Latest news with #environmentaladvocacy
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Proposed Wasaga Beach sale could set 'awful precedent,' environmentalists say
The Ontario government's plan to hand parts of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park over to the local town for tourism development could set an "awful precedent" for other provincially owned parks, environmental advocates say. Premier Doug Ford announced in May that his government would give $38 million to Wasaga Beach to help revitalize the town's tourism scene and support future housing. Part of the proposed plan includes selling the town Beach Area 1, Beach Area 2, New Wasaga Beach and Allenwood Beach. The amount of land being transferred is nearly 60 hectares, a spokesperson for the town said in an email to CBC Toronto. In late June, the province posted a proposal to amend both the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA) and the Historical Parks Act to support the land transfer. The proposed changes are cause for concern, said Laura Bowman, a lawyer with the environmental law charity Ecojustice. Although the language of the proposed amendments isn't yet public, Bowman said there's already a legislative approval process in place within the PPCRA to dispose of lands greater than 50 hectares, or one per cent of the total park or conservation area in question. So, the desire to change the law suggests there's a desire to dispose of other areas in the future, she said — and to do so in a way that bypasses a legislative vote and avoids scrutiny. "This government has a history of trying to dispose of park lands and public lands," Bowman told CBC Toronto. "I don't find it plausible, frankly, that this is a one-off thing," Bowman said. "This is possibly setting a further precedent in that direction, and the developments are getting bigger and bigger." A spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment denied that the Wasaga Beach changes are more than a one-off. "No other changes are being considered beyond those included in the [Environmental Registry of Ontario]," Alexandru Cioban said in an email to CBC Toronto. Tourism push within ecologically sensitive area The vision for Wasaga Beach is one of the province's latest and largest waterfront tourism redevelopment projects in Ontario. Transferring parts of the provincial park to the town would be especially positive for local residents and businesses, said Wasaga Beach Mayor Brian Smith. "Our vision is and always has been to become a year-round destination here in Wasaga Beach that celebrates the longest freshwater beach in the world, but also the entire ecosystem here," he told CBC Toronto. From an ecological perspective, changes to the beach and the way it's maintained now could have devastating consequences, said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence. Wasaga Beach is home to the piping plover, a federally and provincially recognized endangered species, Gray said, and the beach dunes across the park play an important role in the region's river system and as a buffer for flooding. "Once these areas are removed from the park, those protections will no longer be in place," Gray said. "We'll set an awful, awful precedent if it's allowed to go ahead." Smith said his "guarantee" is that the town will act as stewards for the environment during the redevelopment process. But Bowman said she isn't confident that it can be done without the "Herculean efforts" provincial conservation scientists made to protect the plovers and their habitat. Even raking the beach and keeping it manicured will prevent the endangered bird from eating, nesting, and successfully hiding from prey, she said. "It really does potentially put the survival of that species in jeopardy," Bowman said. "These are important pieces of land for conservation and biodiversity and important recreation areas for the people of Ontario." Bill 5 sparked environmental concerns All of the environmentalists CBC Toronto spoke to for this story drew a connection between these plans and the government's recently passed Bill 5. The law, which passed in June, removed provincial protections for certain aquatic species and migratory birds — ones that are also protected under the federal Species at Risk Act — and made it easier for the government to exempt companies or projects from complying with provincial laws or regulations. Bill 5, on top of other controversial development flashpoints, such as the sale of Ontario Place and the Greenbelt scandal, has led to a deterioration of trust in the province's willingness to put the environment ahead of investment opportunities, according to Jan Sumner, executive director of Wildlands League, who worked with her organization and Sierra Legal Defence Fund (now Ecojustice) on the current PPCRA. "This is just another example of the Ford government feeling like they can step over the people of Ontario and hand out public land to private developers," Sumner said. The Ministry of Environment spokesperson said via email that the government's support of Destination Wasaga will help "preserve local heritage, create jobs, boost tourism, and drive long-term economic growth across the region." Cioban said changes to the PPRCA would specifically relate to Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, but he declined to provide specific language or details about when proposed PPRCA amendments would be made publicly available.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Proposed Wasaga Beach sale could set 'awful precedent,' environmentalists say
