The Meaning of Virginia Park

NOTE: Written in 2018, I offer this as a response to a TWN reader curious about “fortress preservation”. Once a year the NPS offers a guided tour so you, too, can experience a preserved piece of public lands [w/o citation & monetary fine].)

In the 1990s I worked at Utah’s Capitol Reef National Park. I was a neoliberal High Country News-reading bureaucrat like Tim Lydon who wrote Protected Lands Generate Big Time Revenue, yet another piece about the economic value of supposed “sustainable” recreation, his perspective one of conservation usurping the very idea of preservation.

Directly from graduate school and Muir, Powell and Leopold’s Wisconsin, my Alabaman friend John Fleming and I put thousands of miles on our feet on the Colorado Plateau over several years. We were fit and should have been tied.

As we’d walk, climb, and observe mostly silence, the trampled landscape that no longer contained biodiversity, like many we’d wonder what was once. When we’d find rare enclaves away from the cattle, bovine and human, we’d marvel at the bunch and rice grass and talk of its past importance to everything. We’d virtuously talk about seeing places before the arrival of the Mormons and Lake Foul. Of us.

So we hatched a plan to go to Virginia Park, a relict area in the Needles District of Canyonlands National Park, a surviving remnant of the Colorado Plateau that is off limits to humans (except NPS/research). The purpose of the closure is to preserve a place for posterity and research, a comparison of what once was. Other than land and sea rookeries with mostly seasonal closures, less than 100,000 acres of public lands are set aside as relict areas.

A healthy Indian ricegrass plant

We knew it was off limits and didn’t care. Like all individuals, it seems, we believed we knew how to tiptoe through the crypto and never minded the aggregate.

The Bundys define Natural Rights as anthropocentric property rights and public lands law in the United States reflects their “beneficial use” purpose. Very few are off limits to humans and their endeavors for the sake of flora, fauna or their Rights to exist. Instead, everywhere is used  by public lands industries that include energy, agriculture, and recreation. All are top economic sectors, all create value from their accumulation of capital as their property, and all suggest their endeavors are pious.

Like John and me.

A very long walk, climbing over a small block of sandstone in a dreamsicle constriction, our first view of Virginia Park was that she was gorgeous. Huge stabilized dunes with massive velvety snowberry, sticky Mormon Tea, old growth bonsai PJ and unbroken stretches of cowbelly high bunchgrasses in a sea of shoebox skyscraper crypto fields within a sandstone needle amphitheater. A trail ran through the area – already the crypto in the shallow rather than foot trenched trail growing back. We stuck to the washes, instead, as the rains would wash most of our tracks away.

We were happy as fed and watered cattle, taking the Joint Trail back. We compared what we just witnessed to what we were seeing once again as we walked back to the parking lot and the waiting NPS Park Rangers where we were asked about where we were, our shoes, and told about our citations. We had been had.

I hope that as we get old we get wise through recognizing our hypocrisy and correcting it. I should have never gone. I was wreckreation like the millions of others thinking my individual use was somehow to be absolved because ‘I knew better.’ In my youth, I didn’t think much about the aggregate, as I was a meritarch, a neoliberal and pious bureaucrat who believed I was a Lorax understanding the flora, fauna, and cultural resources.

I deserved it and got it good and hard.

People and communities depend on the money generated from the use of public lands, for spiritual renewal, individual awareness, education, empathy. Some are pious endeavors. All feel it is their right, whether for property or anarchistic freedom.

However, in the aggregate, we humans consume everything on the planet at the cost of the rights of nature. When we view public lands as things of value without the wisdom of the harm of the aggregate to the rights of the non-humans who call them their home we are hypocritically uncivilized, unsustainably unwise.

I must say, I appreciate the National Cattlemen Beef Association’s Ethan Lane, as he engages with me via social media unlike the Outdoor Industry Association’s Katie Boue who blocks me. The fracking lobbyist, Western Energy’s Kathleen Sgamma doesn’t block me like Boue, but she is MIT indifferent.

In a now deleted tweet tagged with both Lane and Sgamma, Boue responds to my critique of the OIA – that #Wreckreation is not a #virtue – and how its stance on carrying capacities and quotas on public lands negates the rights of nature. She responded, “Yeah but, we get shit done. I love the idea of preservation, but that’s not reality. Try to work within reality if you want to DO something.”

I believe that Gaia needs a #metoo movement, one with realism and preservationist conviction, one demanding a land ethic of us doing the right thing as we get things done.

Twenty years later, my frontal lobe has matured and overcome some hypocrisy. Regarding entering relict areas, at the time I told my reprimanding Superintendent boss at the park that I think there should be an overlook at the entry pass to Virginia Park, complete with an interpretive exhibit and guided walks for members of Congress.

I still believe it would be of great value for everyone, lobbyist, real estate developer, rancher, miner, fracker and recreationist to see. To understand like Muir, Powell and Leopold.

To, perhaps, wise up, become ‘civilized’ and recognize that all creatures on this planet have rights through seeing what once was and what could be. To expand our ideals of natural rights beyond we virtuous humans to creatures whose only value is unmolested existence.

Comments

  1. Robert Weinick Avatar
    Robert Weinick

    You are still beating the same dead horse. Wilderness and in particular the Escalante Canyons need expansion of boundaries. Work to do that instead of your fixation on how many people are going. Work to prevent them from driving machines on the land. I told you before that cows not people are the number one problem in the Escalante. I live here in the middle of this place for nearly 50 years. What have you done here? I am anxious to know.

