This winter a woman in Steamboat Springs spotted an elk on her property. When she went out to take a picture, the animal startled and ran into a gully where it got stuck in snow up to its neck. Convinced the , she called game wardens, who told her to leave the animal alone. By morning, she鈥檇 gathered friends to dig it out, but it died before they could help.

The story illustrates a longstanding ethical dilemma. Many people, guided by truly good intentions, can鈥檛 stand to see an animal die, especially if their own actions鈥攍ike approaching the elk to take a picture鈥攁re what led to its predicament.听 Even land managers will occasionally try to rehabilitate an animal that鈥檚 been hit by a car. However, this way of thinking is a slippery slope. A reasonable person could make the case that most frontcountry animal injuries are in some way caused by humans鈥攚hether that鈥檚 due to our encroachment on habitat, or climate change applying new and deadly pressure. But regardless of the cause of injury, wildlife professionals鈥攊ncluding rangers and wardens鈥攁re pretty firm about letting nature take its course, even if that means the animal dies. After all, when one beast falls, another is fed.

It鈥檚 tempting to set such a black-and-white rule. It鈥檚 even more tempting to Monday-morning quarterback. Take one infamous case in which a do-gooder came across a lone shivering baby bison in Yellowstone. He loaded it into the back of his SUV and brought it to the rangers. As it turned out, the baby wasn鈥檛 actually abandoned. But now that it had taken a joyride in a Toyota Sequoia, its mother wouldn鈥檛 take it back, and given the near certainty of its violent death in the jaws of a predator, rangers instead chose to euthanize it. The good Samaritan was fined $119 for his efforts, and his empathy got the bison killed. Critics decried the driver. They also called the case clear-cut, even though it may not have been to the do-gooder at the time.

Other cases are much murkier. My wife worked for years as a field biologist. On one gig, her team was installing small sections of fence around young aspen trees in the backcountry of a national park to cage them off and test how much elk were browsing. But one day a rutting elk scooped up the metal fencing with its antlers where it got entangled. When the cage then flopped onto the elk鈥檚 back, it started, and sprinted out, thinking it was being attacked by some beast it could not see.

What to do? Obviously this was a case where human activity had put the elk in danger. It had no hope of removing the cage from its antlers. The researchers dropped their work and ran after the elk, also radioing game wardens to explain the situation. By the time the wardens arrived with their tranquilizer darts, the elk had wisely waded into the middle of the river鈥攖his is how the animals escape predators. To tranquilize the elk in the river would cause it to drown. So everyone sat down and waited an hour or so. Finally when the elk emerged, they tranquilized it, and were able to remove the metal cage and let the elk go on its merry way. A successful outcome. And yet one might wonder how many federal dollars were spent on this single mission, and astutely note that this kind of treatment must be the exception, not the rule.

So here鈥檚 another case from my wife鈥檚 annals of animal rescue. She and her partner were live-trapping mice for another experiment. But somehow two ground squirrels found their way into the traps. In the cold Montana summer night, they鈥檇 gone into torpor, a sort of short-term hibernation from hypothermia and dehydration. Left to the elements, the squirrels would probably have died. So these young wildlife-lovers took action: They unzipped parkas and each placed a squirrel against their belly to warm them up. It seemed sensible enough. But as they hiked on to the next trap her friend began to wonder aloud. 鈥淚 think there鈥檚 something dangerous about squirrels, but I can鈥檛 quite recall what it is.鈥� He snapped his fingers. 鈥淣ow I remember: They carry bubonic plague!鈥�

The thought of a sharp-fanged and sharp-clawed rodent coming back to life in immediate proximity to their internal organs made the two rethink their plan. So they returned to their truck, and lay the two squirrels on the driver鈥檚 seat where the early morning sunlight through the windshield heated the torpored furballs. They shut the door and went back to work. Returning a few hours later, the creatures were. . . gone? Later when they returned the truck to the yard, the mechanics discovered the squirrels had somehow found their way out of the cab and into the undercarriage. While the mechanic was able to dislodge the animals, it鈥檚 safe to say that this intervention may not have served the squirrels well.

I think it鈥檚 worth discussing how these rescue attempts affect humans, too. Compared with a century or two ago, humans now have virtually no contact with non-domesticated animals. (We have very little contact with farm animals, either.) And I think if we believe that other species have a right to exist, then it might be useful鈥攅ven profound鈥攖o once in a while brush up against them. I don鈥檛 accept the view that 鈥渢he environment鈥� is entirely separate from civilization, or that humans should never disturb or visit it. I tend to think humans can鈥攁nd should鈥攈ave some sort of connection to other species besides donating money to some group that will protect them. Practicing kindness to another species is important. And while I get that it鈥檚 possible that our kindness may actually harm that species, it鈥檚 important to try (within reason), nonetheless. It reminds us that we, too, are part of creation.

Here鈥檚 an analogy. In the modern welfare state, citizens basically agree to pay taxes in order to distribute their wealth to those who need it. This approach has in many European nations. But it also relieves many individuals from the ancient act of charity鈥攐f offering an actual hand to the poor, tired, and downtrodden. So while this technocratic approach produces better results (look at the in the United States compared to Europe) something immeasurable is lost when so many people no longer feel the need to give personally to those in need. When such contributions are just deducted from your paycheck, we become disconnected from the act of charity. We lose the opportunity to give back in the way that that is taught by most world religions, as well as the sort of social-class intermingling that might, in theory, make for better democracies.

To bring the analogy back to animals: wildlife professionals have determined that regular humans should leave nature alone. Let the rangers and wardens figure it out, they say. And yet, some basic part of our humanity is lost if, coming upon a bird with a broken wing, we just walk past, thinking, I must not meddle with the environment. But always deferring to the government professionals can place us in an ethically dubious position. We may end up feeling powerless, unable to perform an instinctual act of kindness. At some level, training ourselves to turn a blind eye to pain has to be bad for the soul.

As for the woman who watched the elk die in the snowdrift near her house: I understand why the warden advised her to leave the animal alone. Elk can be dangerous if they feel they are in danger, striking with their huge hooves and potentially endangering their human rescuers. In any case, the agencies decided to let the elk die, and it did. My point isn鈥檛 to say the agencies made the wrong decision, just that their decision doesn鈥檛 appear to be ethically superior to that of the woman who eventually (and unsuccessfully) attempted to save it.

I also feel that her instinct to try to gather her neighbors to dig out the elk would likely have forged a connection to the nonhuman world that is rare and precious. Remember that humans lived for millennia in intimacy with wild animals, both as hunters and as prey. Maybe we are safer if we stay away from injured animals. But surely something has been lost by rupturing that connection.

Finally, most people who鈥檝e been watching the state of the planet for the past decades are feeling a strong sense of guilt. Humans are causing the extinction of hundreds of other species. It may be easy to ridicule the man who packed a baby bison into his car. It may not have been an educated decision, or even necessarily the right one. But let鈥檚 not belittle his motives.

Mark Sundeen teaches environmental writing at the University of Montana. Got an ethical question of quandary of your own? Send it to sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com.