The Ontario government's plan to hand parts of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park over to the local town for tourism development could set an "awful precedent" for other provincially owned parks, environmental advocates say. Premier Doug Ford announced in May that his government would give $38 million to Wasaga Beach to help revitalize the town's tourism scene and support future housing. Part of the proposed plan includes selling the town Beach Area 1, Beach Area 2, New Wasaga Beach and Allenwood Beach. The amount of land being transferred is nearly 60 hectares, a spokesperson for the town said in an email to CBC Toronto. In late June, the province posted a proposal to amend both the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (PPCRA) and the Historical Parks Act to support the land transfer. The proposed changes are cause for concern, said Laura Bowman, a lawyer with the environmental law charity Ecojustice. Although the language of the proposed amendments isn't yet public, Bowman said there's already a legislative approval process in place within the PPCRA to dispose of lands greater than 50 hectares, or one per cent of the total park or conservation area in question. So, the desire to change the law suggests there's a desire to dispose of other areas in the future, she said — and to do so in a way that bypasses a legislative vote and avoids scrutiny. "This government has a history of trying to dispose of park lands and public lands," Bowman told CBC Toronto. "I don't find it plausible, frankly, that this is a one-off thing," Bowman said. "This is possibly setting a further precedent in that direction, and the developments are getting bigger and bigger." A spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment denied that the Wasaga Beach changes are more than a one-off. "No other changes are being considered beyond those included in the [Environmental Registry of Ontario]," Alexandru Cioban said in an email to CBC Toronto. Tourism push within ecologically sensitive area The vision for Wasaga Beach is one of the province's latest and largest waterfront tourism redevelopment projects in Ontario. Transferring parts of the provincial park to the town would be especially positive for local residents and businesses, said Wasaga Beach Mayor Brian Smith. "Our vision is and always has been to become a year-round destination here in Wasaga Beach that celebrates the longest freshwater beach in the world, but also the entire ecosystem here," he told CBC Toronto. From an ecological perspective, changes to the beach and the way it's maintained now could have devastating consequences, said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence. Wasaga Beach is home to the piping plover, a federally and provincially recognized endangered species, Gray said, and the beach dunes across the park play an important role in the region's river system and as a buffer for flooding. "Once these areas are removed from the park, those protections will no longer be in place," Gray said. "We'll set an awful, awful precedent if it's allowed to go ahead." Smith said his "guarantee" is that the town will act as stewards for the environment during the redevelopment process. But Bowman said she isn't confident that it can be done without the "Herculean efforts" provincial conservation scientists made to protect the plovers and their habitat. Even raking the beach and keeping it manicured will prevent the endangered bird from eating, nesting, and successfully hiding from prey, she said. "It really does potentially put the survival of that species in jeopardy," Bowman said. "These are important pieces of land for conservation and biodiversity and important recreation areas for the people of Ontario." Bill 5 sparked environmental concerns All of the environmentalists CBC Toronto spoke to for this story drew a connection between these plans and the government's recently passed Bill 5. The law, which passed in June, removed provincial protections for certain aquatic species and migratory birds — ones that are also protected under the federal Species at Risk Act — and made it easier for the government to exempt companies or projects from complying with provincial laws or regulations. Bill 5, on top of other controversial development flashpoints, such as the sale of Ontario Place and the Greenbelt scandal, has led to a deterioration of trust in the province's willingness to put the environment ahead of investment opportunities, according to Jan Sumner, executive director of Wildlands League, who worked with her organization and Sierra Legal Defence Fund (now Ecojustice) on the current PPCRA. "This is just another example of the Ford government feeling like they can step over the people of Ontario and hand out public land to private developers," Sumner said. The Ministry of Environment spokesperson said via email that the government's support of Destination Wasaga will help "preserve local heritage, create jobs, boost tourism, and drive long-term economic growth across the region." Cioban said changes to the PPRCA would specifically relate to Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, but he declined to provide specific language or details about when proposed PPRCA amendments would be made publicly available.
