition from both environmental groups and advocates of greater efficiency in government” (C. Davis, 1997, p. 87)?
According to Davis and others, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 made grazing the “dominant use” on BLM lands protecting ranching interests. It is, Davis notes, not until the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) amending the Taylor Grazing Act by “replacing the provision identifying livestock grazing as the predominant use of public rangelands” with “the multiple-use management scheme” that ranching interests were confronted with competing land-use interests (C.Davis, 1997, p. 95). Like Wilkinson, Davis places the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 in the center of his critique of how ranching’s domination of the policy arena endures in the face of FLPMA’s significant land-use reforms.
Davis argues that, since the adoption of FLPMA, pro-grazing interests have maintained their policy dominance by maintaining their core support for grazing while gradually expanding to represent the interests of other large resource use interests including, among others, energy companies, and supporting the states’ rights and property rights political movements. While Davis notes the role of environmental organizations in advancing changes in rangeland-use policy since the passage of FLPMA, he remains relatively silent on how these groups, as well as the other large resource use interests, accommodate ranching’s continued effectiveness in protection grazing as the dominant use of public range lands (D. Davis, 1997).
Literature focusing specifically on energy policy fares no better explaining the cozy relationship between ranching and energy development interests. Academic inquiries into energy development policy, like those into other public resource policy areas, have been primarily concerned with the conflicting policy environments of energy development interests and environmental protection interests. Rosenbaum (1993) argues that “there is political symmetry to energy and environmental issues. Energy policy is environmental policy by another name” (p. 188). David H. Davis argues that “Four factors may explain the evolution of energy policy on federal lands: (1) interest groups, (2) political partisanship, (3) bureaucratic routines, and (4) economics” (D. Davis, 1997, pp. 122-124). Both Rosenbaum (1993) and D. Davis’s (1997) arguments are grounded in the symmetrical relationship between energy and environmental issues. Unlike Wilkinson or C. Davis’s inquiries, neither Rosenbaum nor D. Davis’s research explains the effects of long-dormant legislation or the mutually supportive relationship between ranching and energy development interests on the land-use policymaking subgovernment.
Rosenbaum (1993) concludes that “the risk remains great, as it always has, that national political majorities and interest coalitions will dominate national energy policies and override Western regional interests in the name of the greater national good” (p.196). Here, he suggests the potential for energy development interests to overwhelm the historic domination of grazing, or possibly the doctrine of multiple-use. D. Davis (1997) makes no similar predictions of change but, instead, concludes that a relative stability, even predictability, in the dynamics of energy policy has developed over time (pp. 146-148). Both approaches are overly simplistic because they do not fully account for variance in political conditions and relationship dynamics affecting the subgovernment system of energy resource development.
Other authors describe how the cozy relationships within land-use policy subgovernments have been formalized and institutionalized within government agencies. This body of literature holds that, in order to fully understand public land politics and policy, one must account for different resource management patterns, across administrative settings, within the various resource-use policy domains. Here, the key to better understanding the dynamics of resource policy subgovernments benefits from comparing patterns of realignment across governing administrative agencies and their respective resource-use subsystems.
Klyza (1996) argues that previous studies have not fully answered the puzzle of “different policy patterns in the same policy area” (p. 6). Klyza (1996) notes that this problem has been inadequately addressed by the previous literature for four primary reasons, “First, some studies have been descriptive without being theoretical (p. 6,commenting on Wilkinson, 1992) …some studies have made insufficient comparisons across policy regimes, (p. 6, commenting on Clary,1986; Durant, 1992) …[some] studies have focused on only specific agencies rather than the entire policy process (p. 6,commenting on Culhane, 1981; Clarke & McCool , 1996), …[and] many such studies lack a systematic historical perspective” (p. 6, commenting on Clary,1986; Durant, 1992). Klyza (1996) suggests that “the key to understanding the puzzle of different policy patterns in public-lands politics is in understanding the foundation of a policy regime [subsystem] and the subsequent politics that emerge from this” (p. 7). Klyza (1996) argues that new policy regimes embody privileged ideologies that guide and constrain the actors within the policy regime. This ideology becomes institutionalized and becomes “very difficult to dislodge, despite challenges from interest groups and agencies supporting other ideas” (1996, p. 7). Yet, no one, including Klyza, has provided evidence to illustrate this point.
