Whassup with That SUWA Commercial? Chaining, Planning and Trumpfoolery

I guess I have to say I was a little suspicious that the SUWA ad brought up the Trump Administration. As many of you know, the wheels of Federal project planning move very.. very… slowly. So, for there to be a difference between Trump and Obama administration policies, the rules in the Plan about where and what you can do would have had to have been changed. And you don’t have to follow this stuff very closely to know that that takes a while (writing one, public comment periods, litigation and so on). Well, as it turns out, this kind of project was OK under the Monument management plan (approved 2000). You can look it up yourself here.

RM-2 The use of machinery (e.g., roller chopping, chaining, plowing, discing) may be allowed in all zones except the Primitive Zone. Chaining has been used in the past to remove pinyon and juniper prior to reseeding with perennial grasses. Due to the potential for irreversible impacts to other Monument resources, such as archaeological sites and artifacts, and paleontological resources, this treatment method will not be used to remove pinyon and juniper. It may be allowed to cover rehabilitation seed mixes with soil after wildfires only where:
• noxious weeds and invasive non-native species are presenting a significant threat to Monument resources or watershed damage could occur if the burned area is
not reseeded,
• it can be demonstrated that Monument resources will not be detrimentally affected (i.e., completion of full archaeological, paleontological, threatened and
endangered species and other resource clearance and consultation),
• it is determined that seed cover is necessary for the growth of the native species proposed for seeding, and • other less surface disturbing measures of covering seed are not available or cannot be applied in a timely manner.
Visual impacts of chaining will also be minimized near routes and other points of concern by covering the native seed mix with harrows or light chains. The GSENM
Advisory Committee will be consulted before the use of machinery for treatments is permitted.

I used the bold about the pinyon and juniper because that’s what it showed in the SUWA commercial. So SUWA says the Trump Administration is doing a bad thing that is different from what used to happen, but it’s really not. Now I don’t know if that is a “lie,” or an “inaccuracy” or a “shading of the truth.” The point seems to be to get people worked up about something that’s been going on for a long time, but was presumably OK under the previous administration. I’m going to call this Trumpfoolery. It’s worth asking, what’s in for SUWA to do this? Don’t they lose more in credibility than they gain in…whatever?

The people of Utah were using these vegetation practices long before President Trump entered politics, and they are incorporated into a Clinton Administration Monument plan. More on the practices in the next post.

23 thoughts on “Whassup with That SUWA Commercial? Chaining, Planning and Trumpfoolery”

  1. And SUWA was petitioning for chaining to stop long before Trump entered politics. See this
    , e.g., from 1997:

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/562547/SUWA-Paiutes-demand-national-ban-on-chaining.html

    If you were standing in SUWA’s shoes, just after Trump’s slap in the face re: Bears Ears and Grandstaircase Escalante, you might also have wanted to use a bit of “shaming” in a commercial. I call: No harm, no fowl. But I’ve not been a fan of these chaining operations for a very long time.

    Reply
    • Agree. Sharon seems to be putting words in SUWAs mouth. SUWA is consistent in voicing their concern about chaining. What’s changed under Trump is the removal of protection of certain monuments and that’s what the ad says.

      Reply
      • But that’s not accurate.. the project that they are talking about follows the same rules as before the Trump Administration. In the future, after a new plan, there might be differences under this Administration, but their commercial says the Trump administration “wants to do it in Grand Staircase Escalante”. It makes it sound like they are either proposing a project, or proposing a change to the Plan neither of which they are doing. Now if we are parsing things out like “the Administration wants to do it, but they aren’t actually doing anything about this desire presently” that’s not exactly what comes across on this commercial.

        Reply
  2. Sharon: “The people of Utah were using these vegetation practices long before President Trump entered politics, and they are incorporated into a Clinton Administration Monument plan.”
    ====

    Well I don’t necessarily agree with chaining and certain other forms of land management which often destroys the microbiological components underground, this protest is identical to that phony stunt the Media and Ecology people did on that BLM ‘coal seam’ photo early last year 2017. In fact I believe it was published and discussed here on this site. Every eco-group came out of the woodwork with self-righteous indignation and playing up the blame game against your country’s new leadership. But oddly enough the website was equipped with a new rotating picture software program where every Friday a new photo highlighting the varety of activites natural resource & recreation) BLM oversees and is involved with. But oh no, that Coal seam from from the new evil administration. Actually it wasn’t. Both the new rotating photograph software for the website and all those photos were from the past administration who mandated it. But you couldn’t tell any other those hateful ideologues this. The following week (on Friday) the next photograph showed a man fishing with his son on a wild river. One Eco-Leader proudly proclaimed to his flock following on how all their collective voices backed this new evil administration into the corner and they bowed to the people’s will. This was bogus, because on the following Friday after that the new photo was of an Oil or Gas easement where the pipeline was shown running through a National Forest. And nobody said nothing after that. Apparently they had milked the bogus Media hype for all it’s recruitment and danations worth and moved on to something else bogus. And that’s apparently now how things work in our world, lying is consided a necessary evil for the greater good.

