Page 2 RAIN June 198 1 LETTERS Dear RAIN, I thought I was getting an uncommonly high bunch of book orders from the Pacific Northwest, and the arrival of the April RAIN explained it. Dave Deppen's review of my plans book was having the desired effect. I'll write to Dave and thank him, but I also want you to know that I'm very grateful for giving Sam and me space in such a powerful little magazine. Sincerely, Malcolm Wells Brewster, MA Dear RAIN , The characterization of World Future Society publications (Jan. '81) as containing "fawning reverence for self-ordained hightech centrist 'futurists'" smacks of arrogant know-nothingism, and is blatantly untrue. I realize that's the image of WFS, but if one bothers to look at The Futurist, one will find in almost every issue an article relevant to decentralists. Marien's monthly Future Survey is indispensable to anyone seriously interested in policy issues related to decentralism and also contains many explicit listings on this topic. The last conference of WFS featured many sessions on wholistic health, alternative economics, and A. T. Just watch this dogmatism that blinds you to useful resources. Dennis Livingston Boston, MA Hello RAIN People, Your publication is thoroughly enjoyed by myself and my friends. Note however that Architects and Engineers Guide to Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings is actually $32.00, not$14.50 as listed in the Feb.! Mar. issue of RAIN. Warm Regards, jef Emery Eugene, OR Dear RAIN, I wish to compliment you on your continued excellence in resource compilation and for providing access. I am a nuclear physicist active in the safe energy movement in Central Virginia. Our group, Piedmont Alliance for Safe Energy, attempts to "walk on two legs" by taking a militant (not militaristic) anti-nuclear, anti-monopolist anti-war position while at the same time promoting conservation, soft solar technologies and community control of the solutions to the energy problem. We have been able in this way to link up with a broad section of our community. As part of our wild dreams we envision a resource center that would bring together innovative technologies from around the state, the country and our own backyard. RAIN's regular arrival helps keep that dream alive as both a model and a resource. Thanks, Donal Day, Ph.D. Charlottesville, VA Dear RAIN, Your statement (Feb.! Mar. issue) that They Came Before Columbus elicits a shift in consciousness deserves to be expanded upon. The response of the RAIN staff to Dr. Van Sertima's book is evidence of the fact that most of us have been brainwashed into accepting the Eurocentric view of history. To justify subjugation of blacks, historians and anthropologists systematically denied the contributions of blacks as innovators in the creation of civilization . Regrettably, lies, RAIN Journal of Appropriate Technology RAIN is a national information access journal making connections for people seeking more simple and satisfying lifestyles, working to make their communities and regions economically self-reliant, building a society that is durable, just and ecologically sound . RAIN STAFF: Laura Stuchinsky, Mark Roseland, Carlotta Collette, John Ferrell, Kevin Bell, Steve Johnson, Steve Rudman, Nancy Cosper. Linnea Gilson, Graphics and Layout. RAIN, Journal of Appropriate Technology, is published 10 times yearly by the Rain Umbrella, Inc., a non-profit corporation located at 2270 N.W. Irving, Portland, Oregon 97210, telephone 503!227-5110. Copyright © 1981 Rain Umbrella, Inc. No part may be reprinted ....'ithout written permission. Typesettin g: Irish Setter Printing: Times Litho Cover Photograph: Ancil Nance
-- - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- omissions lind distortions about these contributions continue today in academic' circles. Besides Dr. Van Sertima, dissenters include such scholars as John G. Jackson, ChancciJor Williams, Cheikh Anta Diop, and Joel A. Rogers. Their publications, as listed in Books in Print, should be explored if RAIN readers wish to know another viewpoint of history . Sincerel y, Robert H . Green Los Angeles, CA Dear Friends, We're very gral:t'ful for your complimentary review of " Preventing Burnout in the PublicInterest Movement" (April RAIN). The response from your readers to that piece has been really quite remarkable-we' re flooded with requests. Thanks much, Bruce Ballenger Northern Rockies Action Group Hciena, MT Iune1981 RAlN Paed Dear Rainfolk, Great to see you again after subscriprion snafu. You're needed now more than ever. And you won't end up like the last guy who used that phrase. Best, Roger Easton Tucson, AZ ACCESS MEDIA Editing Your Newsletter: A Guide to Writing, Design and Production, by Mark Beach, 1980, 76 pp., $7.75 ppd. from: RAIN 2270 NW Irving Portland, OR 97210 More goes into a magazine than meets the eye. Much more. Those of you who are new to RAIN may be unaware that there's not a one of us here on the staff who knew beans about magazines before coming to RAIN . We all had lots of experience in appropriate technology and community self-reliance projects, some writing and so on, but none in magazine publishing and production. In the spirit of RAIN, we learned by doing, made our mistakes, got our feet wet while trying to learn on 'em, and-50 your letters indicate-we're improving all the time. Even so, we still make a blooper now and them (oops!). Ii we'd had Mark Beach's book to refer to, however, our learning process might have been more pleasant and efficient. Beach provides valuable information for all kinds of editors, and tells you everything you've always wanted to know about editing your newsletter: sources for free/cheap supplies and services; instructions for building a light table; tips on writing clea rly; definitions for dozens of printing terms; words of wisdom from experienced editors ; pOin ters on graphics; and-best of all-lots of excellent examples. Last but not least, Beach reminds us of "the basic rule of publishing" (and virtually e~hything else, it seems to me!): "Everything takes longer than you thmk it will and much longer than you think it should." Ain't that the truth l - MR RESOURCES The Harbinger File, by Harbinger Communications, 1981 edition, $6.50 from: Harbinger Communications Peninsula Conservation Foundation 50 Rustic Lane Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Interested in environmental education, citizen participation, or energy organizing? This 125 page guide to "who's who" among Bay Area organizations is an essential resource tool. whether you live in the area or not. The Harbinger File testifies to the value of computers for providing an accessible, easy to up-date system for organizing information. Arranged alphabetically with subject, alphabetical and key area indexes, the directory lists 481 " environmental" organizations doing work in areas such as land use, community affairs, and energy. Each listing is accompanied by a brief description with notations on funding sources and key interest areas. The Harbinger File is one example of Harbinger Communications' attempt to " increase communication, cooperation, and shari ng of resources" among like-minded organizations. They can also be contacted £Or mailing lists and other mformation servic.es. I only wish I'd had a copy of this on my last visit to the Bay Area. -LS From Editi"g YIJllr NEwsletter
Mark Anderson A few years ago traditionally democratic Minnesota found itself in the middle of its own North/South conflict. The North represented farming, logging, and other primarily rural land-based interests while tile South, seat of the state government and Minnesota's metropolitan areas, represented urban interests. The South relies on the wilderness "up north" for its recreation, retreat, and spiritual recuperation from the stresses of the city. The North relies on that same land for its livelihood. The inevitable debates raged across the state; wolves vs. livestock, lumbering vs. recreational la nd use, etc. The key to the argument in Minnesota rested on an assumption, made in the cities, that the issues were simple, solutions equally so, and the Democrats would, as always, resolve the ,situation. Well, the issues were not simple, nor the resolutions, and the Democrats were swept out in an election that stunned the state. There had been no willingness to seek compromises. A few environmental problems are clear-cut. But most are anytiling but clear; and our responses are usually much too simplistic. In Northern California, Upriver Downriver an almost heroic little magazine, tries to look at the problems inherent in a growing, changing world, by focusing in on the knowable microcosm, the bio-region. By exploring concerns on an intimate basis, person-toperson and farm-to-farm, they bllild solid connections that span differences and create communities. This article is excerpted from a more comprehensive study of one such problem. We reprint it with permission from Upriver Downriver, ($6/yrJ, Box 390, Cazadero, CA 95421. - CC by Leonard Charles Five years ago, I didn't believe that coyotes killed sheep, or rather didn't believe they killed more than the odd stray or weakened animal. A self-avowed ecologist, I endorsed the environmentalist belief that coyotes preferred native prey, while sheep kills were the infrequent acts of "bad" coyotes (usually an old or sick one, or one who had lost a paw in some previous encounter with a trap). The coyote is too often the friend of those who have nothing to lose and the foe of those who do. Agreeing with John Muir, I believed sheep to be " hooved locusts," the products of sheepranchers who themselves were notorious for the wanton destruction of wildlife, and overgrazing much of the American West. On the other hand, coyotes were noble predators, wild-even magical-beasts, and part of the balance of nature. I
June1981 RAIN Page 5 Home On The Range? will always remember sitting on a Sierra peak in the full moonlight listening to coyotes explode a neighboring ridge with their searching screams while the short hairs along my spine bristled. In any debate over the relative merits of coyote and sheep, I knew whose side I was on. At that time, I lived with a group of people on, of all places, a sheep ranch in the rough coastal hills of northern California . We operated a small homestead amidst thousands of sheep belonging to a neighbor who held the grazing lease on the ranch. Though he was considered one of the foremost sheepranchers of the region, his approach to land and wildlife management did little to alter my feelings regarding sheep or sheepranchers. The ranch was overgrazed brush and trees were bulldozed from lush hillside flats and pockets; and "pests" (feral pigs) and predators were routinely killed. When this neighbor retired, we decided to take over the grazing lease on the ranch in order to control how the land was used. The ranch was under an Agricultural Preserve contract which required the owner or lessee to produce a specified agricultural income off it each year. Sheep were the most feasible means of producing this income, so we became sheepranchers. While none of us had a strong desire to raise sheep, we decided that if we were going to do it, we would do it right-commercially raise sheep in a manner that enhanced the health of our land. Our first year was quite successful despite many errors and oversights. We produced a lamb crop of 90% (90 lambs for every 100 breeding ewes) in an area where anything above 70% is considered good. During our second year, coyotes moved into the area. That second year our lamb crop dropped to 50% plus we lost 10-15% more ewes than the previous year. This is our third year, and the lambing season is now in progress. So far, we have lost 10-20% of our ewes plus an as yet undetermined number of lambs. Of the seven carcasses I have found this year where some determination of death could be made, all had been killed by coyotes. These sheep were our responsibility and we had expended much time, energy, and care on them. Impotently watching them die made me regard coyotes differently. "What to do about coyotes" became a personal problem rather than an " issue". Sensing that the typical rancher's solution of killing the coyotes at any expense and the environmentalist contention that coyotes are not a serious problem were equally in error, I was left in limbo. One moment I felt like taking my gun and scou ring the hills for a coyote, the next I felt it was the coyote who belonged here and not us and our sheep. The solution, if there was one, seemed to lie in findi ng out as much as possible about coyotes in general, and specifically in this time and place. It was necessary to move beyond the gut feelings that swung me to and fro like a pendulum and do some thinking, some research; this corrspondence relates some of that exercise. One moment I felt like taking my gun and scouring the hills for a coyote, the next I felt it was the coyote who belonged here and not us and our sheep. The record on the rancher's side is totally indefensible-two million coyote killed by government agents between 1915 (when the Federal government became actively involved in "predator control") and 1946. After 1946 the slaughter got worse due to the introduction of 1080, the new"superpoison" so potent that one ounce can kill 20,000 coyotes. Theoretically, the poison was strictly controlled regarding who could use it, how it could be used, and how much could be put out in a given area. The controls were meant to insure that the primary target of 1080 would be coyotes and not "innocent" species. However, the abuses were so gross and widecont.-
-- Pagc6 RAJ June 1?B1 spread that in 1972 President Nixon. of all people, ban ned its use by a Presidential Order. Later that year, rhe EPA withdrew regIstration for all predacides (poisons to kill predators), effectively ending the " poisoning of the West. " The results of that era of poisoning (an era that extends back to the mid 18005 when strychnine (lnd other poisons were used) can neveT be calculated, but we do know that coyotes have been xtirpated from broad stretches of their ancestral range (the high plains) ond that many other specil?b of predators, and even non-predatory mammals, have become extremely rare throughout th high plains and many other parts of the West where poison was used. he ban on predacides by n means stbpped the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (through its subsection caU d the nimal Damage Control- ADC) from killing coyotes. Using traps, aerial hunting. dogs, calling. and other means, the ADC killed 605,000 coyotes between 1970 and 1977 (this is the number reported by the DC for its acrivities and does not include coyotes killed by other agencies. ranchers, varmint hunters, or fur trappers). So in 197 , while the ADC killed 99,000 coyotes, 173,000 were killed for the fur trade (a coyote pelt goes for between $30-50) and unknown numbers were taken by private hunters, never found, or not reported. For the ranching ind try. which would like to ee the coyote on the endangered species list. these deaths are necessary to protect their "marginal" industry. To listen to ranchers. one would come to the conclUSIOn that coyotes were entirely to blame for the many problems of the sheep industry The coyote is the fall guy. not the economic system that forces ranchers to produce large numbers of animals for a marginal profit. That economic system is never hallenged (in facr, rankhers are usually counted among its staunchest proponents) becauJe "there is nothing that can be done about It." You can do something about coyotes: theTe a person can act, can make a difference. The ranchers pomt at the spread o£ coyotes across the ontinent as evidence that they are doing no great harm to the coyote population. Coyotes are now found from asta Rica to Alaska (where they followed the overland-bound gold mmers. feedin on their dead mules). hey are now fount! in every state in the c untryexcept Delaware. The ranchers contend this expansion of range has too often come at the expense of their heep. and that coyotes do not "belong" in much of their present range. A our local trapper puts It, "The Sierra Club is a great advocate of the balance of nature, but for the coyotes in this ounty, I' m the only balancer of nature. " To further bolster their claims. the ranchers poi'1t to the drastic decline in the numbeT of sbeep in this country-28,849,000 in 1960 and 10,774,000 in 1978 (for alifomia the figures are 1.712.000 in 1960 and 915.000 in 1978). Again, the blame is placed on the coyote even though these ranchers know that it is socioeconomic factors far more potent and dead!y than coyoteS that are the Teal cause of this decline. While this destruction of coyotes IS deplorable, it is true that they are adoptable, have expanded their range, and seem in little danger of extinction. It is the destrUction of the other species the " innocent" species, that is especially repugnant. For example, during the years from 1970 to 1977 when 605,000 coyotes were kified, the ADC also killed 36,000 bobcats. 1,450 bears, and 460 mOllntain lions (and these are the numbers reported by an agency that would just as soon not have it known that they accidentally kill animals other than coyotes). Again, many other deaths were either not 10Other places are to be 'used'to produce our goods and if they are screwed up, well, that's too bad. cated or went unreported. These examples are figures or years after the banning of predacides: figures for earlier years would have been far higher. This destruction of wildlife was decried for ears. The v Iving strength of the environmental movement forced the 1972 ban on predacides. though it should be noted that in 1975. the poison odium cyanide was reregistered for use solely by ederal agents with 26 different resrrictions placed on it use. However, the ban on poisons did not stop the environmentalist thrust. They attacked the use of steelleghold traps as inhumane. and destructive to many species of innocent wildlife. Government agents like to praise the steelleghold trap, saying that innocent animals can be released unharmed. Our personal experience with these traps is that an animal would be fortunate to ever regain use of the paw caught in th trap. Finally. environmentalists attacked the sheep industry itself, which 1------------------1 \ I I: I - .. -.~-g -r! - - (II ___"'tI - C .,.-v&.,;"'••.••;;: -:- -_ __ _ , - - ."'" - - - -< - - ~"... --::: --..,:.-----------
is already receiving substantial public subsidies in the form of wool support and low grazing fees on government lands . They asked why sheep ranchers should recei ve government assistance for killing the public's wildlife on public lands. While groups like the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the Defenders of Wildlife attacked on the national leveL local groups hallenged the predator control programs operating within their own counties. The predator control program is a cooperative program jointly financed by the Federal government and cooperating counties. The agreement to authorize the program is renewable annually, and in our county (Sonoma) it is challenged every yea r. Tn these annual debates, the environmentalist arguments range from emotional appeals concerning inhumane methods to the recitation of statistics demonstrating that coyotes cause only minimal damage to the state's sheep population. For example, they quote the government's own statistics showing that coyotes kill only 6% of California's lamb crop each year, and they add that most of these deaths could be avoided by more careful management practices. One of my friend jim' s favorite stories regarding these hea ri ngs involves my Uncle George. George is a sheeprancher; he is invariably a member of the inevitable panel that is formed to examine the county's involvement in the predator control problem. One year he was telling the environmentalist members of the panel about his problems with coyotes, and he invited them to take a drive around his ranch with him so they could see for themselves the magnitude of his problem. After they had completed the tour, George asked them if they had any questions, and one young man turned to him and said, "You should grow soybeans." Every year, our county supervisors renew the contract for predation control with the Federal government. From experience on our ranch, we have found the arguments The coyote is the fall guy, not the economic system. presented by both sides to be only partially correct. Our research and observations show the following: 1. As soon as coyotes moved into the area, we began suffering heavy losses (15-40% of our lamb crop and 10-15% of our ewes per year). The statistics Cited by the environmentalists are simply that-statistics. They say nothing concerning actual events in particular times and in particular places. Losing 6% of the California lamb crop may not seem significant (though even that many is quite a few) until one remembers that many of California's sheep aIe raised in the irngated pastures of the Central Valley where hardly anything real, including predators, exists. The wilder areas suffer correspondingly heavier losses in order to produce the gross statistic of 6%. Look at the statistics for the wilder states-Nevada loses 29% of its lamb crop to coyotes, Colorado 15%, Utah 12%, and New Mexico 11 %. 