Male sage grouse strutting on a lek to attract a mate. Photo used by permission of Richard Prodgers.

The Forest Service authorized a Special Use Permit in March to allow a private company to clear-cut and bulldoze a 50-foot wide, 18.2-mile-long corridor through six National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas for construction of a gas pipeline from Montpelier, Idaho to Afton, Wyoming.

But here’s the deal: The pipeline was approved despite the fact that the Forest Plan rates this area “high” for potential sage grouse habitat. One of the greatest harms to greater sage grouse is habitat fragmentation from utility corridors. Given that the pipeline route is within 12 miles of a documented sage grouse breeding ground, that means the area for the pipeline corridor should remain intact to provide nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat for sage grouse.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service to stop construction of the pipeline, contending the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Forest Service Manual, the National Forest Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act as well as the Forest Plan and the federal Sage Grouse Conservation Plan.

Although the federal district court in Idaho ruled against our request for a Preliminary Injunction to stop the construction, we have not given up the fight! We just filed an Emergency Appeal with the 9th circuit Court of Appeals — but we need your help to raise $30,000 to pay for the legal costs.

Sage grouse facing extinction

There were 16 million Greater Sage Grouse before Europeans arrived and began the destruction of the “sagebrush sea” in the Great Plains. The iconic birds were down to 400,000 in 2015 when Obama’s Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, rejected listing them for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Today there are only 200,000 left, an astounding loss of half the remaining birds in a decade.

Sage-grouse need good-quality sagebrush habitat for nesting, rearing their young, and to provide food and cover throughout the year. In winter, their diet is 100% sagebrush leaves and buds.

The primary cause of sage grouse population collapse is the loss of sagebrush habitat and associated breeding grounds — and this pipeline will permanently destroy even more dwindling sagebrush habitat.

In this case, the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the new pipeline corridor is in the public interest; is compatible and consistent with other Forest resources; that there is no reasonable alternative or accommodation on National Forest lands; that it’s impractical to use existing rights-of-way; and importantly, that the rationale for approving the new pipeline corridor is not solely to lower costs for the private energy company.

How You Can Help

National Forests were designated for the benefit of all Americans, not to maximize the profits of the oil and gas or any other extractive industry.

Thanks to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies fearlessly challenging the federal government in court, we have protected more habitat than all of the regional environmental groups combined. That includes our recent win against a plan to log, masticate (grinding trees down to stumps), and burn across a stunning 1,487 square miles, more than two-thirds of the entire Manti-LaSal National Forest. We filed suit in federal court early this year and the Forest Service withdrew the project.

Given that the Alliance wins about 80% of our cases, there’s a very good chance we can stop this pipeline and protect some of the last remaining intact sage grouse habitat.

But we can’t do it without your help. Please help us by making a tax-deductible donation here. We thank you — with your help we can carry on the fight to prevent the extinction of the greater sage grouse.

The post A New Gas Pipeline will Destroy Dwindling Sage Grouse Habitat, But You Can Help Stop It appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Toledo, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

In London, UK, last week, on a rare overseas trip, I attended the launch of a new campaign initiated by the Climate Majority Project to refocus the efforts of climate advocates from mitigation (cutting greenhouse gases) to what they referred to as “strategic adaptation”. The approach is outlined in the report they released called SAFER: Strategic Adaptation For Emergency Resilience. 

Many climate advocates have been resistant to talk about adaptation because, as the report recognizes, it appears to encourage giving up on mitigation, and it also appears to abandon communities in the Global South who are more at the frontlines of climate damages while having done much less to incur them. However, the proponents of SAFER argue for a more expansive form of adaptation. Their “strategic adaptation” is not simply reactive to disaster but also builds resilience, fosters agency, grows climate awareness, and transforms, for example, food systems; and, they argue, it will help mitigation. They recognize that without cuts to emissions we are on course for hothouse planet (runaway temperatures within decades) so they are not giving up, but rather arguing that the way to achieve mitigation is to not focus directly on it but instead to focus now on adaptation. 

