Wildlife conservation

Another Trail ‘Study’

The Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) recently published an article about a 2023 regional trail user survey. The author of the article, Zionne Fox, wrote about some of the results of the study, and her writing helps gain new insights into POST’s philosophy regarding recreational use in natural areas.

Summary of the Article

Ms. Fox’s “blog,” published on August 28, 2025, announced the findings of a ‘unique’ regional study by the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network that had purported to assess parks trail user expectations. Fox reports the percentages of different user groups (equestrians, dog walkers, hikers, mountain bikers) that want more trails. She also notes that non-white respondents were statistically under represented. The article suggests (without supporting data) that demand for trails is growing and that ‘open space operators need practices that can meet rising visitor expectations while preserving natural habitat.’ There was also mention about many equestrians hailing from Santa Cruz County and (again, unsubstantiated) a need for additional accommodation for multi-day trail trips.

Reporting Issues

The POST article fails in many ways to meet the standards of responsible reporting, but that is predictable given the organization’s overall tendencies. First, note that the study referenced isn’t, as the author claims, ‘unique,’ at all: another, more professional study covering much the same material was published not that long ago. Also, notice that there is no link in the article to a report about the results of the survey. With further research I find that the survey authors, the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, lacks a link to any reporting on the survey results on its website. Without more details about survey methodology, statistical analysis, and results it is difficult to draw one’s own conclusions. 

Moreover, the article emphasizes only the survey results which correlate most with POST’s own goal of increased recreational use of ‘open space’ lands. For instance, statistics are provided for apparent unmet needs from various recreational groups, but similar statistics are not presented about the degree of concern for natural resource conservation, which is at odds with increased recreational use. In fact, in the ‘What’s Next’ portion of the article, there is no mention of POST’s or any other ‘open space operator’s’ intention to address survey respondents’ concerns about conserving and nurturing natural resources which suffer from over visitation. Similarly, POST suggests that those operators should focus on ‘preserving natural habitat,’ which curiously avoids the more concrete and pressing issue of conserving the specific species that are sensitive to natural areas recreational use. Habitat preservation is nearly meaningless to measure, whereas species conservation is much more useful and quantifiable, with a richer history of scientific rigor in informing open space management.

Note that the author of this article fails to mention any results from the portion of the survey asking about trail user’s negative experiences in open space areas. The survey asked poignant questions about negative interactions with dogs, people biking, shared trail use with other users, etc. Such conflicts are expected and are a challenge that trained park managers are used to addressing; unfortunately POST lacks staff with such expertise, so it is understandable that the author would avoid mention of this portion of the survey, which would otherwise reflect poorly on her organization.

The reporting insufficiencies and biases should not be surprising to those who follow POST. This is an organization focused on increased recreational use at the expense of species conservation. For instance, while on one hand cheerleading for the National Monument designation of Cotoni Coast Dairies, POST refused to sign onto a letter advocating that the designation include specific protections for natural resources. Peruse the organization’s website and you’ll find that species conservation is de-emphasized as opposed to an over-emphasis of recreational use of natural areas, which negatively affects nature. While being the best funded private organization working on open space issues in the Bay Area, POST has apparently never hired staff or engaged contractors that are professionals at managing visitor use in such a way that demonstrably protects the very species that require POST’s natural areas to survive. POST has published no reports or plans to address these concerns, at least none that are available to the public.

Methodological Issues

On its face value, the survey issued by the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network lacked the rigor to make the kinds of conclusions that POST suggests would be valuable. As opposed to previous, more rigorous studies the survey failed to sample the breadth of the population with interests in open space areas. POST notes that proportions of respondent self-reported ‘race’ did not reflect the population as a whole, but failed to note how the survey may have also biased certain user groups over others (mountain bikers vs. hikers, etc). 

One would expect to encounter survey bias given the mode of delivery. The survey was a web-based survey distributed by social media networks. Open space organizations have recently become increasingly aligned with a vocal minority: well-funded mountain biking advocacy groups who undoubtedly circulated the survey in order to impact the results. Other trail user groups may have been under-represented because they have little exposure to those particular social media networks or because they lacked the computer technology to respond.

Cautionary Conclusions

We can learn valuable lessons from POST’s reporting on this trail user survey. Given the power of POST, we should continue to be vigilant about the group’s propensity to favor increased recreational use of open space lands at the cost of species conservation. This bias should make us question the organization’s ability to manage funding tied to protection of public trust resources. POST is a donor-funded organization, and so some degree of pressure from donors could help to steer the organization more towards conservation. We should also recognize that POST is not alone in making these types of mistakes. It appears that the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network is also allied with such thinking, and we have seen other conservation lands managers approaching open space management with similarly unbalanced methodologies. These trends must be reversed if we are to conserve the many species of wildlife which are sensitive to poorly managed recreational use in our parks.

