WHAT'S OLD AND WHAT'S NEW ABOUT THE WISE USE MOVEMENT

by Ralph Maughan, Douglas Nilson

Idaho State University Dept. of Political Science

© 1993

A Version of this paper was presented at the Western Social Science Association Convention

April 23, 1993
Corpus Christi, Texas

Beginning in the late 1980s, a "new" social movement calling itself the "Wise Use Movement" emerged in the American West. It called for repeal of most Western public land policies promoted by environmental groups during the previous twenty years; expanded development of natural resources including previously reserved areas such as national parks; disbelief in global environmental problems like global warming, the ozone hole and acid rain; enactment of policies designed to hinder environmental and consumer activist groups, such as liability for "obstructionism", "agricultural product disparagement" liability, standing to sue on behalf of "industry," and economic impact statements (as a counterweight to environmental impact statements).[1]

This paper examines the Wise Use movement as to whether it represents a new political phenomenon or simply a recurrence of reactionary Western land revolts such as the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970s and early 80s. We conclude that the Wise Use Movement is a desperate effort to defend the hegemony of the cultural and economic values of the agricultural and extractive industries of the rural West. It differs from past such movements in its level of desperation and in a first effort to win allies in other parts of the region and nation.

Past Western land rebellions

Reactionary movements against federal land policy (ownership and regulation) have been recurring phenomena in the public land states of the West where the federal government typically owns at least half of the land.

The first such rebellion came in the early 1900s in response to the reservation of large portions of the public domain into forest reserves by Presidents Harrison, Cleveland, and, particularly, Theodore Roosevelt.

Although in 1907 Western anti-conservation interests, led by ranchers, were successful in eliminating the President's power to make additional forest reservations, 150-million acres had already become national forests. These areas were quickly put under active federal management by T.R.'s friend and advisor, chief forester Gifford Pinchot.[2] Opposition to the reservation of national parks was also fierce, yet many of the most famous national parks such as Yellow- stone, the Grand Canyon, Glacier, and Yosemite, were established in this period and the National Park Service was created in 1916. The anti-preservation sentiments in the West were held at bay by the rail roads, which wanted to encourage tourism in the West. A second important factor was the sentiment of "monumentalism", a kind of American scenic patriotism celebrating the extremes of the Western landscape -- the deepest canyons, the boldest mountains, the biggest trees, and freaks of nature such as geysers.[3]

Despite the taming of Roosevelt and Pinchot's progressive conservation by the conservative Republican administrations of the 1920s, Western interests realized that federal management of at least some Western lands was permanent.

The New Deal again destabilized the coexistence of Western public land interests and the federal government, but many Western land interests benefited from the New Deal programs such as the Taylor Grazing Act and the proliferation of federal dam building. The New Deal served to liberate the West from the domination of Eastern capital by the substitution of federal monies. Many Western land interests slowly coopted the New Deal, and while many ranchers welcomed the elimination of transient livestock herds that came with the Taylor Grazing Act, ranching interests in particular remained the backbone of anti-federal sentiment.

The next land revolt developed in the late 1940s, and culminated at the beginning of Eisenhower Administration which ended twenty years of Democratic rule. Eisenhower called for a "restoration of traditional Republican lands policy" and appointed Douglas McKay, a car dealer from Oregon, Secretary of Interior.

The new administration suggested that the size of the national forest system be reduced, and Western livestock interests again sought the transfer of millions of acres of federal lands to the states. Irrigation interests sought to place a dam in Dinosaur National Monument.

To stave off Administration plans for a reduction of the size of the national forests, the Service acquiesced in an increase in the amount of timber sold and sought increases its road building program to access remote stands of timber.

In reaction to this assualt on the land polices of the New Deal, Journalist Bernard DeVoto's sounded an alarm in Harper's Magazine column and elsewhere. The threat of these proposals to established conservation and preservation interest groups such as the Wilderness Society, Isaac Walton League, and the Sierra Club, welded them into their first national coalition. Within four years, these renewed efforts to transfer lands to the states were rebuffed and conservation groups took the offensive. They were on their way to their first victories of the environmental era (such as the enactment of the Wilderness Act in 1964).

In the late 60s and early 70s, a vast amount of environmental legislation was passed, and while much had little directly to do with the public lands, the traditional users of Western public lands became increasingly alarmed. The passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), which officially ended the era of disposal of the public domain, sparked an intense reaction. The threatened expansion of Wilderness designation beyond the original National Wilderness Preservation System by means of the "roadless area review and evaluation" (RARE 1, in 1972) and the second "road-less area review and evaluation" (RARE 2, in 1978) excited intense opposition. The Carter Administration had also appointed former leaders of environmental and conservation groups to high Agriculture and Interior Department positions. By 1978 some Western interests were declaring a Sagebrush Rebellion.

The Sagebrush Rebellion

In 1979 the Nevada Legislature demanded that the federal government transfer about 50-million acres of federal land to the state. Conservative Republican senators from the West soon joined to promote a national bill embodying the claims of the Rebellion.[4]

The movement at first (as in the past) consisted mostly of public land ranchers, but it soon pulled in timber and energy interests and a few off-road vehicle (ORV) groups. Sensing the conservative flavor and political potential of the Rebellion, in the 1980 campaign candidate Ronald Reagan declared that he was a Sagebrush Rebel too. Upon taking office, he appointed "arch-Rebel" James Watt as his Secretary of Interior. Other Rebels were appointed as well such as Colorado Rebellion leader Robert Burford as Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

While the Sagebrush Rebels concentrated on states' rights arguments, their opponents stressed that the public lands, after transfer, were likely to be sold to "the highest bidder," i.e., privatized. The success of this argument was bolstered by a faction inside the Rebel lion that publicly advocated privatization, or "selling to the highest bidder" as environmental critics called it. As it turned out, the views of these libertarian and free market economists were at variance with those in the "mainstream" of the Rebellion. Internal discussions at Watt's Interior Department fed the fear of privatization when they were leaked to the media indicating that as much as 35-million acres of federal land might be sold under the Administration's "Asset Management Program."