While I think SAFER gets many things right, I was perplexed by the way the event was launched, by the statement of untested assumptions as apparent facts, by the absence of an organizational strategy, and by the overly depoliticized language. Overall, I want to argue that given the ever-expanding impacts of climate breakdown, the approach of the Climate Majority Project of taking gentle steps rather than engaging in serious political struggle seems seriously misguided.

The presentation, in a packed lecture hall at University College London, started with the recognition that our valiant social mobilization for climate mitigation has mostly failed. Some facts that are salient for me are that the numbers engaging in rallies, sustained group organizing and even advocacy are clearly tiny in all our populations; global heating and climate damages are accelerating; fossil fuel finance and extraction are at record levels; and there is now, in the US and EU, a political backlash that threatens to erase the meager mitigation policies. And even when those policies were instituted, they were seldom made directly by the state, but instead outsourced to for-profit interests (see the case of Germany), and even then mostly concerned electricity supply and hardly transportation, buildings, agriculture and consumption, which is still encouraged almost everywhere under the mantra of economic growth. 

The core theory of SAFER is that a refocus on strategic adaptation can build a bigger climate mobilization. This is because adaptation is in the material interest of local communities, and by concretizing climate action locally it will build consciousness for climate change as a reality, leading ultimately to a stronger climate movement for mitigation. This comes out of three key assumptions in the report:

1. Committing to adaptation overcomes the problem that the public in the UK is mostly complacent in fighting for climate action since they are lulled by the government’s promise to achieve Net Zero decades in the future, which is mostly a scam. Also, as the authors argue “the problem of climate change is an abstract story of invisible gases”. Instead, adaptation makes climate breakdown real through local, concrete action to address tangible threats.

2. Committing to adaptation might help working class and other communities overcome perceptions of climate action as leftist, hypocritical or irrelevant by addressing people’s immediate concerns such as rising energy costs and food security.

3. If many communities do join adaptation efforts, including pushing the government to prepare for heat waves, flooding, disruptions to food supply and the eventual likely collapse of the Atlantic Current that could reduce winter temperatures by 20 C (36 F) in some years, and if there is a serious national commitment to adaptation, then it will become obvious that adaptation is not enough, strengthening the case for mitigation.

I very much agree with SAFER’s focus on people’s material interests and the need to prepare and defend locally, but it has problems including the lack of a broad coalition at the start, the statement of untested assumptions as apparent facts, the apparent absence of an organizational strategy to bind communities together, and an overly depoliticized approach.

First, the launch of SAFER did not showcase the kind of wide coalition that is necessary to build a movement. It was launched not merely as a report but as an appeal for funds to “[build] a powerful community gathering”. It included presentations from Retrofit Balsall Heath in Birmingham, UK, which is trying to retrofit homes to improve insulation, and from Greener Henley, which hosts hundreds of thousands of visitors at boating regattas on the river Thames, and is now seeking protections from flooding. Yet the line-up of 7 speakers did not apparently include anyone from the working class or unions or from the kind of multiracial coalition which would be needed in Britain to build a movement. 

Second, it is a big assumption that doing local adaptation action will make the climate breakdown threat visible in a way that galvanizes people to want to struggle for mitigation later. It’s like assuming that because workers in a particular union learn to advocate for their own material interest that they will then want to also help the wider working class. But this is mostly contradicted by what many unions have become. 

Now it might be, as the presenters argued, that people in hundreds of local communities who are engaged in adaptation actions in the UK do develop a wider consciousness that they are part of something bigger, that they are linked-up by some shared ideological understanding. But that will require SAFER to do a stellar job at on-the-ground organizing to build a movement of those hundreds of local communities. A major impediment to this might be that many Britons are currently facing profound inequality, affordability, health-care provision and housing crises and a general disenchantment with the standard political parties. So, SAFER campaigns need to connect directly with those kind of material interests, which are inherently political. But dealing with this is affected by the next problem.

