Latest news with #Stegner
Japan Today
22-05-2025
- General
- Japan Today
Why protecting wildland is crucial to American freedom and identity
By Leisl Carr Childers As summer approaches, millions of Americans begin planning or taking trips to state and national parks, seeking to explore the wide range of outdoor recreational opportunities across the nation. A lot of them will head toward the nation's wilderness areas – 110 million acres, mostly in the West, that are protected by the strictest federal conservation rules. When Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, it described wilderness areas as places that evoked mystery and wonder, 'where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.' These are wild landscapes that present nature in its rawest form. The law requires the federal government to protect these areas 'for the permanent good of the whole people.' Wilderness areas are found in national parks, conservation land overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, national forests and U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges. Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives began to consider allowing the sale of federal lands in six counties in Nevada and Utah, five of which contain wilderness areas. Ostensibly, these sales are to promote affordable housing, but the reality is that the proposal, introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, is a departure from the standard process of federal land exchanges that accommodate development in some places but protect wilderness in others. Regardless of whether Americans visit their public lands or know when they have crossed a wilderness boundary, as environmental historians we believe that everyone still benefits from the existence and protection of these precious places. This belief is an idea eloquently articulated and popularized 65 years ago by the noted Western writer Wallace Stegner. His eloquence helped launch the modern environmental movement and gave power to the idea that the nation's public lands are a fundamental part of the United States' national identity and a cornerstone of American freedom. Humble origins In 1958, Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to examine outdoor recreation in the U.S. in order to determine not only what Americans wanted from the outdoors, but to consider how those needs and desires might change decades into the future. One of the commission's members was David E. Pesonen, who worked at the Wildland Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. He was asked to examine wilderness and its relationship to outdoor recreation. Pesonen later became a notable environmental lawyer and leader of the Sierra Club. But at the time, Pesonen had no idea what to say about wilderness. However, he knew someone who did. Pesonen had been impressed by the wild landscapes of the American West in Stegner's 1954 history 'Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.' So he wrote to Stegner, who at the time was at Stanford University, asking for help in articulating the wilderness idea. Stegner's response, which he said later was written in a single afternoon, was an off-the-cuff riff on why he cared about preserving wildlands. This letter became known as the Wilderness Letter and marked a turning point in American political and conservation history. Pesonen shared the letter with the rest of the commission, which also shared it with newly installed Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall. Udall found its prose to be so profound, he read it at the seventh Wilderness Conference in 1961 in San Francisco, a speech broadcast by KCBS, the local FM radio station. The Sierra Club published the letter in the record of the conference's proceedings later that year. But it was not until its publication in The Washington Post on June 17, 1962, that the letter reached a national audience and captured the imagination of generations of Americans. An eloquent appeal In the letter, Stegner connected the idea of wilderness to a fundamental part of American identity. He called wilderness 'something that has helped form our character and that has certainly shaped our history as a people … the challenge against which our character as a people was formed … (and) the thing that has helped to make an American different from and, until we forget it in the roar of our industrial cities, more fortunate than other men.' Without wild places, he argued, the U.S. would be just like every other overindustrialized place in the world. In the letter, Stegner expressed little concern with how wilderness might support outdoor recreation on public lands. He didn't care whether wilderness areas had once featured roads, trails, homesteads or even natural resource extraction. What he cared about was Americans' freedom to protect and enjoy these places. Stegner recognized that the freedom to protect, to restrain ourselves from consuming, was just as important as the freedom to consume. Perhaps most importantly, he wrote, wilderness was 'an intangible and spiritual resource,' a place that gave the nation 'our hope and our excitement,' landscapes that were 'good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it.' Without it, Stegner lamented, 'never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.' To him, the nation's natural cathedrals and the vaulted ceiling of the pure blue sky are Americans' sacred spaces as much as the structures in which they worship on the weekends. Stegner penned the letter during a national debate about the value of preserving wild places in the face of future development. 'Something will have gone out of us as a people,' he wrote, 'if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed.' If not protected, Stegner believed these wildlands that had helped shape American identity would fall to what he viewed as the same exploitative forces of unrestrained capitalism that had industrialized the nation for the past century. Every generation since has an obligation to protect these wild places. Stegner's Wilderness Letter became a rallying cry to pass the Wilderness Act. The closing sentences of the letter are Stegner's best: 'We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope.' This phrase, 'the geography of hope,' is Stegner's most famous line. It has become shorthand for what wilderness means: the wildlands that defined American character on the Western frontier, the wild spaces that Americans have had the freedom to protect, and the natural places that give Americans hope for the future of this planet. America's 'best idea' Stegner returned to themes outlined in the Wilderness Letter again two decades later in his essay 'The Best Idea We Ever Had: An Overview,' published in Wilderness magazine in spring 1983. Writing in response to the Reagan administration's efforts to reduce protection of the National Park System, Stegner declared that the parks were 'Absolutely American, absolutely democratic.' He said they reflect us as a nation, at our best rather than our worst, and without them, millions of Americans' lives, his included, would have been poorer. Public lands are more than just wilderness or national parks. They are places for work and play. They provide natural resources, wildlife habitat, clean air, clean water and recreational opportunities to small towns and sprawling metro areas alike. They are, as Stegner said, cures for cynicism and places of shared hope. Stegner's words still resonate as Americans head for their public lands and enjoy the beauty of the wild places protected by wilderness legislation this summer. With visitor numbers increasing annually and agency budgets at historic lows, we believe it is useful to remember how precious these places are for all Americans. And we agree with Stegner that wilderness, public lands writ large, are more valuable to Americans' collective identity and expression of freedom than they are as real estate that can be sold or commodities that can be extracted. Leisl Carr Childers is Associate Professor of History, Colorado State University. Michael Childers is Associate Professor of History, Colorado State University. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Indian Express
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
German legislator's concealed meeting with Putin confidants sparks security concerns
German legislators are demanding an explanation from a senior Social Democrat on the parliamentary committee that scrutinises the work of the intelligence services after he held undisclosed talks with close associates of Russia's president. Ralf Stegner, a member of the Bundestag's Parliamentary Control Committee, was among politicians from the SPD and Chancellor Friedrich Merz's conservatives who took part in the April meeting in Baku. Among those they met on April 13 in the Azerbaijan capital was former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Subkov, head of Gazprom's supervisory board, and Valery Fadeyev, EU-sanctioned chair of Russia's human rights council. On both sides, the participants were former members of the Petersburger Dialogue, a forum founded in 2001 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The forum was officially disbanded in 2021 after Russia's crackdown on several participating civil society organisations. Four German participants – Stegner, Ronald Pofalla – who once led former Chancellor Angela Merkel's office – and two former regional ministers – confirmed in a statement to Reuters that they had been at a 'private' event in Baku. 'Talking even in difficult times of growing tension is a fundamental principle of good foreign policy,' they wrote, adding that the 'confidential' meeting was not secret, and none of them had a public mandate to be there or had been paid for their presence. The meeting, first reported by ARD public television and newspaper Die Zeit, took place at a time when Russia's ties with the EU are in a deep freeze over its invasion of Ukraine. The timing raised questions over the apparent willingness of some politicians to seek rapprochement even as Moscow wages war on a German ally. In Stegner's case, critics also raised security concerns: Members of the parliamentary control committee have privileged, confidential access to the work of Germany's foreign and domestic security services, both of them heavily involved in gathering intelligence relating to Russia and the war. 'This is a quite impossible and irritating development that must immediately be cleared up,' Konstantin von Notz, the Green chair of the committee, told Der Spiegel. Roderich Kiesewetter, a conservative member of the committee, said Stegner should explain himself, while liberal European legislator Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann said Stegner should not be nominated for a new term on the committee. 'People in such a key role have to be above all suspicion,' she told Funke newspapers. 'That is not the case for him.'
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
German lawmaker in hot water over talks with Russian representatives
A Social Democrat lawmaker in Germany has been forced to defend himself against criticism for taking a trip to Azerbaijan for talks with Russian representatives, which came to light after a media investigation. "One of the principles of good foreign policy is that, even and especially in difficult times of increasing tensions, conflicts and wars, dialogue contacts in all parts of the world and also with Russia should be maintained," Ralf Stegner wrote in a joint statement with three former members of the parliament on Friday. German media had reported on the trip to Baku which Stegner and others took on April 14. Stegner told dpa that he was surprised at the polemical reaction, which had "no grounds." "It's important to have contact for there to be any dialogue at all," he said. Stegner stressed that he did not go as a government representative, but a freely elected member of parliament. It was "based on private initiative and organized and financed informally," he said. No sensitive security information or even secret information was exchanged, he said. The deputy chairman of the parliament's intelligence oversight panel, conservative Roderich Kiesewetter, told reporters previously that Stegner "would have to face some questions" on the visit. A senior politician from the liberal Free Democrats, Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, demanded that Stegner be should not be allowed to remain a member of the oversight panel.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
German legislator's concealed meeting with Putin confidants sparks security concerns
By Thomas Escritt BERLIN (Reuters) - German legislators are demanding an explanation from a senior Social Democrat on the parliamentary committee that scrutinises the work of the intelligence services after he held undisclosed talks with close associates of Russia's president. Ralf Stegner, a member of the Bundestag's Parliamentary Control Committee, was among politicians from the SPD and Chancellor Friedrich Merz's conservatives who took part in the April meeting in Baku. Among those they met on April 13 in the Azerbaijan capital was former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Subkov, head of Gazprom's supervisory board, and Valery Fadeyev, EU-sanctioned chair of Russia's human rights council. On both sides, the participants were former members of the Petersburger Dialogue, a forum founded in 2001 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The forum was officially disbanded in 2021 after Russia's crackdown on several participating civil society organisations. Four German participants - Stegner, Ronald Pofalla - who once led former Chancellor Angela Merkel's office - and two former regional ministers - confirmed in a statement to Reuters that they had been at a "private" event in Baku. "Talking even in difficult times of growing tension is a fundamental principle of good foreign policy," they wrote, adding that the "confidential" meeting was not secret, and none of them had a public mandate to be there or had been paid for their presence. The meeting, first reported by ARD public television and newspaper Die Zeit, took place at a time when Russia's ties with the EU are in a deep freeze over its invasion of Ukraine. The timing raised questions over the apparent willingness of some politicians to seek rapprochement even as Moscow wages war on a German ally. In Stegner's case, critics also raised security concerns: Members of the parliamentary control committee have privileged, confidential access to the work of Germany's foreign and domestic security services, both of them heavily involved in gathering intelligence relating to Russia and the war. "This is a quite impossible and irritating development that must immediately be cleared up," Konstantin von Notz, the Green chair of the committee, told Der Spiegel. Roderich Kiesewetter, a conservative member of the committee, said Stegner should explain himself, while liberal European legislator Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann said Stegner should not be nominated for a new term on the committee. "People in such a key role have to be above all suspicion," she told Funke newspapers. "That is not the case for him." (Additional reporting by Andreas Rinke, editing by Philippa Fletcher)
