<<Prev Home PDF Next>>
much
as a couple years ago). Since the former grassroots group began to
pursue Big Money, recruiting multi-millionaires to its board of
directors, SUWA has seen its coffers grow signifcantly.
In
2006 I made the mistake of writing an essay for “Writers on the Range”
that suggested SUWA should share some its largesse with other
struggling green groups. I called the essay, “SUWA can you spare a
dime?” In an angry response, published in the Salt Lake Tribune, its
executive director Scott Groene insisted that the money was needed as a
“rainy day fund” for future emergencies and complained that I was
insane... (He also called me the “Barney Fife of the Desert,” but
that’s a story for another time.)
The question is, as SUWA’s infuence wanes, what good is all that money? Has the “rainy day” at long last arrived?
SUWA’s
2008 IRS statements show a decline in “net assets” for the frst time in
years, from $5,912,035 at the beginning of 2008 to $5,397,339 at the
end of the year. But contri-
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT (CONTINUED)
ported
local participation and opposed federal designation. Specifcally,
Salazar insisted the Obama Administration had no intention of creating
national monuments on public lands and side-stepping the legislative
wilderness process.
“That’s
not going to happen,” Salazar said. “That would be the wrong way to
go.” Instead he wants to work with locally elected offcials to fnd
consensus on wilderness. He hailed the 2009 Washington County lands
bill—which designated wilderness but which also released thousands of
acres of public land for private development—as a model for future
legislation. SUWA ultimately supported the Washington County bill but
insisted it in no way compromised their Red Rock legislation.
Salazar
disagreed. “I think this is what people want from their government.
They want solutions and conclusions.” And, in a reference clearly
intended for the litigious SUWA lawyers, Salazar added, “They don’t
want interminable processes that don’t lead anywhere.”
According
to a news report on public radio’s KUER, “He also insisted that Utah’s
Red Rock Wilderness Bill before Congress is the wrong way to go.”
Salazar’s
comments had to sting the hierarchy at SUWA. Their combative legalistic
approach to wilderness over the past two decades has alienated friends
and foes alike, including, I regret to say, this publication.
Originally a grassroots organization with a lot of soul but not much money, SUWA has
butions were UP for 2008, so how did they lose money? It wasn’t because they had tapped into their rainy day fund.
According
to their tax returns, SUWA was heavily invested in “publicly traded
securities.” And 2008 was a bad year. SUWA saw its investments plummet
in value, from $1,576,521 to $357,678. Of course, the markets have come
back and surely the Utah green group has recouped some of the green it
lost in 2008, but how many SUWA supporters would guess their
contribution might be headed for a mutual fund?
Not many, I’d bet.
“I think this is what people want from their government.
They want solutions and conclusions.”
And, in a reference clearly intended
for the litigious SUWA lawyers, Salazar added,
“They don’t want interminable processes
that don’t lead anywhere.”
Meanwhile
the payroll expenditures reached $1,030,202 in 2008, up from $891,982
the year before and the executive director receives $90,000 annually in
salary and ben-efts. What has SUWA done to deserve a million dollar
payroll?
It
has certainly succeeded in becoming an unbridled supporter of the
multi-million dollar recreation economy that SUWA thinks wilderness
stimulates. It’s almost impossible to separate the green from the
‘Green’ these days in their wilderness message.
According
to an August KCPW public radio story, “The Outdoor Industry Foundation
says outdoor recreation has an annual economic impact of $6 billion a
year in Utah and accounts for 65,000 jobs. ‘That’s making state
offcials more receptive to conserving wilderness,’ says Scott Groene
of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.”
Groene
explained, “When the Outdoor Industry a couple years ago spoke up about
the importance of their industry and threatened to pull the [Outdoor
Retailer] tradeshow from Salt Lake City, they got the governor’s
attention. And it changed the debate from one that protecting lands
would devastate local economies to not only would they not devastate
local economies but there was actually a beneft to protecting lands.”
KCPW added, “Groene says being eco-friendly isn’t just for activists like SUWA. It’s also good business.”
become
one of the wealthiest “local” green groups in the Intermountain West.