The post When Is It OK to Rescue a Wild Animal? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

knows the outdoor industry better than almost anyone. He’s held leadership positions with Vail Resorts, Outward Bound, and VF Corporation, taught outdoor recreation economy at the University of Colorado’s business school, and even guided clients to the summit of Mount Everest and other 8,000-meter peaks. But Benitez, who is currently the Vice President of Government Affairs for Lululemon, is best known as the, a position he took on in 2015.听

In 2024 Benitez co-authored a book alongside听国产吃瓜黑料 contributor Frederick Reimers about his experiences in outdoor recreation titled .听In this excerpt, Benitez discusses his time in Colorado state government.听

My gratitude for all that outdoor recreation has given me was behind the most unexpected turn of my life鈥攇overnment service. As the son of an immigrant and an indifferent student in my youth, I was shocked to find myself working directly with the governor of Colorado.

In 2015, then-governor (now senator) John Hickenlooper asked me to lead the state鈥檚 first Office of the Outdoor Recreation Industry. The idea was to be a government liaison and advocate for Colorado鈥檚 outdoor-recreation businesses. I鈥檇 be working on behalf of Summit County鈥檚 ski resorts and for hunting guides in the town of Rangely, as well as with growing gear manufacturers like Big Agnes and established retail giants like REI, who has a flagship store in Denver.

Helping those businesses thrive meant improving access to outdoor recreation across the state by working with state parks and the national forests to build more trails, more bike paths, and even more whitewater rapids. In the same way the airline industry relies on the FAA and air-traffic controllers, and the transportation industry on highway departments, the outdoor industry needs government oversight of the places where we play.

Yet as honored as I was to be asked, the opportunity required sacrifice, a step back in pay, and a move from the mountain community of Eagle, where my wife and I had, beginning in 2014, made a home while we were still dating. We wrestled with the decision, but the chance to be of service to the industry and community won the day. I got to work.

Growing a Vital Part of the Colorado Economy

In my four years鈥攆rom 2015 to 2019鈥攁s the director of Colorado鈥檚 Office of the Outdoor Recreation Industry, we grew that sector of the economy from $23 billion to $63 billion, recruiting businesses and individuals who saw the state as a great place to work, and more importantly, live. Promoting Colorado鈥檚 recreational amenities to visitors and prospective businesses wasn鈥檛 enough, though. I realized that ours was an industry that needed more support from academia, in the same way that the medical profession, the engineering professions and tech rely on universities to train and cultivate new talent.

We needed to educate workers who could make the outdoor-recreation economy more resilient, and more importantly, sustainable. I urged Western Colorado University, in Gunnison, to create the nation鈥檚 first MBA focused on outdoor rec in 2018, and had a hand in the creation of the University of Colorado Boulder鈥檚 Masters in Economics of the Outdoor Recreation Economy, and Denver University鈥檚 Leadership in Outdoor Recreation Industry program. My industry was growing up.

I wasn鈥檛 the only one realizing it. There was a national movement for the outdoor industry to be more involved in protecting our playgrounds and nurturing the essential conditions for our businesses. One tool was to establish the importance of our industry to the national economy. The numbers are huge.

In 2021 visits to national parks alone generate $20.5 billion in direct spending at hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and other amenities in nearby gateway communities, supporting over 322,600 jobs and generating over $42.5 billion in total economic output. The outdoor-recreation economy generates an $862 billion impact every year.

Between the likes of gear manufacturers such as Columbia, whitewater-rafting outfitters in West Virginia, and bike shops in Moab, Utah, we account for 4.5 million jobs, the majority of them in small businesses. We represent 1.9 percent of the GDP, which is bigger than the automotive and the pharmaceutical industries combined.

In fact, the outdoor industry is larger than the mineral-extraction industry, which illustrates the stakes perfectly: Isn鈥檛 a hiking trail just as important to our economy as an oil well? Why should our industry have to rely on a constellation of nonprofits like the Access Fund and the Sierra Club and the Appalachian Mountain Club to ensure that our businesses can continue to thrive by building and maintaining our recreation sites and our trails? We need to treat recreational infrastructure the same way we treat transportation infrastructure.

This type of investment works. According to the State of Virginia, in 2019, for every $1 of general tax revenue provided to state parks in Virginia, the parks brought in $17.68. That same year, the National Park System generated more than 30 times as much as the federal government invested. Look at Columbus, Ohio, which in 2023 converted an abandoned limestone quarry into a 180-acre park featuring mountain-bike trails, lakes for paddling, and a via ferrata rock-climbing course along the quarry鈥檚 150-foot-tall cliff face. That new park follows the city鈥檚 2009 investment in a climbing wall open to the public that is amongst the nation鈥檚 largest. 鈥淥ur goal with that park was to keep urban young professionals in Columbus,鈥� the city鈥檚 park operations manager told 国产吃瓜黑料 magazine.

Columbus is putting into play a trend that Salt Lake City has been benefiting from for years. In 2021, a University of Utah study looked at Utah鈥檚 booming tech sector. The study found that 85 percent of tech workers working in the state chose to stay despite being offered a higher salary elsewhere, citing the outdoor-recreation opportunities as their motivation. For those workers who left and then returned, 62 percent said outdoor recreation was their primary reason, compared to 49 percent who said that family was the most important factor.

We aren鈥檛 just talking about rock climbers and bird watchers. The outdoor-recreation economy encompasses motorsports fans too, featuring big-ticket items like Jet Skis, powerboats, and quadrunners. Dirt bikers like me value long, challenging trails, where we can get away from suburbia and leave our problems behind, taking a mental-health break.

We are realizing that outdoor recreation has benefits beyond just fun. Studies are increasingly showing that time outside is a critical component of physical and mental health. Even just living near green space can provide a stunning array of advantages. In one Danish study, researchers used satellite data to assess children鈥檚 exposure to green space, correlating each child鈥檚 place of residence with nearby parks. Children who lived in neighborhoods with more green space had a reduced risk of depression, mood disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and substance abuse later in life.

Those with the lowest levels of green-space exposure during childhood had a 55 percent higher risk of developing mental illnesses than those who鈥檇 grown up with abundant green space. (Now imagine those same, city-bound kids with access to safe, green-lined pathways and a bicycle.) That was just one of the studies referenced in the Colorado Outdoor Rx Report my office produced illustrate to government departments the importance of allocating resources for better access for outdoor recreation, whether in the wild or in urban planning.

To get the word out about outdoor recreation鈥檚 value for our health and our economy, I knew there needed to be more people like me working in state governments. With the governor鈥檚 blessing, I personally met with delegations from a half dozen states including Montana and Michigan, urging them to create their own positions. The number of offices rose from two to eight in just three years and included states from both sides of the political spectrum, from Wyoming to Vermont. That felt significant in such a partisan political climate.

A Plan to Create More State Outdoor Recreation Offices

Realizing we鈥檇 be more effective all pulling in the same direction, we drafted the Confluence Accords. The document is an operational charter for state outdoor-recreation (Orec) offices and stands on four distinct pillars: economic development (keep this economy strong); conservation and stewardship (without the wild places, there would be no reason to buy that new fleece jacket); education and workforce development (where will the next generation of leadership for this industry come from and what will their education look like?); and, above all, public health (this was validated, for instance, by the returning-veteran community, which showed a significant decrease in traumatic brain injury [TBI] and post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] impacts by spending time outside, and has been codified by the handful of nations like Japan that can now formally鈥攂y a doctor鈥攑rescribe time outside instead of medication). The Accords are an agreement that each state agency signing on will work on behalf of each of those pillars.