Most Sagebrush Rebels, however, were not really interested in buying federal land. In fact, they had much to lose from auctioning the federal lands. Ranchers realized that "selling to the highest bidder" might well mean they would lose their leased grazing lands to someone or some company from Los Angeles, New York, or even Tokyo. The only kind of privatization ranchers might support would be selling to the nearest bidder.

We believe most Sagebrush Rebels were basically satisfied by the old system of federal lands where they enjoyed many of the privileges of ownership such as doing what they wanted with their herds and pay ing low grazing fees, but avoided many of the costs of ownership. These costs were borne by the federal government.[5]

Environmental initiatives in the 1960s and 70s threatened to destroy the comfortable relationship between commodity users of the public lands and the federal bureaucracy. Sagebrush rebels mostly wanted to change the land decision-making arena to one they felt would be more favorable. This was the basis of their desire to transfer the federal lands to the states. However, Secretary Watt's "good neighbor" program (which amounted to listening to and following the wishes of local rural elites) and his dramatic emphasis on the commodity development of natural resources had met most of their complaints.

We believe the Sagebrush Rebellion thus went no further because it accomplished many of the objectives of its core supporters (ranch ers, primarily), and at the same time Watt's persona and programs had, alarmingly to Rebels, reignited the environmental movement.

The "Old" West and the "New" West

The national image of the Rocky Mountain West is of mountains, deserts, vast open spaces, ranches and cowboys. The reality of the Rocky Mountain population is one of city dwellers, especially in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona.

Table one below shows the percentage of the population living in metropolitan areas for all Western states.

Table one

State        metropolitan

Alaska          41.4%
Arizona         79.0%
California      95.7%
Colorado        81.5%
Idaho           20.4%
Montana         23.9%
Nevada          82.9%
New Mexico      48.4%
Oregon          68.5%
Utah            77.5%
Washington      81.7%
Wyoming         29.6%

Source: Information Please Environmental Almanac, 1993

The population dominance of the metropolitan West is not even a new phenomenon. It originated after World War II. Moreover, the population of this "new" West does not work at mining, logging, ranching, dam building, or even farming. Military and other government, manufacturing, trade, tourism, education, service; and, in certain states like Arizona, retirement, are the source of the large majority of income. Increasing numbers work in "sunrise" "hi tech" industries.

With the exception of the borders of metropolitan areas and scenic, tourist areas like Blaine County, Idaho (Sun Valley); Jackson, Wyoming; and Aspen, Colorado; non-metropolitan areas of the West have had stagnant or declining populations for years.

Since World War II, and before in some instances, there has been growing tension between the "old" and the "new" west.[6] In large part this has been the result of differing economic interests.

Nevertheless, the Old and New West's have largely coexisted, rather than competed. Importantly, in terms of cultural symbols, the "Old" West has reigned supreme. The New West has no unified culture, although segments of the New West such as Hollywood have had profound national and international cultural significance. Indeed, it can be argued that Hollywood helped create or maintain the cultural hegemony of the Old West through the celebration of an imaginary Old West in the Cowboy Movie.[7]

The Cultural Decline of the Old West

From its beginning, conservation, either the esthetic (or preservationist) variety, or Pinchot's utilitarian conservation, has been the view of educated urban dwellers. The same holds true of environmentalism.[8] Esthetic conservation and environmentalism are the ideologies of those who work with symbols rather than objects. Upper middle class reformers such as these are relatively abundant in the New West. Their numbers increase with time in the West as elsewhere.[9]

The gradual cultural divergence of the Old and New Wests is now exacerbated by the movement of symbol-manipulating occupations into scenic, largely rural areas of the West. This migration is made possible by the development of the fax, personal computer with email, low cost and light weight video equipment, etc.. In a recent issue of "The High Country News" Harlin Clifford writes:

The fax machine, the computer modem and the airplane may be the most powerful technologies faced by the West since the moldboard plow, for they free people to move their offices and their work out of urban centers and into the small towns where they would rather live. While most people cannot break completely from cities, greater numbers are able to spend more time in places such as Aspen, Telluride, Jackson Hole, Vail and Crested Butte then they could have previously.[10]

The city is no longer necessary to support many symbol-manipulating occupations. Jackson, Wyoming, or even Driggs, Idaho, may now appear to be as good a place to write a television script or formulate a new health care policy as Los Angeles or Washington D.C..

The values of symbol-manipulating elites in present-day America are vastly different from those of the old, rural West.

The Sagebrush Rebellion Succeeded And Yet it Failed

We believe that in terms of politics the Sagebrush Rebellion largely obtained what it was seeking during the Reagan years. Unfortunately, for the Old West the 1980s were economically harsh anyway.

Mechanization and log exports destroyed jobs in the timber industry. Agricultural prices were low. The value of agricultural land fell in the mid-1980s. The collapse of OPEC caused a depression in the coal and oil industries. The low price of imported minerals resulted in the closing of mines in the West.

By the late 1980s, unexpected continuing economic decline cou pled with threatened loss of cultural dominance resulted in a condi tion of relative deprivation ripe for a politics of resentment and another Old West reactionary social movement.

On the unexpected continuing decline of the Old West, Richard White writes:

The results of the conservative triumph were perhaps most disappointing in the rural West, where James Watt, Reagan's secretary of the interior, zealously tried to remove most restraints on the rapid development of the public lands. Watt offered public resources for sale at bargain-basement prices. But no boom resulted, for energy prices had collapsed. The corporations acquired resources but did not develop them. And rural westerners found to their dismay that Watt's policies fostered an environmentalist reaction that forced them to confront an even larger and more militant metropolitan environmental movement.[11]

In a similar vein in a report entitled The Dynamic West: A Region in Transition, the Council of State Governments wrote:

While natural resource-based industries continue to provide a disproportionate percentage of western GSP [gross state product] and employment compared to other regions, many of these industries recently have experienced the 'down' side of the 'boom-bust' cycle.... While some westerners wait for the rise of the resource-based economy, others argue that it will not likely return in the same form. For example, western agricultural and energy commodities are increasingly uncompetitive in the evolving world economy. The substitution of information and new technologies for manual labor and raw materials is causing some natural resource industries to employ fewer workers. Blue collar workers, such as miners, mechanics, and millworkers, are being replaced by laboratory workers, software writers, and others in manufacturing service occupations.[12]

In 1988 Reagan's successor, George Bush ran for President supporting environmental themes. By 1988 a second wave of the environmental movement appeared to be underway. Environmental groups began to make a serious dent in the harvest of "old growth" timber in Oregon and Washington. Time Magazine featured the "endangered Earth" as "person of the year" in 1990. Earth Day 20 involved millions of Americans in a celebration of environmental concern that year too. Equally bad, environmentalists were beginning to seriously threaten the rural West in their favorite arena, state government, with the promotion of various ballot initiatives such as "Big Green" in California.