Klyza (1996) also argues that “[t]his institutionalization is not forever” and that given the right circumstances, “nonprivileged ideas can be victorious” in dislodging the privileged idea that guides and constrains actors within the policy regime (p. 7). Klyza notes that embedded ideas are extraordinarily difficult to dislodge, even when they are a source of friction. Klyza, however, only suggests possible hypothetical scenarios for triggering disruption. His likely scenarios range from social movements to the rise of a new land-management professionalism, agency reorganization, or expansion in administrative agency responsibilities like domestic energy development. Klyza’s (1996) analysis of three cross-cutting privileged ideas and the responses of agencies and interest groups is that “Despite [the] challenges and cracks, the embedded idea has proved difficult to dislodge. In each of the policy regimes, the privileged idea, though tarnished, is still in place” (pp. 141-160). Change, Klyza (1996) concludes, will occur only when a “fundamental change in state and society” transforms prevailing views on the role of government in managing natural resources (p. 159). As noted in the previously reviewed literature, Klyza’s conclusions remain primarily focused on the privileged oppositional interplay between resource development interests and environmental interests.
Klyza’s (1996) provocative insights suggest a series of important, unanswered questions. Are there cases that illustrate how, when the “right circumstances” exist, “nonprivileged ideas can be victorious?” If such cases exist, does dislodging a privileged idea require a fundamental change in state and society? Might something as simple and direct as a change in the presidency, an executive order, or an executive appointment, or some combination thereof dislodge a privileged idea? Are there cases that demonstrate how events can provoke “oppositional interplay” between interest groups within the landuse subgovernment? And, if such cases exist, might examining how political conflict arising within that subgovernment, between formerly allied interest groups, advance our knowledge of the behavioral dynamics of subgovernments? Could it be that focusing our collective attention on the privileged conflict of development interests and environmental interests has limited our ability to advance subgovernment theory? The research presented in this book seeks to answer these questions.
The primary objective of this research is to advance subgovernment theory. As McCool (1989, 1990, 1995, 1998) has noted, “The phenomena of fragmentation and accommodation, and related concepts, are common themes in much of the literature on subgovernments and their principle participants” (McCool, 1989, p. 266). While much has been written concerning the expansion of competition and activity within subgovernments, the literature has not explored a number of external influences on subgovernments (Klyza, 1996). McCool (1989) suggests a need for political science to address four sets of questions in order to fully understand the role of subgovernments in contemporary policymaking. These include: (1) “what are the factors that affect the relative power of subgovernment participants, (2) what are the conditions and factors that provoke change in subgovernments, and (3) what variables affect the level of integration between subgovernments and their external environment, and (4) what are the democratic implications of subgovernments” (pp. 280-281)?
McCool (1998) also argues that we know little about how subgovernments behave during periods of conflict and proposes a framework through which researchers might identify the functional characteristics of subgovernments during periods of political conflict. McCool’s (1998) “hierarchy of conflict” framework “permits the development of a typology of conflict, and an association between types of conflict and strategies” (p.562). As McCool (1998) notes, shifting the research emphasis of subgovernments away from structure and towards identifiable behavior “provides a new definition of a sub[government]” as well as advancing the construction of subgovernment typologies and the probability of strategic responses to differing kinds of conflict. McCool (1998) offers three testable hypotheses that might “yield insight into the causal relationships between elements of the political context, and the strategies employed by various kinds of sub[governments]” (pp. 565-566).
Based on McCool’s (1989, 1990, 1995, 1998) analysis two things are clear. First, the essential questions concerning the dynamics of subgovernments when external factors foster change remain unanswered. And second, the essential questions concerning the dynamics of subgovernments when internal factors foster change remain unanswered. Therefore, in order to advance subgovernment theory, both the external and the internal factors that foster change must be addressed during a period of political upheaval.
