Tree farms, mother earth, and other dilemmas: The politics of ecosystem management in greater yellowstone

The wolf in Yellowstone: Science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use

“…Land use planning is not, and cannot, be a purely rational technocratic and scientific exercise. Failing to grasp that wolf reintroduction policy is "an exercise in social planning masked as technical planning" (Jacobs, 1993, p. 148), federal policymakers have sought to achieve success by manipulating the technical details of recovery rather than addressing the subtle underlying sociopolitical dynamics driving the public discourse (see also Cawley & Freemuth, 1993). Yet, as I have shown, the struggle over wolves is not really about the technical details often found in federal EIS reports, it is about much deeper social issues.…”

“…How did this occur and what import does it have for wolves in Yellowstone? Among other things, it is evident that the planning environment itself was highly politicized, and that policymakers miscalculated the intensity and ferocity of public reaction (see Cawley & Freemuth, 1993;Lichtman & Clark, 1994). While there is evidence that the writers of the Vision document assured their own failure through "analytical errors" and inadequate problem definition (see Lichtman & Clark, 1994), there also is evidence that outside opposition to the process was highly organized and effective (Luoma, 1992;Stapleton, 1993a).…”

“…Ultimately, however, the Vision failed to achieve many of its farsighted goals for integrated ecosystem management in the region (see Cawley & Freemuth, 1993;Lichtman & Clark, 1994). The planning process spanned 6 years, involved several congressional hearings and committee appointments, spawned vitriolic public debates, led to the resignation of two prominent federal officials, and resulted in an 11-page document with no regulatory teeth (Stapleton, 1993a).…”

Buffalo tales: interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone

“…Conversely, as a conservationist, Pinchot ''thought science should be value free'' (p. 36) and that the role of the scientist was to serve politicians and productivity through the development of resources. These differing views of science are also seen in the GYE today between the competing coalitions (Chase 1987;Pritchard 1999;Cawley and Freemuth 1993). The science preferred by the environmental coalition is characterized by natural management, habitat and ecosystem protection, and biodiversity.…”

“…The management strategy has been to keep the bison both spatially and temporally separated from cattle by using management techniques such as hazing, capture, and slaughter. Contending GYE interests in the bison controversy tend to coalesce into two competing coalitions (McBeth and Shanahan 2004;Tierney and Frasure 1998;Cawley and Freemuth 1993): (1) a coalition composed of ranchers, the Montana Department of Livestock, and locally elected state and federal representatives and (2) a coalition consisting of environmental groups, Native Americans, and some scientists. This intense political conflict between the two groups over the management of Yellowstone's bison herd leads to a classic wicked policy environment grounded in symbolism, power politics, and emotion (Cromley 2002;Morris 2000;Tierney and Frasure 1998;Wilson 1997).…”