Third, SAFER will be hampered by the Climate Majority Project’s commitment to “depolarizing’ the climate issue. As the report explains, they want to depolarize after observing how the early successes of Extinction Rebellion in the UK led to a societal backlash against the “radicals” and how the right has brought climate into the culture wars. But in the SAFER report the world “capitalism” does not appear once, nor does “ownership”. And this in a country with privatized utilities for water, electricity and rail. 

In San Diego California we have built a campaign to mobilize the city population to confront the investor owned utility (owned by a fossil fuel company) that controls our electric grid, extracting over half a billion dollars per year in profit. This campaign for public not-for-profit ownership is very much in the spirit of SAFER: it connects with people’s material interest by promising lower electricity prices, it prepares for a climate damaged future by emphasizing local rooftop solar and storage instead of building long-distance transmission lines to remote solar mega-projects, and it likely achieves lower emissions by accelerating the renewable transition. Unlike SAFER however, it is explicitly political – the issue is about ownership, about changing social relations. We have seen that we can also appeal to some conservatives, who also don’t like monopoly corporate control. Perhaps then the challenge for SAFER is to build a progressive populism that is targeted at elite / corporate power without being encumbered with typical socialist connotations?

Fourth, if the proponents of SAFER believe that an adaptation-engaged climate-realist populace will then be ready for the mitigation struggle, and if they can actually build the mass movement of connected organizations to do that, it will need to be militant, even revolutionary, which appears completely at odds with their framing. The mitigation struggle is a confrontation with the interests of fossil fuel finance, fossil fuel extraction, and US and other military hegemony.  Beyond that, unless we entertain the unsubstantiated assumptions of green capitalism of a nice, clean, green technical transition, it is also a confrontation with the core aspect of modernity – endless economic growth. Indeed, quite apart from the problem with carbon we are now superseding 7 of 9 planetary boundaries (i.e. boundaries beyond which our world is not in a safe operating space, of which changes in nitrogen and phosphorous cycles and a thousand-fold increase in species extinctions are other examples). If we keep growing then a  big shift to wind and solar and electrifying nearly everything will continue to add to rather than replace fossil fuel energy, and will also push us further beyond the other planetary boundaries.

SAFER could look at what some social movement scholars are calling the most successful climate movement of our recent times Soulèvement De La Terre (Earth Uprisings) in France. A central organizing group is coordinating multiple communal home-grown struggles, such as fighting back to preserve local water supplies, knitting them together and providing key practical support, even while retaining a commitment to anti-imperialism and anti-fascism. In our world now, where international law is in tatters and, relatedly, the prospect for internationally-binding action on climate blown, where authoritarian forces grow and local populations even in the Global North are immiserated, we should not put all our confidence in SAFER’s depolarized politics that hopes to not offend.

As global heating accelerates and climate damages mount all around us, and as climate organizations and activists grow desperate about what to do, SAFER provides important new thinking. The challenge, one of the biggest of our times for organizers, theorists and social scientists, is how to bring this idea into our various countries at an organizational level. In the end, the path forward will require thousands of local communities to link up in a common movement so that they engage in coordinated political action that must be radical in the sense of changing social relations. 

The post Is It Strategic to Refocus Towards Climate Adaptation? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Thinning is essentially “gardening” the forest–selecting which trees are winners and which are losers. Photo by George Wuerthner.

A new study published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management “Significant mortality of old trees across a dry forest landscape, Oregon,” found that older larch and ponderosa pine are suffering increased death rates.

The main author, James Johnston, formerly at Oregon State University Forestry School, now at the University of Oregon’s Institute for Resilient Organizations, Communities, and Environments, found that between 2012 and 2023, a quarter of trees more than 300 years old in roadless areas he had previously studied had died. He attributes the decline to drought, insects and competition with other trees.

There’s nothing surprising in these findings, since eastern Oregon has suffered extreme drought for years. The climate is both drier and hotter—likely due to human-caused climate change.

What you do about this, if anything, is where there is debate.

Johnston suggests his research shows that we need “active management” to remove younger trees in order to protect old trees in dry forests of Eastern and Southern Oregon. Active management is the new code work for logging. His recommendations drive various forest collaboratives and Forest Service management on eastern Oregon forests.