Fox News
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Unearthed chats shed light on cozy ties between judges, climate activists
EXCLUSIVE: An environmental advocacy group accused of trying to manipulate judges organized a years-long, nationwide online forum with jurists to promote favorable info and litigation updates regarding climate issues – until the email-styled group chat was abruptly made private, Fox News Digital found. The Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) was founded in 2018 by a left-wing environmental nonprofit, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and pitches itself as a "first-of-its-kind effort" that "provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law." But critics, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, say CJP is funded by China and left-wing activists for one purpose. "They fund CJP to train judges," Cruz said during a June hearing. "So, quote, unquote, train in climate science and make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics. Then, these left-wing bankrollers turn around and fund the climate litigators who will bring these bogus cases before those same judges that they've just indoctrinated. "This is like paying the players to play and paying the umpire to call the shots the way you want." The group, however, says it provides "neutral, objective information to the judiciary about the science of climate change as it is understood by the expert scientific community and relevant to current and future litigation." One of the efforts CJP launched included rolling out an email-styled listserv by which leaders from the Climate Judiciary Project could message directly with judges, documents obtained by Fox News Digital show. The listserv was launched in September 2022 and maintained until May 2024, according to the documents. A portal website page for the forum was previously publicly available, with an archived link saved in July 2024 showing there were 29 members in the group. "Judicial Leaders in Climate Science," the archived website link reviewed by Fox Digital reads, accompanied by a short description that the group was a "Forum for Judicial Leaders in Climate Science to share resources." A link to the forum now leads to an error warning, stating, "Sorry, but that group does not exist." Fox News Digital obtained the archived chat history of the forum, which detailed numerous messages between at least five judges and CJP employees trading links on climate studies, congratulating one another on hosting recent environmental events, sharing updates on recent climate cases that were remanded to state courts, and encouraging each other to participate in other CJP meet-ups. One message posted by Delaware Judge Travis Laster, vice chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, features a YouTube video of a 2022 climate presentation delivered by a Delaware official and a Columbia University professor that focused on the onslaught of climate lawsuits since the mid-2000s. It also included claims that such lawsuits could one day bankrupt the fuel industry. Laster shared the video in the group with a disclaimer to others: "Please do not forward or use without checking with me" as the video is "unlisted" on YouTube and not publicly available. A handful of other judges responded to Laster's video and message, praising it as "great work." "This is great work/great stuff, Travis; congrats on a job well-done, & thank you so much for sharing this!," Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Scheele responded, according to documents obtained by Fox News Digital. Another judge in a Nebraska county court added that he had not watched the video yet but said the state court administrator's office was interested in a similar program focused on "litigation and climate change." The Nebraska judge said he "may need to lean on all of you for guidance and direction." The judges' correspondence on the forum included their typical email signatures, showcasing their job titles as "judge" as well as which court they preside over. The climate activists also posted messages directed to the judges on the listserv, Fox News Digital found, including a science and policy analyst at the Environmental Law Institute posting a lengthy message on Nov. 15, 2023. The message encouraged judges and climate activists alike to review the government's publication of the Fifth National Climate Assessment that year, which the environmental crusader said contained "good news and bad news." "The bad news is that the impacts of climate change are being felt throughout all regions of the United States, and these impacts are expected to worsen with every fraction of a degree of additional warming. The report finds that climate change will continue to affect our nation's health, food security, water supply, and economy," the message read. "The good news is that the report also notes that it isn't too late for us to act," the message continued, before encouraging the 28 other members of the group to go over CJP's climate curricula, such as "Climate Science 101" and "Climate Litigation 101," and send over any feedback. "As you know, our Climate Judiciary Project exists to be as beneficial to judges as possible, so any insights you might have for us would be very helpful!" the message added when asking members to review the curricula. In another message, CJP's manager, Jared Mummert, sent a message to the group in May 2024 praising the judges for their mentorship of a second group of "Judicial Leaders in Climate Science" – which included 14 judges from 12 states and Puerto Rico – as part of a partnership between CJP and the National Judicial College. The National Judicial College provides judicial training for judges across the country from its Reno, Nevada, campus. "We want to give a special 'thank you' to those who are serving as mentors to this second cohort!" the message read. It added that CJP was ramping up its number of "engagement opportunities" to "every six months for both cohorts of judges to come together to share updates and connect with one another." Fox News Digital reached out to five of the judges on the listserv for comment, four of whom did not respond. Scheele's office told Fox News Digital on Thursday that he first joined the 2022 National Judicial Conference on Climate Science, more than two years before he was appointed to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, after another delegate was unable to attend. "At the last minute, when another appointed delegate was unexpectedly unable to attend, Judge Scheele was asked by Indiana's state court administration to fill in as Indiana's representative, and he accepted the invitation. As is normal in conferences attended by our judges, this conference addressed emerging, hot button issues that might come before the courts," Scheele's office said. It added: "Judge Scheele does not recall any substantive communication on the 'listserv' mentioned. He, like all of our Court of Appeals of Indiana judges, is dedicated to the unbiased, apolitical administration of justice in the State. He, like all of our judges, educates himself on emergent topics in the law and applies his legal training to evaluate the legal issues before him." CJP, for its part, said the now-defunct email list was created in September 2022 to help members of its Judicial Leaders in Climate Science program communicate and network with one another for the duration of the program. The one-year program, established by CJP in coordination with the National Judicial College, "trains state court judges on judicial leadership skills integrated with consensus climate science and how it is arising in the law," the group told Fox News Digital. Judges quietly working behind the scenes with climate and environmental activists have drawn criticism from conservative lawmakers in recent years as climate-focused suits increased, including those who have accused CJP of manipulating the justice system. Cruz, for example, has been at the forefront of condemning CJP for joining forces with the National Judicial College. Cruz argued in a 2024 opinion piece that he is "concerned that this collaboration means court staff are helping far-left climate activists lobby and direct judges behind closed doors." Cruz again railed against CJP during a Senate subcommittee hearing in June, called "Enter the Dragon – China and the Left's Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance," where the Texas Republican argued there is a "systematic campaign" launched by the Chinese Communist Party and American left-wing activists to weaponize the court systems to "undermine American energy dominance." CJP, Cruz said, is a pivotal player in the "lawfare" as it works to secure "judicial capture." Cruz said CJP's claims of neutrality are bluster, and the group instead allegedly promotes "ex parte indoctrination, pressuring judges to set aside the rule of law, and rule instead according to a predetermined political narrative." Judges have previously landed in hot water over climate-related issues in group forums, including in 2019, when a federal judge hit "reply all" to an email chain with 45 other judges and court staff regarding an invitation to a climate seminar for judges hosted by the Environmental Law Institute. The judge was subsequently chastised by colleagues for sharing "this nonsense" and suggested it was an ethics violation, while others defended that flagging the event to others was not unethical. Fox News Digital spoke with Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith, who explained there has been an overarching increase in courts promoting trainings for judges on issues they would eventually be asked to preside over impartially, pointing to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' DEI trainings for judges during the Biden era. The office works as the administrative agency for the U.S. court system, handling issues from finances to tech support. "There's a problem right now with many courts putting forward, seeming to take sides on issues they will be asked to address through the trainings that they're putting forward. And this was a particular problem with the DEI trainings that different federal district courts were putting on, that the Administrative Office of U.S. courts were sponsoring. It appeared that the judiciary itself was encouraging violations of the Constitution, violations of federal law, and most problematically was taking sides in issues they would eventually be asked to sit and preside over impartially," he said. Justice Department officials did not respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment on the CJP program in question, or other efforts to educate judges more directly on climate issues. Still, news of the program's outreach comes as the U.S. has seen a sharp uptick in climate-related lawsuits in recent years, including cases targeting oil majors Shell, BP and ExxonMobil for allegedly engaging in "deceptive" marketing practices and downplaying the risks of climate change, as well as lawsuits bought against state governments and U.S. agencies, including the Interior Department, for failing to adequately address risks from pollution or adequately protect against the harm caused by climate change, according to plaintiffs who filed the suits. CJP's educational events are done "in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards," a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement. "Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards." "CJP's