As time passes and we stay alert to the possibilities, we will see if the poorly executed SCMSN trails user survey results are used to justify or rationalize actions by POST or other members in their network: wouldn’t it be a shame if they were?

-this post originally published in my column for BrattonOnline.com – a weekly blog with movie reviews and posts by very interesting people on matters near and far. I recommend subscribing to it and donating so we can continue this long tradition.

The privatization of open space – Land Trust vs. Public Trust
elephant pict
Licensed under CC: photo by flickr user hbp_pix All rights revert to originator.

Could the rise of the ‘Land Trust Movement’ represent a retrograde change in the way we protect land for future generations? We may be experiencing a shift is from public responsibility, funding, authority and accountability to private funding and private ownership of conservation lands. Private ownership by Land Trusts –even those incorporated as nonprofits– normally has limited public accountability and transparency. In consequence, the purpose and focus of land protection is in danger of shifting from ecologically sound conservation of plants and animals to the recreational and utilitarian desires of the moneyed elite.

At its best, the Land Trust Movement is the capital economy’s response to ongoing lack of public support for funding public land protection agencies. This attitude suggests that if you want protection for public lands you’re going to have to pay for it yourself. And, this view assumes that development and maximized use is a natural or desirable condition while protection from development and overuse is reduced to a ‘special interest’ – one that should be privately funded.

At its worst, the Land Trust Movement represents a shift toward a new feudalism, widening the gap between the rich and poor via appropriation and control of land once called the American commons. At the whim of wealthy donors, Land Trusts manage and control ecosystems according only to the vicissitudes of an elite few, without regard for or accountability to the people. In essence they transform management of natural areas into a commodity, excluding the views of the relevant sciences and the general public alike.

How is the public losing control? For nearly forty years, the well-worn phrase “the problem with the government is…” has been bleeding into Liberal philosophy, poisoning the public’s faith in the protections offered by the government itself. Other oft heard phrases like “State Parks is corrupt,” “the State Wildlife Agency is inept,” “US Fish and Wildlife does what??” etc. are just different ways of saying the government –the people themselves according to our democratic way of government– doesn’t work. Instead of working with and trying to fix these public agencies, the elite turn their paternalistic worldview to Land Trusts for nature conservation, avoiding those who might disagree with their ‘enlightened view.’ Land Trust lands and sponsored activities often provide outdoor experiences to like-minded people –preferably wealthy and generous. Thus, Land Trusts create ‘nature-consumers’ – distant from nature but feeling a certain privileged ownership of it. Land Trusts and their donors assume a right to use –and through willful neglect degrade– what amount to private parks, under no obligation to protect them from human excesses or the ravages of harmful invasive species. Land Trust clients (a.k.a. donors) are largely derived from social elites:  white, upper class, and educated. These donors are at times granted undue influence over land acquisition and management, reducing the importance and influence of scientifically-based conservation and forcing Land Trusts to defer to a use-based approach because someone thinks a new mountain bike trail would be neat or owns a local ATV dealership. Land Trust development officers know that donor-clients are best courted with tangible results involving humans using the land, results that give them social status…that allow for good Facebook selfies: results that can be put in glossy brochures to show that humans with money in this country are free do as they please. To grow this constituency Land Trusts carefully construct messages resonant with this resource-hungry, profit-oriented culture. This uninformed version of ‘sustainable development’ guarantees the continued flow of wealth. ‘Open space’ purchased from ‘willing sellers’ guarantees that neighbors keep their property value (or preferably increase it).

When Private Land Trusts focus on short-term goals of preserving or expanding funding there is a major contrast with Ecological Conservation prioritizing and visualizing the health of the land over time, for today and generations to come. ‘The long view’ holds the health of the land in mind as a concept –let alone a thing of value– in the act of deciding whether to log a certain slope or dam a certain river. In the U.S,. on public land, nature ‘has a say’ in large-scale land use cases, the decision-making authority long having been vested in government. The sheer scale and complex fundraising structure of Land Trusts means at times they acquire ecosystem-defining control, and act without public recourse or long-term restraint in the installation of hiking/biking trails, buffer zones for residents, protecting private interests in timber, livestock, and farming. They expertly facilitate human use and activity, but may fail to consider the long-term ecological implications of their use plans. Nobody disputes that it is a social good to acquire land that might otherwise be degraded by condos, shopping malls, or such.  And, it is also good to get people out into nature. But it is possible to ‘love nature to death’: to tread so thoughtlessly, frequently, and heavily on the land in our pursuit of short-term aims that we change it fundamentally for the worse; that we make it no longer the treasured place it was. In most places, municipal land use planning and zoning hasn’t yet addressed the spectrum of differences between the poles of wildlife conservation and open space commoditization on the privately held lands that are crucial for the future of Life.