Eleven states have signed the Confluence Accords, with more on the way. How many other industries have made a formal agreement to work for the greater good of society? None that I can think of.

That alignment across the industry and the states has led to some remarkable bipartisan political wins in recent years, at a time when such wins are nearly extinct. Armed with the GDP numbers and scientific studies, outdoor-recreation-industry leaders were major players in advocating for the John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act in 2019, which created 1.3 million acres of Wilderness and 10 new Wild and Scenic River segments, and increased the size of three national parks, amongst dozens of other conservation acts in dozens of states. The Senate passed it by a 92-8 vote, and it was signed into law by President Trump.

The following year saw similar bipartisan support for the Great American Outdoors Act, which permanently allocated $900 million annually to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a source for recreational infrastructure created in 1965. The fund helped create some $18 billion in boat ramps, bike paths, and state parks over the years, but was allowed to lapse in 2018 amidst partisan bickering. The Great American Outdoors Act also allocated $9.5 billion to reduce the infamous National Park Service maintenance backlog. Some called it the most significant conservation legislation in a half century. The only thing both sides of the political aisle can agree on, seemingly, is funding and conservation for outdoor recreation.

The Need for a National Outdoor Recreation Office

Those successes have led us to start asking whether it is time to push Washington, D.C., to create a federal outdoor-recreation-industry office to continue the promotion and preservation of this unique and special economy. As we saw earlier, outdoor recreation comprises nearly 2 percent of our nation鈥檚 economy and provides priceless quality-of-life and health benefits to our people, but there鈥檚 no specific entity shepherding it in the federal government. Imagine how much more effective we could be with dedicated leadership?

What would such an agency do? Firstly, it would convene the state offices, which will hopefully eventually number 50, and help channel money their way. The Great American Outdoors Act shows there鈥檚 an appetite for such spending across the political spectrum. We鈥檝e also been able to educate D.C. about the value of such investments. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, for example, earmarks $750 million for investments in outdoor-recreation travel and tourism. The problem is, many local governments don鈥檛 know how to access those funds. Furthermore, I believe the time has come for recreationists to ante up and pay into the system. Hunters and fishermen have, through special taxes on guns, ammunition, and fishing tackle approved decades ago, been helping pay for conservation and scientific management of wildlife habitat to the tune of $23 billion over the lifetime of the legislation that created the funding. Likewise, I think those of us using trails and boat ramps should help invest in their preservation. Similar taxes have been wildly successful in Minnesota, Missouri, and Georgia. It’s time for us, too, to pay to play.

A national director of outdoor recreation would also help coordinate federal agencies like the United States Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and any other agency that managed land or resources of benefit to outdoor recreation. Right now, that鈥檚 the job of the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR). It was created in 2011, and before it was dissolved by the Trump Administration, FICOR made significant strides on behalf of outdoor recreation, including combining most federal permits and reservations into the Recreation.gov website and helping the Bureau of Economic Analysis measure the economic impact of the Orec industry. Under the Biden Administration, FICOR is back, but the problem is that its leadership rotates annually between the agencies, and so FICOR doesn鈥檛 have the full attention of any of them.

It鈥檚 an idea that already has a precedent. From 1962 until the late 1970s, there actually existed a federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which worked on both the national and local levels to promote outdoor recreation. In addition to creating some of the foundational research on the health benefits of outdoor recreation, and on the importance of equity in getting Americans outside, the bureau was a prime driver behind some of the nation鈥檚 seminal recreation and conservation legislation, including the Wilderness Act in 1964 and the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that same year. The bureau was also the originator of the idea of rails to trails, converting abandoned railway lines into recreational pathways, and helped fund some of the earliest rail-to-trail projects in nine states including California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation also set the precedent of cooperation between federal agencies to foster recreation. Even more prescient was its approach of establishing cooperation between such federal agencies and the states to create parks and trail systems. Ultimately, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was subsumed into the National Park Service in 1981. Because it had no real funding of its own, and couldn鈥檛 make its own policy, it was easy prey for the anti-conservationists of the Reagan Administration.

Before you start thinking 鈥淯h oh, this smells like Big Government,鈥� I鈥檇 assure you that it doesn鈥檛 need to be. I did my job with the State of Colorado with just my salary, a gas card, and a laptop. The outdoor industry is great at getting by with minimal resources鈥攇ive us a roll of duct tape and some bailing wire, and we鈥檒l cobble something together. Furthermore, I would challenge you to ask yourself if you are comfortable with nonprofits and trade associations alone protecting and promoting our birthright, the public lands that Teddy Roosevelt called 鈥淎merica鈥檚 best idea鈥�?

The post Outdoor Recreation Deserves a Place in Government. Here鈥檚 Why. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog,

I鈥檓 a biologist and land conservationist who has spent the last two decades working with farmers and ranchers to keep their land and way of life intact. I walk their property looking for habitats that might harbor rare plants and threatened wildlife. If the property meets certain ecological criteria, the owner can place the land under 鈥�conservation easement,鈥� basically a legal agreement ensuring they will not develop or subdivide the land.

This makes their ranch or farm less valuable on the real estate market; in exchange they get a considerable break on property taxes. I鈥檝e always thought that : habitat for the more-than-human organisms is legally protected into perpetuity, the community retains the working landscapes that give it character and beauty (鈥渃ows not condos鈥�), and families are able to continue ranching and farming, rather than having to sell to developers.

But lately the dynamics have changed. I鈥檓 starting to doubt the ethics of conservation鈥攁nd my own role in making it happen. Nowadays many of the landowners making easements are not multi-generational working families, but extremely wealthy out-of-staters with vacation homes and hobby farms. My work still protects critical habitat for plants and animals, but now I no longer feel like I am preserving a traditional way of life and culture of the west鈥攂ut bringing about its demise. What should I do? 鈥擟onserving Our Ground

Dear COG,

You鈥檝e tapped into such a timely and widespread issue. As the economy appears to be more controlled by a select few than ever, the rest of us face the hard ethical choice between participating鈥攚hich makes us feel complicit鈥攁nd opting out, for which the financial sacrifice is significant. For decades ; now it feels like collaborating with the dark side. And what an astonishing turn of events: to sense that the movement to preserve a healthy natural world for all of us has morphed into a cynical ploy by the elite.

Yale professor Justin Farrell astutely studies this phenomenon in Jackson, Wyoming and at the Yellowstone Club in Montana, in his alarming book

Farrell notes that for the investor class, conserving land isn鈥檛 simple philanthropy, it also allows them to increase their wealth. First, they get a hefty tax break by placing easements on the vast tracts of land of their trophy homes; next, the easement prevents the construction of more homes, exacerbating a housing scarcity which inflates their own property value; and lastly, as the pandemic and climate change incited a real estate bonanza in places with solitude and plentiful clean water, investments in land have appreciated even more sharply than most stocks, funds, or bonds.

To add insult to locals, these hedge fund dweebs cosplaying Yellowstone’s John Dutton in Wranglers and Carhartt coats on their private movie sets can now claim鈥攚ith some truth鈥攖o be saviors of the grizzly bear and the peregrine falcon.

But here鈥檚 the hard part: the work of conservation easements is supremely important. Study after study shows that . Threatened species from bears to wolverines to wolves need large continuous stretches of land, free from roads, houses and people. These animals don鈥檛 care if they are roaming through national parks or family ranches. As much as we may dislike massive private landholdings, they are scientifically better for other species than subdivided (affordable) ranchettes.

All political successes lay in the ability to build alliances. The beauty of conservation easements, COG, is that they allow a nature-lover such as yourself into partnership with old-time ranchers who might not give a hoot about the spotted owl, but simply want to keep the family land intact. But as you say, those roles and alliances are shifting. As just one example, look at the case chronicled in the new nonfiction book The Crazies: The Cattlemen, the Wind Prospector, and a War Out West by Amy Gamerman, in which a cash-poor Montana rancher who doesn鈥檛 believe in climate change sets out to build a wind farm on his property, only to be sued for marring the view by his billionaire neighbors鈥攐ne of whom made his fortune in fracking in less pristine places, all of whom claim the mantle of protecting the environment.

Here鈥檚 another case: for years, green liberals bought Teslas, likely not because they admired company co-founder Elon Musk, but because in an electric vehicle they saw the chance to do good for the planet. Musk played the savior, claiming at one point that he鈥檇 done more for the environment than any other human in history.

It turned out to be a deal with the devil. Once EVs made him the world鈥檚 richest man, Musk used his treasure to dive into American politics, and has now helped to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, end climate research, and eradicate programs that include the phrase 鈥渆nvironmental justice.鈥� He has crippled the agencies that might regulate his own businesses鈥� ecological practices. The one-time green hero instead joins an environmental rogue鈥檚 gallery of fellow easy-to-hate villains: the skipper of the Exxon Valdez, James Watt, and Kelcy Warren, who built the Dakota Access Pipeline over the objections of the Standing Rock Sioux.

The takeaway here is not something simple like 鈥渄on鈥檛 trust the rich.鈥� Rather it鈥檚 that saving the planet is most likely to happen in a democracy than any other form of government, and consolidating more wealth among the one percent is bad for democracy. When we see the laudable conservation effort of tycoons like Ted Turner, it鈥檚 tempting to cede the movement to the oligarchs; after all they can conserve more land more quickly than the impossibly complex process of government managing its holdings. But if these oligarchs鈥攐r their heirs鈥攕hould like Musk gain enough power to be above the law, their green veneers may quickly erode.

As for your own complicity, COG, I wouldn鈥檛 advise quitting your job over it. The work you鈥檙e doing is important for saving wildlife, and to put it bluntly, these societal economic changes are not your fault, and reversing them is simply above your pay grade. Wresting power from corrupt and entrenched barons will take鈥攏ow just as every other time it has been attempted鈥攁 national grassroots political movement rising in concert with some elected trustbusting brawler in the mold of a Roosevelt: take your pick between the Republican Teddy or the Democrat Franklin. Keep doing the good work.

Got a question of your own? Send it to听sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

(Photo: Mark Sundeen)

The post Is Conservation Only for the One Percent? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

From 2021 until 2024, while I was Secretary of the Interior, we worked to forge stability, create jobs in a clean energy economy, conserve more lands and waters for future generations, and secure clean air and water for communities in every corner of the country.

We treated everyone with dignity and respect鈥攙alues that New Mexicans live by. Today, the work we accomplished, alongside conservationists, farmers, ranchers, Tribes, rural communities, and cities is under attack.

In a time of questions and uncertainty in Washington, governors around the country will be on the front lines of defense against this president鈥檚 reckless firing of federal workers, massive cuts to services that people rely on, and general chaos. The Trump administration is vigorously defending its actions in court, and if they鈥檙e allowed to stand, the harm will only grow.

When wildfires strike, there will now be fewer federal firefighters to put out the flames. Jobs and livelihoods in the outdoor recreation sector are at risk. Families who plan to visit Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Yellowstone in Wyoming, and other national parks will encounter longer wait times and possibly limited hours.

When folks are looking to gather firewood on national forest lands, they could have a harder time contacting support staff. Veterans who seek solace on our public lands might not have the access they once did. Hunters may notice that their organizations are losing funding, and their hunting grounds slowly disappearing and being sold off to the highest bidder.

I鈥檓 running for Governor of New Mexico because leadership matters.

Governors will need to meet this moment with bold and steady leadership, and I will be a Governor who stands up for New Mexicans and the public lands that we love. While I was Secretary of the Interior, we made tremendous strides to address climate change, expand access to public lands, address drought, and manage resources responsibly. This was all done with clear direction and respect for the workforce tasked with implementing our goals. We tried new things and shot for the moon, and we did it all hand-in-hand with the people most impacted.

We created meaningful change because we were a serious agency led by, frankly, serious people. The Interior was one of the largest agencies in the federal government with nearly 70,000 dedicated employees鈥攑ark rangers, firefighters, climate scientists, biologists, and more. These are the jobs in New Mexico that kids deserve to have when they鈥檙e grown.

As I travel around my home state listening to communities, I鈥檓 hearing time and again that people are afraid. I鈥檝e met federal workers who were worried about their jobs, seniors anxious about Medicare, veterans concerned about VA services, and families worried about their kids鈥� schools. Trump and Elon Musk are striking fear into our communities while failing to deliver the things they promised.

Governors have the obligation to protect our communities. I know I will carry the weight of standing up in the face of these attacks, but it鈥檚 a weight I will happily carry because I believe in a future where we all share in New Mexico鈥檚 bounty and success. It鈥檚 a vision that has sometimes been out of reach, but I believe that with my experience, we can change the system to work for the people.

Similar to the way I changed the system at the Department of the Interior by bringing Tribal Nations and local communities in as active participants in stewarding our lands, I will make that a reality for traditional communities and Tribes in New Mexico. I will also collaborate with other governors who recognize the threats posed by this administration and with the state attorney general to pursue legal routes to fight for the protection of our lands. I hope and expect that governors鈥攁s chief executives of states鈥攚ill work together to share and learn from their successes and find opportunities to pursue new solutions. We must recognize the urgency of this moment and lock arms against these very real threats.

As governor, I will make sure New Mexico鈥檚 state parks are maintained and accessible, and I鈥檒l work to break down barriers to access these treasures. If the national parks and other federal lands in New Mexico suffer further staffing and resource cuts, I will explore ways for the state to step up and provide support to keep federal lands safe and available. I will continue efforts to recruit and hire federal workers who have lost their jobs so that they can continue to share their valuable skills and training.

I鈥檓 running for governor because the experience I gained leading a federal department and working in Congress will help working people. And I will stand alongside all of the governors who will be on the frontlines to protect our beautiful landscapes, outdoor traditions, and natural resources for future generations.

Deb Haaland served as the 54th Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior.

The post Op-Ed: Public Lands Are Under Attack. State Leaders Should Protect them. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

It has been more than two weeks since the Trump administration let go of hundreds of National Park Service (NPS) employees, and the exact impact of the cuts have yet to play out鈥攖hough experts anticipate everything from longer lines to overflowing trashcans to major safety concerns. Last weekend, the , a group made up of current and former NPS workers, and other public lands enthusiasts held protests across U.S. parks. On Saturday, March 1, 2025, more than 433 different protests occurred in support of national parks.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Here is a roundup of the most creative signs we saw this weekend:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

This is just one batch of the many protests that have come to fruition since the layoffs. Last month, climbers and National Park rangers in Yosemite hung an upside down flag on El Capitan, signaling a sign of distress and sounding the alarm for other cities and parks to do the same.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

The post The Best Signs from the National Park Service Protests appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: I鈥檝e always been an environmentalist and lived as close to nature as possible. Years ago I was lucky enough to buy a parcel that borders on public land near a river. I鈥檝e designed and built a dream house that allows me to feel like I鈥檓 a part of the natural surroundings. The house is not visible from the river; I intentionally left the bottomlands untouched. My house fits the landscape and accentuates the natural features, and is honestly nicer to look at than the junk cars and trashed mobile home that I hauled away years ago.

People have historically crossed this land to reach the river. They park at a dead end which is technically my land and walk through the floodplain. When I first bought the land, which used to be part of a ranch, local kids would ride dirt bikes and shoot paintballs down there, and I spent a lot of time and money cleaning up after them and blocking the unofficial roads. I鈥檝e restored ecological systems and habitat for wild animals. I鈥檝e put up signs making it clear that it鈥檚 OK for fishermen to walk through my land to reach the river and for mountain bikers to connect to the larger trail system. And yet people keep tearing down the signs, and driving four-wheelers into my woods, and destroying the place I鈥檓 trying to restore and protect. They complained to my face and in letters to the newspaper that I was ruining a public place鈥攅ven though I own it.

They鈥檝e gone to the zoning board to complain about me, accusing me of technicalities over parking spaces, setbacks, even water quality of the nearby stream. I鈥檝e done everything by the book to protect nature, and still people treat me like I鈥檓 trying to sink the Exxon Valdez here. I feel my next step will be to block access completely: build a fence and put up No Parking signs. My vision for this place did not include a damn parking lot! I feel my next option is to start having cars towed, which I think will be the beginning of a long war with strangers that I鈥檓 not sure I can win. Am I the asshole?
鈥�Nature Is My Back Yard (NIMBY)

Dear NIMBY,

I鈥檓 sorry people aren鈥檛 respecting your property, especially when you think you all share values, that you should be on the same team. I also appreciate you building something that will blend into the landscape, instead of plunking down a scale-model Parthenon with marble columns and double-decker five-car garage to house your collection of off-road motorhomes.

I鈥檓 not the type of purist who wants no manmade structures in nature. From the adobe pueblos of New Mexico, to the whitewashed villages of Andalusia, to the mountain-top temples of Nepal, civilizations have long created architectural styles that don鈥檛 merely complement nature but, as Sundog would say, enhance it, by demonstrating the potential for humans and non-humans to live in harmony.

But, NIMBY, I鈥檓 going to venture that the kids racing their Razrs across your floodplain give zero shits about the temples of Nepal.

The first issue, I suppose, is legality, and you seem to be aware that the law is on your side. You can fence it all off, or even hire an armed militia to patrol your personal border. This nation鈥檚 legal system protects property rights鈥攁nd you will be breaking no law.

However, the deeper issue may not be trespassing: it鈥檚 that you want people鈥檚 approval for the architecturally and ecologically sound decisions you鈥檝e made. The bad news, NIMBY, is that you鈥檙e not going to get it. Based on your letter, I鈥檝e made a few assumptions about your socio-economic status. Although you bought a ranch, you鈥檙e not running cattle on it, nor earning a living by extracting some resource like timber or minerals from it. Second, even if your new house is modest and small, it surely cost a lot more money to build than the existing mobile home that you hauled to the dump.

I鈥檓 going to also assume鈥攎erely because your land is near a river where people come to fish鈥攖hat it鈥檚 shared something with the large swaths of the rural U.S. that abut recreational activities: in the past 20 years it鈥檚 become more crowded, popular, expensive, and filled with wealthy newcomers who don鈥檛 work in the traditional industries of mining, logging, farming and ranching.

I would invite you to interrogate your own belief that the work you鈥檙e doing on your property is for the benefit of nature. Nature may be somewhat indifferent. You are doing this for yourself, for your own sense of belonging on the land, and also for other humans, so that they might share and understand your vision. But how is preserving nature (from other people) all that different than locking up the land to build your own private paradise? These days, land conservation can feel a bit like feudalism, in which the wealthy hoard land for themselves. Of course, in old Europe the lord earned income by stealing the labor of his serfs who farmed his land. These days the lord doesn鈥檛 bother trying to make a buck on the earth; he earns his income in some distant industry鈥攆inance, technology, medicine, media, consulting (whatever that is)鈥攚hile keeping the land 鈥減ristine.鈥�

Are you the asshole? That depends on who you ask. Protecting trees and animals will make you a hero to a certain slice of the population. But if you block local people from the paths they鈥檝e walked for generations before you arrived, well, yes, they鈥檒l think you鈥檙e just another rich outsider locking up the land.

There is no easy decision. You believe that by cleaning up and protecting the natural world, you are implementing a more enlightened land ethic than the Genesis story in which Man holds dominion over all other species, and is free to use or misuse the land for whatever purpose suits him. But may I suggest that the land ethic of cultivating your own private garden is equally colonial, rooted perhaps in another Old Testament idea that Man is sinful but the Garden is perfect without him. Your house indicates that you are able to see beauty in nature not despite humankind, but because of it. I wonder if you can apply the same philosophy to the humans wandering through the woods that you now call your own.

Mark Sundeen once built a handsome shed that integrated with the natural landscape. Thus far it has attracted no trespassers or looky-loos.

The post I Built My Dream House in the Woods. My Neighbors Hate It. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog,听

Last September, in California鈥檚 Malibu Creek State Park, a mountain lion pounced on a five-year-old child. The father managed to save his kid by fighting off the cat, and soon after, officials euthanized the cougar. Isn鈥檛 this immoral and outrageous? The lion was behaving just as nature intended.听鈥� People against he Unethical Murder of Animals

Dear PUMA,

This is not the only recent alarming attack on humans by a cougar. In 2023, an eight-year-old boy was while camping with his family in Olympic National Park; his mom chased off the cat, and he escaped with minor injuries. Last April, two brothers were out in looking for shed antlers when they encountered a cougar. It attacked both young men, killing one.

As a professional arbiter of ethics, my job is to see at least two sides of any given issue. However, as the father of a five-year-old who I regularly take to the woods and canyons, I am unable to access the other side here, to find what John Keats might have called the 鈥渘egative capability鈥� to tolerate the mystery that falls outside of reason. My take is strictly Old Testament: I say smite the beast. If an animal tried to drag off my child, my notions of animal rights and equality among the species would go straight out the window. I would try to kill it even if it escaped, assuming that, if left to live, it would try the same thing again.

I seem to be in line among people in positions of responsibility鈥攁t the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as wildlife advocacy groups. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a mountain lion jail,鈥� Beth Pratt, the California state director of the National Wildlife Federation, told the after the Malibu Creek incident. 鈥淎s much as it pains me, I think the officials made the right decision here.鈥�

The conundrum is not new. But we might say we鈥檝e had a respite. After a cougar killed a human in California in 1909, the state went more than 80 years without another fatality. In 1990, fearing the lion was going extinct, voters passed a ballot initiative to protect the animal. The past four decades have seen mountain lions acting more aggressively. Even so, it鈥檚 still a small number. According to the , there have been 26 verified cougar attacks on humans since 1986, four of them fatal.

These ethical dilemmas about what an animal is 鈥渁llowed鈥� to do pre-date the United States, of course. During the Middle Ages, animals were put on trial for crimes ranging from caterpillars stealing fruit to pigs who committed murder. 鈥淗ere were bears formally excommunicated from the Church,鈥� writes Mary Roach in her book Fuzz: When Nature Breaks the Law. 鈥淪lugs given three warnings to stop nettling farmers, under penalty of smiting.鈥�

And yet, buried in my psyche, was the belief that killing a cougar for being a cougar was just . . . wrong? I turned to an expert in the field to see what I was missing. Christopher Preston is a professor of environmental ethics at the University of Montana and author of the book . Because mountain lion attacks are still so rare, Preston thought there wasn鈥檛 much official protocol. Bears, however, attack more frequently. When a bear kills or eats a human, it will be euthanized. But if a bear attacks a person while demonstrating what authorities consider natural behavior, it will be spared. 鈥淚f you surprise a bear with cubs or on a kill, and it attacks you, then the bear can be let off,鈥� Preston told me. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not a pattern of behavior that demonstrates unnatural instincts.鈥�

It鈥檚 unclear if the behavior of the Malibu Creek cougar was natural.听 The event that you refer to, PUMA, involved a young lion approaching a group of humans in a picnic area and dragging off a child, a particularly brazen act. Yes, it鈥檚 perfectly natural for a mountain lion to haul off a smaller creature in hopes of dining on it. But, said Preston, this cougar had left its natural environment and entered a human environment: a picnic area in a state park. 鈥淲here do you draw the line when natural behavior starts to impact us pretty severely?鈥� he asked. We have no problem cracking down, he adds, when forms of life like bacteria and viruses exhibit their natural behavior of infecting our bodies.

Preston made another point: humans are constantly expressing their dominance over the natural world, and if we just kill anything that makes a problem with us, then we鈥檙e not learning anything. But in his opinion, even this line of reasoning doesn鈥檛 merit a puma pardon. 鈥淪omeone can feel sympathy for the lion for doing what lions do, but that probably won鈥檛 get you a non-shoot order.鈥�

鈥淲e need to dial back our dominance, but this case brings it into sharp contrast,鈥� said Preston. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know how many environmental ethicists would say, 鈥榊es, let鈥檚 just let lions keep dragging kids out of picnic areas.鈥欌��

Preston and I decided to find out. He sent out a note to a handful of colleagues. The first to respond was Philip Cafaro, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University:

The way I see it, mountain lions and people have a right to live in California (and elsewhere). But there are way too many people in CA (~ 40 million) and way too few mountain lions (probably less than 5,000). It鈥檚 way out of balance, way unjustly tilted toward us hogging most of the habitat and resources. So, speaking strictly to the justice of the situation, mountain lions that attack and even kill people should be left alone. We can spare a few people from our teeming hordes, while there are precious few pumas left.

But even he shied away from cougar clemency:

Pragmatically speaking, people are too selfish and cowardly to act ethically in such cases. So, the next best thing is let them kill some mountain lions in the hope that they will leave the rest alone.

A second Colorado State professor of philosophy, Katie McShane, raised other important questions, which perhaps explain why we no longer drag beasts before a judge and jury:

I鈥檓 not sure we blame animals very much at all; but in any case, killing the mountain lion isn鈥檛 conceived of as punishment, but rather, keeping people safe.

Maybe there鈥檚 an animal ethics question about whether killing the lion is the best way to protect people? Given mountain lion behavior, I can鈥檛 imagine that confinement would go well. Are there sanctuaries? I don鈥檛 know; they鈥檇 need to be huge. Anyway, my guess is that killing the mountain lion is the most humane option as well.

The short answer to that is, mountain lions require too much terrain to be placed in sanctuaries. And relocating an animal that鈥檚 attacked a human doesn鈥檛 mean it won鈥檛 attack again. I find myself agreeing that killing is the best option in this difficult situation.

Before Preston signed off, he also speculated that there might be something in the human psyche that calls for harsher punishments for pumas than for other predators鈥攂ears, for example. 鈥淭here is something singular about the lion,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou get stalked. You don鈥檛 know it鈥檚 coming. Bears kind of look like people when they stand up on two legs, so we know what they are about. The lion occupies a different place in our cultural imagination: the stealthy undesirable ghost in the forest that we don鈥檛 want to empathize with.鈥�

Mark Sundeen lives in a canyon in Montana where cougar sightings are frequent, yet in his four decades of exploring and guiding in the West, he鈥檚 never seen one in the wild. Sundeen’s new book, 听comes out February 18.

The post Should We Spare a Cougar That Attacked a Child? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

I recently saw a Reddit thread that started with a deceptively simple question. On the subreddit r/bitcheswithtaste, : 鈥淎re we wearing Uggs this year? I wanted Uggs so badly in high school and never had them but after seeing them come back last year I am considering getting a pair for this fall. Are they back in style for good? Or was this just temporary?鈥�

To understand this question鈥攁nd all the weight it carries鈥攚e might need a short history lesson. In the early aughts, socialites听Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie听ruled the small screen听on The Simple Life. The slender, flippable Motorola Razr phone reigned supreme (sorry, Nokia brick) and found its place in the back pockets of teenagers the nation over. Trucker hats, dresses over jeans, Juicy Couture tracksuits, hair scrunched with so much Aussie mousse that it continuously looked crunchy and wet: this was the aesthetic of many a millennial in their prime. I would know. I was there.

Circa 2007, Uggs were expensive and hard to get your hands on. I remember scouring the aisles of a Nordstrom Rack in the Cleveland suburb of Westlake, Ohio, until I finally found听a pair of mint green, size 6 Uggs. I, too, could participate in the trend. And at a discount!

And then, like so many other artifacts of the increasingly fast-fast fashion cycles that we inhabit, Uggs were out and branded as 鈥渃heugy鈥� by the late 2010s. The shoes remained relegated to the margins of fashion until 2023, when model in a pair of tiny white shorts that resembled men鈥檚 underwear and a pair of Ultra single-handedly reviving the aughts staple. .

But there鈥檚 another response to the Redditor鈥檚 question that flitted through my mind as I read the original post. Did Uggs really ever go away? Or were they always there, lurking unfashionably, stalwartly serving practical purposes for outdoor enthusiasts? I鈥檇 been happily packing Uggs for car camping trips for well over a decade by the time Bella Hadid performed the resurrection. And I knew from talking to other folks at 国产吃瓜黑料 that they found all manner of uses for Uggs in the adventures they were having.

So, what gives? Did Uggs die? Or had they just been hiding in the woods?

The Original Departure of Uggs

To be fair, the initial rise and fall of the Ugg boot wasn鈥檛 solely driven by changing aesthetic preferences, although they played a big part. Delving into recent history suggests that concerns over the production of Uggs鈥攁long with some high-profile celebrity campaigns鈥攂rought legitimate skepticism to the animal welfare component of their production. One such highly memorable non-endorsement came from Pamela Anderson who, after wearing Uggs on the set of Baywatch and subsequently learning they were made of sheepskin, told in 2007: 鈥淚 feel so guilty for that craze being started around Baywatch days鈥擨 used to wear them with my red swimsuit to keep warm鈥攏ever realizing that they were SKIN! Do NOT buy UGGs!鈥�

The animal welfare group PETA has long campaigned for that uses real hide, and they鈥檝e taken Uggs to task over the years for their use of real sheep.

The Ugg brand states on their website that, for them, 鈥渋t is essential that all animal-based materials we use are sourced from animals that have been raised humanely using sound animal husbandry.鈥� To ensure this, they say they 鈥渦se an internationally-accepted welfare standard for livestock鈥� called the .

And, Uggs actually do come in vegan options now, which .

But What If They Never Really Went Away?

I never got rid of my Uggs despite being told by my much-hipper younger sister that they were no longer cool, because, well, I wasn鈥檛 wearing them to be cool anymore. My once-cutting-edge mint green Uggs had gone the way of the minivan: their functionality usurped their image. I didn鈥檛 don them for an early morning dog walk on a snowy day to impress my friends and neighbors with my sartorial sensibility. I wore them听because they were warm, and I didn鈥檛 need to worry about socks. I could go directly from slippers to Uggs with little friction.

I asked my colleagues at 国产吃瓜黑料 to share a little on their relationship with Uggs if they had one, and it seems I鈥檓 not the only person who has worn them regardless of the trend cycle.

Fellow millennial Abigail Wise, digital director of 国产吃瓜黑料, told me: “For years, my climbing partners have made fun of what we call my ‘approach Uggs.’ But even the relentless teasing couldn’t stop me from slipping on my favorite crag shoes. They’re easy to pull on between climbs, which gives my toes a break from restrictive climbing shoes, and they keep my feet warm on chilly mornings without having to bother with tying laces鈥攐r even socks.鈥�

Mary Turner, senior brand director for 国产吃瓜黑料, has also been letting Uggs keep her feet toasty for adventure. 鈥淚 live in my ankle-height Uggs all winter. No socks needed, just slide ’em on and head to yoga鈥� Makes life so easy!鈥�

And, Teaghan Skulszki, social media editor and a card-carrying member of Gen Z, says that she first started wearing Uggs in elementary school.听鈥淎s a little girl, I remember going to school with everyone matching their Uggs, instantly creating a connection and community. Today, that community has transitioned to my friends in the outdoor community. With all of the different styles that have come out听recently, I鈥檝e been able to accommodate my different pairs of Uggs to different versions of myself. I have my comfy slip-ons that I throw on after a long hike to relax or my thrifted knee-high leather UGG boots that have survived several Coachella festivals. Uggs are reflected in all different areas of my life and match all of my different personas and styles. They are timeless and adapt and grow as I have.鈥�

So there you have it. We may not all be wearing platform Uggs with men鈥檚 underwear, but we鈥檙e wearing them. And we have been for some time.

Ryleigh Nucilli is a digital consultant and The Pulse columnist who started her love affair with Uggs in a steeply discounted pair of mint greens. Now, she owns some Baileys for outside and some Cozy Slippers for indoors. She鈥檚 writing this bio wearing said slippers. They are cozy.

The post An Ode to the Outdoorsy Ugg appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: Am I a jerk for not owning an electric vehicle yet? I live in a city, commute to work, and like to get outside. I have a decent car that gets decent mileage, but feel like I would be doing better for myself and the planet with an EV. Should I buy one? 鈥擫ooking for Environmental Alternatives that are Friendly

Dear LEAF,

Let鈥檚 say you鈥檙e the average American who commutes 42 miles per day round-trip to a job that you find moderately soul-sucking. Maybe your labor serves a corporation that enriches its execs and shareholders while doing ill in the world. Maybe you work for an idealistic school or nonprofit, but are expected to work nights or weekends without additional pay. Or perhaps you simply sense that your one and only life on this gorgeous Earth is slipping past while you compose reports and gaze at Zoom.

In any case, you want to lead a more principled and less wasteful life than your vocation allows鈥攜ou don鈥檛 want to be a jerk鈥攕o you upgrade your Corolla for an electric vehicle. Where will you find that $35K or $75K? If you can pull the funds directly from your savings or trust fund, then God bless you. Otherwise, you鈥檒l borrow the money and make a monthly payment. You鈥檒l have to keep doing your job in order to afford your green ride.

You will likely be paying interest to some bank. Will that bank use your hard-earned dollars to manifest a better society? More likely, their profits will go for millions in dividends to stock owners, or they鈥檒l be loaned out again to finance all kinds of hideous adventures, from oil pipelines across to deforesting the .

So by reducing your dependence on the gas station鈥攐ne tentacle of the fossil fuel industry鈥攜ou鈥檝e now become a partner to some other tentacle. Also, much of the electrical grid from which you鈥檒l power that EV is still burning coal and gas to make electricity, so unless you鈥檙e charging from your own rooftop panels, you haven鈥檛 fully escaped even one tentacle.

So, no, LEAF, you鈥檙e not a jerk should you choose a different path. And yes, if you鈥檙e buying a car鈥攅specially to replace a gasoline car鈥攊t should probably be an EV. But there are so many variables.

You will no doubt have heard about the of using rare-earth elements like cobalt and lithium for electric batteries. It鈥檚 true: mining is bad. But this alone is not a valid reason to pass on buying an EV. The damage required to extract these miracle elements is much smaller than the alternative鈥攄rilling for oil and gas, and digging coal to produce electricity. If you can鈥檛 stomach the exploitation of nature and humans that is inherent to the industrial economy, let me gently suggest that you make a more radical lifestyle change than getting an EV鈥攁nd try giving up your car altogether.

Sundog does not give advice he would not heed, so here鈥檚 my full disclosure: even I鈥攍iterally a professor of environmental studies鈥攄o not own an EV, not even a hybrid. My family鈥檚 fleet consists of a 2005 Toyota Tundra that gets an alarming 15 to 22 miles per gallon, and a 2012 Subaru Outback that does only slightly better at 21 to 28.

As a matter of principle, I don鈥檛 think the only way to save the planet is by transferring billions of dollars from regular citizens to the corporations that build cars. As a matter of budget, I have never owned a new car. All my vehicles have cost less than $10K, except the Outback, which was $16K. I鈥檝e actually never even sat in a Tesla, but I imagine driving one to be like having an orgasm while watching a looped clip of Elon Musk declaring: 鈥淚鈥檝e done more for the environment for any other single human on earth.鈥�

Let me state on the record that I love cars and trucks. They鈥檝e provided much joy in my life, usually along a lovely lonesome stretch of two-lane blacktop or at the terminus of some rutted old ranch road. But those sort of experiences likely account for less than one percent of overall driving. In the past century, we have built American cities to accommodate people using cars for the most mundane of outings like commuting, shopping, and bar-hopping. The tradeoff is not just carbon emissions and pollution, but also sprawl, isolation and streets unsafe for walking and biking.

Turns out that in cities built before the era of the automobile鈥攆rom New York to Barcelona to Kathmandu鈥攜ou can get around without a car. When you remove traffic jams, parking tickets, the endless search for a place to park, the glum designation of a sober driver, and the claustrophobia of being locked in a metal box, city living is just more . . . fun.

When Sundog and Lady Dog set out to design our own lives, it was not to be in some Old World capitol, but rather in a midsized city in the Rockies. We didn鈥檛 aspire merely to burn fewer fossil fuels: we wanted to free ourselves from our car. We bought a house less than a mile from the place we work, less than a mile from the center of town. Our kid goes to preschool two blocks from here. Now we get around mostly by foot and bike, and can walk to trails and a creek. Many days go by where our dented guzzlers sit on the street鈥攚e drive each vehicle about 5,000 miles per year, about a third of the of 13,500.

The downside is that the houses in this neighborhood are a century old, dilapidated, small, and expensive. It鈥檚 a bit of a whack-a-mole game: our heating bills are low because we live in 1,000 square feet, but we can鈥檛 afford solar panels or a heat pump. We don鈥檛 spend much money on gasoline, but we can鈥檛 afford an EV.

Had we decided to live 21 miles from our jobs, we might have had a big new well-designed home and a slick new EV. But we love walking and biking; we want to teach our son that he can do the same, and that his parents are not his chauffeurs.

So why do we bother owning cars at all? For one, Montana is a lovely place to live, but it sure costs a lot to leave. Cheap airfares are not really a thing here. Neither is public transportation. So if you want to take a family vacation within a 1,000-mile radius, you鈥檙e likely driving. We bought the Tundra during the pandemic to tow a camp trailer (our 鈥渙ffice鈥�) and to haul lumber while we built a permanent office. Now we use the truck for long river trips, which entail carrying heavy loads for hundreds of miles through remote areas and down rutted dirt roads.

I don鈥檛 know of any EV that could do this. The Subaru is the town errand runner, and also takes us down bumpy roads to lakes and up icy mountains to ski. If it bites the dust and the cost of used four-wheel-drive EVs drops below twenty grand, I鈥檇 be happy to upgrade.

None of this makes Sundog feel particularly righteous. My point is that choosing a car is not a stand-alone decision as you forge an ethical life.

Mark Sundeen teaches environmental writing at the University of Montana. Despite his fleet of internal combustion engines, he refuses to purchase a parking permit and therefore commutes on a 1974 Schwinn Continental, with a ski helmet in winter.

If you have an ethical question for Sundog, send it to sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

The post Am I a Jerk for Not Owning an Electric Car? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Dear Sundog: We recently went to a wedding in a mountain resort town. We rented a condo online because the wedding hotel was fully booked. I had qualms because I know that people like us are driving up the cost of living for locals, but didn鈥檛 have a better option so I swallowed the qualms. After a flight delay we arrived a day late. We saw a beat-up car parked in the driveway. As we approached, two young guys who looked like climbing bums tossed some gear into the car, took a look at us, jumped in and drove off. My husband thought it was suspicious and asked me to jot down their license plate number, which I did. Inside the condo it was clear that these kids had spent the night. We called the host, who came over immediately, did a quick clean and changed the entry codes. He told us he was not the owner but a professional host who managed a dozen rentals in town. The actual owner lived out of state. It sat vacant during the off-season.

Later, the host messaged us to say that the owner had filed a police report and wanted our help to identify the squatters. My husband thinks we should hand over the license plate number. I disagree. I don鈥檛 have much sympathy for the absentee landlord. The kids hadn鈥檛 actually damaged the condo, and frankly it鈥檚 not my job to get them in trouble. Who鈥檚 right? 鈥擵ery Resistant to Bending Over for Real Estate Barons Exploiting Locals

Dear VRBO REBEL: First let me commend you and your husband鈥檚 coolheadedness: you did not gun down these trespassers in cold blood, which seems an increasingly common response in our country of stand-your-grounders. It appears you have an ounce or more compassion for these loafers even if they made you uncomfortable.

First, let鈥檚 agree that this owner is fully within his rights to press charges against these guys鈥攊f he can find them. They committed a crime against his property. Your ethical quandary, VRBO REBEL, is a more interesting one: must you be complicit in this version of criminal justice, especially when you see ethical qualms in the behavior of the victim. Indeed, the American justice system has long skewed to value property more highly than humanity. Here鈥檚 an example: in the days of the frontier, out-of-state cattle barons owned herds of cattle numbering in the thousands that they hired cowboys to tend. It鈥檚 worth mentioning that the steers and cows could only stay alive by munching off grasses on lands that did not belong to their owners. The herds were too big to manage, and invariably some cattle wandered off. Along comes some hungry cowpoke or Indigenous person who seizes a beef and slices it up for steaks. Now he鈥檚 a guilty of a hanging offense.

In today鈥檚 West, now that beef and lumber and mining are past their prime, the most precious commodity is real estate, specifically rentable residences near some National Park or other natural wonder. When the pandemic brought historically low interest rates, speculators could snap up these properties for far more than locals could afford, and still rent them short-term for enough to cover their historically low monthly mortgage payment. Fill the place with some blonde-wood Scandinavian furniture and patterned shower curtains from Target and voil脿: an investment that not only yields monthly dividends but will also presumably gain value over the years. The speculator wins, the visitors like yourself wins, while the actual town residents are squeezed.

Getting back to the cattle analogy, if an AirbnBaron owns so many rental properties that he can鈥檛 keep them properly protected from the scourge of townies, then so be it. I guess I don鈥檛 see using police work and courts to punish the interlopers as a particularly ethical use of taxpayer money. Just as the cattle baron should have hired more cowboys to guard his cows, so should the rental baron hire a rent-a-cop to patrol his vacant structure.

As for your own question about ratting out these dirtbags, VRBO REBEL, I say hell no. Collaborating with police was not in the agreement you signed. By paying your nightly fee, you have fulfilled your obligations, both legal and financial, to the condo owner. You are not ethically bound to join his posse and help him rope the rustlers. Burn that license plate number with a clean conscience.

Got a question of your own? Send it to听sundogsalmanac@hotmail.com

(Photo: Mark Sundeen)

Mark Sundeen, aka Sundog, has done his fair share of squatting in vacant buildings, such as this cabin near Death Valley, circa 1998. He鈥檚 also had his share of strangers squatting in his un-winterized desert trailer. So it all sort of evens out?

The post Should I Help an Airbnb Owner Bust His Squatters? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.