work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience," this person added. The number of climate-related lawsuits in the U.S. has increased significantly in recent years, including during the last two years of the Biden administration. To some extent, the educational efforts led by CJP appear to have been enacted in earnest to address real questions or concerns judges might have in presiding over these cases for the first time – many of which seek tens of millions of dollars in damages. The Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to grant a request from ExxonMobil and Chevron to transfer two Louisiana lawsuits from state to federal court. While the move itself is not immediately significant, it will be closely watched by oil and gas majors, as they look to navigate the complex landscape of environmental lawsuits, including lawsuits filed by state and local governments. Oil majors typically prefer to have their cases heard by federal courts, which are seen as more sympathetic to their interests. Since Trump's re-election in 2024, the cases appeared to have died down, at least to an extent. U.S. appeals courts have declined to take up many challenges filed on behalf of plaintiffs in several states who have sued claiming government inaction and failure to act to protect against known harms from fossil fuel extraction and production in the U.S. CJP's program is run by ELI in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center, the latter of which bills itself as the "research and education center" for judges across the country. Their work includes partnerships with myriad outside groups beyond the CJP aimed at informing and educating judges on a range of issues, including neuroscience and bioscience, constitutional law, and bankruptcy, among other things. According to their website, the effort is important to help judges understand relevant case law and ethics, sentencing guidelines, and other types of issue-specific programs they might be encountering for the first time. Fox News Digital has previously reported on CJP's cozy relationship with judges, including when the group's president, Jordan Diamond, detailed in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor in September that the group "doesn't participate in litigation, support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case." A subsequent Fox News Digital review published in December found that several CJP expert lawyers and judges continued to have close ties to the curriculum and are deeply involved in climate litigation, including tapping insight from university professors who have also filed several climate-related amicus briefs. "CJP doesn't participate in litigation, support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case," an ELI spokesperson defended in a comment to Fox News Digital in December. "Our courses provide judges with access to evidence-based information about climate science and trends in the law." Fox News Digital's Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this piece.
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Clock is ticking: Prince of Wales issues appeal for urgent global action to protect oceans
The UK's Prince William issued an appeal Sunday for urgent global action to protect oceans during a speech at the Blue Economy and Finance Forum in Monaco.
The Guardian
18-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
This land is their land: Trump is selling out the US's beloved wilderness
In 1913, on a remote, windswept stretch of buffalo-grass prairie in western North Dakota, Roald Peterson was born – the ninth of 11 children to hardy Norwegian homesteaders. The child fell in love with the ecosystem he was born into. It was a landscape as awe-inspiring and expansive as the ocean, with hawks riding sage-scented winds by day and the Milky Way glowing at night. As a young adult, he decided to study the emerging field of range science in college, which led him to Louisiana – where he was so appalled by the harsh conditions faced by sharecroppers that he volunteered with a farmers' union. After serving stateside in the army air forces during the second world war, he took a job in Montana with the US Forest Service, monitoring cattle and sheep grazing on public lands. He took to his work with high morale. Unfortunately for Peterson, his career took off at the height of anti-communist hysteria, at which time the second red scare, also known as the McCarthy era, was well under way. In the midst of this culture war, Peterson's environmental advocacy and concern for exploited workers made him a glaring target, a man with a bullseye on his back. In 1949, two anonymous informants falsely accused Peterson of having been a communist, setting off an invasive loyalty investigation. Montanans from across the political spectrum rallied to his defense. So did the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and conservationist Bernard DeVoto, who was so moved by the case that he penned the most controversial column of his 20-year run at Harper's Magazine: Due Notice to the FBI. In it, DeVoto delivered a bold defense of civil liberties in the face of growing authoritarianism – one of the earliest national articles to openly criticize both FBI director J Edgar Hoover and senator Joseph McCarthy. As the red scare escalated, Peterson's loyalty was investigated a second time, and then a third when another informant told the FBI he was 'behaving like a homosexual'. Peterson was fired from the Forest Service in early 1953. He lost his family's ranch in Montana's Bitterroot valley (not far from where the show Yellowstone is filmed). Peterson's wife left him and was committed by her family to an asylum. A judge awarded custody of his three children to the state, placing them in foster care. A granddaughter, whom I located and interviewed, told me the children were repeatedly sexually abused; the two youngest later died by suicide. Peterson's 2004 obituary, penned by his surviving daughter, states that he was 'blacklisted by the infamous Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn and J Edgar Hoover group of legal thugs'. That the one in the middle was Donald Trump's mentor underscores the connection between then and now. Peterson was targeted during a low chapter in American history – one that feels eerily familiar today. It was a time when reactionaries in Congress plotted to sell off public lands – just as they do now. When the US Forest Service was under intense pressure to clear-cut more trees – just as it is now. When public lands faced destruction in the name of energy production – just as they do now. More than 14,000 people were forced out of government jobs during the red scare – a mass purge that mirrors the targeted layoffs we're witnessing now. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has made no secret of its ambitions: a ramp-up of logging and drilling across public lands, and a sweeping plan to shrink up to six national monuments in the south-west. Taken together, a larger strategy comes into focus: Republicans are laying the groundwork to sell off some of the nation's most treasured public assets. And it begins with gutting the numbers and the morale of the very people who protect them. Bill Wade boasts nine decades of perspective on the US's public lands. The son of a ranger, the 84-year-old was raised inside Mesa Verde national park in Colorado and went on to have a long career in the agency, eventually serving as supervisor at Shenandoah national park in Virginia. Now retired, Wade serves as the executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, which makes him an excellent ear to have on the ground. He has a bracing take on conservation workers and our public lands. Morale, he says, is probably the lowest he's seen in his 58-year career. That's a reasonable take, given that the message from the Trump administration is, to paraphrase the novelty slogan: 'Purging will continue until morale improves.' February 2025 brought the 'Valentine's Day massacre', when the misnamed 'department of government efficiency' fired 1,000 National Park Service employees and 3,400 from the US Forest Service. In March, courts ruled the firings lawless. More buyouts followed. In May, the administration signaled it would slash the agency's budget by 40% – the biggest cut in its 109-year history. With parks having boasted record visitation in 2024, this year they are already reporting shortages in visitor center hours; campground accessibility; sanitation; interpretation, such as ranger-led hikes; and environmental stewardship, such as trail maintenance and wildfire prevention programs with youth conservation volunteers. None of the personnel cuts make good business sense. The National Park Service oversees resources that cost $3.5bn annually to manage, yet generate more than $55bn in revenue. Protecting such a profitable national asset should be a no-brainer. Despite that, conservation workers have been in effect barred from buying new supplies costing more than $1. Already, the National Park Service has about one employee for every 17,000 visitors, said Timothy Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. 'They're breaking the system,' he said. 'They're traumatizing the workforce.' Many worry about the brain drain that will follow. That younger generation's malaise was touched on in a poignant letter by the US Forest Service chief, Randy Moore, who announced his resignation in March. 'If you are feeling uncertainty, frustration or loss, you are not alone,' Moore wrote. 'These are real and valid emotions that I am feeling, too. Please take care of yourselves and each other.' Read between the lines: I understand the damage this all does to morale. His leaving was conspicuous, coming at the start of Trump's anti-diversity zealotry. Moore is the first Black person to lead the forest service. Was his replacement, Tom Schultz, chosen because he is the same race as every other chief in the service's 116-year history? Or because the former timber industry executive is the first chief never to have served in the forest service? (Or both?) Whitehouse explained that it wasn't just that the conservation workers were fired, it was how they were fired: the dismissed employees had received a form letter which stated that they 'failed to demonstrate fitness or qualifications for continued employment'. Conservation workers deal in hard, natural truths: the forest is on fire, the river is in flood, the bear is there. The 'failed to demonstrate fitness' letters are false by any degree of objective measurement. Wade, the experienced ranger, described it with a phrase used for totalitarian propaganda. 'All of this amounted to,' he said, 'a big lie.' We have been here before. The question goes, why are there public lands? Why protect them? The start of the answer is put nowhere better than the Bible. Genesis, 2:10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden … When Europeans reached the eastern shores of North America, they found a climate with rain amounts similar to the lands they had left. Land ownership in Europe was feudal, with kings and lords controlling vast expanses. In democratic opposition, Americans distributed small farms and plantations to a far wider array of its citizenry. As the nation expanded westward from the original 13 colonies, Thomas Jefferson maneuvered the public domain into the control of the federal government, so states would not war with each other over land. So far as the rainfall remained similar to Europe, this American settlement system was tenable. But when settlers crossed the Mississippi River in the 1800s, they confronted a new climate: desert. Across vast expanses of the US west, the majority of the precipitation collects as wintertime snow on the tops of high mountains. As was figured out by the ancestral Puebloans, who irrigated farmland and built towns and cities in the American south-west for centuries before Columbus sailed, the key to survival is getting the summertime meltwater from mountain snowpack safely and cleanly down into the valleys where lie the farms, ranches, towns and cities. For this to happen – for our national garden to be watered – there must be healthy mountain forests and grasslands. These mountains and prairies, the vast majority of which were never claimed by homesteaders and never belonged to any state, would become the bedrock of public lands conservation. It is a wonderful fact of nature that some of the most magnificent scenery is where rivers begin: at the tops of mountain ranges. This is why our awe-inspiring national parks – Yosemite, Yellowstone – became the modern world's first protected public lands. It's always worth remembering the words of writer Wallace Stegner: national parks are America's best idea. But national parks proved far too small to protect all the water the dry west needs. At the turn of the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt made the US the first modern nation to enshrine public lands conservation as a national priority. He created 150 national forests in the west to ensure a consistent supply of water and timber. Soon followed the first national wildlife refuges and the first national monuments. Protecting only parks and forests proved tragically insufficient. Come the 1930s, farmers over-plowing dry prairies and deserts caused the Dust Bowl – the worst single-event environmental disaster yet in the nation's history. To protect the soil-saving, deep-rooted native grasses, in the 1930s President Franklin Roosevelt created the Grazing Service. The protection of grasslands, prairies, deserts and canyonlands heralded a completeness of conserved landscapes. The counterattack to undo public lands conservation began at that point. By the 1940s, some western cattle kings and sheep barons, historically used to monopolizing western ranges, attacked the Grazing Service. Their tool was the Nevada senator Pat McCarran – a role model for senator McCarthy. McCarran toured the US west staging hearings about public lands in which he brazenly gave priority and preference to cattle kings and sheep barons. A McCarran aide explained that a purpose of these hearings was to affect conservation workers 'psychologically' – to hurt their morale. McCarran would order employees to attend his hearings and forbid them to speak, while encouraging his curated audiences to shout insults at them. Mass layoffs followed – similar to the purge we saw this February. Disparaged and defunded, the service was amalgamated in 1946 into a new, enfeebled and industry-friendly agency called the Bureau of Land Management. The political exploitation of fear, paranoia, conspiracy, false accusations, show trials, refusal of fair play and apocalypticism could be called McCarranism as accurately as McCarthyism. McCarran's work still fills our headlines today: it was he who legalized peacetime concentration camps in the case that the president declares an emergency – which Trump does frequently. And it was he, over President Harry Truman's veto, who passed the 1952 law that Trump is using to jail foreign-born students without arrest warrants. If history offers any hope, it may be worth looking at what happened after McCarthy was shamed off the national stage. In the 1960s and early 1970s came an American renaissance in conservation, and with it the passage of historic environmental legislation. With broad, bipartisan support came laws like the Clean Air Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act. Federal conservation workers today may prove as resilient as those who withstood the red scare – who themselves proudly showed they had the same tenacity and psychological toughness as their forebears in other times of national duress. We only have to look back in time to see plenty of examples. In 1910, the forest service was in its infancy when its understaffed and under-equipped employees battled a deadly Northern Rocky Mountains forest fire as big as the state of Connecticut. In earlier decades, members of the army's famous all-Black cavalry, the 'Buffalo soldiers', showed the mettle to protect western national parks through an era of resurgent white supremacy. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps put more than 3 million poor, jobless and hungry young men to work planting 3bn trees. The morale and spirit they developed in those hard times is reflected in the unofficial motto they developed: 'We can take it!' But we are also running out of time. Trees take centuries to grow, ecosystems take millennia to congeal, and this climate is the only livable one humankind has ever known. An unmerciful fact about public lands is, like some store signs say: all sales are final. A few years after Peterson was fired, his case was re-examined; he was found never to have joined the Communist party. He was offered his old job back. Because of the way he had been treated, he refused. They had broken his morale. This is the point of what is going on. At stake is our Eden. The Bible also has a story about what happens if we lose that. Nate Schweber is a journalist and the author of This America of Ours: Bernard and Avis DeVoto and the Forgotten Fight to Save the Wild