2. Marauding coyotes eat very little, if any, of the sheep they kill . Of the dead ewes I have found, the most that has been eaten is a few pounds of the internal organs. Why do they kill them? It is our opinion (and the opinions of the local ranchers) that coyotes are much like dogs that get loose around sheep-they just like to chase what runs. This would explain why it is often the healthiest ewe or lamb that is killed, (or they are the mOSt likely to run. Animals lhat do not run and do not otherwise display symptoms of sickness or weakness are not usually attacked. I have noticed much the same thing with dogs and sheep. If the sheep do not run and sland their ground with the doS, the dog often does not know what lO do and leaves the sheep alone. June 1981 RAIN Page? Whatever the reasons that coyotes kiJI, it is our observation that they eat little of their prey, and they never return to a carcass for another meal. There seems little evidence that they kill out of hunger. 4. Coyotes are not native to OUI ranch. Prior to logging, the area supported a climax ecosystem defined by mature redwoods and Douglas-fir. It did not support the wildlife nor habitat necessary for the coyote. After consulting the ethnographies of the area and talking with the older ranchers, we concluded that coyotes did not ltve hcreuntil recently. 5. The belief that it is only the old, weak, or injured coyote that kills sheep is wrong. Besides the observation that these are young, healthy animals being killed, this belief presupposes an illogical premise. One can just see a sleek, young coyote sitting on an outcropping overlooking a pasture fu ll of sheep saying to himself, "No, not one of these fat lambs, they are beneath me; I'll go catch something difficult. " After considering all these findings, I asked myself again , " Is it worth it to raise sheep here, or should we let the land go wild, or what else can we do with the land? What happens if the coyotes run us and our neighbors out of the sheep business? Looking at what had happened to other ranches of our area, there appeared a number of options. 1. The rancher can switch to running cattle. However, cattle are even less profitable than sheep. They make less efficient use of the grassland and are unable to get into the pockets OD the steep hillsides. They cannot overwinter on the grass as sheep can and must be fed expensive hay through the winter. In an area where it takes 1000 acres of land that one owns to rajse enough sheep to make the median income, cattle are not profitable. Loeal ranchers who have switched to cattle do not survive off their ranching income and must conduct logging on their land or work on the outside to supplement their income. In addition, cattle requie a lot more labor, better fences, and more capital. Cattle are at least as ecologically offensive as sheep. They trample fragile microhabitats, and in the summer they transform the creeks into feedlot runoff channels. 2. The rancher can go out of busmess and sell his land. A large neighboring ranch was recently sold to Louisiana-Paciac to be used for timber production. Surely no one can think that any goad can come out of more resource land falling into the hands of such multinationals whose motives are not in the best interest of anything-trees, coyotes, or people. Other local ranches have been sold and divided into smaller parcels-generally 40 acre pjeces, These are then sold as recreational or second-home lots, another form of land use that is symptomatic of a disease that benefits no one. While this disease has many forms or manifestations, itsl"lluse is our acquiescence to socioccological destruction all around us as long as we can afford our own little escape, our own park, our own unsullied and unused place. Or they become the homesteads for " back to the landers. " The latter use has its good and bad points. First, it provides a parcel large enough for people to operate some form of self-sufficient homestead. It provideS'the land base for a movement that is healthy and produces benefits we are just beginning to see and understand. ThlS movement provides the in-place research station that experiments and works with new forms of architecture and design, new energy source~, sustainable agriculture, the recycling of human and other wastes, watershed rehabilitation, hoWstic health, and decentralized politics, all intertwined with conscious attempts to improve the self and clarify its corri!ct role Within the eco-system. Yet, too often the land is not used but becomes the private open space for the owner (as is the case with typical residential subdivision). The Land is left to go wild. The number of people making even 25% of their income (including groWing their own food) off their land is extremely small. 3. Another option is to find some other crop-as the man said, " Grow soybeans. " The soils, terrain; and climate of the region se verely Bmit agricultural potential. Recently, a lew ranchers have begun plantmg vmeyards, and there is some hope the area will becont.-
rage" RAIN Tune 1981 come another quality wine producing area. Another option is reforesting the land to produce commercial timber. However, is there any difference between these practices and raising sheep? Vineyards are sterile systems where little life other than grapes is allowed, and the harvesting of trees is at least as ecologically disruptive as raising sheep. Some might argue this final point, contending that there now exist timber harvesting techniques that are selective and do no great harm to their environs. But even if such methods are practiced in the future and if they do prove unharmful, they should be compared with equally enlightened means of sheep ranching. 4. Finally, there is the explicit goal of many environmentalists and back-to-the-landers to allow the land to go wild, to withdraw it from production. This argument, stated or unstated, pervades much of the debate over coyotes and about land use in general. It is a position I once held, but I have changed my mind. I do not think we can stand up on every occasion and yell save it, preserve it, make it a wilderness area. Though there are definitely times and places where this need be our approach, it cannot be applied to every place, every time. In the coming decades most arable land will be needed for production, and the prime question becomes not whether to use it or not, but how to use it. In the past we have too simply equated use with exploitation and destruction, and countered with the equally simple solution of "Don't use it. " It is time we ceased thinking of land as either used (exploited) or preserved (a park). Whether this need for more productive land comes about or not, it is time we ceased thinking of land as either used (and thus eXe ploited, screwed up, and lost) or preserved (a park). Land can be used to produce and to provide open space, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunity. The English countryside is a proven example. Almost all the land is privately owned and used, yet the public is generally free to use it for hiking or picnicking. When I was there, I often pitched a tent in some field and woke in the morning to the sound of cows grazing outside. The cows did not detract from my "experience," and hopefully my presence did not detract from theirs We also need to look at our motives for moving back to the land, for "reinhabiting" it. Reinhabitation does not mean owning a small park while you earn your income and buy your good outside. To let one's land go wild in this way is to ultimately place a heavier burden on other ecosystems. Other places are to be "used" to produce our goods, and if they are screwed up, well, that's too bad, it's the fault of agribusiness, and we will join the Sierra Club and force politicians to pass laws to prevent them from doing it anymore. Bullshit. Reinhabitation means to inhabit, to use, to use like the native inhabitants once did wisely and reverently, but to use. Rehabilitation should presuppose deriving some sort of land-based livelihood, or at least a more basic economic integration with your place. Otherwise the concept will become another intellectual fad or literary movement. It will have lost touch with the people doing the work. We raise sheep, and try to encourage health and diversity on our land. We still make abstract statements about how other people and corporations should or should not use their land (and such statements will continue to be very necessary), but we also do it ourselves, here, on this place. Fine, you might say, you guys sound o.k., but its your ranching neighbors we are concerned about. Well, these ranchers are hardworking, knowledgeable, pragmatic, conscientious, and skilled people who, in their own way, care a great deal about their land, their place. They pride themselves on producing quality livestock. They care. There are not many people in our society of whom one could say the same. They also do some dumb and damnable things, but so dowe all. If we are to actually begin applying ecological principles to our lives, then we must recognize that the pri me lesson of ecology is that health is roughly equivalent to diversity. To get rid of sheepranchers would be to decrease ecosystem diversity, and by ecosystem I mean the whole system of coyotes, lichen, redwoods, woodpeckers, and people, complete with their potent wishes, dreams, goals, and desires . To deprive this culturaUbiological ecosystem of sheepranchers may be as disastrous as losing coyotes. This is not to defend the destructive practices of these ranchers. But rather than trying to rid ourselves of the ranchers maybe we should concentrate on these practices and find ways to raise sheep in a healthy fashion . Maybe we should try to talk with these ranchers and show them how they are destroying the land they love, how it is the economic system and not the coyote that is their main worry, and show them actual means of dealing with coyotes (and other land use problems) that allow them to produce sheep while at the same time promoting health on their land. Controlling the ranchers' abuses could come from on high via government fiat, but another thrust of centralized power is neither necessary nor desirable. Instead we need to reopen channels of dialogue-not simply a dogmatic, theoretical dialogue, but one based on actual experience laced with practical suggestions and language. The need for example is especially strong ; we have found it very difficult to get ranchers to listen to just talk, especially talk having to do with the words "environment' or "ecology." We are not naive enough to believe our dialogue will cause our neighbor or any rancher to change his mind or practices overnight. The change will be slow, and it will be aided by the continued pressure of nasty environmentalists. If nothing else, we leave the dialogue open and offer practical suggestions. It is our belief that the earth (at least as represented in our local ecosystems) is resilient enough to allow the deaths of a few more predators and some more overgrazing in the hope that in the longer run new practices and options can evolve. It leaves the future open to options for a healthy, used place, a place that provides room for ranchers, conservationists, sheep, and coyotes. Being forced to deal with coyotes has taught us a great deal, and will no doubt teach us more. It has particularly made us look again at where we live- its biology, physical components, history, culture, place in the larger biological1sociological system, and people. It has made us grapple with the concepts of use, preservation, health, and need. The coyote, the shape changer, is an apt metaphor for these lessons. In the Indian collections of Coyote tales, sometimes the coyote is portrayed as good, sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent, sometimes dumb-just like the rest of us. And bad and good are relative, changing; the only true fear, true danger, is statis. Yet the coyote is more that an interesting or pretty metaphor. She is a concrete animal, too often the easy friend of those with nothing to lose and the declared foe of those who do. She is a very real animal with tangible habits and with whom real people must contend. Decisions regarding the coyote involve a blend of conscious and unconscious reactions to the real and supposed manifestations of an animal who does particular things in specific times and places. These decisions involve our thoughts, feelings, and desires as well as more abstract matters of ecology, economics, politics, and ethics. Our minds and ecosystem truly are connected. To see the coyote as an actual animal in a place and deal With her so, not as a generalization or symbol, can lead to a greater understanding of our place and our role in it. The coyote/sheep question is a process. It can be viewed as another skirmish in the ecological debate, or as an invitation to participate. 00 Reprinted with permission from ruralamerica Feb/Mar '81, $10/ yr. from: Rural America, Inc., 1346 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington , DC 20036
June 1981 RA IN Page 9 ~ " ~e,~\~~o"t~ . , ~~G~o"t~ . A Celebration a/Volunteers: How Citizen should be chosen. While a volunteer coordi- is included in a section at the end of this paGroups in the Northern Rockies Can nator is essential to the smooth operation of per. While recognizing the room that exists Work Effectively with Them, by Mary a volunteer program, the involvement of all for debate and refinement, this publication is Lee Reese, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1978, $3.00; staff members in planning, training, and an outstanding resource both for its informaevaluation is still essential. tion on capacity building within the organiAdministration 0/Public Interest Groups Reese suggests that the ideal relationship zation and for offering stimulus to the effort by William L. Bryan, Jr., Vol. 2, No.2, between the organization and the volunteer to evolve effective organizational structures 1977, $3.00; is one of partnership in which both are bene- consistent with our social values. fitted and the organization moves forward. In a somewhat different format than the Membership Recruitment Manual, by Her paper is full of thoughtful and pointed first two NRAG papers, the Membership Bruce P. Ballenger, 1981, $10.00; suggestions for creating that partnership. Recruiting Manual maintains the quality of In the week before a recent board meeting, previous publicatIOns in expanded size. all from: I went through William Bryan's Adminis- Building on a philosophical base, the first Northern Action Rockies Group tration of Public Interest Groups with a fine third of this manual is devoted to the politics 9 Placer Street tooth comb. While offering no cure-all, Bry- of recruirment : why people join citizen Helena, MT 59601 an presents a needed context and several movements, the politics of numbers, and models with which to approach questions of organizing strategies. A brief though excelThere is a commonly held belief among the organizational structure and accountability. lent resource guide to materials and organizRAIN staff about our luck: that when the This ambitious paper is divided into four ing training centers concludes this section. going gets tough someone or something issue areas : decision making, internal com- The remainder of the book is concerned with comes along that pu~hes us back from the munication, " nuts and bolts" (internal office the " how-to's" of recruitment. Techniques edge. In accord with that tradition, these maintenance), and planning. Using a more for conducting direct mail campaigns {letter three NRAG papers (and a fourth on Pre- traditional (hierarchical/participatory) model writing tips, mailing lIsts and costs) ; canventing Burnout reviewed in the April 1981 Bryan explores the role of the executive vassing (doorstep tips) ; opportunity recruitissue of RAIN) arrived in our mail basket at a director or coordinator. His characterization, ingand events (outings, dinners, house critical point. Each has proven useful in our a useful one for any structure concerned with meetings); and phonathons, advertising and internal restructuring, our board meetings, "leadershjp" functions, includes: minimiz- publicity (telephone raps) layout the details and the organization of our volunteer pro- ing procrastination on decisions, being clear for organizers. Lastly, a section on " Pulling gram. Although each manual is directed pri- about expectations of other staff members, it All Together" ties the pieces into a commarily toward citizen-based, public interest delegating responsibility (while refraining posite strategy-an annual recruiting camorganizations, the material contained is gen- from looking over shoulders), being sensitive paign. Bruce Ballenger provides a step-byeralty applicable. about receiving criticism and feedback, and step approach to building a recruitment plan Written by an experienced volunteer, being blunt about evaluating oneself as an from the identification of recruitment goals Mary Lee Reese's A Celebration of Volun- innovator, project person , and administrator (what kind of members, from where, how leers tackles the major obstacles organiza- simultaneously. many) through evaluation of the campaign. tions face in recruiting and maintaining vol- Alternating between structure and process This manual is bursting with invaluable unteers. Although most of us, either concerns, Bryan addresses issues such as the information: success stories, common pitindividually or as organizations, are familiar role of the Board of Directors, guidelines for falls and methods for evaluating costs and with volunteer programs and their benefits, creating personnel policies, and methods for benefits of various strategies. An appendix, careful planning and integration of volun- establishing integrated and regular planning 13 pages long in itself, covers particular teers are often given low priority. In design- practices. While Bryan advocates an active questions such as renewals, maintaining ing or improving existing volunteer pro- role for the Board of Directors (a less than membership records and the emotional prepgrams Reese lists several key steps to common occurrence) , he is less anxious aration for selling yourself and your organiundertake. First, an honest and realistic eval- about pursuing alternative organizational zation. Recognizing t~e increasing imporuation of the work that needs to be done forms . "I feel it is inevitable that some form tance of an active and informed citizenship, should be conducted with an eye toward va- of hierarchical structure will be the basic un- this manual is a must for any organization riety and varying levels of responsibility . derlying mode of decision-making within a considering or currently engaging in memSecond, a thorough plan including job de- constituency -based, staffed organization." bership recruitment. One of the best investscriptions, orientation and training, record A short critique of Administration of Pub- ments I've heard of for this nominal fee. keeping and evaluation procedures should be lie Interest Groups , identifying some of the -LS established. Third, a volunteer coordinator major issues and biases of Bryan's approach, I
PagelO RAIN June1981 Dispersed, Decentralized, and Renewable Energy Resources: Alternatives to NatiD/.al Vulnerability and War, by the Energy and Defense Project, 1980, 340pp., free from: Environmental Policy Institute 317 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20003 Increased use of dispersed energy sources, and a trarlsition to renewable energy sources In the irldustrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential sectors would ultimately relIult in independence from foreign energy sources. In addition, thevulllerability of the centraliz.ed energy system, dependent on a limited number 01 facilities, would be substantIally reduced. With a nuclear cowboy in the White House and a hint of apocalypse in the air, the s urity of America's energy supply has beome an important consideration. Acting on a request by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Energy and Defense Project has made a strong case for an energy future that is reliant on locally based renewable sources. EssenriaIJy, this very timely report is a series of capsu Ie descriptions of the some- times bewildering array of issues and technologies that are a part of creating a secure energy suppJy. The discussion covers a lot of territory, ranging from World War II to Armageddon, and from time-oF-day electrical rates to solar satellites. Most of the summarIes are exceUeht, and this study is very useful as a reference text on energy issues in general, as well as energy security in particular. The description of synfuels r chnology, for example, is an exceptionally clear su rvey of the subject. Along with a discussion of conventional and renewable energy options, the report includes a number of historical precedents and future possibilities with some chilling implications. A single ICBM, for example, detonated 248 miles (400 km) above the continental United States could create an electromagnetic pulse that would severely damage power and communications grids and obliterate computer memory banks nationwide. The last section of the study presents a series of priorities and recommerrdations for enhancing energy security. Sketchy at best, it ser es more as a b3sis for further discussion than as a definitive sratement. But the issues being discussed here cut across many political boundaries, and the urgency of that dIscussion increases with each passing month . The argument th3t renewable energy is a good idea from a national security standpoint has bee.n.kicking around for a few years now, and has been repeated by a number of renewable energy advocates. There are indications that that argument i5 beginning to be taken seriously by the military establishment. The acceptance of r newable energy for strategic reasons, combined with the increasing commercialization and control of con serva tJon and solar technolOgies by corporations that ar often diametrically opposed to the vision of a SOciety based on self-reliance and cooperation, raises the grim possiblity of a future renewable energy society which has lost sight of the fundamental issues raised by the concept of appropriate technology. How much are we willing to give up for a solar future? It should be an interesting debate. -KB Strategic Solar: The Renewable War Debate by Tom Alhanasiou Solar power offers something for everybody, except possibly oil company executives. The last few years have seen the dimming of its radical aura, as claSSically conservative goals like "rebuilding America" and reducing the balance of payments deficit have been recruited into the promotion of soft energy paths. Now, thanks to a new report directed by longtime alternative energy activist Wilson Clark, the solar bandwagon is getting even more crowded-and the tolerant ambience on board is getting somewhat strained. Dispersed, Decentralized and Renewable Energy SOllrees: Alternatives to National Vulnerability and War is a pitch for a solar solution delivered in the terms of national security. To the missile gap, the MIRV gap, the SLBM gap and the bomber gap, Clark has added the sunshine gap. The major findings of Energy, V.ulnerability, War are simple and compelling: "l)Current US energy systems (fuels and electricity) are highly vulnerable, due to requirements for imported resources and due to the centralized nature of the systems themselves. 2)Dispersed, decentralized and renewable energy sources can reduce nationll vulnerability and the likelihood of war by substitutuing for vulnerable centralized resources." These claims are almost certainly true. The Pentagon seems to think so-it started substituting photovoltaics for diesel generators in remote locations a few years ago, and the MX, if it is installed as a land based system, will be largely powered by the wind and the sun. Clark has merely taken the most common fare of the appropriate technology movement-resilience, local self-reliance, decentralization- and incorporated it into the logic of strategic planning But the safe energy movement would do well to evaluate the politics implicit in this argument, its unflinching pragmatism and the servility with which it addresses onl those aspects of the arms race which suit its purposes. Clark wants to recruit military plannerS into the solar energy coalition, and to do so he is more than willing to situate his technical discussions within the specter of "the Russian threat" and to ignore the dynamics of nuclear escalation. Clark cannot have missed the substantial bod of data and analysis indicating that it is the U. S. which has consi tently been responsible for escalating the arms race- that it ha a long-term offensive nuclear strategy, and that it is in terms of this strategy that all civil "defense" programs must bl' seen Unfortunately, political realities like these are out of the scope of his report. There is nothing whatsoever here that would be even remotely embarrassing to the men Clark hopes to sway, for his strategy is quite simply to gain a hearing by saying only what the language of power allows. We may be permitted some doubt that this approach will avert catastrophe, or even, as Clark seems to think, undermine some of the deeper forces pushing us towards war. He is correct when he points to the dependency on "strategic' materials that high tech energy production engenders. But the coming war, when it arrives, will have more causes than simply the need of the empire for Persian Gulf oil and South Afncan beryllium. A conversion to a decentralized economy less dependent on the pillage of the Third World will, in itself, do little to avert the logic of militarism, or to undermine the economic and political dynamics of global domination. As for Clark's program for solar civil defense, it is no different than any other civil defense program: a strategy for increasing "survivability", no matter that its intentions makes the use of our arsenals incrementally more thinkable.
June] 98] RAIN Page]] ACCESS CONSUMERS Help: The Indispensable Almanac of Consumer Information 1981, edited by Arthur E. Rowse, 620 pp., $9.95 from: Everest House Publishers 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This guide is loaded with facts and figures that most almanacs don't even mention: special corporate lobby links to Congress; nuclear plant safety records; hospital cost comparisons; listings of food additives, etc. The best sections are on individual rights and self-help resources, including an extensive listing of national and local community change/public interest organizations. There's lots of interesting tidbits on both the problems of "our ripoff society" and strategies on how to deal with it. Reasonably priced and easy to read, this almanac may prove to be very useful in these years of massive de-regulation and Reaganomics. We can use all the "help" we can get. -SR Lemon-Aid, 1981 edition, by Phil Edmonston, 681 pp., $10.95 from: Beaufort Books 9 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 If you're in the market for a car this year, you won't be taken for a ride with this guide. Edmonston, a veteran consumer crusader and author of eleven best-sellers on the car ttade, is straightforward with his criticism from the very first sentence: "The automobile industry is founded on fraud, deception, and a wholesale disregard for public safety." The most interesting parts of the book are the dictionary of dirty tricks on the car repair trade, the chapter on beating the system when buying a used car, and the section which describes successful examples of consumer pressure tactics on the auto industry. There are also ratings for more used car models than I ever knew existed. Unlike the "independent engineer" testing system used by Consumers Union and others, Edmonston's rating methods rely heavily on consumer complaints. A must for the auto junkie, Lemon-Aid can satisfy anyone who is thirsty for a car. -SR NUKES Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link, by Amory and Hunter Lovins, 1980,168 pp., $10.00 from: Friends of the Earth Books 124 Speak Street San Francisco, CA 94105 In many ways, Energy/ War is both an extension and an update of the debate that began with the publication of Soft Energy Paths, offering a summation of the last two years or so of the Lovins' work (portions of which have appeared in the November '79 and January '81 issues of RAIN) that begins where most discussions of the nuclear power and nuclear weapons link leave off. Not only is the nuclear weapons proliferation that results from nuclear power programs an immense threat to world political stability, but the entire economic, environmental, and technical rationale that supported the development of civilian reactor technology in the first place has been called into question over the last couple of years. It now appears that nuclear power, which today delivers about half as much energy in the United States as does firewood, is unlikely to get out of the firewood league in this century if ever. Nuclear forecasts worldwide are still plummeting-more for economic than for politi ca l reasons. The USSR, for example, achieved only a third of its nuclear goal for the 1970s, half for the past five years, despite the unlimited power of the state to crus h dissent . The first Soviet pressurized-water rea cto r is five years behind schedule. It is equally revealing that the pattern of decline in official nuclear forecasts for the United States and for Canada is virtually identical, even though there have been essentially no procedural barriers to building reactors in Canada. Clearly the cause of the collapse is far deeper and more universal than mere U.S . regulatory hassles. The collapse of nuclear technology as a viable option has led to the exciting prospect of a society that is reliant on the wise use of renewable energy: So powerful, indeed, is th e convergence between political and economic logic that it is hardly surprising how quickly a soft energy path is starting to implement itself through existing political and market processes. But the question remains whether a sustainable energy future will be achieved relatively smoothly by choice, or disruptively by necessity after the fOSSil-fuel bridge has been burned in a vain pursuit of other solutions that do not work. This book is clearly directed at a wider audience than Soft Energy Paths. The writing style is considerably less technical (although it is as fully referenced and footnoted as ever) and the topics discussed here cover a lot of ground pretty quickly. Although the thesis should be familiar to veteran energy watchers, the insights into the nature of the nuclear link should hold your interest pretty well. If you are trying to explain to someone why a soft energy path is essential, Energy / War is a good place to start. -KB Atom's Eve: Ending the Nuclear Age, an Anthology, compiled and edited by Mark Reader with Ronald A. Hardert and Gerald L. Moulton, 1980, 285 pp., $5.95 from: McGraw-Hill 330 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 If you have relatives or friends who have started to ask the right questions about nuclear safety since Three Mile Island but are still unclear about the broader implications of a nuclear future , here is a book to help get them thinking-and acting. The editors of Atom's Eve aim it squarely at this marginally anti-nuclear segment of the population, commenting in their introduction that " the true issue of the nuclear debate is not whether isolated atomic reactors ... can be made safe, but rather the sort of lives people will be forced to lead while they secure them." The implications of the nuclear fuel cycle for people's health, safety, civil liberties, employment and military secu ri ty are described in brief, stimulating, non-esoteric articles by such authors as Barry Commoner, Jacques Cousteau , Helen Caldicott and Denis Hayes. Several " action guides" are included to direct the reader to related publications and to antinuclear organizations. Atom's Eve is an excellent primer. It is also an example of something we need to see a lot more of: quality, no-nonsense anti-nuclear reading material, directed toward a broad audience which has for too long received careful attention from industry and utility propagandists. - JF
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz