While we will want to broaden our frame of view, the Angora Fire will dominate our discussion this summer around Lake Tahoe. And I suspect it will color your conversations in the year to come.
So let's jump right in.
Please read the Sacramento Bee story by Phillip Reese and Mary Lynne Villenga, "Investigative Report: Danger Builds in Tahoe Tinderbox; Many Homes Near Lake Constructed Since 1990 Are in Flammable Forest," from July 7, 2007. A link is posted on the course readings page of the course web site. You should also peruse some of the other stories and comments posted at OurTahoe.org, in particular those exploring the confusion and anger surrounding the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and its policies in the immediate aftermath of the fire.
Now use the readings for our first week to deepen our discussion about the fire. Don't limit yourself to these questions, but you might consider these questions to get started:
How does Sam Hays and the early history of conservation help us understand the disconnect between citizens and agencies, such as TRPA and the Forest Service?
How did this relationship to the environment in our democracy change in the second half of the 20th century that Rothman chronicles?
If Tahoe has evolved from timber barons to ecologists, as Strong suggests, why does the relationship between the environment and community seem more precarious than ever?
How does Raup suggest that we should think about this changing relationship between people and their environment?
I'll refrain from asking any questions about Gruell, Pyne, and Twain, because I think their relationship to fire is too obvious. What they bring to the conversation is very important. And we will address that in our conversations in class and in the field. And if you want to bring them in here, you may, of course. But I do want us to think about the larger historical context, and the ways that these other readings might help us think about the fire this time.
10 comments:
With regard to the Strong question: I think the easiest, and most obvious answer to the question of why the relationship between humanity and the environment is at its most precarious is the simple formulation of population growth and the growth in desire to recreate in areas such as Lake Tahoe. I know from personal experience that in the last 15 years the Bay Area population has experienced exponential growth, even after the "Internet Bubble" burst. Another obvious point is what Rothman points out, "it's too easy for Americans to pay homage to the idea of environmentalism without implementing its principles in their lives." I'm as guilty as anyone of using the amazing recreational opportunities of the Lake Tahoe area despite my own, at times aggrevated, awareness that the whole of the Seirras, not just Tahoe, is over-used. The American mentality of wanting it all without personal sacrifice is more prevelant than ever in our modern society.
Allan,
Thanks for being the first to jump in!
Anyone else?
Jon
I agree in reference to the Strong question. People want to live in beautiful places like the ocean or mountains, but are sad when a hurricane or forest fire destroys their houses. Places of immense beauty carry inherent danger. Also the idea of ownership, “I bought the land, I can do with it what I want.” But people can’t own the forest anymore than they can the own ocean. People turn first to government after natural disasters, yet they scream big brother and individual rights when government comes in and creates regulations.
Strong also suggests from the arrival of the Euro-American settlers it was the money that controlled development and the uses of natural resources. It is still true today as reported in the Sacramento Bee article: “When a home is proposed around Lake Tahoe, planners look at whether it is too tall, will create too much noise, weather it will contribute to soil erosion. They preach tree trimming and buffer zones, checking a box when a developer satisfies fire code regulations. But they never prohibit a new home simply because it stands in the midst of a tinderbox.”
One reoccurring theme from the Rothman book was that Americans want the best products, the biggest, fastest and nicest, but they also want clean air and water. Industry makes pollutants. Environmentalism costs money. When the two meet it is usually the environment that suffers.
My perspective varies a little. I think the precariousness of the relationship between the environment and community can be attributed to the average person's disillusionment with government agencies regulating the environment.
Over time, a division has been marked between "environmentalists' and property/business owners. The assumption is that the latter disregards the environment, which isn't always necessarily true.
In the wake of the Angora fire, residents were outraged, saying the rules set forth by the TRPA inhibited them from taking common-sense steps to protecting their homes and the surrounding environment.
Red-tape beauracracy, they said, prevented them from cutting down dead trees and even clearing pine needles from their yards.
Sam Hays traces the history of Lake Tahoe, including a time when its trees were cut to fuel the mining boom on the Comstock.