Its payroll in 2008 topped one million dollars. The ultimate goal has
always been passage of the Red Rock Wilderness Bill, but for all its
legal maneuverings and law suits and caustic criticism of multiple
land use groups, SUWA has little to show for its efforts. They have
been effective STOPPING actions that might degrade Utah’s
wildlands—they certainly deserve credit for that—but have done little
to resolve the wilderness debate. If anything, they have made the issue
more polarized and bitter than ever before.
Now SUWA’s banner wilderness bill is even being sidestepped and dismissed by the Obama Presidency.
Where does SUWA go from here?
SUWA rarely takes ‘NO’ for an answer, so we can only speculate.
In
2004, SUWA took the BLM all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing
that the Bureau had an obligation to reduce off road vehicle damage.
SUWA insisted that the court must assure the protection of proposed
wilderness areas.
The
Supreme Court disagreed and Justice Scalia wrote that forcing the BLM
to act would insert the court into the day-to-day operations of the
agency. Scalia insisted a ruling on SUWA’s behalf “would divert BLM’s
energies from other projects throughout the country that are in fact
more pressing. While such a decree might please the environmental
plaintiffs in the present case, it would ultimately operate to the
detriment of sound environmental management.”
Any
green-blooded environmentalist would dismiss Scalia’s comments as the
rantings of a far right conservative. But Scalia merely wrote on behalf
of the court. All of them.
The
Supreme Court unanimously ruled against SUWA. Even John Paul Stevens
cast his vote against the group. So did David Souter. And Ruth Bader
Ginsberg.
Forget saving wild lands for their own sake.
Don’t even mention the more
intrinsic aspects of Nature.
Instead, the wilderness advocate
might have simply said,
“I consume. I consume. I consume.
And I spend a lot of money.”
Jump
ahead three years. When wilderness supporters gathered to hear
Secretary Sala-zar last month, most of them were sporting SUWA’s “9.4
WILD” buttons and many of them came with messages of support. One
wilderness advocate voiced her opinion to KUER’s Jenny Brundin. “I
hike, I ski, I river raft,” she said, “...just everything. There is so
much here and we’d hate to have anything happen to it.”
It
is a message that has drowned out loftier wilderness expressions.
Forget saving wild lands for their own sake. Don’t even mention the
more intrinsic aspects of Nature. Instead, the wilderness supporter
might have simply said, “I consume. I consume. I consume. And I spend a
lot of money.” If there is a message that the mainstream environmental
community has embraced, it’s the money to be made by supporting
wilderness designation.
Ed
Abbey once wrote, “A man can be a lover of wilderness without ever in
his lifetime leaving the boundaries of asphalt, power lines, and
right-angled surfaces. We need wilderness whether or not we ever set
foot in it. We need a refuge even though we may never need to go
there....we need the possibility of escape as surely as we need hope.”
It’s
as selfess a plea for wilderness as I have ever heard; yet these words
from our most eloquent defender of wilderness seem conveniently ignored
by today’s wilderness “advocates.” How did the noble quest for the
preservation of our remaining wildlands ever become inextricably linked
to a $6 billion recreation industry...the “industrial tourism” Abbey
warned us against 40 years ago?
This
is the course the mainstream environmental movement has chosen---this,
and a never-ending legalistic strategy backed by all kinds of money but
with very little heart and soul.
Wilderness is not about pampered guided trips or expensive gear or booming tourist towns. It’s not about us...it’s
about the land itself and the Life that inhabits it. This should be our
priority as we seek to save what’s left of our precious wild lands.
Nine to ZERO.
The next day, SUWA still refused to accept defeat. According to a June 15, 2004 Salt Lake Tribune story,
“SUWA attorney Heidi McIntosh said the group will keep trying through
other administrative, legal and congressional avenues to force the BLM
to act.”
It
reminds me of the Black Knight dueling swords with King Arthur in
“Monty Python and the Holy Grail”---Arthur had reduced the hapless
warrior to stumps and the Black Knight yelled, “The Black Knight is
always triumphant! Come back here and I’ll bite your legs off!”
SUWA seems to be biting ankles these days.
But if that’s what it wants to do, SUWA has the money to do it (though not quite as
<<Prev Home PDF Next>>