Dear HCN,
I received a great deal
of satisfaction from reading Dan Flores’ and Susan Ewing’s articles
on Western subdivisions (HCN, 5/10/99). Here are two essays that
aren’t the usual blinders-on, cheerleading drivel. As a prelude, I
should add that I disagree with the authors on many points. As a
range ecologist living in the West, I’ve seen a lot of
grazed-to-dirt, noxious-weed-infested, two-horse ranchettes
built-on elk winter range. I believe that the potential for damage
from this kind of development is much greater than the potential
for responsible living. Dan and Susan sound like they’re making
sincere efforts to fit into their place, but they surely represent
the far end of the spectrum.
What encouraged me
about these articles was that they challenged the point of view we
usually take for granted, namely, that subdivisions are bad. How
many times do we need to be told that dams kill salmon, clearcuts
cause stream sedimentation and destroy species diversity, that
livestock grazing on public lands is an abuse of the “Commons,” and
mining leads to boom/bust economies for small towns? It’s become
environmental-reporting white noise. We need to be challenged to
think for ourselves, to understand our own arguments by listening
to and understanding different perspectives.
I’d
like to apply Lyons’ article on nature writing subsidies to this
issue. Let’s fund a subsidy to prevent environmental reporters from
writing an article if the subject has already been covered by, oh,
say five other articles. If they can raise new issues or forward
new perspectives, then they can go to print; otherwise, paying them
to keep their pens in the inkwell is money well
spent.
John
Beaver
Helena,
Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Fight that knee jerking.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