Over time, however, people recognized the importance of preserving the natural aesthetics of the lake, and the practice was curbed.
But then it was allowed to overgrow, as stated in the Sac Bee article. And people attribute that to mismanagement by government agencies.
One commenter wrote:
The various comments by socalled individuals who are suppose to be people who protect forests show they are not.
""It was strongly evident by the early 1990s that we were building up a large backlog of dead trees," said Bob Harris, the forest supervisor at Tahoe from 1988 to 1997."
Forest Supervisors have much authority when it comes to managing National Forests. Why didn't he take action?
Why didn't he speak up?
Why didn't he go to the Regional Forester, the Chief Forester, the Secretary of Agriculture, the President of the United States and make his case for "Sanitation Logging" (removing susceptible trees to Beetle Attack and use the profit for thinning out the under-story and valuable trees),
As a former District Forest Ranger, I met very few Forest Supervisors who were impressive. They were mostly impressed with themselves.
And obtained their position by "sucking up" to the politicians
That's what the USFS is all about.
In the wake of the Angora fire, it has become clear that there is a disconnect between agencies that regulate environmental issues and the people affected by that regulation.
Hello everyone!
My name is Dan Sorensen and I’m looking forward to meeting all of you this Sunday. With that said, I’ll save the rest of my introduction for when we meet in person. Now for my post.
In what follows, I really don’t have a thesis. Instead, I am trying “to think about the larger historical context, and the ways in which these other readings might help us think about the fire this time.”
According to Hays, the scientific movement of conservation was guided by the value of the efficient use of the land’s resources, and that this was achieved through rational planning. Thus, “technicians, rather than legislators, [that] should deal with [resource matters],” (Hays 3) and that disagreements or competing claims over use, “should be resolved by a scientific calculation of material benefits, rather than through political struggle.” (Hays 249)
From Reese and Villenga’s article, we see that the Forest Service does not play an integral role in resolving the disagreement about land use in fire-prone areas. It is here that a lack of connection that exists between citizens and agencies.
In the area affected by the fire, the Forest Service does not “apply the best science in efforts to restore and maintain healthy fire dependent ecosystems.” (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/fire/index.php) Nor does it share its knowledge about the risks of building in fire prone areas. As a result, scientific knowledge does not inform local policies regarding development and residency in a “flammable forest.” Gruell also notices this lack of connection between citizens and agencies:
Public views of how the Forest Service should manage the region differ. Many people resist efforts to manage vegetation; they accept current environmental conditions as “natural.” Scientific evidence does not support this position. (Gruell 211)
Guided by different values and concerns, local Tahoe government and residents want the fire-prone land free from the influence of the Forest Service. Reese and Villenga tell us that the fear is, “halting development in the zones with high fire hazard would cost counties a lot in lost property taxes and property owners a lot in lost land value.”
It is here that the relationship to the environment in our democracy changed in the second half of the 20th century. For “noneconomic, spiritual, and cultural reasons” the American public stopped thinking about the land as earlier conservations—that is, merely in terms the efficient use of resources. (Rothman 55) Now people sought to maintain “wilderness and wild places” for the “intangible assets” of scenery and solitude. (Rothman 31) This new perspective toward the land is important. Urbanite Rodney Meagher expresses this attitude: “We got a chance to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world.” This attitude informs the decisions of Tahoe citizens, and helps us to clarify why they are willing to live in “tinderbox” conditions and with the risks of not clearing their land because of “an attraction to trees.”