    Reply
    • Hi Kevin,

      Since your memory seems so very clear, can you please point us out to a link that backs up your memory here, when you state: “One Eco-Leader proudly proclaimed to his flock following on how all their collective voices backed this new evil administration into the corner and they bowed to the people’s will. ”

      Thanks.

      Reply
      • Matt: “Since your memory seems so very clear, can you please point us out to a link that backs up your memory here, when you state:”
        ====

        Oh yes, this is real easy, it wasn’t here, even though you did post this very subject here.

        Reply
    • Such groups also love to see their members believe things that just aren’t true. The Giant Sequoia National Monument comments are full of people who believe that Trump will clearcut, frack, drill for oil, strip mine, sell the lands then build mega-hotels. People can be such lemmings, in their outrage.

      Reply
    • Kevin trumpets: “… Every eco-group came out of the woodwork with self-righteous indignation and playing up the blame game against your country’s new leadership….. But you couldn’t tell any other those hateful ideologues this. … One Eco-Leader proudly proclaimed to his flock following on how all their collective voices backed this new evil administration into the corner and they bowed to the people’s will. … Apparently they had milked the bogus Media hype for all it’s recruitment and danations worth and moved on to something else bogus. And that’s apparently now how things work in our world, lying is consided a necessary evil for the greater good.”

      Foto chimed in: “Such groups also love to see their members believe things that just aren’t true. The Giant Sequoia National Monument comments are full of people who believe that Trump will clearcut, frack, drill for oil, strip mine, sell the lands then build mega-hotels. People can be such lemmings, in their outrage.”

      Listen to you. You sound every bit as demagogic as the people or groups you are ranting against. Do you believe, on balance, “such groups” are any more likely to use demagoguery than groups juxtaposed on the other side of hotly contested issues. Or are you likely to give in-group actors rhetorical passes denied to out-group actors. If so, are you yourselves any less guilty of demagoguery?

      In Demagoguery and Democracy (a must-read new book) Patricia Roberts-Miller explains how to recognize demagogic culture and begins to help us know how to defeat the disease. Here is a snip from Roberts-Miller’s concluding comments:

      Good disagreements are the bedrock of communities. Good disagreements happen when people with different kinds of expertise and points of view talk and listen to one another, and when we try, honestly and pragmatically, to determine the best course of action for the whole community. Our differences make us stronger. Democracy presumes that we can behave as one community, caring together for our common life, and disagreeing productively and honestly with one another. Demagoguery rejects that pragmatic acceptance and even valuing of disagreement in favor of a world of certainty, purity, and silence of dissent.
      Demagoguery is about saying we are never wrong; they are. If we make a mistake, they are to blame; we are always in touch with what is true and right. There is no such thing as a complicated problem; there are just people trying to complicate things. Even listening to them is a kind of betrayal. All we need to do is what we all know to be the right thing. And it’s very, very pleasurable. It tells us we’re good and they’re bad, that we were right all along, and that we don’t need to think about things carefully or admit we’re uncertain. It provides clarity.
      Democracy is about disagreement, uncertainty, complexity, and making mistakes. It’s about having to listen to arguments you think are obviously completely wrong; it’s about being angry with other people, and their being angry with you. It’s about it all taking much longer to get something passed than you think reasonable, and taking a long time resisting some policy you think is dipshit. Democracy is about having to listen, and compromise, and it’s about being wrong (and admitting it). It’s about guessing—because the world is complicated….
      Democracy is hard; Demagoguery is easy. … (pp. 127-129)

      And Demagoguery is sometimes very, very dangerous!

      Reply
      • Dave Iverson spewed: “And Demagoguery is sometimes very, very dangerous!”
        ====

        Dave, Dave, Dave, You say Demogogue, I say Ideologue. You say Tomato, I say whatever. Do you even remotely know what the original conversation or controversy was about almost one year ago or even who the players were in that nonsense debate ??? Oh that’s right, you don’t, because you weren’t there and you didn’t witness first hand the lies that were being promoted for the call to donations to charities and activists ??? Next time it would behoove you to get the facts straight and actually find out what and who you are defending.

