Dear HCN,


For the past year I’ve been part of a group including ranchers, environmentalists and scientists exploring ways to find common ground over public-lands policy in Arizona and the West. Early on we found our mantra by paraphrasing James Carville: It’s land fragmentation, stupid! But no matter how much progress we make, we keep running into the same wall: lawsuits over the Endangered Species Act brought by the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity or Forest Guardians against the Forest Service. As Ed Marston pointed out in his essay, “Show me the science” (HCN, 3/16/98), the Forest Service is paralyzed by these lawsuits, but ranchers pay the price: reduced allotments, endless meetings, escalating legal expenses. Two ranching families in our group are seriously considering selling their ranches, and the only way they can recoup their investment is to subdivide and develop their private land.


If paralysis by lawsuit is allowed to continue, one unintended result of the Endangered Species Act in Arizona will be strip malls and subdivisions in every grassland valley across the state. Land fragmentation will make ecosystem management of the grasslands, whether it be the protection of wildlife habitat or the reintroduction of fire, harder if not impossible to accomplish. As Marston notes, “rural economies and rural landscapes’ will be replaced by “service economies and suburbia.” Is that what we really want for the West?

Tom Sheridan


Diamond Bell, Arizona

Close window X

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Our articles are available for republishing, but images are only available on a case-by-case basis. You can’t republish photographs or illustrations without written permission from High Country News and/or the photographer. Please reach out to syndication@hcn.org to request illustrations and photography for specific stories. Republishing guidelines

• Credit the author and High Country News - We prefer Author Name, High Country News at the byline.  At the top of the story, if on the web, please include this text and link: “This story was originally published by High Country News.”
• Check the image requirements - Images that are clearly marked CC or from federal agencies are in the creative commons and are available for republishing. Outside of this, you can’t republish photographs or illustrations without written permission from High Country News and/or the photographer. Please reach out to syndication@hcn.org to request more information.
• Don’t change anything significant - Articles must be republished in their entirety. Revisions for house style or references to time (“yesterday” to “today”) are allowed. If larger revisions are necessary, including significant trims or an editor’s note, contact us at syndication@hcn.org to get approval for the change ahead of republishing.
• Share on social media - When sharing on social tag High Country News in your post and note the story is from @highcountrynews
  • Twitter: @highcountrynews 
  • Instagram: @highcountrynews
  • TikTok: @highcountrynews
  • Facebook: @highcountrynews
  • LinkedIn: High Country News
• Stay in touch - Let us know you republished the story. Send a link to syndication@hcn.org once you’ve republished the story and let us know how it’s resonating with your readers.

What’s better for Arizona

by Tom Sheridan, High Country News
June 8, 1998

<h1>What’s better for Arizona</h1> <p class="byline">by Tom Sheridan, High Country News <br />June 8, 1998</p> <p>Dear HCN,</p> <p>For the past year I’ve<br /> been part of a group including ranchers, environmentalists and<br /> scientists exploring ways to find common ground over public-lands<br /> policy in Arizona and the West. Early on we found our mantra by<br /> paraphrasing James Carville: It’s land fragmentation, stupid! But<br /> no matter how much progress we make, we keep running into the same<br /> wall: lawsuits over the Endangered Species Act brought by the<br /> Southwest Center for Biological Diversity or Forest Guardians<br /> against the Forest Service. As Ed Marston pointed out in his essay,<br /> “Show me the science” (HCN, 3/16/98), the Forest Service is<br /> paralyzed by these lawsuits, but ranchers pay the price: reduced<br /> allotments, endless meetings, escalating legal expenses. Two<br /> ranching families in our group are seriously considering selling<br /> their ranches, and the only way they can recoup their investment is<br /> to subdivide and develop their private land.</p> <p>If<br /> paralysis by lawsuit is allowed to continue, one unintended result<br /> of the Endangered Species Act in Arizona will be strip malls and<br /> subdivisions in every grassland valley across the state. Land<br /> fragmentation will make ecosystem management of the grasslands,<br /> whether it be the protection of wildlife habitat or the<br /> reintroduction of fire, harder if not impossible to accomplish. As<br /> Marston notes, “rural economies and rural landscapes’ will be<br /> replaced by “service economies and suburbia.” Is that what we<br /> really want for the West?</p> <p>Tom<br /> Sheridan</p> <p>Diamond Bell,<br /> Arizona</p> <div class="wp-block-group hcn-print-edition-box"> <p>This article appeared in the <a href="/?p=187387">print edition of the magazine</a> with the headline <span class="hcn-magtitle">What's better for Arizona</span>.</p> </p></div> <p>This <a target="_blank" href="https://www.hcn.org/issues/issue-132/whats-better-for-arizona/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.hcn.org">High Country News</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/www.hcn.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/cropped-HCN_Logo-Monogram_White_Sq-2.png?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://www.hcn.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=103321&amp;ga4=G-0NS3WVPPTN" style="width:1px;height:1px;"></p> Copy to Clipboard

1