|
After 17 years as CSERC’s director, I know only too well how personal and nasty critics can be when they don’t agree with environmental concerns. Years ago, my kids were so used to harassing phone calls at our house that they would just hand me the phone, saying: “It’s another one of those calls…”
At one point, when local pro-logging “wise use” advocates held a fundraising dinner, they featured a speaker who taught the audience how to frighten and harass environmentalists. A decade ago, many local businesses were pressured to put up pro-logging support messages, with threats of boycotts for those that openly supported environmentalist efforts. Many times at forest issues hearings, emotional loggers or mill-workers yelled derisively at CSERC staff or called us “liars” or “treehuggers.”
Over the years, our Center has received vicious letters, or we’ve gotten hate messages on our answering machine, and occasional phone calls with intensive, vitriolic criticism. But it is at public hearings and meetings on controversial issues that the venom often gets most intense.
Especially in recent years at board of supervisor or planning commission sessions, those in favor of development have often been extremely aggressive if they feared that CSERC’s testimony might lead to delays in their project or new conditions that would shrink their profit. Pro-development representatives often don’t just focus on the issues or reasons why they believe a project is beneficial. Instead, testimony sometimes shifts to personal jibes at CSERC staff or at environmentalists “hiding behind a shield of environmentalism” or claims that project critics “want to stop all growth.”
Even decision-makers on public boards or commissions can be highly negative or personal in verbal attacks towards CSERC or other conservation speakers. One supervisor in Calaveras County frequently makes wild, completely false claims about environmentalists in general and about CSERC staff. His wild charges or his off-the-subject diatribes often are thrown out when the subject isn’t even open for public input, so there is frequently no opportunity to even respond. One local utility district board member also makes rude, off-subject comments, even when CSERC staff is bending over backwards to be careful to stick to the issue and avoid personal debate. Fortunately, after so many years of dealing with rude behavior, our staff is usually able to shrug off yet another verbal attack.
One challenge in almost all political processes is that those in charge are aligned with the money interests for philosophical reasons. Most County supervisors in all of the counties we have worked have openly expressed support for intensive development because they think it will benefit the local economy. Impacts to the environment always come second to those decision-makers, and so they are slow to stop verbal attacks by those who share their philosophical views.
Even in the local media, it can be challenging to get fair treatment. The editorial opinion pieces in one dominant local newspaper over the years have overwhelming sided with developers, the timber industry, water purveyors, ranchers, and miners. The main local radio stations strongly boost pro-industry politics and anti-environmental talk shows. What all of this boils down to is that at least once or twice a week, CSERC staff members consistently attend hearings or meetings where someone strongly criticizes the environmental community or CSERC staff personally. We are the target of letters to the editor, pro-development ads, and the infrequent phone call or e-mail.
We often find it amazing that all of this venom gets sent our way despite the fact that we are openly pro-logging and supportive of thinning logging, that we only actually oppose a small percentage of development projects, and that we even accept having livestock grazing on the national forest and mining done consistent with existing laws. We also bend over backwards to be respectful in what we state, and we strive hard to publicly show understanding for the views of opponents.
It still doesn’t stop the venom and the personal attacks.
In the long term, we recognize that we wouldn’t generate heated criticism if we weren’t so effective in our mission. We do cause developers to end up paying more to get projects approved. We do end up causing developments to be redesigned to gain more protection for oaks and open space. We do cause national forest timber sales to restrict cutting from sensitive areas, and we do monitor livestock grazing and report violations of grazing regulations.
As difficult as it may be, we strive to look on the bright side and see nasty criticism as proof that we are doing effective work. We still need to work at being more successful in letting go of the stress that comes from hearing wild charges or hearing nasty personal jibes.
Best of all, we are heartened when we hear positive things from our members or when we receive donations that reflect the fact that some of you are highly supportive of our respectful style and intensive efforts. If you like something about one of our quotes in the newspaper or if you appreciate something we did on a particular issue, feel free to let us know. It’s nice to know that not everyone is a critic.
|