I love these big trees myself, but the natural thinning of the forest from drought, insects and competition that is happening is analogous to a wolf pack that captures and kills old cows and bulls in an elk herd.

There are numerous problems with logging as a solution to the situation.

The first is that natural evolution is reorganizing the forest and selecting the trees that are better adapted to the on-going climate conditions. The logging/thinning of the forest that Johnson and others in the Forest Service propose is essentially forest gardening. In other words, the agency advocates selectively favoring some trees over others to preclude natural selection.

The second issue is that no one, including myself, can say which trees are best adapted to the on-doing and future climate conditions. As Johnston has correctly discerned, “Competition is one of the major driving forces behind Malheur’s losses”.

But competition is the basis for natural selection.

Thus, selective logging, even that done with good intentions, interferes with natural selection.

We can’t use historic forest conditions to dictate the future when the historic climate that created those forests no longer exists. The problem is that the ecological conditions that led to the forest stands found in eastern Oregon forests today were created hundreds of years ago when the climate was moister and cooler.

If one could anticipate a return to those cooler conditions, trying to “save” the older trees might make sense. However, there is nothing to indicate that climate warming is going to be reversed anytime soon.

Johnston tries to justify thinning/logging due to the fact that large old trees store a lot of carbon. However, at least in the media report, he insinuates that if they die suddenly, carbon storage would end. It does not. Dead trees continue to store carbon for decades, both in the bole and buried roots. The larger the tree, the longer it takes to rot, releasing its stored carbon.

Johnston noted in his study that a third of trees between 150 and 300 years old and a quarter of trees greater than 300 years old had died within the last 10 years. His alarmist conclusions ignore how forest ecosystems work.

Significant tree mortality is natural. Forests are not clocks. They have episodic mortality from high-severty fires, insect outbreaks, and drought. Periodic die offs in forest communities come in waves and are not “averaged” over hundreds of years.

The same older trees Johnson documents as dying likely got their start after some significant ecological disruption, like a major wildfire. These old trees were the survivors of competition that was allowed to proceed.

The other problem with Johnson’s solution is that logging is not benign. Besides removing carbon from the landscape, logging roads help to spread disease and weeds. Logging roads are a major source of sedimentation into streams, with negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems. And as I suggested, logging interferes with natural selection and evolution.

Rather than log the forest, we should allow evolution to proceed. The most crucial factor that wilderness and parks preserve is not old trees or any other entity, but ecological/evolutionary processes. We need to stop thinking of forest ecosystems as giant gardens where humans determine winners and losers

The post Should We Garden Our Forests? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Sage Grouse. Photo: George Wuerthner.

Numerous headlines on Ag network media are championing a new University of Idaho studythat alleges that livestock grazing does not harm sage grouse, a proposed endangered species.

Across the range of sage grouse, livestock grazing is the primary land use, so it’s not surprising that grazing might be a factor in sage grouse decline.

For instance, the Western Livestock Journal headline declared, “ Study Confirms Cattle Grazing Does Not Harm Sage Grouse.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association “Ten Year Study Of Sage Grouse Confirms Benefits of Grazing”

There are numerous other examples I could cite. Given that many other studies suggest that livestock grazing has multiple impacts on sage grouse, one has a reason to be skeptical of these claims.

One of the first things I do when I read a study is to see what did the researcher and who funded it  This study was funded and supported by Public Lands Council, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation, Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS, and numerous grazing associations and ranchers in Idaho. Obviously, most of these participants are either advocates of public lands grazing or at least facilitate it.

My experience with scientists in general is that they do not necessarily lie or distort their findings, but what you consider essential factors for focus in your study and what is ignored can still yield misleading results.

For instance, years ago, I attended a hearing to consider the designation of critical habitat for grizzly bears. The timber industry and Forest Service cited a study that found logging tended to increase production of huckleberries, a grizzly bear food, and therefore, more logging would “benefit” the bears.   While huckleberries are a major bear food, habitat security was the critical factor in bear survival. More logging meant more roads and higher bear mortality—a convenient fact ignored by the advocates of more timber harvest.

