On 12/3/11, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bryce Canyon National Park belongs to everybody, not just the locals, and they don't have the right to despoil our heritage. Also it isn't the locals' land -- if it were, there would be no EIS. The BLM is involved because that's federal Bureau of Land Management land, something that also belongs to all of us. There are few places left in the United States with such clear, dark skies, and that are easily accessible. The clarity of the night sky is important to many thousands of visitors, as we know from ALCON. One of the aspects of the national park experience is to enjoy nature, and to damage the views from the park diminishes that enjoyment. Some things are worth saving and clear dark skies are near the top. I've often thought how sad it is that few people have seen the Milky Way. Why throw away one of the best remaining areas where we can see it. You mentioned that it's only for 25 years -- first, I don't believe that because leases usually are extended and other developments can grow up around mines. But more to the point, how many of us are going to be actively star-gazing in 25 years? It's the blink of an eye to the universe but it's more time than many of us have left. Just my 2 cents. -- Joe
Joe, I'm actually on your side intellectually, but not invested as emotionally. I've seen my culture take the low road too many times to think that the average American will agree with us. To further the Devil's Advocate position: Virtually all national parks were created by legislation from Washington, despite a majority not in favor of them, by locals. The ultimate good comparison is the fate of the American Indian and their traditional lands. The land really did not belong to the European settlers and American founders, but it was taken anyway and high and mighty words were spoken to justify an unjust act. Your final statement gives away your true motivation. You don't want to lose a dark-sky resource in your own lifetime. "More to the point", it's not about losing a "heritage" or resource for the future now, is it? By your own admission. Remember that lights can always be turned out. As energy becomes more expensive, wasted energy will become more of an issue. I like to think that as a society, we can one day get a handle on effective vs. ineffective lighting and actually reverse some of the light pollution we now experience. Organizations such as IDA are eduacting industry and government on this issue. Progress seems slow, in terms of a human lifetime, but such lifetimes are insignificant when compared to the lifespan of a species as a whole. Either we get smart about the wasteful and uneccological aspects of poor lighting, or we die like lemmings. I'll accept nature's judgement. We kill ourselves off slowly or quickly, or get our collective sh*t together. Nature doesn't care, either way. We get the fate that we deserve. Fifty good men won't spare Sodom this time, I'm afraid. It's all, or none. As astronomers and nature lovers, we are in the minority in this culture, and probably will be for some time. I don't see any way, short of a revived Monkey Wrench Gang mentality, of keeping the ecconomic interests of society at bay in the short term, at least as far as resource development in the American west. Kudos to those of you in the front ranks, and with the energy and resources to fight the good fight.