This research identifies conditions under which subgovernment actors strategically respond to a political conflict. In doing this, McCool’s (1989) four sets of questions are addressed and empirical evidence is provided in support of McCool’s (1998) analytical framework of a hierarchy of conflict to “improve the validity and usefulness of the sub[government] model” (p. 566). The theory is advanced by explaining how subgovernments behave during times of significant political conflict and how they are affected by changes in presidential administrations
6 (A) Narrative - Pluralism
Pluralism
Overview:
While the United States is often thought of as purely capitalistic, it also embraces pluralism, or a society that tries to balance power between business, government, and the public so that no one group overpowers another. The idea of a pluralistic government is that many groups compete to have their views heard and policies adopted.
A key identifier of a pluralistic society is that it contains numerous special interest groups, which are government, non-profit or profit based organizations that are created to represent the group's best interest. These special interest groups can be created based on economic, ethic, or cultural factors. Most special interest groups in the U.S. are formed in order to influence government legislators. Special interest groups are also key stakeholders for businesses and can pressure businesses to act on their objectives.
Pluralism and Iron Triangles:
What is there a relationship between pluralism and iron triangles that were discussed last week?
One of the purposes of iron triangles is to minimize conflict; maintain the status quo. Increased conflict can give rise to new subsystems, many times in the form of special interest and advocacy groups. These new players compete for influence within a subsystem. One example of this in public land management is livestock grazing management. From the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 until today, little has changed in BLM’s rangeland related policies. An attempt was made in the 1990s to make sweeping changes to range administration in the federal government. Progressive Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, was at the forefront of this issue, but in the end, most reforms fell apart (see the following article for more information) (Links to an external site.) .
In spite of this, many advocacy coalition groups have emerged to try to compete for a seat at the table to break the iron triangle and diminish livestock grazing's role on public land. Special interest/environmental groups like Western Watersheds Project (http://www.westernwatersheds.org/ (Links to an external site.) ) and the Center for Biological Diversity (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ (Links to an external site.) ), among others, seek to eventually eliminate livestock grazing from public lands. The effectiveness of their work is difficult to measure. Livestock grazing on public lands has been diminishing for years probably more of a result of cultural and economic shifts than the effectiveness of non-profits.
Case Study
This week’s case study will focus on another heated issue on public lands: the Wild Horse and Burro program, managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The case study demonstrates the pluralistic nature of environmental politics and administration as several groups are competing with each other with different end results in mind.
Background
The BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program (the Program) faces acute challenges in controlling population growth of wild horses and burros. There are an estimated 58,000 (March 2015) of these animals on rangelands that the BLM has determined can sustain 26,700 animals. The on-range population has increased by 18 percent since 2014. Unmanaged populations double every four to five years. With the decline in adoption rates, removals of wild horses and burros from the range have led to an expensive off-range holding program filled to capacity. For every 1,000 animals removed from the range, it costs about $46 million to care for them over their lifetime, unless they go into private care. Research has shown that the available Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) contraceptive vaccines are effective for only one year (the PZP contraceptive has been tried as an alternative to controversial wild horse gathers with helicopters). It is not feasible to administer PZP annually to tens of thousands of unapproachable mares in Herd Management Areas (HMAs) covering 32 million acres. To address the challenges, the BLM is funding new research to develop more effective methods for limiting population growth; working to move more animals into private care; and attempting to secure additional lower cost private pasture space for animals that have been removed from public rangelands.
Removals were restricted to 1,857 in 2014, were about 2,500 in 2015 and were planned around 1,000 to 2,000 in 2016 due to limited holding space and rising costs to care for un adopted animals. Ground darting programs are applying PZP vaccines to ~500 mares per year. Due to these limited control population control measures, the on-range population has grown to more than two times target management levels and was expected to increase by another 9,000 in 2016 totaling ~69,000 in March 2016. Overpopulations are affecting land health and are of high concern in greater sage-grouse habitat areas. Other than removal, there is currently no available method that can be immediately implemented to contain the growing population.
To more accurately estimate population size, the BLM implemented USGS population survey methods in FY 2014, and will continue to survey one third of all HMAs annually, on a rolling basis. Use of these methods was recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Private Care and Holding Space
While the BLM has placed more than 230,000 wild horses and burros into private care through its adoption program since 1971, adoptions have steadily declined over the last 10 years to around 2,000 animals per year. As of May 2015, almost 47,000 animals were in BLM care in corrals and pastures off the range. The cost of “off-range holding” totaled $43 million in FY 2014, or 56 percent of enacted appropriations. Most off-range pasture contracts were renewed in 2015 and unit costs increased from $1.38 per animal per day in 2014 to $1.85, constituting a $5M annual cost increase for the ~31,000 animals currently located in off-range pastures.
The Program is seeking to secure more pasture space as it is lower cost than corral space ($4.60/animal/day in 2014) and provides a more natural environment for the animals. However, significant additional space probably won’t be acquired. In the Program’s last solicitation, 1,200 additional capacity was procured but the Program is now at risk of losing 3,700 in capacity due to contractors selling their land or wanting to convert operations to cattle grazing. A new solicitation for contracted pasture space occurred in 2015.
To address high off-range holding costs that have overwhelmed the Program, the BLM has reduced removals to a level commensurate with adoptions and is working to move more animals into private care through adoptions and sales. Since trained horses and burros are more likely to be adopted or bought, the BLM is seeking to increase the number of wild horse training programs through partnerships with nonprofits and state and federal prisons. While adoptions may be able to be increased somewhat, the increase will not make a significant difference in reducing holding costs.
BLM is struggling to come up with a viable solution to a unsustainable problem (i.e. double the number of wild horse than the designated allocation of forage). Wild horse advocacy groups have been effective at courting public opinion in their favor and creating a political environment that is difficult to make any radical changes to the program. Meanwhile, local ranchers argue that because there are too many wild horses, they are not receiving their full allocation of forage on their livestock grazing permits.
6 (B) Narrative - Science and Politics
Science and Politics
Public debates over climate change often are about seemingly technical questions when they are really about who should have authority in the political debate. The debate over the science thus politicizes the science and distracts from policy. –Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.
When the search for truth is confused by political (or any kind of) advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to a quest for power. –Dr. John Rinne
The battle between science and its use in policy development is a historical and on-going battle and debate. Should environmental policy be soley based on scientific research? Is it possible to create politically neutral policy and regulations? Is science itself inherently neutral or do scientists have their own biases?
The article (click here (Links to an external site.) to read article) and case study this week are to help the student understand that when developing policy based on science, or scrutinizing existing policy, science inherently becomes a political issue. It is used by both sides of an issue to argue their point; it ends up being a play for political power (see quotes above) and losing site of the purpose of the policy or regulation.
There is a lot written in newspapers and magazines about this dichotomy. Some try to make an academic exercise out of it but those usually end up being biased too. Here is an example of this: two articles on public land livestock grazing and science: here
Case Study
In July 2007, the Murphy Complex Fire burned over 650,000 acres of BLM, state, and private land in southern Idaho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Complex_Fire (Links to an external site.)). It became one of the largest wildfires in Idaho’s history and scorched critical sage-steppe for wildlife, particularly sage grouse, and critical rangelands for ranchers in their livestock operations.
What is interesting about this fire, is that it created a debate that pitted two very powerful enemies in the world of public land grazing against each other in a very public discourse about the legitimacy of public land grazing and its role in catastrophic wildfire. The two most out spoken on both sides went back and forth in the local paper in Twin Fall, Idaho. Bert Brackett owned one of the larger ranching operations that was impacted by the fire and was also an Idaho state legislative representative at the time. Jon Marvel was then president of Western Watersheds Project (westernwatersheds.org), a non-profit who actively litigates against BLM and Forest Service to reduce and eliminate livestock grazing on public lands.
Read the following editorials that appeared shortly after the fire from Mr. Brackett and Mr. Marvel in the Times-News in Twin Falls, Idaho. Also included is an editorial from the newspaper itself about the issue. While reading the editorials, think about how each party uses (or doesn’t use) science to make their point. Think about how such disparate opinions can be made using science that is supposedly politically neutral.