Antagonism to many of the cultural views of the New West, always present, but rarely explicit, began to be expressed explicitly. A recent example from a Wise Use funding plea paper sent to various corporations:

"Like it or not, we are involved in a war with the preservationists and animal rights radicals. To win this war, we must gain control of the hearts and minds [emphasis ours] of the public.... To some extent this is a religious war. Read what the leaders of the animal rights movement has to say '... "We left the forests transformed beings. We were selected to spread the message that ALL BEINGS ARE CREATED EQUAL [emphasis in original] . We knew we were chosen to deliver the message that nature is God, animals are God, trees are God and, when they get in touch with their animalness, humans are God." [13]

By the late 1980s, all the conditions were ready for the Wise Use Movement. Only leaders were needed to set it in motion.

The Ideology of the Old West

We suggest that many residents of the rural West and some in the metropolitan West subscribe to an ideology that is a variation on classical liberalism (laissez-faire capitalism).

This Old West Ideology incorporates ideational features of 19th century liberalism (laissez-faire capitalism) with cultural characteristics of the imagined Old West. The resulting amalgam justifies the continued rule of these rural "producers" for the foreseeable future. The ensuing eleven observations represent an impressionistic, if research informed, set of hypotheses about the content of the "Old West ideology." The initial seven points draw heavily from traditional liberalism. The more extensively developed four subsequent points represent a more distinctive "Western" contribution to the posited set of beliefs.

1. Human worth depends on human productivity: a man is how a man makes his living.[14] Being a real man demands prodigious physical, mental, moral and emotional resources. Few are able and willing to mobilize a sufficient mix of these resources to succeed over the long term. Those that are successful should be rewarded with wealth, status and power commensurate with their production.

2. Nature exists to be used by and for man. Indeed, man is theologically obliged to take dominion over nature. The natural world is a hostile place to man. It yields its bounty reluctantly in response to man's relentless efforts. Nature holds no inherent value. Animal life is worthwhile only in terms of what it contributes to mankind.

3. Real wealth stems from the working of primary material resources. Productivity entails the finding, capturing, digging, cutting, husbanding and cultivating of these natural resources from the land and water. This entails man and his tools making an impact on the landscape. When men have been at work, things look different afterward. Value-added manufacturing activities are secondary productive processes -- and they are secondarily worthy. Tertiary economic activities such as packaging, advertising, selling, shipping, counting, managing, insuring, investing, regulating, researching, litigating, taxing, stealing and otherwise claiming a piece of the primary/secondary action, are more wealth distorting than wealth creating activities. Having little or no manipulative effect on matter, they are not really production at all.

4. Productive lands and waters should be owned (or at least controlled) and tamed by producers. Regulatory controls, artificial financial burdens and non-productive uses of the same resources (such as recreation or preservation) should be minimized, if not eliminated.

5. In theory free enterprise capitalism with wide open markets serves producers and consumers best. Impediments to pure market allocations in land, labor, supply, commodity, credit and other prices should be removed. In theory, and often with rhetorical flourish, fierce (but fair) competition should weed out inefficient producers. In practice, however, other considerations usually take precedent over strict adherence to market efficiency in the survival of producers. Since the New Deal the contradiction between free market rhetoric and subsidized practice has been a difficult point in the Old West ideology.[15]

6. Concerns about depletion of energy and other mineral re- sources are greatly exaggerated. If restrictions were removed on the extractive industries and if prices were allowed to reflect demand, then producers would have the incentives and entrepreneurial where- withal to bring the resources to market. Good prices would yield new reserves. Price increases in response to partial depletions would encourage market substitutions. Artificial subsidization and other public encouragement of renewable alternatives or conservation strat- egies do not work, are counter productive and do not reflect what a "real man" producer wants to do. Furthermore, the planet's ability to respond to human-induced change has been under-appreciated. Self- appointed and governmental busybodies should get out of the productive sector's way and let them get back to work.

7. While relegated to a limited role, government is constituted to protect property and enshrine property rights, but government is obliged to intervene on behalf of propertied interests in unfortunate events like market failures and natural disasters16. Government should develop domestic and foreign markets. Finally, government should facilitate development of such infrastructure as highways, dams and power plants to enhance productivity. Whenever feasible, accessible local government should furnish these services; state or federal government involvement is preferred as a last resort when a task's magnitude requires larger scale activity.

8. The rugged individualistic ethic of the mythical cowboy still influences old western relationships and cultural expectations. It stresses an autonomy characteristic of an earlier and less settled frontier as illustrated in cowboy movies. This code stresses obligation. One remains duty bound to honor commitments -- even ones sealed with no more than a handshake. Honor must be pursued and defended -- with fisticuffs or even gunplay if necessary. Like the natural world, the social realm is a dangerous place. But the Old West is a place for neither apologies nor excuses.

Although an individualist, the modern, as well as traditional, cowboy bonds tightly with team members working against the elements (natural and social) on ad hoc, project specific bases. Representational, if sometimes artful, drawings, stories, poems and songs often document these collective and individual experiences.

9. The Old West is masculine. The rugged Western man is close to nature. "Good" women (and the dichotomy between "good" and "bad" women is important) are bearers of culture. Good women are asexual. About this curious reversal of the typical man/culture - woman/nature polarity, Richard White writes:

In the imagined West, men -- the descendants of the half horse, half alligators of the Crockett stories -- are identified with nature, and white women [emphasis in original] usually enter the stories as symbols of civilization or culture. To do this, the stories strip white women of the sexuality that usually marked women as natural. Only nonwhite women remain uniformly natural and thus sexually potent and dangerous. . . . Women are weak and genteel; they are dependent and if not passive, then conventional.[17]

Professor White is writing of the "imagined" West here, but it is our argument that much of the culture of the rural West is that of the West created in the movies and dime novels.

In the everyday contemporary rural West, women who are forced to enter the work force (as they increasingly are in most segments of the economy) are accepted, but it is expected they will eschew men's work. Those who seek out work in men's jobs like logging, mining, drilling, etc., are considered "whores", "sluts", or seemingly contradictory, lesbians. Such women are resented and often suffer sexual harassment.[18]

The Old West remains a machismo world of strength and toughness. Virility is particularly celebrated; homosexual or "sissy" behavior is particularly condemned. Hard drinking might be complimented--if the drinker can hold his liquor. Mechanical skills are rewarded and praised. But proficiency with firearms is an especially esteemed talent. Men in this world are continually challenged through competitive games requiring skill, daring and/or cunning.

10. While racial and ethnic minorities were important in build ing the Old West (the Black cowboy, the Hispanic field hand, the Swedish logger, the Italian miner, the Jewish storekeeper etc.), their present invisibility remains disproportionate to their contemporary numbers. Producer ideology reinforces this invisibility. Non-WASP workers may indeed be employed in the extractive industries. They may be hired, paid and promoted in accord with their skills and performances. But each minority (or female) person should bargain individually and be appraised individually. No collective claims should be made nor need they be honored. Assuredly such claims are apt to be viewed as the beginning of trouble. Competing fleets of Vietnamese shrimping boats represent significant political problems; large unions of Mexican fruit pickers represent political threats to an entire way of life.

11. The liberation/self expression movements of the past 25 years are utterly rejected by the voices of the Old West. These movements are seen as rejecting productivity and the accompanying work ethic. They reject "merit based" social hierarchies. They attribute undue worth to nature. They seek to overturn time-tested, gender-linked bases of proper behavior. They espouse unnatural sex acts. In contrast to the individualist ethic, they seek unjustified special rights for minority groups based on (albeit undeniable) past wrongs. Particularly strong feelings are evoked by gays, feminists, environmentalists, vegetarians, animal rights advocates and Native Americans. These groups audaciously espouse lifestyles and values inimical to those celebrated by the "producers."

Of course qualification is called for in our own audacious forwarding of such a list. Again, these attributions are hypotheses to be reformulated and tested if they meet initial face validity standards. It is even conceivable that NO shining exemplar of Old West thinking would promote ALL of the above generalizations and stereotypes. Many espousing the Old West ideology are not the pure type that we -- or they -- sometimes pretend that they are. Nevertheless, when certain rhetorical justifications or reassurances are required, the above list provides quite a range of potential responses to threats to their hegemony over rural Western America. And if some arguments are propounded out of deep conviction -- while others are proffered more cynically -- the net effect will be a strong case with broad appeal.

Beyond the debating utility of this system of thinking, a political function of this ideology is to help map fertile ground for finding allies and building coalitions. Since the continuing argument of this paper is that the Wise use movement is trying expand its appeal, a natural place to look would be among those that share important convictions as well as interests. Indeed, such a search leads in fruitful directions. However each promising lead also contains difficulties. Aspects of the producer ideology clash with beliefs and lifestyles of potentially friendly groups.

Our final point about the Old West ideology is that while many people who do not espouse Old West ideology are moving to rural areas, many residents of the metropolitan West are from rural backgrounds, or for other reasons have come to share parts of this ideology. Indeed, the first seven items discussed above find widespread acceptance among parts of the public nationwide.

The Wise Use movement can no longer rely on a narrow rural base of timber, mining, and agriculture. It is looking for allies. Our next section examines some rhetorically strategies of the Wise Use Movement intended to attract allies and marginalize environmentalists.

Wise Use Rhetorical Strategies

In seeking political support the movement is faced with the problem that many aspects of environmentalism are now generally supported by the public and by many political elites.

Wise use organizers are not likely to be effective confronting environmentalists head on by calling themselves "anti-environ- mentalists" or suggesting that there are not environmental problems. Instead the movement seems to have a seven-fold rhetorical strategy: (1) bill itself as the "true" environmental movement; (2) try to marginalize environmental groups by highlighting the views and actions of the radical fringe of environmentalism, and in other ways promote the perception that environmentalists are atypical of the public; (3) downplay threats to the environment; (4) try to form coalitions with interests who perceive they have been harmed or are threatened with harm from environmental policies; (5) form coalitions with groups that share part of the Old West ideology; (6) stress the economic costs of environmental policy; and (7) create the perception that the real goal of environmentalists is attainment of authoritarian power.

These are all offensive tactics in contrast with the typical defensive tactics of companies or groups accused of environmental harm.[19]

Consider the following rhetoric:

"A war is on over the control of this nation's natural resources; and you are on the losing side.

Elements in our society do not want you or your company to utilize the vast resources of the country; regardless of the benefits derived from these resources, once extracted, developed and put on the market for the American public to buy. These elements are reaching the American public with their message. We are not. Their message is false; it calls for Americans to needlessly sacrifice....

Very little is being done to expose them. Their power and influence are growing ever larger. Their radical, destructive proposals are being accepted by the American public. Unless something is done, we - you, your company, everyone who believes a natural resource is something that should be utilized to benefit mankind - will lose.And getting something done is exactly what we at the Wilderness Impact Research Foundation propose doing." [20]

Let's briefly discuss each of the Wide Use rhetorical strategies in order to illustrate and elaborate.

(1) We're the true environmentalists.