    Robert Weinick Calf Creek

    1. Anotherview Avatar
      Anotherview

      Look, I personally value fortress conservation for the reasons you described. What I asked for was clear policy proposals that identify how and where key “fortress areas” should be located, and why. Once we have that, we can start having conversations on how to implement it. That’s a heavy lift and a lot harder than describing the problem, but it’s what I want to talk about.

      1. Chris Zinda Avatar
        Chris Zinda

        In these last two pieces, I reference preservation for the needs of flora and fauna (particularly ESAs), each species with their own unique needs. As such, a definition of preservation is largely dependent upon those needs.

        Ex: I say in Conservation Loses,

        “Today, “true” self identified conservationist academics and professionals in biology and ecology press rewilding plans, complete with core habitat and corridors for species movement, no regard or mention of preservation in their “bold” plans, as seen in Ripple, et al’s Rewilding the American West.”

        Maybe academics could start there.

        Another definition is in this piece,

        “The purpose of the closure is to preserve a place for posterity and research, a comparison of what once was.”

        On a grander scale, the preservation of wilderness mean “untrammeled,” a place with natural processes by law. Surely we can assume this means limiting uses and number of users to maintain such a state.

        I have other thoughts and may explore them in another piece. But, any definition discussion must start with a dictionary, no?

        “the act of keeping something in its original state”

        1. Anotherview Avatar
          Anotherview

          All the wonderful thoughts and ideas are fine. And yet, at the end of the day, from the standpoint of the countless critters depending on us to sustain their lives, what have all these words gotten them?

          The pens are falling to the swords.

          The small voices need more action.

    2. Chris Zinda Avatar
      Chris Zinda

      Robert:

      Beyond the missive of “what have you done here,” I respectfully disagree that people are not as much problem as cattle, nor that we can simply ignore the preservation mandate of the Wilderness Act.

      I gave these stats in a 2017 piece titled, “An Open Letter to Neoliberal Environmentalists”. Perhaps you can refute them.

      “OIA cohorts sell their natural resource consuming wares to a currently unlimited public lands based market, claiming credit for $646 billion in annual consumer spending. Over 15 million people visit Utah to recreate, having access to most public lands everywhere. In comparison, 850,000 resources damaging cattle roam in Utah, most on Federal public lands permits. They are not found everywhere like humans, and some are present in “protected” places like Capitol Reef National Park, Grand Staircase / Escalante National Monument and, criminally, the culturally rich and under-dispute Bears Ears.

      People want to say, “Cattle do more damage than a human!” to which I reply these figures. Surely one four legged beast is equal to the environmental damage of 17.4 carbon consuming, fossil fuel wearing, roadkill traveling, lithic tromping, blissfully traipsing, trespassing to the common cactus wren and uncommon winkler cactus, humans.”

      1. arthur Avatar
        arthur

        There is a key difference here though. Cattle stay on the landscape, people are transient. Sheer numbers dont mean anything because the vast majority of those 15 million are visiting developed areas, maintained trails etc. Cattle are not confined to a developed campground or a paved walkway, they aimlessly graze or as you put it “blissfully traipse”

  2. Chris Zinda Avatar
    Chris Zinda

    To add, two swords that could be used right now via litigation by orgs like Wilderness Watch (if I had the cash I’d do it):

    Carrying capacities in every Wilderness Area to uphold the preservation mandate;
    Carrying capacities for every NPS unit as per 2 pieces of legislation AND multiple judicial decrees.

    Words are great and become swords – especially if those words are in law.

    But, swords are worth squat if we do nothing with them – even if available.

  3. Ida Lupine Avatar
    Ida Lupine

    Well written! Who is this person to say what ‘reality’ is or is not!!! Thank you.

  4. Jeff Hoffman Avatar
    Jeff Hoffman

    I fully agree with Chris Zinda’s attitude and goal here — protecting and restoring native habitats, ecosystems, and species — but there’s another issue to consider, and it’s not anthropocentric. Ideally, the entire Earth would be wilderness, with humans living in much lower numbers as preindustrial hunter-gatherers. But we’re thousands of years from that happening even if humans began moving in that direction right now, and anthropocentric human attitudes and direction are exactly the opposite of what they need to be in order to achieve that goal. Therefore, our main objective should get people to prioritize — not just “like” — the natural world and all the life there. In order to accomplish that, people have to get into natural areas to not only see & hear them, but to FEEL them. Of course they should be walking and of course they shouldn’t take nor leave anything, but we have to start somewhere.

    I’m not arguing one way or the other here, but instead I’m arguing for some sort of balance between the two needs: preservation/restoration, and getting people to love the natural world enough to prioritize it. If humans continue to have lack of empathy and wisdom regarding the natural world and the life there, they will continue destroying those things. I too have the natural instinct to just prohibit humans from every natural area, and for good reason, but doing that won’t get us where we need to go. To be clear, I would strongly support highly enforced restrictions on the number of people in an area and what they may and may not do, but that’s not the same as prohibiting them altogether. And it would be fine to prohibit people from SOME areas, but there have to be places where humans can get into the natural world in order to begin relating to it so that they don’t continue to destroy it because it’s foreign and unknown to them.

Leave a Reply

Author

Chris Zinda has a BA in Political Science, a Master of Public Administration and is a former National Park Service administrator at several NPS sites in the American West and Alaska. A curmudgeon, he sometimes writes about public lands issues and players as a catharsis during the anthropocene.

Subscribe to get new posts right in your Inbox

×