The basic conclusion of this study is that “well-managed” livestock grazing had no greater impacts on sage grouse nest success than no grazing. Hence, the conclusion that grazing “does not harm” sage grouse.

However, a closer reading of the study demonstrates numerous problems with such a conclusion.

First, the study hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Why the U of Idaho would promote a survey that has not yet gone through the peer review process is baffling. Its conclusions cannot yet be said to meet scientific standards.

Second, the study looked at vegetation utilization, insect production, and how these factors may have influenced grouse nesting success. However, these factors, although important for sage grouse, are not the only variables critical to the bird’s survival that livestock production impacts. More on that in a bit.

Third, the study implemented a variety of grazing intensities and seasons of use. There was also a no-grazing option. Not surprisingly, the non-grazed sites had the most vegetation. Loss of vegetation cover is one of the factors known to reduce sage grouse hiding cover.  Since the study only looked at nest success or losses, it ignored how important the recruitment of adults into the grouse population. Less vegetation cover can lead to more predation by avian predators or even mammals like coyotes.

But perhaps the biggest flaw in the study is that the researchers claim that the grazed sites experienced moderate grazing.

The Average utilization was only approximately 20%  (page 15, Table 3. Average utilization was 22.05 % SD 2.7).

The lack of a significant difference in the grass height and nest success in the grazed and no-grazed pastures is likely due to the low utilization level (overall average 22.05%). The highest nest success was on the study site with the lowest utilization rate of 16.7%.

Most of the study sites were rest rotation grazed, which is not typically done on public lands. The typical grazing system is to graze every year; many spring pastures are also grazed in the fall. Most pastures never get rested in the spring.

These study sites are all at mid-elevation sites that are not dominated by cheatgrass, yet some conclusions include comments about cattle decreasing cheatgrass. There is no mention that cattle may introduce cheatgrass and disturb the surface soils, creating optimal conditions for cheatgrass to spread and increase the following year.

This is unheard of on typical BLM lands; the agency targets a 50% vegetation removal, and actual utilization is often 60-75% almost 4x the utilization of this study.

So, suggesting that light grazing, as in this study, represents the actual grazing intensity on public lands is misleading.

Furthermore, the presence of field technicians monitoring nest sites in ungrazed areas may have contributed to the low nesting success. The ravens, observing the technicians, locate the sage grouse nests to prey on them.

A further problematic aspect of the study was its use of pits to gather insects for identification and numbers. Insects are essential food for sage grouse chicks. However, the specific insects that are vulnerable to pit traps are not the ones that sage grouse tend to eat.

Beyond these problematic aspects of the study, the researchers ignored the multiple other ways that just having livestock on public lands harms sage grouse.

For instance, avian predators like ravens, golden eagles, and other birds of prey often use fence posts as observation sites. Across much of the sage grouse habitat, the only high point for birds is fence posts.

Fences pose an additional problem, as sage grouse are poor fliers. Fence collisions can account for up to 30% of their mortality.

And why are there fence posts across tens of thousands of miles of sage grouse habitat, but for livestock management.

Livestock also trample biocrusts. These crusts are critical for holding soil together, and they prevent the spread of cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is an annual plant that is highly flammable. The spread of cheatgrass is one of the significant factors central to the growing loss of sagebrush habitat due to wildfires.

In some places, the aborted fetuses and afterbirths of livestock have been shown to provide an alternative food source for ravens, leading to higher populations. Ravens are one of the major avian predators on sage grouse.

Although adult sage grouse use sagebrush year-round, the chicks utilize wet meadows and riparian areas for up to the first six weeks of life. Throughout the West, the most significant factor in the degradation and loss of riparian habitat is due to livestock grazing and removal of vegetation, plus soil compaction and bank trampling.

Lastly, vast valley areas of the West, which are the prime habitat of sage grouse, have been converted to hay fields and pastures to grow forage for livestock. These habitats are population sinks for the grouse and are typically avoided.

When all these factors are taken into account, it’s challenging to suggest that livestock does not harm sage grouse or that grazing “benefits” the bird. Like all research coming out of Range Departments at universities in the West, the main goal appears to be the justification of livestock production on public lands.