This largely consists of simple assertion, but in our experience it has its origin in the idea that the environment is the outdoors, and so people who work outdoors and enjoy it, i.e., who want to continue doing so, are therefore, environmentalists. It has been a staple for years in public testimony for some farm interests to argue that farmers' love their land and so they would not harm it, but rather husband it. Here is a typical recent example from a newspaper article about the new Farm Bureau chapter president from Bannock County, Idaho: "Most producers are concerned about the environment, he said. "the producer lives close to it," he said. "Farmers and ranchers are the best environmentalists I know. They protect wildlife, protect the streams and forests. They spend lots of money building dams to keep water from working away soil and carrying it into rivers." [21] Another theme is that the "so-called 'environmentalists'" [22] are really "preservationists." This harks back to the early 20th Century controversy between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. This, however, is an "insiders" argument and unlikely to gain any new support.

(2) The environmental movement is a bunch of elitist radicals.

The idea that lovers of the Western outdoors and landscape are wealthy and perhaps unmanly in their tastes originated in the West in the early 20th Century when the first Wilderness reserves and national parks were established. At that time these reserves were often difficult to get to, and Wilderness areas also required the use of horses and a crew to supply the transportation of the then-heavy equipment necessary for recreation remote from roads and lodging.

Another source for this accusation has been the obvious fact that most activists (in contrast with professionals) have clearly been upper middle class reformers -- financially comfortable and well educated.[23] Not surprisingly for decades conservationists, preservationists, and environmentalists, have been called "elitists." [24]

In more recent times, protests and some "tree-spiking" and equipment damage attributed to environmentalists coupled with the ideologies of "radical" environmentalism such as deep ecology and ecofeminism, supported the charge that the movement was radical and out of touch with the typical American.[25]

There is also an attempt to link environmentalists with other movements detested in rural areas -- animals rights, anti-hunting, and gun control.[26]

(3) The dangers of environmental problems are overrated.

This contention is not unique to the Wise Use movement. Articles and books making this claim, however, are strongly promoted by movement leaders.

(4) Political coalitions with others aggrieved by environmental policies.

At one time or another almost every part of the economy and society has been pressured to change its ways by environmental- ists or environmental policy. Rarely has this happened with no resistance. The Wise Use movement is seeking those who harbor resentments [27] , but it is doing so with the greatest effort among those who share some of the Old West ideology.

(5) Alliance with those who share part of the Old West ideology:

A substantial part of the Old West Ideology is laissez faire capitalism. Therefore, it is not surprising that an attempt is made to link up with those resentful of government regulations, especial ly those regarding the use of real property. A recent Wise Use newsletter in fact referred to the "property rights" movement as one of three elements of the Wise Use movement.

A number of planks in the "Wise Use Agenda" clearly relate to unrestricted use of property: "16. Truth in Regulation act." "17. Property Rights Protection." "Obstructionism Liability." 20. "Private Rights in Federal Lands Act." "23. Standing to Sue in Defense of Industry." [28] Wise users have been very interested in the "takings" issue, and introduced legislation to require compensation for environmental regulations in almost every Western state legislature in 1993. So far, other than Arizona [29] , none have become law.

The Wise use movement maintains a relation with the libertarian movement due to their common laissez faire rhetoric. The relation is tense, however, due to the subsidized reality of the Old West economy.

There are ideological congruencies between the Old West and the religious right ideologies.

Old West ideology views nature as passive or perhaps hostile; a storehouse of resources to be won and exploited by man.

The religious right views the Earth as temporary abode; a fallen place, hopefully to be abandoned as the world spirals to an apocalypse. The translation of these religious beliefs to environmental policy was well illustrated by Secretary of Interior James Watt. During his nomination hearing he responded to a senator's questions about the need of practicing stewardship of the land for future generations. Watt replied that he was in favor of steward ship but "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns".[30]

Out of office, Watt not only continues to insist that Armageddon is imminent, but also that much of environmentalism is a thinly disguised version of pantheism. Watt, like other fundamentalist wise users, often refers to the injunction from Genesis which states: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." [31]

Watt and fellow believers advocate a way of thinking with a long tradition in North American experience. Wilderness is not just a terrifying place from the standpoint of physical safety, Keith Ervin points out that settlers also feared that their immortal souls were in danger. If the arrows of forest natives were not bad enough, Puritans feared the pagan beliefs of wilderness dwellers. Ervin cites Michael Wigglesworth writing:

"...a waste and howling wilderness
Where none inhabited
But hellish fiends, and brutish men
That Devils worshipped." [32]

It is not much of a stretch between Wigglesworth's "hellish fiends" and Watt's "pantheists," [33] The connection becomes clearer when we examine a long line of American thinkers from Cotton Mather to Pat Robertson. Of course the reason to look at this historical backdrop is to understand the contemporary linkages between wise use thinking and the Christian Right. In "God, Land and Politics", Dave Mazza has examined the political connections between these two groups. In a concise summary of the compatibility between the two groups, Mazza writes:

"The OCA [Oregon Citizens Alliance] drafted a statement of principles which encompassed nearly every element of the New Right agenda. Within that document were several articles which dovetailed with the philosophical direction the nascent Wise Use Movement was going: privatization of government where possible, free market economy, nearly absolute private property rights and the conviction that the environment was primarily for the use of man." [34]

As with libertarians and other property rights advocates, relations with religious right groups are sometimes rocky. The proclivity of younger wise users to engage in hyper-macho activities often offends the moral sensitivities of Christian fundamentalists. But even serious value-barriers between coalition partners does not preclude some collaboration in their mutual interest. The connection between Wise Use and the religious right poses both problems and opportunities similar to those encountered inside the 1980s Republican electoral coalition, i.e., the conflict between cultural conservatives and economic conservatives.

(6) Economic policies cost producers, and ultimately the consumer, vast amounts of money.

This part of the Wise Use rhetorical strategy is an old argument used against environmental policy (and consumer-oriented policies) since their inception. In the rhetorical battle the newer rhetoric comes from the Clinton Administration (and environmental) side. The new rhetoric is that environmental policy, especially if implemented through market mechanisms, is good for the economy by making the economy more efficient, stimulating technological innovation, and reducing the economic drag from the costs of negative environmental externalities.