Public Land Management is the answer. Developing policy based on informed consensus is the method of accountable public institutions. Public institutions –those entrusted with the knowledge and organizational structure to make long-term decisions– are obliged to consider what is best for all citizens in their decisions. Private Land Trusts don’t deliver better conservation results than public land use institutions. Private Land Trusts have developed a certain expertise in generating positive PR even as they obscure their decision-making processes, rely on focus groups instead of sound science in the act of attenuating or refusing community input. Public land agencies have centuries of legal precedent, procedural and environmental know-how, and long-standing, forward-thinking, public-minded mandate. They are not as easily subject to behind-the-scenes deals and ecological equivocations in response to in donor whims. Public trust agencies must adhere to open processes and regulatory application of sound science to protect wildlife and public lands. They must balance short-term interests in recreation and sustainable development with long-term protection for the health of the land and future generations.

It’s a shame in our era of manufactured austerity –when tax cuts are showered on the well-to do while roads crumble, wars get financed, and back-room deals trump common sense– public land use agencies are starved of funding for the short-term illusion of a civil society done on the cheap. Dollars that flow towards privately-controlled Land Trusts should be re-directed towards making our democratic public land management agencies better and stronger. Parallel conservation organizations aren’t what’s missing. We need to invest in our shared public future: of ecologically sound conservation. It really matters to generations and generations of happier, healthier children and well-adjusted adults who feel at home in their world.

Special thanks to Wes Harman for input and editing.

Cotoni Coast Dairies, 2064: A Dystopia 

I invite you to immerse yourself for a few moments into my nightmare of the future of Santa Cruz’ North Coast. How will Cotoni Coast Dairies fare in the future, for instance in 2064? During the past year, many things have aligned to push my nightmare closer to reality. Note, this essay is the opposite view of my prior utopian sketch published here.

Wilder Ranch 2064
State Parks held off the Populists for a while, but California relented

The Recipe

Extreme factions of the far right have expertly wrangled a successful populist movement, gaining control of all three branches of the US government. Swiftly, we see dismantling of conservation including parklands staff and environmental protections for wildlife, clean water, and clean air. We recall Brazil’s Bolsonaro regime and their treatment of the precious natural areas of the Amazon and its inhabitants: park boundaries ignored and rapacious resource development encouraged, including illegal settlements. This story has been repeated in many places around the world as populist national political interests are imposed. These trends repeat: abandoning local interests with the establishment of the parks at the outset and continuing alienation of local people post parks development. As ecologists and conservationist Dan Janzen has wisely noted, it is important that the most local people see their own interests reflected in conservation lands, so that they will play an active role in protecting those lands.

What’s Coming

It is 2064, the 50th anniversary of Cotoni Coast Dairies becoming public land, and none of the hundreds of shanty inhabitants living on the property are reminded of the significance of this milestone. Parking areas and trails, once developed for the recreational elite, are covered with trash and lean-to cardboard and tin shelters, which started during the Hard Times of the 2030’s. Presidential Administrations have opened most federal lands, especially Bureau of Land Management lands, to settlement, promising to alleviate housing shortages. Millions had been displaced by extreme heat and epic storms, driven by climate change in the quickly uninhabitable interior USA. The squalor of the hastily erected federal land climate refugee camps contrasts only slightly to those on the nearby State Parks lands, which were opened by the Governor a little later and had ad hoc administrators that attempted (at first) to organize them. 

Missing Wildlife

By 2050, wildlife on the North Coast existed only as a fond memory of most settlers, who longed for the first decades of feasting on their tasty flesh. Even the smallest birds have succumbed to cooking fires, and the land is silent, without bird song. Tide pools have been scraped clean of limpets and mussels and people comb post-storm beaches for kelp and other marine vegetables, otherwise out of reach from harvest.

Cotoni Coast Dairies 2064: “House Everyone!!” The President cried, and BLM was the first to comply

Wildfire

Fires have become tamer after the raging infernos of the 20’s and 30’s consumed the last of the mature trees and, eventually, even their memories…the blackened snags and stumps. Storms come almost every summer, and it is rare that lightning fails to ignite a hundred fires between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay. These run quickly across the mountains in the regularly howling winds, consuming whatever diminutive weeds survive. Hundreds of people succumb to wind-driven infernos, but more replace them. As bad as it seems, there is no better place remaining: the seasons are still relatively mild compared to anywhere else in the country.

The Water 

The much-feared Water Guard and their families are the richest among the abject poor, for the cost of this scarce commodity cannot be avoided. They maintain and guard impoundments in the few streams that still provide water: Waddell, Scott, San Vicente, and Laguna Creeks. The other streams disappeared by 2050, now only scorched, mud-filled, lifeless canyons. The dams in the remaining creeks are maintained at high cost and much labor. Deluges are followed by flash floods carrying boulders, silt and debris that easily fill the tiny reservoirs. The stronger people earn water credit in trade for their labor rebuilding the dams, cleaning out storage pools, and replacing distribution pipes leading to water sales locations. Others earn their water by guarding this system day and night, sometimes with their lives. Water is life!

The Realization of This Nightmare

This dystopia is closer than most realize. It is a choice. It is everyone’s choice to avoid, but no one chooses the leadership necessary to do so. Instead, we keep electing representatives to take the place of the parents we wish we had had. Mother and daddy know best, we just want to be told to hush and to trust and that everything will be okay, but it never works out that way.

The pathway to this nightmare has been paved in so many ways. The back-room-deal-type Environmental Saviors responsible for the federal presence, for the Bureau of Land Management (of all agencies!) takeover of Cotoni Coast Dairies not that long ago fought local conservationists in court and won, then counter-sued the conservationists for their expenses. Those types are still working behind the scenes to make this deal seem palatable and good by succoring wealthy outdoor recreation types and funding their trail-building enablers. They have long abandoned partnerships with local community interests and even the more wide-ranging and very popular wildlife conservation movement. Alienation of those interests leaves the door wide open for the populists to overrun these lands which they portray as empty, pretty landscapes ready for settlement. It has always been so.

What You Can Do

The frustration we feel at the trends we have seen too late emerging can be put to good use. We can give money to the Center for Biological Diversity, a last bastion effectively using the legal system to protect wildlife, even around the Monterey Bay. We can vote for different representatives who primarily recognize the importance of the environment and the need to engage, enlighten, and empower those people who care about nature, which is everyone. We can speak up against the local lack of justice. We have more influence in local politics than national: this is the place we create the political movements that make a difference. This is the place we nurture the leaders of tomorrow’s State and Federal governments.

-this essay originally appeared alongside those of my Most Excellent Colleagues at BrattonOnline, a weekly e-newsletter covering the arts, history, ecology, politics, foreign affairs, and more.

Land Atonement

Very slowly, we must move in the direction of becoming at one with the Land. All that we eat, all that we breathe, all that we drink comes from the Land.

What is your opinion of how people have treated the land around us?

Have we damaged it, or made it better? How do you know?

Big Sur: Whole or Shattered?

The Santa Lucia Mountains…Big Sur, to our South. On one hand, we see picturesque beauty, “wilderness,” a rugged, sparsely settled landscape, millions of flowers, huge trees, and a rich marine environment. On the other hand, there is a land devoid of much of the wildlife that once called that place habitat, the native peoples that called it home and stewarded that place are mostly gone (but still there!), wildfires ravage the landscape too hot and too frequently, roads and other development bleed soil and pollution into streams, and hordes of poorly managed visitors negatively impact the richest ecology, where the land meets the sea.

Monterey Peninsula: Zombie Ecosystems or Well-Managed Parks?

An ecological treasure, the Monterey Peninsula has rare pine and cypress forests, chaparral, and coastal prairies. Millions of humans visit to play golf, shop, drive fancy cars, visit art galleries, taste wine, or do tourism at an aquarium and historic sites. Nature there is fragmented into isolated parks which have no chance of long-term health. With lots of exposure to disease and human disturbance, with no chance of natural interactions with wildlife or fire, the parks represent zombie ecosystems, seemingly alive but really walking dead as they slowly decline with species after species winking out.

Tilled Valleys, How do You Fare?

