This post follow up on our discussion here of the “BLM photo kerfuffle” (what is the web version of “imaginary tempest in a teapot”?) (Huff Post 0, E&E news, 1)
Everyone here knows I love me my recreation, but I wonder how some statutory missions are seen (and by whom) to be more OK than others (Parks, yes, BLM and FS no, wilderness, yes, other land allocations, no). Since multiple use was a part of the deal originally done with the western counties (as Ron Roizen has pointed out) and it is statutorily required (AKA the current law of the land), I’d like to explore why this might be the case. For example, when was the last “Multiple Use Art Show” you saw? If cities can be seen as beautiful (where people do stuff), why can’t landscapes where people do stuff be equally beautiful? Or are animals grazing only beautiful if they are wild, or in other countries? How does it work, is scenery with hiking people beautiful, fishing people OK, hunters not so much, ATV-ers questionable, coal mines a no-no, and so on. How about other land uses, like gas lines to hospitals or cell towers?
If I were a Rich Person, I might fund art and photography and writing contests that reflect and honor multiple use. However, there doesn’t seem to be a group that provides that kind of support for the concept of multiple use. Perhaps that’s why it has such a low profile. Or perhaps each “use” sticks to itself, or subdivides into groups (e.g. motorized and not recreation), that compete with each other.
I’m curious what others think about this. To kick this off, I posted a photo of elk grazing on a reclaimed methane drainage well site (methane drainage wells from an underground Colorado coal mine).