        Reply
        • I was not trying to defend anyone, Kevin. Rather I was suggesting that we try to be civil one with another. I advocate for civic discovery and deliberative engagement, without the name calling and finger pointing. This is something you have suggested as well, sort of. Except that you once advocated for separation from either side of politically motivated debates; Something you seem not inclined to do. This from your blog:

          http://timeless-environments.blogspot.com/2017/10/human-disconnect-to-reality-of-our.html

          Hard core Ideologues on various political sides rather than show genuine concern for fellow man are more interested in this stupid immature fingerpointing and scoring imaginary brownie points against their preceived worldview enemies. I’d encourage people everywhere reading to separate themselves from either side of this politically motivated controversy and consider what you can personally do for folks in need while at the same time watching carefully where you may be donating your money to what ever non-profits these days.

          Reply
          • Dave Iverson: – “I was not trying to defend anyone, Kevin.”
            ====

            Of course you were, you stated so at the outset. Your exact words were, ” I call: No harm, no fowl” and you emphatically stated this after you acknowledged Sharon’s point about this had zero to do with your country’s President and that the SUWA deliberately forged ahead and lied about your country’s President wishing to Bulldoze and Chain drag Pinyon & Juniper trees on Monument property. So apparently the message here is, lying and fabricating false stories is okay if it’s for the greater good. Why is pointing this out wrong ? I also hate chain dragging for a number of reasons. I first think it’s a waste of good health vegetation which could be utilized for other productive means, but also it disrupts the microbiological components underground. And I actually noted this in a recent post which you propably also know about. I’ll go ahead and write a specific post on this controversy and I’ll add in the other lie about the BLM website & coal seam photo controversy which was the same type of identical lying going on and the picture postcard mirror of this lying chaining video. I’ll also include the very people who found that lie acceptable because it helped promote their organization’s membership and donations for the so-called “good fight.”

            This is the last time I’ll comment on this post’s subject, everyone here reading knows the truth of this matter whether they publicly acknowledge it or not. Even the usual suspects out their lurking in cyber space who choose not to comment. Thanks Dave.

            Reply
            • Ok, Kevin. If we go back to where I inadvertently kicked a hornets nest, then yes I was sort of defending SUWA against the Trump Administration. I also understand opinions on the other side of the bigger debate; arguing that both the Clinton Administration, then later the Obama Administration set aside National Monuments that were arguably oversized in part to score political points. Still, I can see why SUWA might want to run their commercial.

              But I do NOT recall acknowledging “Sharon’s point about this had zero to do with your country’s President and that the SUWA deliberately forged ahead and lied about your country’s President wishing to Bulldoze and Chain drag Pinyon & Juniper trees on Monument property.” If I did say that, please show me where I said it.

              And to your point: “So apparently the message here is, lying and fabricating false stories is okay if it’s for the greater good.” I can’t imagine myself ever saying or inferring anything remotely similar.

              But I see that you said it earlier, in response to my initial comment: “And that’s apparently now how things work in our world, lying is considered a necessary evil for the greater good.” My response is that lying and spin have been a part of politics and warfare for a very long time; sometimes with good intent, sometimes not. Ever read Machiavelli’s The Prince? How about Plato’s Republic?

              Reply
  3. You lost me, Sharon. How does a requirement that chaining “will NOT be used to remove pinyon and juniper” (except post-fire) make it (for a non-fire project) “OK under the Monument management plan?” And even if previous administrations could have done it, I don’t see a problem with truthfully stating that this one is doing it (especially if it is the first time it’s been used post-monument).

    (Re. sage-grouse: harm – no fowl.)

    Reply
  4. Because the proposal doesn’t actually involve chaining pinyon and juniper within the Monument?
    https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/88916/130138/158270/AlveyWash-CoalBench-LastChanceScopingNotice_Final1–508v_1-4-18_esigned.pdf. The commercial was misleading because they are not proposing that within the Monument.

    That’s an interesting perspective.. following plan guidelines prior to the election was “following plan guidelines.” Now “following the same plan guidelines” is “work of the Trump Administration.” I suppose you could say that about fuel treatment projects, stream restoration projects, cell phone tower permits, and everything that happens on federal land.

    When was last time you saw “Trump Administration Approves Massive Stream Restoration Project”?

    Reply
    • “All is fair in love and war.” Environmental activism is not separate from politics. And as someone once said, “War is just the continuation of politics by other means.” So of course SUWA and other environmental groups will blame whatever they can on any recent Republican administration, but particularly this one. Why would that surprise anyone here?

