skip to main content

Natural Resources Defense Council

Switchboard

Andrew Wetzler's Blog

As goes Idaho, so goes the Nation?

As goes Idaho, so goes the Nation?

Smokey Canyon/Sage Creek

There are few things that motivate conservationists so much as the preservation of wilderness.  From Henry David Thoreau to John Muir to Aldo Leopold to David Brower the history of America's environmental movement is literally built on battles to protect some of our last, great, wild places.  And it's not just conservationists.  Wilderness holds a special place in American history and in American culture.  As Roderick Nash put it: "Take away wilderness and you take away the opportunity to be American." 

That's why the "Roadless Rule"--a set of regulations first issued by the Clinton Administration that protects public lands without roads from development--is so important.  The Roadless Rule helps to preserve tens of millions of acres of wild land throughout the United States.  It also enjoys tremendous public support.  Millions of people have written letters supporting the Roadless Rule.  But the Bush Administration loathes it.  Since they came to power, the Administration has done everything it can to weaken protections for roadless areas. 

Their most recent effort--a proposal to open up 6 million acres of currently protected, pristine national forest land in Idaho to logging, mining, and other corporate development--was announced just days before Christmas. 

Idaho’s public forests are some of the most untouched and intact wild areas left in the continental United States.  Among other things, the proposal would permit as much as 20,000 acres of roadless lands to be directly lost to phosphate mining,  an incredibly destructive type of open pit mining, which often results in toxic selenium runoff that poisons wildlife, and contaminates drinking water and fisheries.  Contamination near these mines (many of the phosphate mines in southern Idaho are already officially designated as Superfund sites) can get so bad that in 2006, state wildlife officials warned hunters against eating liver from elk killed near them.

If you want to really see what I'm talking about just scroll down.  The picture at the top of this post is of a roadless area in Idaho before it was opened up to phosphate mining.  Now look below for to see a representation of the exact same valley (or what's will be left of it) after the mining interests got get their way.

Smokey Canyon/Sage Creek after mining

And Idaho is just the beginning. The Forest Service has already announced its intentions to open roadless areas in Colorado, and in the next few weeks the nation’s largest public forest, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska will be added to the list.

Fortunately, the Bush administration hasn’t gotten its way yet.  The Forest Service will hold its only public meeting outside of Idaho, in Washington, D.C., on Monday to hear public comments on its plan.  NRDC will be at the public hearing and will fight this proposal every step of the way.  I hope Switcboard readers in the D.C. area will join us:

When: January 14, 2007, 5:00-10:00 PM EST

Where: United States Department of Agriculture, South Building, Jefferson Auditorium, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.

UPDATE: In my original post I believed that these were before and after shots of the Sage Creek roadless area.  Michael Patty pointed to some compelling evidence that the “after” shot was an illustration.  We quickly checked with the photographer and discovered that, in fact, the “after” photograph is an accurate illustration of what an open pit phosphate mine would look like on the site.  I’ve corrected my post and apologize for the error.  The mistake was NRDC’s, not our local partners.  And thank you Michael for pointing this out!

Tags:
idaho, phosphatemining, roadless, roadlessrule, wilderness, wildplaces

(bookmark or email this entry)

Comments

Edward WawrzyniakJan 9 2008 09:37 PM

Thank you Andrew and NRDC for your focus on preserving our last remaining wildlands. The future of biodiversity on this continent depends upon it as you well know. These issues unfortunately do not get enough press and often suffer from political neglect.

"Dirk" knows these lands all too well. One of America's last best secrets - Idaho.

I personally will step up my efforts on this matter. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention...

Michael PattyJan 10 2008 05:50 PM

Andrew:

While I certainly respect your dedication and energy in protecting the environment, I don't think your cause (and the cause of environmentalism in general) is done any favors by using a doctored/photoshopped "after" image to make your point.

I am not disputing with you the facts of your statements. That's not my point at all. I am disputing the authenticity of the particular image you are portraying as an "after" image. As a graphic artist of many years, I can see right off the bat a number of things that make it clear that these two images are actually the same image (one doctored, and one not).

Points of Evidence:

* The edges of the snowcaps on both images are exactly the same. Snow melt from year to year makes this impossible. A picture from one year would have a almost completely different line on the snow pack than the next year.

* The erosion patterns and tree lines are exactly the same. Again, this would vary from year to year, though to a lesser degree than the snow line.

* The color is identical in both images. As any photographer can tell you, sunlight is a fickle light source. The tone and color of an image can change, just from one hour to the next, based on time of day and weather. The fact that the two images have identical color is the BIGGEST clue from a technical standpoint. Taking a color sample of the two images from the same area results in an identical reading. That's just not possible if the two images were actually from two separate times (not to mention from two separate cameras).

* The viewpoint is identical. The photographer would have to had to stand in EXACTLY the same spot, with exactly the same camera and lens, at exactly the same time of day, with his/her hands holding the camera at exactly the same angle and height. I think the odds are better of my winning the lottery than that you could get exactly the same viewpoint to such a level of precision.

So my point is, make your arguments with the truth. The truth is always more powerful. Using a fake image greatly weakens your argument. I am sure you could have found a REAL picture of strip mining. But instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, you faked one up. That choice may well backfire on you.

Andrew WetzlerJan 10 2008 06:28 PM

Thank you Michael.

Your evidence is very convincing. So convincing that I contacted the person who provided us with the photograph and found out that you are correct. I very much appreciate you pointing my error out and I have corrected the post.

--Andrew

Comments are closed for this post.

We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.

Clean Energy Common Sense

OnEarth: NRDC's award-winning magazine

Citizen journalism from the OnEarth magazine website

Day Five of No Impact Week: Lights Out
by Solvie Karlstrom
The Not-So-Badness of Guides to Green Living
by Emily Gertz
No Impact Week Day Four: Foreign Foods
by Solvie Karlstrom

Read more

Fresh Conversation

Feeds: Stay Plugged In