The post Flawed Study Minimizes Harm to Sage Grouse from Livestock Grazing appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Pudding River flood, near Mt. Angel, Oregon. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

In the midst of everything else going on, it’s easy to ignore the extraordinary planetary crisis we face from climate change. But we just can’t allow ourselves to do that.

The past 10 years have been the warmest 10 years on record. 2024 was the warmest year in recorded history. January 2025 was the hottest January on record. Western Europe just had its hottest June on record. The recent heat wave in the United States put nearly 190 million Americans under heat advisories and broke heat records in more than 280 locations. Over the past 60 years, the frequency of heat waves in the United States has tripled. According to a new study from Yale University, 64% of Americans think global warming is affecting the weather in the U.S. and almost HALF say they have personally experienced its effects.

From May 2024 to May 2025, 4 billion people — half of the world’s population — experienced at least one extra month of extreme heat due to climate change. Climate change exacerbated Hurricane Helene last fall in the American Southeast, flooding in Texas this past week and in Vermont and Brazil last summer, recent wildfires in Canada and Los Angeles, and health waves in the United States, Europe, India and Pakistan.

And what is President Trump’s response? He just fired the last remaining State Department employees who work on climate change, which is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats to our national security.

Donald Trump is putting the planet and future generations at risk for the short-term profits of his fossil fuel executive friends.

The post No, Mr. President, Climate Change is Not a Hoax appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Paradise Park, Mount Hood Wilderness Area. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

The news is filled with stories of how the Trump administration and its so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have fired thousands of federal employees who work for our public land agencies. Though Trump had been talking about gutting the federal workforce, the way it was done without regard for how it would affect the agencies’ ability to carry out their responsibilities came as quite a shock.

As one U.S. Forest Service wilderness ranger wrote in a recent Wilderness Watch blog:

“The dust has had time to settle, and we can now assess the damage. All probationary Forest Service employees in ‘non-fire’ positions were fired. There are almost no wilderness rangers left in my state and many of my neighboring states. Beyond Wilderness, there are almost no field-going recreation employees left. The temporaries are gone, the permanent seasonals are gone. Without staff, many ranger districts will struggle to even utilize volunteers.”

In a recent meeting that Wilderness Watch attended, the Forest Service described the impacts of cuts to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in central Washington. The popular and spectacular Enchantments area of the Wilderness typically has 10-12 wilderness rangers each summer who patrol and clean up after the 100,000 visitors that descend on the area each year. This year there will be only one wilderness ranger, who will have to share their time between the Enchantments and another 150,000 acres of Wilderness on the ranger district. It’s an utterly impossible task that will result in significant damage to these priceless lands. Similar stories are playing out in other Wildernesses as the Trump cuts kick in.

The layoffs, firings, and forced early retirements didn’t just hit field-going crews. For the Forest Service, the national program leader has left, and eight of the nine regional offices are now without wilderness staff. Major cuts have hit Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs as well. The combination of chaotic firings and early retirements means the most experienced agency wilderness people are now gone.

Yet the untold story is that the downfall of wilderness programs has been a long time in the making. By the time Trump and Musk started recklessly eliminating jobs, Wilderness was one of the areas already hardest hit—not because of sheer numbers laid off or fired, but because there were already relatively few wilderness staff left. This is especially true for the Forest Service, which historically had far and away the most robust wilderness program, but has been gradually shrinking its wilderness crews for years.

The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SBW) straddling the Bitterroot Mountains along the Montana-Idaho border is a case in point. At more than 1.3 million acres, the SBW is the third largest national forest Wilderness in the entire country. In the early 1990s, the SBW had nine permanent wilderness rangers, eight seasonal wilderness rangers, an entire ranger district—the Moose Creek Ranger District—dedicated solely to the SBW, and a wilderness coordinator for the wilderness programs across the six ranger districts and three national forests that oversee the SBW. By 2019, however, this robust wilderness program had dwindled to just three permanent and one seasonal wilderness rangers. The coordinator position was gone, and the Moose Creek District had been merged with an adjacent multiple-use district.