      Reply
  5. I’m pretty sure that is how they did this, on private lands, near Panguitch. I was able to see the results, in person, not long after all the clean-up work was completed. It’s really a fascinating and multi-use result but, I doubt that it is all that ‘great for the land’. With the Brian Head fire close to there, too, and all that remaining (and worthless) mortality left, it’s hard to see enough being spent to make a dent in the vastness of vegetation build-up. Fires there will cover a lot of acres but, intensities and impacts will be lessened, compared to California.

    Here’s a view, and be sure to zoom out, level by level, to see the scope of the work.
    https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7868262,-112.4228853,104m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

    Reply
  6. We have been all over the map in commenting on this post, so why not add this: I just read an article in the 2/22/18 Washington Post about “One of the world’s richest troves of Triassic-period fossils has been discovered in an area of Bears Ears National Monument that just lost its protected status….”, here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/22/spectacular-fossils-found-at-bears-ears-right-where-trump-removed-protections/?utm_term=.6b4eaf1922db

    So I decided to Google up connections between the Uranium Industry and the Trumpites. Here is the first thing I found; from here:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/uranium-firm-urged-trump-officials-to-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument/2017/12/08/2eea39b6-dc31-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.d07ece2bdd15

    …[T]he nation’s sole uranium processing mill sits directly next to the boundary that President Barack Obama designated a year ago when he established Bears Ears. The documents show that Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., a subsidiary of a Canadian firm, urged the Trump administration to limit the monument to the smallest size needed to protect key objects and areas, such as archeological sites, to make it easier to access the radioactive ore. …

    Energy Fuels Resources did not just weigh in on national monuments through public-comment letters. It hired a team of lobbyists at Faegre Baker Daniels — led by Andrew Wheeler, who is awaiting Senate confirmation as the Environmental Protection Agency’s deputy secretary — to work on the matter and other federal policies affecting the company. It paid the firm $30,000 between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, according to federal lobbying records, for work on this and other priorities.

    The company’s vice president of operations, William Paul Goranson, joined Wheeler and two other lobbyists, including former congresswoman Mary Bono (R-Calif.), to discuss Bears Ears in a July 17 meeting with two top Zinke advisers. …

    With the Trimpites salivating at the prospect to reinvigorate our nuclear weapons doesn’t it seem likely the this may have played “ bigly” into the shrinking decision? Now we begin to discover what we may yet lose if the shrinkage holds and the Mining operation blossoms.

    Sharon said in the post, “I’m going to call this Trumpfoolery. It’s worth asking, what’s in for SUWA to do this? Don’t they lose more in credibility than they gain in…whatever?”

    Often the shortest distance between two political points is not a straight line. So, SUWA’s “commercial” effort to keep Bears Ears in the public mind may pay off in ways that even SUWA didn’t envision.

    Reply
  7. Date: December 8, 2017 – “Uranium firm urged Trump officials to shrink Bears Ears National Monument”

    Date: February 7, 2018 – “Bears Ears Is Open for Mining But No One Bothered to Show Up”

    Never was or has been about saving Nature. Both ideologies are running neck and neck in the worldview power derby and no matter who wins, Nature and Mankind both lose. *sigh*

    Reply
  8. Kevin: “Never was or has been about saving Nature. …”

    I can’t find the quote but I recall Terry Tempest Williams saying something like: Our attempts to save Nature, our experiences in what remnants of Nature remain, are in the end efforts to save ourselves—from the ever-present bombardment of commercialization and mass-marketing that we live with day in and day out. Of course, Williams would have phrased it more eloquently.

    Here is a quote I did find, that fits well into this discussion:

    “In the desert I often whisper. Junipers are excellent sounding boards. They have been shaped by wing. Rocks seem to care nothing about what I say, yet when I speak to them, they feel porous, capable of receiving my words and taking them in as part of their history of brokenness.”
    ― Terry Tempest Williams

    Reply
    • I am going to repost the Terry Tempest Williams quote from above. I think someone copied it wrong. Using the word “wind” instead of “wing” makes more sense and is in keeping with my experiences in Utah Redrock Backcountry. Here is where I found the quote:
      https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/8155.Terry_Tempest_Williams?page=7

      “In the desert I often whisper. Junipers are excellent sounding boards. They have been shaped by wind. Rocks seem to care nothing about what I say, yet when I speak to them, they feel porous, capable of receiving my words and taking them in as part of their history of brokenness.”
      ― Terry Tempest Williams

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply