From: Alan McGowen <beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!hpindbu.cup.hp.com!alanm>
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:26:07 GMT

Original-Sender: Alan McGowen <hpindbu.cup.hp.com!alanm>

>>>In article <Environet.23Jul1992.5pm1@naughty-peahen.org> jym@mica.berkeley.edu
> (Environet via Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Friends of Mt. Graham and the San Carlos Tribal Council have
>>>>been active in Washington, DC asking members of Congress to help
>>>>halt the telescope project and to protect our mountain.  The
>>>
>>>Or, if you consider the enormous scientific value of this unique
>>>international observatory project, that has minimal environmental
>>>impact on a 23 acre portion of Mt. Graham, is worth fighting for,
>>
>>...how enormous an impact can *another* obervatory have ion a world
>>with many of them?
>
>There are damn few good observatories. EVERY one of them has made at
>least one major discovery. Currently astronomers can wait for years
>for observing time with a major astronomical instrument.
>
>>>Otherwise the hysterical quasi-religious ravings of a few fanatics
>>>will destroy this valuable bit of scientific progress.
>>
>>...your utter disrespect and disregard for those with dissimilar views
>>from your own makes me want to puke...how `few' people are involved?
>>Probably a whole nation of people who find it difficult to keep from
>>being ground under by our culture...
>
>Well that shows how much research you've done into the issue before
>spewing off. The so called San Carlos Tribal Council didn't exist
>two years ago. And as far as anyone can tell, it consists of eight
>people who *claim* to be Apache Indians. The U of A had the permission
>of the established Indian tribal councils before it started this
>project. First there was a protest by Anglos about the Mt. Graham
>Red Squirrel. When it was shown that the observatory would have
>no significant impact on the squirrels, which are a slight varient
>of the common red squirrel, since it used only 23 acres of the several
>square miles of mountain, and when it was discovered that the Mt Graham
>squirrel varient also existed on another mountain, this "Tribal Council"
>convienently appeared to claim religious status for the 23 acres needed
>by the observatory. People with eyes open realize this is just an
>eco-terrorist stunt on the order of Earth First! terrorist tactics.
>
>Gary

Mt. Graham is a biologically special place, a kind of living fossil Pleistocene
ecosystem. It was isolated during the last glacial advance and contains
populations that were established during the previous interglacial.

Such places are even rarer than the dark sites astronomers crave, and the
importance of Mt. Graham had been recognized for some time. When the University
of Arizona decided to use the site for the observatory, a petition was
circulated among biology departments and museums asking them not to do so --
it collected hundreds of signatures from senior scientists including Harvard's
E. O. Wilson.  This was hardly an Earth First! terrorist tactic or a effort
of anti-science fanatics.

Under US law there is no way to protect a threatened ecosystem (and yes, any
such construction in a small ecosystem remnant *is* a threat to it) except by
finding a threatened or endangered species whose habitat the ecosystem is --
the Endangered Species Act protects the habitat of such species, but not
threatened ecosystems per se. Consequently protection efforts have to focus on
finding a species or population to act as legal proxy for the ecosystem: the
Mt. Graham red squirrel was this proxy as the northern spotted owl is for the
endangered old-growth forest groves of the pacific northwest. This is a
roundabout approach necessitated by inadequate protective legislation. A
National Biodiversity Protection Act directly protecting rare and threatened
ecosystem types rather than only species and populations would obviate the
need for such legal devices as the use of the red squirrel: the need
to protect Mt. Graham does not evaporate even if the squirrel is less
threatened than previously thought (which is not established).

Unfortunately this weakness of the ESA is not widely understood, permitting
people like Gary to depict a common use of the law -- to protect a threatened
ecosystem by means of an "umbrella" species (as they are called) -- as a
subterfuge conducted for dishonest reasons. The goal is the protection of
the Mt. Graham ecosystem from disturbance; the closest to that goal we can
come under current environmental law is via some proxy such as the red
squirrel.

That approach seems to have failed, and it may be that someone had the idea
of advancing this tribal claim as a different route to protection. Elsewhere
in the world protection of indigenous people's rights is increasingly
recognized as a key element of ecosystem protection. Perhaps it is time to
establish this principle in the US as well.

------------
Alan McGowen




Newsgroups: alt.native