Last fall, things got even worse, even before DOGE and Trump, when then-Forest Service Chief Randy Moore announced that in 2025 there would be no hiring of temporary (seasonal) employees—a group that has historically made up a significant number of wilderness rangers and trail crew. For many Wildernesses, Moore’s edict was going to result in no field presence at all. And numbers tell only part of the story. What was also being lost was decades of institutional knowledge, the traditional skills necessary to steward Wilderness, and a voice within the agencies standing up for Wilderness when harmful projects are planned.

Wilderness Watch had raised this concern for decades, but it had been ignored by agency leaders, Congress, and the media. The Forest Service, and to a lesser extent the BLM, tried to cover up their lack of commitment to their wilderness programs by bringing on volunteers to replace professional, seasoned rangers. But now there aren’t enough rangers to even manage the volunteers, so in most cases much of that help is now gone too.

So, what can be done? In the short term, we can hope that the recent DOGE firings will be reversed, either by the courts or by urging our elected officials to restore funding for the agency programs. That could help hold off some of the damage that will undoubtedly occur over the next few years. And we must all redouble our efforts to push back against destructive proposals we know are headed our way.

Longer term, we need a durable response to the decades-long neglect and animus toward Wilderness that, for many years, has been the hallmark of the four agencies that manage Wilderness. We need a fundamental change to how Wilderness is administered and safeguarded across the land.

Twenty-five years ago, the four federal land agencies commissioned the Pinchot Institute for Conservation to do an assessment of their wilderness programs. The panel consisted of a number of wilderness luminaries, and it took input from wilderness conservationists and wilderness critics around the country. But it spent most of its time talking with federal agency wilderness leaders themselves. The report recognized the unique challenges of protecting and preserving Wilder- ness and the dedication of many of the staff involved, but nonetheless concluded that the agencies’ collective lack of commitment would lead to the eventual loss of the Wilderness System.

One of the panelists, former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, who served in both Congress and the Cabinet (as well as on the Wilderness Watch board of directors), was unequivocal in his conclusion that the four land management agencies weren’t up to the task. He urged the panel to recommend that the overarching responsibilities for Wilderness be placed in a new agency, one dedicated solely to the wilderness task. In calling for creating a new “National Wilderness Service,” Udall wrote:

“We must show the courage to suggest and promote alternatives that will create real change. We should pursue them with the energy and boldness of people like Bob Marshall and Howard Zahniser, who promoted an idea that seemed extreme in their day, but that most Americans now take for granted.”

When the dust settles, attempting to recreate the situation that existed prior to the Trump raids would be a fool’s errand, destined to condemn our precious National Wilderness Preservation System to the dustbin of history. Rather, we should see the near total elimination of the current failing programs as an opportunity to create something much better, a new entity that is passionate about the challenge of protecting and preserving our incomparable National Wilderness Preservation System. Udall’s call for a National Wilderness Service totally dedicated to that cause, and filled with public servants truly committed to that charge, is a great place to start.

Kevin Proescholdt is the conservation director and George Nickas is the executive director of Wilderness Watch.

The post When the Dust Settles: Creating an Agency Worthy of Wilderness appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Ecotourism is often hailed as a sustainable alternative to traditional travel—an opportunity to explore unique environments while supporting local communities and conservation efforts. Yet beneath its green image lies a more complex and often troubling reality. When poorly managed, ecotourism can inflict more harm than good, undermining the very ideals it seeks to uphold.

The ecotourism industry has emerged as one of the fastest-expanding sectors within global travel. According to the Global Ecotourism Network, in 2023, eco-travel accounted for an estimated 20 percent of the international tourism market, with projections indicating continued double-digit annual growth. In 2023 alone, the global ecotourism market was valued at over $200 billion. Economic predictions estimate that the market could reach between $759 billion by 2032 and $945 billion by 2034.