For Strong, the relationship between the Tahoe community and the environment is precarious because of the effects of the high “rate of urbanization that no one had prepared for or expected.” (Strong 110) While urbanization has provided jobs and economic growth in the Tahoe basin, it also negatively affected the “intangible assets” of its land and the economy made possible by such assets. Moreover, increased risk of fire at Tahoe is just one threat to the land and local economy. At the conclusion of his book, Strong offers a series of suggestions aimed at maintaining the “long-term health of the Lake Tahoe basin ecosystem,” and intimates that a balance can be found between ecological concerns and the concerns of the local tourist economy. (Strong 111)
How does Raup suggest that we should think about this changing relationship between people and their environment? For Raup, Tahoe residents and local planners should start thinking about resource management and the investment of their capital in a way that is flexible, recognizing “that change and innovation [go] too fast for their systems of calculation.” (Raup 11) Raup suggests that such an approach to “modern resource management” is the best way “to bring its planning horizons within sight of the people who have capital to invest.” (Raup 11)
I still have some lingering questions. First, how might Raup’s approach of flexible investment and resource management be applied to Tahoe? Second, I’m not a fire expert, but is there a form of applied science that can accommodate the interests of local government while still maintaining a “healthy fire dependent ecosystem”? Or is this impossible? Third, if residents are inconsistent about clearing the land, and the law doesn’t enforce a defensible space measure for existing homes, then why bother promoting these ineffective forms of fire prevention?
I’ll check back later tonight and respond to some of the other posts.
Before I reply, I want some more time to think about the posts from Allan, Teri, and Elizabeth. I'll be back tomorrow to respond.
The Lake Tahoe environment and the residents will take a long time to recover from the Angora Fire. Could this fire been prevented? In the local media, residents of that area affected seemed to think so. Why is everyone so angry at the TRPA? Home owners have a responsibility, just like the TRPA. Every time there is an environmental problem, state and local governments think the key is starting an agency or panel to figure out the problem. There seem to be enough agencies and offices already that could the job just as effectively. There seems to be more questions than answers in regards to this fire and other environmental issues. The government bureaucracy will never go away. Maybe the solution isn’t creating a new agency but taking the current agencies and making them more effective and giving them the tools and money to do better jobs.
Douglas Strong takes readers on a journey from the first days of Lake Tahoe’s discover until recent times. The story doesn’t seem to change only the players in the game. From the early days, the land was stripped of timber, there were fires, water became an issue, early tourism to the area and the never ending battle over land seemed to be a common theme. Back then no one considered the Lake as a whole area. What has changed today? Fires are still a problem, there are still issues with lake clarity, the number of permits to build issued each year and what effect the millions of people now who travel and live there have on the environment. There are still issues of government land versus private ownership. The Federal Government is the modern day timber barron. Decisions are not being made based on research and science but on economic issues. Lake Tahoe is still divided. California government agencies versus Nevada government agencies. In the July 27th issue of the Reno Gazette journal, Jim Gibbons and Arnold Schwarzeneger have p put together a 23 panel commission to examine what happened within their own governments that may have attributed to this fire. Another new commission. One more agency in the delicate balance of the TRPA, The Forest Service, The Nevada Fire Safe council and the list goes on. What gets accomplished? More plans, more studies and a back log of work. The Angora Fire was a perfect example. The Lake Valley Fire Protection District was doing voluntary inspections of defensible space compliance but the back log was huge that the Angora was just beginning to see the inspections.
Dear all,
This is a terrific beginning for our conversation. And I loved getting to know you a bit through your online bios too!
I want to let this conversation unfold and then build on it on Monday. But in thinking forward to Monday, I will just add at this point that we will want to make the readings and the concepts and analyses in the readings work harder for us in our conversations.
This may feel like a radical shift in gears on a steep mountain grade from how we tend to think as journalists in the here and now, to how we will think together this year as scholars, graduate students, environmental historians, with a longer view, the luxury of time to reflect and consider complexities and change over time, and situate ourselves in that bigger picture.
You don't need to do more of that work right here and right now -- unless you want to! But please do come to class prepared to analyze and talk about Hays and Rothman and Raup, in particular, and in depth. Make sure you really grasp their overarching arguments and the details that support them. This is why I've also asked you to bring the readings with you to class, marked up with your notes, so that you can cite specific passages as we discuss the readings.
We will want to pull out of these readings an understanding of environmental history -- which is a history of the environment and people -- that will help us think about the past, present and future, and the role of journalism in this picture and how we might want to think about our work going forward.
I'm really looking forward to meeting you all on Sunday -- and to our time together in conversation with each other and others on the ground around Lake Tahoe.
See you soon!
Jon
It seems that every major natural disaster in the US brings up the same question: “whose fault it is and why the damage is so great?” After September 11, the nation accused the officials of not taking responsibility and lack of preventative actions. Yet, four years later, in 2005 Katrina strikes the country with power of a hurricane and avalanche of “why?” and “could we had reacted different?” questions, and accusations.
Reaction to the Angora fire falls into the same pattern; with slight differences – like alternations of FEMA to TRPA. Shouldn’t we ask, then, why do we talk about anger and a failure each time? Maybe we should take a different approach and search for another reason?
To me, crucial statement to answer this question would be Hayes’s conclusion he makes about American life: “How can large-scale economic development be effective and at the same time fulfill the desire for significant grass-roots participation?” (Hays, 276), and earlier: “Each resource problem involves conflicts” (Hays, 271).
The problem of getting society to agree on centralization and prevention is very complex. Reese and Vellienga also talk about it when they point out the fact TRPA, responsible for the safety of the Tahoe development, eventually will allow to build everywhere, with almost no restrictions. Whether it’s because the TRPA’s hands are tied (as the officials say), or because the Regional Plan is not efficient enough, the outcome is like we observed during the Angora fire. Many homes that burned down didn’t comply with the safety restrictions, such as a 100-foot buffer zone.
This ties with Rhotman’s point of view, who talks about the environmentalism. It is a very popular concept and has many followers, but in reality Americans embrace the idea mostly when it is convenient and comforts their needs. Strong’s conclusions about Tahoe’s pollution, soil erosion, increase of population and loss of flora in the area emphasize similar problem: “(…) I witness its (Tahoe-KP) transformation from a sleepy mountain backwater in the late 1930s to the rapidly growing year-round recreational and urban area it is today.” (Strong, preface).
Raups input in this aspect is: ”(…) most American foresters, if they are to conceive of it, have to forget nearly all of the “Forester image” they have created for themselves during the past 60 years.”
It all comes down to a problem of society wanting advantage for them only. It is an individual that matters for an individual, not the society and global right, or well-being.
On OurTahoe website we can read Ryan Jerz’s “Who to blame for Angora fire?” article. Jerz recalls an example of the RGJ journalist who “(…) set up a deliberation online to get government officials and citizens to talk about management of fire issues in Tahoe. (…) It was filled with official-sounding statements, however, and was more formal than was expected. On the side where citizens were supposed to participate, nobody showed up.” (Jerz, OurTahoe.com). Significant coincidence, or confirmation of the above-explained concept? Each time the disaster comes, population has an opportunity to visualize how poorly Americans take care of the nature. Do we learn from the experience? Five years ago Tahoe went through the Gondola fire, with luckily no houses burned, but will Angora finally change minds and attitudes?
Remember Bill Murray in Groundhog Day? He kept having the same day, over and over -- he could only get out of it by improving his behavior.
Like Murray, the politics of environmental policy repeats over and over.
The Roosevelt administration battled a big government "feds vs. states and regions" mentality. At Tahoe, the struggle of broad "big picture" planning vs. local economic interests presented a small scale version of the same fears. Only when the situation(s) became dire did individual interests merge with/accomodate scientific and broadscale environmental planning initiatives.
Yet despite improvements at Tahoe (and hopes of a more enlightened public), special interest groups quickly opposed concepts like the Sierra Nevada Biological Preserve.
Groundhogs Day again.
Time and again economic concerns have dominated environmental responsibility. Notice the difference in values between CA and NV. CA, the wealthier of the two states, embraced much more stringent environmental policies. Nevada complied only under duress.
(Consider the WalMart analogy: Wealthy people can afford to boycott WalMart. Financially limited members of the population enjoy the low prices despite the corporation's repressive employment practices.)
A century of debate over the same essential issues, begs the question: Is environmentalism inherently elitist? Does the American appetite for economic success create an mindset that prefers the economic boom of cleaning up messes more than preventing them to begin with?
For me, this is one of numerous questions. The readings provide many entry points for discussion (so many philosophical inconsistencies).
I'm looking forward to hearing more of ya'lls thoughts.
Peace,
Bonnie Jo
Post a Comment