The Salinas and Pajaro Valleys frame the central Monterey Bay, rich alluvial soils that support Agriculture, the nation’s salad bowl. Farming is an economic engine, sustaining jobs and communities and feeding people vegetables, never enough helpings per capita in any given day. The effluent flowing out of that engine creates the most polluted surface water in the US, pools of eutrophic, stinking rot. Ancient rich soil is disappearing, lost with the rain, in floods, and in the wind. Groundwater is being contaminated with pollution or by sea water intrusion caused by over pumping groundwater.

Santa Cruz and the North Coast, Loved and Smothered

On the other side of the Bay lies Big Sur North, a tamer landscape, thickly inhabited, worn. Tourism, Silicon Valley settlement, and education rule here. Surf and mountain bike culture are ‘natural’ tourism while hordes of cotton candy fueled tourists amble in the relatively cool beachy haven that contrasts so readily with the increasingly baking inland. Millions of feet pummel the beach sand substrate, crushing the food chain of flocks of would-be shorebirds; the remaining birds scatter, no longer comfortable foraging on these overrun beaches. Similarly, most meadows and canyons zip with such continual disturbance that wildlife families flee….fewer places left to hide. In the built areas, hundreds of fossil fuel formulations leak from engines, pesticides ooze from landscapes, headwater rivers and streams are diverted for toilet flushing and carwashes, downstream they receive and convey pollutants into our treasured Bay.

How do We?

How do we atone for the ongoing damage we are causing to the land around us? In ecological terms we call this restoration. In social terms, we call this reparation. In economic terms, we call this re-investment. Do you see enough of this going on? I cannot believe that you do.

Ecological Restoration

We must make room for all of the species of plants and wildlife to flourish if we ourselves are to survive. We read such things, but do we believe them? Do we act on them? Are there things individuals can do to make this happen? Many of us can vote for those who have this vision. Many of us can learn about ecological restoration and tell others about the ways forward around here. There is good fire to put back on the landscape. There are ecological linkages to restore, across roads, through development. There are invasive species to control. And, there are many species of wildlife that need to be better managed, monitored, and restored with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife at the helm.

Reparations

We live on unceded lands. We are surrounded by people displaced by greed-fueled governmental policies, including war. The nation owes its current wealth to people terribly taken advantage of for generations. What are we doing for reparations? Anything at all?

Re-Investment

The way we do it, every new home, every new development creates a heavier burden on our already strapped local municipalities. The way we have done it for generations, businesses have profited from extraction from Nature, most recently including agriculture, water use, and tourism in natural areas. Some suggest it is time to increase the taxes of landowners to enable more tourists to overrun our natural areas…’investing” in new trails and repairing old trails degraded by millions of tourists to keep local businesses thriving. How did this become part of a re-investment proposal? 

A Path Forward

Whether you take part in restoration, reparations, or re-investment, each of us must do our part. I’m sure that none of us want to leave the world worse off than it was before we enjoyed the water, the air, and the food that Nature made possible. We regularly eat meals…taking. We regularly drink water…taking. We regularly travel through Nature…taking. We regularly purchase things and throw away things…taking. What are we regularly doing to give back, to atone for all that we are taking from Nature, from each other?

I hope that you will think about that debt when you vote this Fall. And, I hope that you will plan at least one activity in the next little while that gives something back. Make such giving a regular practice, please.

-this column brought to you in part by Bruce Bratton, who graciously publishes my work weekly at BrattonOnline.com Sign up, donate, and read it- a great way to catch up on what is going on around the Monterey Bay, and beyond.

Well Managed Parks?

Some people I know are saying how ‘well managed’ our public open spaces are around the Monterey Bay. Let’s examine how one might come to such a conclusion and, at the same time, consider carefully parks managers’ roles in protecting wildlife for future generations.

Logical Fallacies

The simple, unsubstantiated statement that most of the Monterey Bay region’s public parks are ‘well managed’ is rife with logical fallacies. The people saying this are hoping that their statement will resonate because they are perceived as authorities about environmental matters. They are taking advantage of a ‘bandwagon’ building on a very publicly vocal minority of parks users who are also repeating the statement for their own purposes. Members of this bandwagon really enjoy some aspect of public parks and are suggesting that because their expectations have been met, everything else the parks managers are doing is being done well, too. They may be relying on black-or-white rationale where a park is either managed well or not, and they’d rather land on the ‘managed well’ side of that dichotomy. Building on that assertion, they purport any level of critique of parks management as personal attacks on parks managers. In the ensuing discussion, they are incredulous that anyone would suggest something isn’t right with parks management. They point out that all the credible public figures regularly praise our parks. When further pressed, the person claiming local parks are ‘well managed’ says ‘prove me wrong!’ … ‘where is there any proof that local parks are being mismanaged?’ they ask. After providing several examples of failures, the next thing I hear is “well I meant ‘generally well-managed,’ not that they can’t do better.’ If the conversation continues, the ambiguity gets wider and deeper. Why do these people continue to utter this statement?

Motives

Sunny dayists, popularity by praise, narcissism, greed, business marketing…all of these alone or combined are good explanations for the motivation of the people claiming parks are ‘well managed.’ Have you ever met someone who is always leaning into the positives around them? I had the great fortune of spending lots of time with one of those types of people. Our situation allowed us to eat at many of the region’s restaurants. When we first went out to eat, I was pleased that they expressed such praise for the food, the service, the atmosphere…everything! After a long while, I noticed that their praise was the same no matter where we ate out. I tested the hypothesis, leading us to one of the worst restaurants in the region: same level of praise! I bet you know someone like this; imagine them saying that parks are so, very ‘well managed.’ Do you believe them? On the other hand, isn’t it just easier and more fun to praise parks managers? When you are part of this bandwagon, such praise makes you popular.

Or, maybe you don’t care about that bandwagon. Maybe you get exactly what you want at local parks and so share the innocent but narcissistic reflection, ‘parks are well managed!’ A perhaps more malevolent explanation is that those declaring ‘parks are well managed’ actually do understand that parks are NOT well managed but they are getting what they want and so they greedily fight any threats to what’s working for them. For instance, perhaps those sharing the ‘well managed parks’ assertion are daredevil acrobat drone pilots who raise kids and drink beers with the parks managers families…might those be the sort of people who would declare ‘parks are well managed!”  There’s one more type that comes to mind: the businessperson. You can probably imagine the marketing lingo of any shrewd businessperson in the fields of nature education, outdoor recreation, tourism, conservation, public administration, or politics. Their statements are carefully crafted to build their personal brand, make more money, have more power. In that context, ‘parks are well managed,’ becomes what in politics is known as a “tribal statement.” One says ‘parks are well managed’ with a nod to one’s colleagues who are most likely to provide some positive business outcome. For instance, parks managers might provide support for nonprofits in the nature education space. Hearing that you are part of the bandwagon, perhaps an outdoor equipment maker will donate some gear to your organization. When a politician is reminded that you share their black-or-white jingoes, they might be especially helpful in supporting initiatives that move you towards business success. I know business-oriented conservationists who regularly say things they know aren’t true such as ‘this park is so very well managed!’ in the mistaken idea that such lies will improve their rapport and make them more powerful.

Bandwagon Patrol

Beware the bandwagon and beware the logical fallacies that accompany unsubstantiated generalities about things you know little about. Perhaps we could all benefit from changing vague generalities/assertions to more detailed personal reflections: ‘When I last visited Nisene Marks, I was pleased not to encounter any hikers.’ instead of ‘Nisene Marks is well managed.’ Let’s get more specific in general about things that affect the environment. Instead of ‘parks are well managed,’ maybe one could say ‘if Henry Cowell had a management plan, it would be easier to judge how well it is being managed.’ We can only fairly judge how well a park is being managed within the context of its management.

Context

If Natural Bridges park’s main objective was maximizing beach access, how are they doing at managing for that? Seems like we should know some details about the context of management at individual parks to better understand how well they are being managed. If Cotoni Coast Dairies’ main objective was managing for nature conservation, how would we know how well the managers are doing? We’d need access to supporting data and summary reports, of course!

Principles of Good Land Management

I suggest a framework of good land management principles. First, for land management to be judged at all, there must be a management plan that informs what happens on the ground. The plan needs to rely on the scientific method and an adaptive management framework, include citations for supporting peer-reviewed publications, and have recommendations for monitoring and managing for the ecological and social carrying capacity of the land. Next, managers should regularly be working to adapt management and the management plan using analyses informed by high quality data. Managers who are doing good work will be transparent with their decision making and focus on actively engaging with and including the public in all aspects of land management. Land managers doing good work will be able to prove how they are maintaining all species while providing access designed to maximize public benefit.

-this essay originally published in Bruce Bratton’s illuminating BrattonOnline.com weekly blog. Why not subscribe (and donate!) now?

Whence SCruz Enviros?

I continue to ask myself this question: where has the environmental movement gone in Santa Cruz? I have several hypotheses. This is not to deny the tireless work of various individuals who have helped on many fronts, but I sense a loss of momentum, of any organized movement of the type of conservationists that have been so crucial in the past in providing the Santa Cruz area with much of which it is now proud: Lighthouse Field, the City’s Greenbelt, Wilder Ranch, and Gray Whale Ranch come to mind, is there any kind of movement now that could achieve such success?

Questionable Rationality

One of the age-old issues with working with coalitions is the rationality factor, and the environmental conservation movement has had its share of associates who defy the laws of rational discourse. There is strength in numbers, but as those numbers grow the community will include people who are vocal about some pretty wild, unsubstantiated things. Those people sometimes have a fairly strident way of expressing themselves. Whether it is a tactic, or perhaps they believe it, the opposition to conservationists will say ‘look at that lunatic fringe group!’ They lump perfectly rational people in with the less-than-rational minority. The less-than-rational folks will also say ‘Look! I have credibility! I am associated with these rational people!’ That fringe element has driven more than a few of my colleagues away from advocating for conservation.

Oppositional Idiocy

Problems with rationality aren’t just internal to conservationists: there are many irrational people to face in the opposition. There is increased reliance on very poor methods of discourse: tu quoque, black-and-white and straw man arguments are very common, and conservationists aren’t always prepared to rebut such vacuous methods of dialogue. We often don’t even recognize them as such. As I wrote recently, add those types of arguments to a long list of unsubstantiated ‘facts’ and you have the gish gallop making it impossible to address any particular thing.

Conflict Avoidance

Poor discourse and barely rational coalition members may have contributed to the next reason I hypothesize for the demise of the local conservation movement: conflict avoidance. One thing that seems on the upswing with the younger generations is conflict avoidance, but this issue has long been a problem to conservationists. Politicians and other would-be mediators of environmental conflict have often tried problem solving by attempting solutions through compromise. That is, they see two sides – conservation versus development – and say “we can find a middle ground.” The problem with that is that often the conservation issues associated with the proposed development aren’t addressed by this middle ground: biology doesn’t work that neatly. This concept has oozed its way into the general populace where many want to solve things by reaching an imaginary happy spot – ‘half way’ between what is portrayed as two divergent points of view. Even that half-way point is difficult for most to imagine negotiating.

Those who are proponents of nature destruction are well seasoned negotiators, new public conservation advocates not so much. New recruits into conservation often balk at the need to negotiate with often well-paid consultants who are so good at their game. These new conservationists also often feel shy about hiring professionals, especially lawyers to help with the conflict: for some reason many feel like seeking that method of solution is ‘too much.’ And, then again, lawyers are expensive.

Legal Defense, Legal Bills

If somehow a group of conservationists can come to the conclusion that a lawyer would help, raising money for legal defense funds for conservation around Santa Cruz is not easy. Lawyers are expensive and their work takes time. Can you remember the last time a local conservation group asked for funding for legal defense? It has been a long time.

And yet, legal defense has often been essential to resolving many important environmental conflicts, everywhere. Especially here in California, the laws protecting the environment are strong and broad ranging. Those proposing to destroy nature fear enforcement of those laws. With my conservation advocacy, I often cite legal language and so have been called ‘litigious’ by a handful of nefarious truth-stretchers: I have never retained legal counsel to sue anyone. It is very important for conservationists to understand laws and regulations and to cite those as well as case law whenever making their point. And yet, fewer and fewer locals are forming coalitions to retain legal assistance to protect nature.

Legal Reprisals

Some conservationists have avoided the milieu of conflict because they fear that the often well-funded anti-nature crowd might sick their lawyers on them. There are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) where the pro-development types intimidate conservation advocates by suing them…often for libel but for lots of other things. Also, some conservation advocates have been named in lawsuits by nature destroyers. For instance, our ‘friends’ at the Trust for Public Land sued local conservationists to recover expenses the group said they used to defend themselves in court actions aimed at better protecting the Cotoni Coast Dairies property.

No Peace, No Justice

The last issue hobbling local conservationists is their inability to adequately form coalitions with environmental justice movements, which have perhaps gained more wide support and recognition. This piece well summarizes the issue, and rests with the ‘no brainer’ intersection of the two movements: climate change. In this regard, Santa Cruz might be doing okay, but we are leaving behind other conservation issues of the highest importance: conservation land management, endangered species conservation, clean water and wetlands protections, and natural areas visitor management. Each of those issues has meaning for environmental justice proponents, but conservationists have done little to make that bridge.

What Can You Do?

I urge more people to become actively involved with local conservation groups. And, when you do, help those groups to become better through your mentorship and skill. We need to train one another to be good at conservation before the next big issue threatens species, habitats, or the relationship between humans and nature in our region.

-this post originally published as part of Bruce Bratton’s long-running informative blog at BrattonOnline.com, a place you should turn for all that you need to know around the Monterey Bay (and beyond).

Loss

The sadness of loss is almost too much to remain engaged as a lover of Nature. The love comes easily and despite our collective desire to protect Her, we somehow keep acquiescing to destruction. Why? Either by quick violent death or by slow strangling loss, somehow humans are capable of the most atrocious acts against Nature. These things are not happening only in some distant rainforest or coral reef…these things cannot be relegated to some guiltless past by unknown villains…they have been happening right here, are occurring right now around the Monterey Bay.

Sudden Violent Nature Destruction

I’ve been living near Santa Cruz since 1986, and during that time there have been some horrific atrocities to Nature. And they still are occurring.

Even as I weep to see the destruction of the East Meadow at UCSC, I clearly recall the moments of the tearing of bulldozers into other precious ground. The actions themselves are bad enough, but the sadness deepens as I hear the violence supported by the sentiment of members of my community. Rationalizations. Deep convictions and justifications. How can so many have become so separated from the Great Nurturer, our Mother Nature? I know the answer, but it doesn’t make it easier: greed.

UCSC. Arana Gulch. Santa’s Village. Terrace Point. Castle Rock. Glenwood. Millenium High. Large areas of Fort Ord. Armstrong Ranch. Santa Cruz Gardens. Seascape. These are just a few of the places that have been violently, suddenly and permanently transformed by bulldozers, development, pavement, and buildings since I arrived in Santa Cruz.

None of these ‘projects’ ‘needed’ to happen. All have been completely rationalized by society at large. Many have profited, and many more will feel the losses for generations. Few now feel a more direct, deep sense of loss from the destruction of those places; most did not come to know them well enough to love them deeply. Fewer still have the broader and deeper connection with Nature to feel pain upon witnessing her passing and the forlornness that comes from respect of what was there before. No one can acutely feel these things and still survive. We must “move on.”

A Slower Strangling

War or slasher movies attract human attention far more than long term torture. We eventually forget Guantanamo, refugee camps, those haunted and plagued by the trauma of war, famine, or injustice: we “move on.” Such is the case with our treatment of the lands around us. We now know that even ‘protected’ lands need careful tending, that the whole Earth needs our active care, but we are failing that responsibility everywhere. And so, our neglect means Nature is (maybe not so slowly) dying. We have put Her in a cell and neglected food and water. She cannot be so separated from us, and her dying is already causing our suffering. And although everyone hears Her rattling her cage, we “move on.”

Nature’s Slow Death Around Us

We daily witness the actions driving climate change, but it is harder to see the actions driving the torture and neglect of Nature around us. Everyone reading this can glimpse those actions in the rhetoric about Nature tourism around the Monterey Bay…mostly about mountain biking, but also about the many ‘natural’ attractions our region has ‘to offer.’ Nature tourism is one of the top ten threats to biodiversity globally. Around the Monterey Bay, there are only the grossest, ham-fisted approaches by conservation lands managers to stem the impacts of natural areas visitors. We are loving our conservation lands to death. Literally watch your step as you hike trails eroding into ditches, soil spoiling surrounding streams, trails draining the water from the land. Trash. Weeds and pathogens proliferating along trails and roads through natural areas. Wildlife fleeing frequent visitation with no where left to go. Invasive plants, pathogens, and introduced animals permanently altering Nature, spurring native species loss. Nature tourism is good for business! And, as to the cost that comes from that profit…most people have already “moved on.”

Moving On

As a society, we are “moving on,” and I and others who care are swept up in the flow. The tears we shed for the losses we see are quickly diluted in the river of profit that drives our downstream movement. We feel we must hide our Great Sadness so that the shreds of hope we retain in the resilience of Nature might inspire others to come to her aid. The future is uncertain.

To calm the panic and loose the sadness, we turn to Nature and go for a walk…quietly, respectfully, slowly, and in awe.

-this post originally posted in Bruce Bratton’s stupendous weekly blog at BrattonOnline.com I suggest you subscribe to keep up with ‘all the news that’s fit for printing’ around the Monterey Bay and beyond. If you adhere to the adage, as I do, that all politics is local, that blog is the place to be.