A common environmental argument (now widespread, but first made in the late 1970s by Amory Lovins and others [35] ) is that the cheapest source of new energy is on the demand side, not the production side. An important part of Lovins' argument was that "soft" energy paths are not only less expensive but help create a far different social structure than "hard", centralized technology, supply-side energy strategies.

This demand-side argument conflicts head directly with the Old West ideology that a "real man" energy policy involves drilling, digging, and building production facilities. The Wise Use view naturally finds strong support in the energy industry.

(7) The true goal of environmentalists is not protecting the Earth. Their goal is power, especially "socialistic" domination.

Since the fear of environmental destruction is not realistic, and environmental groups deliberately promote a "disaster-of-the- month" approach, their real goals must lie elsewhere than environmental protection.

The Wise Use movement then tries to fill in the details for those who have agreed with their previous argument. Environmentalists seek power, domination, and to impose a radical agenda for redistributing wealth (or perhaps to keep people poor).

Given the roots of the Old West ideology in laissez faire capitalism and its association with the Right, it is still tempted to engage in Red-baiting -- environmentalists are really Communists or at least socialists.[36]

While ideological consistency and fears of an environmental juggernaut prove helpful in finding some allies, wise use tacticians realize that they must make greater inroads within a number of main stream groups. Indeed, in a 1989 New York Times/CBS poll, 80% of the respondents endorsed: "...protecting the environment is so important that standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost." [37] These data suggest an uphill battle for wise use advocates. Still, they have a firm base, a plausible set of arguments and the aforementioned proximate targets. They have also learned the tactics and employed the technologies of both friend and foe. American politics is very competitive: there is little lag in the diffusion of technological innovation.

Wise users are increasingly adept at the direct mail fund raising and propagandizing pioneered by new right guru Richard Viguerie. James Watt and his successors, Karen Budd Fallen and William Perry Pendley, have patterned the Mountain States Legal Foundation's approaches after the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The corporate contributor/grass roots membership structure of the Blue Ribbon Coalition parallels that of the politically potent National Rifle Association. The insurer (money) / insured (people) pattern of the American Farm Bureau Federation represents the time-tested method of attracting members with selective benefits and using the surplus to maintain a political organization that seeks collective benefits.

At the level of policy initiatives, emulation remains a sincere form of flattery. To counter the policy influential effects of Envi ronmental Impact Statements under NEPA, wise use tacticians are insisting on economic/community impact statements or property right impact statements for environmental (and land use planning) policies likely to induce adjustments in human activities. Paralleling wilderness and park reserves, Wise users propose logging and grazing reserves.[38] No one can accuse wise use leaders of using obsolete political means. Yet these tactics and movement messages have con tained only limited appeal to the ensuing "big" interests in the American polity. The nature, extent and limit of this appeal to selective societal sectors will close the substantive part of this paper.

Business.

The business community is far broader than the rural producers who are championing old west belief systems. The pro-free enterprise aspects of the message are undeniably appealing. Assuredly minimizing costs of raw materials through minimal regulation are in the interests of many manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and others.

The simplistic theory of value, ignorant of the concept of negative externalities, however, alienates many potential supporters, as do the rural producers' apparent unsophisticated understandings of a complex political economy. Such deficiencies in appreciation and understanding inhibit trust in competence, if not in integrity. Could a wise user really be trusted to implement sustained yield practices?

Business elites are also sensitive to public relations. It could be costly to be caught on the wrong side of a popular environmental movement. Finally, business leaders are symbol manipulators themselves who are concerned about their own and their professional employees' amenities (as well as health and safety.) It is hardly surprising that these decision makers would support policies designed to preserve recreational and other quality of life values. So business in general will give wise users a hearing, but it will extend support on ad hoc, project specific, conditional and firm-by-firm bases. Significant business support can only be expected on issues in which environmental demands are widely viewed as extreme.

Labor

Since a large, though declining, proportion of the labor movement "manipulates things," an ideology which celebrates those contributions will gain some attention. This advantage is blunted, however, by numerous laissez faire and individualistic appeals that have long been seen as anti-labor codewords by labor leaders and attentive members. While appeals to ATV access to wide open spaces can be used somewhat effectively as a wedge between leaders and members, much of the rank-and-file are aware of a long history of similar attempts to isolate the leadership.

Non-unionized, blue collar labor will be more susceptible to these entreaties. These workers are not readily politicized--- especially for long periods of time. If the decrease in unionization gives wise use planners cause for hope, this hope will be neutralized by work force patterns overall. Increasingly, the unionized and non- unionized employees will be characterized by incumbents of symbol utilizing positions. They, as we have seen, are less vulnerable to rural producer appeals.

Religion

Christian premises will always be welcome by professional and lay church leaders in a nominally Christian, but practically, secular nation. Still, most Christians choose not to interpret the Bible in literal ways promoted by fundamentalists. They have no theological objections to environmental policies. In fact, their churches are often leaders in initiating environmental improvement projects.[39] While it could be argued that conservative church membership is increasing faster than "mainline" membership -- a positive development to wise users -- an almost as important development is the increase in (often well educated) citizens who claim idiosyncratic, "post-Christian" religious beliefs (if not affiliations). Some of these non-conventional believers even choose to remain within traditional churches.[40] Of importance in this analysis, however, is that those embracing a new religiosity tend to support very pro-environmental stances.

We do expect that pantheistic aspects of the environmental movement will come under increasing attack by wise users and fundamentalists. There will be charges of "tree worship" and "satanism."

The victory of Bill Clinton and non-traditional tone of his administration's social polices (support for gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights, etc.) has provoked a virulent reaction by cultural conservatives in the religious right. Kulturkampf is spoken of increasingly by the religious right[41].

Divisions within religion are as likely to cause conflict than those between religions as traditionalists battle progressive. Traditionalists will not like the religions views of many environmentalists.

Recreation

Notwithstanding major political breakthroughs with off road vehicle users, wise use advocates can point to only limited success within the recreation community. Hunters and especially fishermen are increasingly sensitive to habitat protection. The National Rifle Association weighed in some time ago against environmentalists, so their impact, if present, has already been manifest. Extractive industries do not have a strong record here. Off road vehicle riders are often perceived as downright irresponsible. Photographers prefer scenic vistas to clearcuts; tourists want to see bear and elk instead of mine tailings. Without a strong tourist base, outfitters' and resort operators' finances suffer. People with an economic stake in the outcome--recreation industry operators--are not likely to be fooled by statements about draconian environmentalist intent or about so called unobtrusive developmental impacts. This discussion yields a simple bottom line: some cultural similarity between wise users and segments of the recreation community is largely offset by their potential economic conflict.

Agriculture

While much of agriculture--particularly grazing--has been identified as a part of the wise use movement, many agricultural producers have no direct interest in public lands issues. Indeed, some competitively disadvantaged beef and wool producers are more upset with grazing subsidies than environmentalists.

Overall though, agriculture might prove to be a good place to seek recruits. Elements of the Old West ideology are present in rural areas throughout the country. Free enterprise rhetoric, if again in a subsidized context, sounds good. Property rights and deregulation languages are applauded. But even here there has been a significant shift in approach recently. The widely read Farm Journal exemplifies this shift. The magazine's anti-environmental stance of the 70's and 80's has been supplemented by a more conciliatory tone. By 1989, the editors had introduced a section called "Environment Today." It regularly refers to its "stewardship campaign." And the Journal asks readers to "Make Room for Diversity" by protecting wil dlife.[42] Such an accommodative approach hardly predisposes readers to adhere uncritically to the militant anti-environmentalist stance propounded by wise users. Finally, the number of farmers continues to slowly decrease nationwide.

Seniors

Beyond a generalized traditional American value appeal, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and others have told older Americans that envi ronmentalists are trying to deny them access to the public lands. It is argued that unless one is young, healthy and fit, one is denied an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of the West's wilderness areas. Therefore, a more just policy would be one which allows more roads and motorized access to these desirable destinations. While some seniors buy this argument, others believe that unsafe and uncomfortable all-terrain vehicles are more a problem than a solution. Still other seniors resent the stereotype that paints them unwilling and unable to hike in the wilderness. A bone-jarring ride on/in a 4 x 4, an ATV or a dirt bike is not the preferred recreation of large numbers of seniors. The net effect of this appeal by wise use spokespeople has been small.

Minorities

While largely a reminder to the media about the social composition of environmental groups, wise users cannot resist portraying the white, upper middle class origins of environmental club activists. They plausibly attempt to use this portrayal as a wedge contrasting the preservationists' "anti-human" concern for critters with their seeming unconcern with the plights of low income minorities and the rural (white) poor. They further note that few minorities are able to avail themselves of upscale wilderness experiences like Grand Canyon float trips. They then observe that many jobs lost due to environmental regulations may well have been offered to minority, blue collar workers.

While minority leaders do not feel compelled to refute these charges -- and seldom empathize with symbol wielding environmentalists -- they do not rush to the side of wise use speakers. Again, the anti-organizing and more importantly anti-governmental rhetorics are seen as denying these low income communities many of the tools that have led to the several political successes that these communities have experienced. In fact the "redneck" image of wise use group membership does not contribute to the solidarity of the two "object manipulating" communities. Such distrust is apt to be exploited by environmentalists who are belatedly recognizing the "environmental racism" implicit in many waste site locations and other public policies.[43]

The Republican Party

The best prospects for Wise Use are for a national victory of the Republican Party in 1996, a Republican party consisting of a similar coalition to that which lifted Ronald Reagan to victory in 1980. Already congressional Republicans are proposing "takings" legislation in addition to their traditional agenda of deregulation. Their opposition to President Clinton's agenda of public land use reform in the West has been vociferous and partially successful. A coalition of Republicans and Democrats from some energy-producing states were able to get the BTU tax on energy removed from the FY 1994 budget.

The ideological core of the Republican electoral coalition since 1980 has consisted of laissez faire capitalists and moral conservatives. It is an unstable coalition as all major party coalition have been, but as part of a victorious Republican coalition, the Wise Use movement would receive a payoff consisting of support of some of their policies, particularly those that do not severely endanger it, and which do not cost the federal government very much money.

---

Endnotes

---

1 The "top twenty-five goals" of the Wise Use Movement are listed in The Wise Use Agenda: The Citizen's Guide to Environmental Resource Issues, Alan M. Gottlieb, ed., Bellvue, WA: Free Enterprise Press, 1989.

2 Between 1907 and 1915 a number of public land conferences on the manage ment of range lands were held in the West. Ranchers feared that grazing fees might be levied. Ranchers were unsuccessful in getting general regional sup port to transfer the federal lands to the states. This, and the rebellion of the late 1940s and early 1950s, are discussed in Lawrence Rakestraw, "The West, States' Rights, and Conservation," Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 48 (1957), pp. 89-99.

3 The term is from Richard White, It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West, Norman, OK: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1991, pp. 410-411.

4 A history of the Sagebrush Rebellion and the environmentalist reaction is found in C. Brant Short, Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands: America's Conservation Debate, 1979-1984. College Station, TX: Texas A & M Press, 1989.

5 Federal grazing fees are far below the charges assessed for grazing private lands. Moreover, the federal government spends far more on the management of grazing than it collects in fees. Environmental groups have stressed this argument for years, with no effective political success.

6 One of the first such struggles was that of Los Angeles to secure the eastern slope Sierra water from Owens Valley, California.

7 On this subject see, Richard White, It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own, chapter 21, "The Imagined West."

8 This point has been made in numerous works, e.g., Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955- 1985. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1987, chapter 9, "The Environmental Opposition." Hays argues that environmentalism was in part a phase of a new consumer politics. As such, it came into conflict with many long-established commodity producers.

9 On the increase of the number of symbol-manipulating occupations in a postindustrial economy see, Peter L. Berger, The Capitalist Revolution. Basic Books, 1986, chapter 3.

10 Harlin C. Clifford, "Aspen: A Colonial Power With Angst," High Country News, April 5, 1993, p. 10.

11 White, pp. 610-1. 12 Katherine M. Albert, William B. Hull, and Daniel M. Sprague, The Dynamic West: A Region in Transition. The Council of State Governments, 1989, pp. 24- 5.

13 "Getting the Truth to the American Public," Wilderness Impact Research Foundation. Elko, Nevada, probably 1992, p. 12.

14 We use the word "man" deliberately to mean "men", not women. A woman's place is the private sphere.

15 Richard H. Foster, "The Federal Government and the West," in Clive S. Thomas (ed.), Politics and Public Policy in the Contemporary American West, Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, pp. 77-102.

16 Of course, within the categories of natural disasters and market failures an entire universe of exceptions to free market capitalism lie.

17 White, It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own, p. 628.

18 For example, sexual harassment as described by the first female off-shore oil production worker, B. J. Holcombe. B.J. Holcombe and Charmaine Welling ton, Search for Justice: A Woman's Path to Renewed Self-esteem for the Fear, Shame, and Anger of Sexual Harassment and Employment Discrimination. Walpole, NH: Stillpoint Pub., 1992.

19 Generally, in the past, the response of a corporation has been essentially, "we've made mistakes in the past, but we are doing a lot better now."

20 "Getting the Truth to the American Public," p. 1.

21 "Farm Bureau chapter president eyeballs ag issues touching Bannock County producers," Idaho State Journal. Pocatello, Idaho, April 16, 1993, p. B1.

22 "So-called environmentalists. . ." This is a common phrase in Wise Use argumentation.

23 This is still true today. Take, for example, the executive committee of the Northern Rockies Chapter of the Sierra Club: 3 college professors, 1 engineer, 1 university librarian, 1 state-employed data processing manager, 1 medical doctor, 1 photographer, 1 lawyer.

24 Nevertheless, the perception that many countercultural people in the 1960s and 70s were attracted to the environmental movement, led in the West to contradictory charges that environmentalists were mostly dirty hippies living on food stamps.

25 Here is a typical example. "The more Earth First participates in environmental terrorism and the more groups such as Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club and others give passive support (a sort of wink and a nod), the more apparent it will be to the general public that they are all kindred warriors leading an assault on America's right to its public lands -- just fighting with different weapons but wearing the same uniform." From Ed Wright, "Terrorists and Environmentalists Unite." Blue Ribbon Magazine, April 1988, p A8.

26 Putting People First, an anti-animal rights organization, is also a wise use organization. Their flyer, "What is Putting People First" states ". . . we also oppose anti-human animals 'rights' and environmental extremism that would remove people from the natural equation." "Putting People First balances science, reason and common sense against the deception, coercion and terrorism of the environmental and animal 'rights' movement -- in legislation, in litigation, in education and the media.

27 Dixy Lee Ray's recent slender book "Trashing the Planet" is being heavy promoted by the movement. Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, Trashing the Planet: How Science can Help us Deal with Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and Nu clear Waste (Among Other Things), HarperPerennial, 1992.

28 The most resentful are once again the traditional Old West base: mining, logging, grazing, and some agriculture. However, the movement has made great strides in recruiting off-road vehicle enthusiasts, whose activities often leave environmentalists outraged. The Blue Ribbon Coalition is the umbrella organization for this part of the movement.

29 The Wise Use Agenda, pp. 12-16.

30 Actually Arizona's takings legislation passed in 1992. Pending is a ballot referendum to repeal the takings law.

31 Quoted in Ron Arnold, Eye of the Storm: James Watt and the Environmentalists. Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1982, p. 10, 74.

32 Quoted in Keith Ervin, Fragile Magesty. Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1989, p. 51.

33 Indeed, James Watt is correct in his perception of the presence of pantheism in the conservation/environment movement. This is the point of Stephen Fox's summary chapter, "Lord Man: The Religion of Conservation" in his acclaimed book The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1981.

Pantheism has been a powerful force in the movement. Fox writes: "Conservation, the most durable expression of antimodernism, was often described as a religious movement -- by friends and enemies alike. The label fitted well enough. Conservation resisted every aspect of the modern syndrome, not least the loss of faith," (Fox, p. 358).

The influence of pantheistic themes in environmental ideology seems to be growing, especially among eco-feminists. See, for example, works on earth religion and neopaganism see Starhawk, The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess, Harper and Row, 1979 [rev. 1989] ; Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-worshipers, and other Pagans in American Today, Beacon Press, 1979 [rev. 1986] ; Monica Sjoeoe and Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth, Harper/Collins, 1987 [rev. 1991] .

34 Dave Mazza, God, Land and Politics: The Wise Use and Christian Right Connection in 1992 Oregon Politics. Portland: Western States Center and Montana AFL/CIO, 1993, p. 10.

35 Amory B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. Ballanger, 1977. Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yergin (eds.), Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School. New York: Random House. 1st ed. 1979. 36 "With Communism Gone, the Far Right is Seeing Red in the Green Movement," Los Angeles Times. July 27, 1992, metro. p.5.

37 Mark Sagoff, "The Great Environmental Awakening," American Prospect, Spring 1992, p. 39.

38 A number of these initiatives are listed in: Florence Williams, "Sagebrush Rebellion II; Some Rural Communities Seek to Influence Federal Land Use," High Country News, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 1, 10. The same issue also features Wise Use attorney Karen Budd in "Attorney Seeks to Shackle Land Managers' Power, p. 10.

39 Ari Goldman, "Churches Joining Green Movement," New York Times, May 25, 1992; sec. 1, p. 26.

40 Richard Ostling, "The Church Search," Time, April 5, 1993, pp. 46-47.

41 James D. Hunter argues that this type of conflict will probably be the dominant division in the country for the foreseeable future. See James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

42 Sagoff, "The Great Environmental Awakening," pp. 41-42.

43 "Environmental justice" has become a new priority of the Sierra Club. There is a lengthy article on this in the most recent issue of the magazine, Sierra. "A Place at the Table: Race, Justice, and the Environment." Sierra Magazine. May/June 1993, pp. 51-58.

---

Public Good home page

---

Public Good Reports index

---

---