logo
‘Enduring Wild' is an engaging travelogue about California public lands under attack

‘Enduring Wild' is an engaging travelogue about California public lands under attack

Josh Jackson's 'The Enduring Wild: A Journey Into California's Public Lands' is a story of adventures across 41 California landscapes, with photos of beautiful places you are unlikely to have seen, in locations ranging from the Mojave Desert to the Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness in Mendocino County. Early on, the author lays out mind-bending stats: more than 618 million acres in the United States are federally owned public land and 245 million of those belong to the Bureau of Land Management.
Public lands, he notes, 'are areas of land and water owned collectively by the citizens and managed by the Federal government.' These lands 'are our common ground, a gift of seismic proportions that belongs to all of us.'
Drive across the United States and consider that 28% of all of that is yours. Ours.
Jackson's assertion that we are all landowners is a clarion call amid a GOP-led push to sell off public land. The shadow of the current assault on public lands weighs heavy while reading this lovely book.
The book has endearing origins. When Jackson could not get a reservation for weekend camping with his kids, a buddy suggested that he try the BLM. Until that moment he had never even heard of the Bureau of Land Management. Yet, 15.3% of the total landmass in California is … BLM.
Jackson starts out with history: All these lands were taken from Native American peoples, and he does not overlook that BLM used to be jokingly referred to as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining. In 1976, a turnaround came via the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which built a multi-use mandate to emphasize hiking and conservation as much grazing and extraction (a.k.a. mining). This effort to soften the heavy use of public lands by for-profit individuals and companies led to the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion and the election of President Reagan. Arguably, we've been struggling with finding the multi-use balance ever after.
Jackson's first BLM foray was out to the Trona Pinnacles in the Mojave Desert, where he and his two older children camped, playing in a wonderland where 'hundreds of tufa spires protrude like drip-style sand castles out of the wide-open desert floor that extend for miles in every direction,' while his wife, Kari, an E.R. nurse, stayed home with their newborn. The pandemic shutdown in 2020 inspired Kari's suggestion, 'Why don't you start going to see all these BLM lands?'
Jackson's love affair with BLM lands was not immediate, as just a few miles into his next hike in the Rainbow Basin Natural Area near Barstow, he was underwhelmed, like he was missing something. A few miles later, he sat and considered a Terry Tempest Williams quote from 'Refuge': 'If the desert is holy, it is because it is a forgotten place that allows us to remember the sacred. Perhaps that is why every pilgrimage to the desert is a pilgrimage to the self.' Revisiting this quote on repeat, Jackson had an emotional shift, deciding to stop hiking and … start walking.
On his next trip to the Amargosa Canyon, Jackson began by reaching out to the Amargosa Conservancy, learning about the Timbisha Shoshone people whose ancestral land this is, about past mining and dozens of plant and animal species. Committed to going at the pace of discovery, he admired the enchanting, striated geology of Rainbow Mountain, cherished creosote, mesquite and the brave diversity of desert flora and was struck by the gaze of an arrogant coyote. On his return, he found that in three hours, he had only traveled … a mile.
Yet it was during this meander that his writing made a steep drop into seeing, feeling, connecting, plunging toward transcendence.
A highlight of the book is a repeat trip to Central California's Carrizo Plain, first during a drought, silenced by its sere magnificence. After the heavy rains of 2022, he joined Cal Poly San Luis Obispo botanist Emma Fryer and was overcome by the delirious beauty of a superbloom, feeling like 'I had wandered into the Land of Oz.' Fryer observed that the drought was so severe that only the hardy native seed survived within the soil, releasing their beauty the moment water allowed them to come to life. Seeing the same place twice was revelatory, both familiar and completely new.
It's hard to tell if the places he visits gets more beautiful over the course of the book or his capacity to appreciate them and share his joy has grown. Despite the frequent paucity of BLM cartographic resources, apparently Jackson never got lost or worried about dropping the thread of a trail. Describing his father, Jackson might as well be talking about himself: 'I have no memories of my dad being worried or fearful in unfamiliar situations.' Nevertheless, toward the end of the book, when he and his hardy father camped next to the rushing Eel River, Jackson did worry about bears breaking into their tent. Fortunately, the bears did not arrive but, inspired by William Cronon's 'The Trouble With Wilderness,' Jackson's heart opened as he realized that 'Nature' is not out there; nature is wherever we are.
Back in Los Angeles taking long walks with his daughter, past bodegas and car washes, he saw jacaranda, heard owls and coyotes and realized the wild had been here all along. An urban sycamore claimed its space regardless of enclosing cement and car exhaust, as spectacular and venerable as any sycamore in the state.
Can the places Jackson visited for his book endure public larceny? He is tracking the answer to this question, real time, on his Substack, where he's currently describing the shocking attempts to sell millions of acres of BLM land.
'It's been a wild few weeks for BLM lands. 540,385 acres in Nevada and Utah were on the chopping block to be sold off,' Jackson recently noted. 'Everyone was talking about the land totals — but no one was showing what the landscapes actually looked like. So, I decided to go see them.'
Great advice: Bring a friend, pack water and go.
Watts' writing has appeared in Earth Island Journal, New York Times motherlode blog, Sierra Magazine and local venues. Her first novel is 'Tree.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship
Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship

Associated Press

time24 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the final days of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have six cases to resolve that were argued between January and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The remaining opinions will be delivered Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts said. On Thursday, a divided court allowed states to cut off Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood amid a wider Republican-backed push to defund the country's biggest abortion provider. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.

Trump judge picks advance
Trump judge picks advance

Politico

time28 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump judge picks advance

Senate Republicans are facing major new issues with their domestic policy megabill after the chamber's parliamentarian advised senators that several provisions they are counting on to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in budget savings won't be able to pass along party lines. Those include major pieces of Medicaid policy, including a politically explosive plan to hold down Medicaid costs by cracking down on a state provider tax — a provision that is expected to have a nine-figure impact on the bill. Republicans now will have to try to rewrite major sections of their Finance bill or potentially leave out key policies. The decisions were detailed in a Thursday morning memo from Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Other provisions now at risk include several GOP proposals to exclude undocumented residents from Medicaid, including by withholding federal funds from states that make them eligible for benefits. The rulings come at a critical time for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other GOP leaders, who are already facing a revolt inside their conference from members wary of the practical and political impacts of the Medicaid changes. Some GOP members have proposed reverting to a less drastic House plan, which would merely freeze the existing provider taxes, though it's unclear if that provision could also pass muster under Senate rules. Even though the ruling is a setback for Republicans — and to their timeline for taking an initial vote on Friday — they were aware based on private conversations with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough that parts of their initial plan were at risk of running aground of the chamber's rules. Republicans view the hurdle right now as 'technical' and are optimistic they will be able to get modified language into the bill. The revised language will still have to be blessed by the parliamentarian as complying with the chamber's rules. 'We knew that it was going to be an interesting conversation and we didn't know for sure how she was going to come down on it. But there are things that we can do, there are other ways of getting to that same outcome,' Thune said on Thursday morning, adding that Republicans might not ultimately get 'everything that we want' on the provider tax but will hopefully be able to salvage 'most of the reforms.' Some House Republicans are calling for Senate leadership to overrule the parliamentarian, an unprecedented step. 'The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people,' Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) posted on X. 'Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters.' Senate GOP leadership has repeatedly shot down that idea and Thune reiterated on Thursday morning that they wouldn't overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats took a victory lap after the ruling, noting the rulings blew a $250 billion hole in the megabill's savings. 'Democrats fought and won, striking healthcare cuts from this bill that would hurt Americans walking on an economic tightrope,' said Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a statement. The parliamentarian also ruled early Thursday against a Republican proposal to prohibit plans from not getting certain Obamacare payments if they cover abortion. There are 12 states that currently require such coverage and insurers have worried they don't have enough time to implement the payment change before the start of open enrollment. There remain some outstanding policies, such as Republicans' effort to defund Planned Parenthood and removal of a nursing home staffing rule. Republicans still aren't closing the door to taking a first vote on Friday. One person granted anonymity to discuss the schedule insisted that the parliamentarian's decision is 'not as fatal as Dems are portraying it to be' and that 'Friday still not off the table.

Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood

Axios

time28 minutes ago

  • Axios

Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood

Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store