7 Assignments - Wise Use Movement Today
· Listen to the following podcast from Utah Public Radio’s RadioWest program from December of 2014. It gives a thorough overview of H.B. 148 and explores both sides of the issue.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/utahs-public-lands-pursuit (Links to an external site.)
Also, read the following documents that are discussed in the podcast. I have also provided some editorial pieces about this issue. Critically think about all the implications of this legislation.
Report on Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act | H.B.148
A Legal Analysis of the Transfer of Public Lands Movement
PATHWAY TO A BALANCED PUBLIC LANDS POLICY
A Review of and Recommendations Based On An Analysis of a Transfer of Federal Lands to the State of Utah
Toward a Balanced Public Lands Policy A Case Statement for the H.B. 148: Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act
7 Narrative - New West vs. Old West
Where is natural resource policy, in particular, western public land policy moving? How are today’s conflicts going to be resolved? Are there changes that need to be made or are we moving in the right direction to healthier landscapes? Are there new, innovative ideas to resolve long standing environmental issues?
Over the next three weeks, we will explore and discuss the future of the west and natural resource issues, with a special focus on public land management.
New West vs. Old West
Charles Wilkinson, author of the book Crossing the Next Meridian about the future of public lands policy, wrote about what he called the “Lords of Yesterday.” These “Lords” are those extractive uses of western lands that promoted settlement in the west, namely: mining, livestock grazing, logging, dams, and water rights. Wilkinson contends that the laws under which these uses are managed need to change or are already changing because of the influx of population and booming metropolitan areas.
Since the 1990’s, there has been a conversation about the direction of western public land management. It has been framed as New West vs. Old West. So what is the difference between the New West and the Old West?
|
Old West |
New West |
|
Rural economy |
Postmodern economy |
|
Focus on extractive commodity industries |
Focus on service based activities |
|
Livestock grazing |
Services and retail oriented |
|
Mining |
Recreation |
|
Logging |
Retail, information |
|
Utilitarian philosophy |
Conservation and preservation oriented |
|
|
|
Can you think of any other resource uses that would fall in either category?
The debate of Old West vs. New West is difficult to quantify. Economies that are more commodities based are easily measured whereas a service based economy is much softer because the users don’t directly pay for the resource they’re using. Instead, those economies have to be measured indirectly in purchases of gas, groceries, restaurants, equipment, etc.
This debate is especially poignant in rural areas and is plainly evident in places like Escalante, UT. Read the following article from the Salt Lake Tribune about the town’s perceived difficulty in coping with a changing economy:
Another county this has happened in is Kane County, UT. I’ve worked closely with the Kane County Commissioners on various projects throughout my professional career. They do have an appreciation for the New West and the economic impact it has on their rural communities. Yet you can’t ignore the first-hand accounts of how it has changed these rural places. What I hear most in my line of work is the types of jobs the New West brings to these towns. It does bring jobs but jobs in the service industry aren’t always as high paying as the commodities sector. This has made it difficult for young people with families to live in these rural areas. This is evident by the article linked above; e.g. a shrinking school population. This holds true in Kanab, Utah as well from one on one conversation I’ve had with people that live there.
What will happen to these traditional rural communities? Would it be important to try to promote traditional uses like ranching in order to reach other goals like preserving open space? Watch the following video about the urbanization of the west: Subdivide(the video is a little cheesy but it makes a valid point worth considering).
Another thing to consider with the New West are the more recent developments on public lands and energy development, including oil and gas extraction, on those lands. Technology has made more oil and gas available on public lands. Also, renewable energy development like solar and wind have become major components of the United States’ energy strategy (just drive over to Milford, UT to see the largest wind farm in Utah with the majority of turbines located on BLM land) and an emerging use of public lands. How do these more recent commodities fit in to the New West?
There is also the issue of private land ownership in the west. This is an interesting perspective from the NY Times: click here
8 Narrative - Break Through
Break Through
The reason I assigned this book to be read for this class, is not because I necessarily agree with Nordhaus and Shellenberger. It is because it offers a contrasting and different framework you typically don’t find in other environmental writing. The book can challenge your thinking about how you view environmental issues and proposes new, dynamic solutions.
Norhaus and Shellenberger put forward the idea that the great accomplishments in environmental policy in the 1960’s wasn’t born out of some new realization that there were environmental problems, but because of the prosperity the United State experienced during this time. They make the case that it in order to solve a global issue like climate change, then there must be global prosperity so people are in a position to care about environmental issues, instead of worrying about securing basic needs like food and safety.
In the first half of the book, the authors rail against the environmental justice issue, making the argument that it is too narrow in scope. They even go as far as to write about how the problem has been overstated. They argue against the neo-Malthusiasts that promote authoritarianism as a way to solve environmental issues. Authoritarianism is bred out of fear and insecurity, and does not promulgate change.
They believe that the current politics of global warming seeks to limit human potential and growth. They advocate that the environmentalist politics should be gratitude, hope, and joy; not sadness, fear, and regret.
9 (A) Narrative - Education
Mandates vs. Education
As we read at the beginning of the semester in Our Limits Transgressed and then vilified in Break Through, there is a notion that the public will not merely comply voluntarily to what is beneficial with nature and the environment. Neo-Malthusiasts contend that an authoritarian government in one form or another needs to exist in order to compel, or at least push, people in the right direction.
Whether you agree with that notion or not, how do you get people to care for the environment? In Break Through, the authors contend that technology and prosperity are the answers to our problems. What if we aren’t prosperous though? What if an environmental issue is just the “right thing to do”? Can something be done without infringing on people’s personal liberties?
Case Study
In my professional capacity as manager of Vermilion Cliffs National Monument (from 2011-2015), I had the privilege of working with The Peregrine Fund. “The Peregrine Fund is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to saving birds of prey from extinction. Throughout the world, birds of prey are threatened by shooting, poisoning, and loss of habitat. Saving these birds is an effective means of conserving the rich diversity of life that is critical to the future health of our planet and the well-being of generations to come.” ( www.peregrinefund.org (Links to an external site.) )
One of their many conservation projects is the California condor reintroduction. California condors are highly endangered. Only 22 individuals remained alive in 1982. Since 1996, The Peregrine Fund has produced condors at its captive breeding facility at the World Center for Birds of Prey in Idaho and released them in Arizona as a “non-essential experimental population” under a Memoranda of Understanding and applicable special permits with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and others. The location of the release site for the captive bred birds is on Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. As of July 2015, there are 425 California condors, including 74 in northern Arizona and southern Utah.
The biggest issue hampering the full recovery of the California condor and the primary contributor to condor mortality is lead poisoning. You can explore the scientific literature conclusions on your own, but the research is pretty compelling that a majority condors are getting poisoned from lead fragments of spent ammunition in dead animal carcasses. The lead comes from bullets used by game hunters.
What’s interesting is that The Peregrine Fund has taken a very unique approach to this issue. Instead of advocating for a mandatory ban on lead ammunition, in partnership with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, they have implemented a very successful voluntary non-lead ammunition campaign with big game hunters. In fact, research as shown that hunter compliance in this voluntary program is just as effective as the mandatory lead ban for big game hunting in California.
Read the following two research papers that quantify the success of the voluntary lead-reduction program:
9 (B) - Leadership in Public Land Management
In my opinion, the greatest challenge public land management agencies currently face is the deficit of high quality leadership within the agencies. This is not to say that there aren't any good leaders within the agencies; however, in my personal experience, and from the literature I've read, there is a lot room for improvement.
In 2014, I participated in a program with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) called Leadership Academy, a year-long leadership training program. As part of that program, I was put in a group with four other participants in the class to complete a special project. The project was to study more in depth the results from the 2013 and 2014 Federal Employee View Point Survey (Links to an external site.) And the upward trend of negative responses regarding leadership within the BLM. From that project, my group produced a report and produced those findings to BLM senior leadership in 2015.
Attached here is the PowerPoint
My group used in our presentation to BLM senior leaders. I have also attached the full report
Our group presented. I'm sharing these because I think it brings awareness to leadership principles that transcend any government agency, whether it be local, state, or federal. (Please note that the PowerPoint and report are for class use only. Do not share or print any portion of these documents. Thank you!)
1