Despite this rapid growth and economic promise, ecotourism enterprises have faced significant criticism from conservationists and researchers. In a 2020 Architectural Review article titled “Outrage: The Ecotourism Hoax,” Smith Mordak, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), asserted that “As long as the underlying principle behind tourism is to bring growth-stimulating inward investment, tourism cannot be made ‘eco.’”

The Ecotourism Paradox

Mordak’s remarks expose the deeper contradictions within many so-called “sustainable” initiatives, drawing attention to the pervasive issues of greenwashing and bluewashing. Just as corporations may falsely brand themselves as environmentally friendly or socially responsible to appeal to conscious consumers, ecotourism companies often mask exploitative or unsustainable practices behind the veneer of conservation. Ultimately, without a fundamental shift in the economic principles that underpin ecotourism, efforts to make the industry sustainable risk becoming performative, focusing on marketing rather than achieving meaningful impact.

According to UKGBC’s Mordak, “Like everything else nurtured in the agar jelly of capitalism, noble intentions soon become corrupted, and the ‘eco’ prefix amounts to little more than a greenwashing rebrand.”

Ecotourism is built on a dual promise—to protect natural environments and to share them with visitors—yet fulfilling one often puts the other at risk. In April 2025, I interviewed Dave Blanton, founder of  Friends of the Serengeti. He started the organization in response to a proposed commercial highway through Serengeti National Park, a development that would have fragmented the ecosystem and destroyed critical migratory routes. He explained the paradox: “On one hand, the growth of tourism in the Serengeti-Mara region will generate government revenue and create jobs. On the other hand, it will increase environmental pressure and diminish the traveler experience.”

Blanton, whose connection to the Serengeti spans over four decades, said, “It is difficult to ensure high standards and best practices in the face of increased demand, competition, and overly ambitious goals for growth.

Grassroots Origins, Global Ideals

Rooted in principles of sustainability and community engagement, grassroots ecotourism, which emerged in the early 1980s, was developed as a response to growing global concerns about environmental degradation and the negative impacts of mass tourism. It emphasizes low-cost, purpose-driven travel experiences that foster direct contributions to conservation and local development.

The current grassroots volunteer travel industry—often referred to as “voluntourism”—continues to attract socially conscious travelers seeking meaningful, hands-on experiences that contribute to local communities and conservation efforts. Programs typically involve small-scale, community-led initiatives that prioritize local needs, such as wildlife monitoring, habitat restoration, education, or sustainable agriculture, and take the form of educational exchanges or participation in field research.

Volunteer travelers opting for low-cost expeditions may pay between $20 and $50 per day, which usually covers necessities such as meals, local transportation, and accommodation. Lodging in these programs is typically modest, ranging from rural homestays and shared guesthouses to dormitory-style lodgings or even tents, depending on the location and nature of the work.

Some who have participated in volunteer travel expeditions have reported a lack of resources and infrastructure, which leaves both volunteers and host communities struggling to meet basic needs. Poorly managed programs are another common complaint, with some volunteers arriving to find disorganized projects, minimal supervision, and unclear objectives. Especially troubling is that some wildlife conservation programs have been accused of neglecting animals by housing them in inadequate enclosures—small, unsanitary, or unsafe spaces that can cause stress, injury, or behavioral problems.

Conservation or Commercial Growth?

Increasingly, however, the voluntourism model is being supplanted by the proliferation of large-scale, high-end commercial ventures, where travelers are observers rather than helpers. The modern ecotourism landscape is increasingly dominated by luxury enterprises, some of which feature elegant eco-lodges, boutique resorts, and nature-based retreats offering the comforts of premium hospitality.

Accommodations are often situated in remote, pristine environments, such as nature reserves, rainforests, or coastal regions. Amenities may include private villas or bungalows, gourmet organic cuisine, private wildlife excursions, and wellness offerings like yoga and spa treatments. Prices for these luxury experiences can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars per night.

With the expansion of major hotel chains and multinational businesses in conservation areas, critics argue that the scale and infrastructure required to sustain such operations can strain fragile ecosystems and disrupt local communities and wildlife.

Matt Kareus, executive director of the International Galápagos Tour Operators Association (IGTOA), focuses his efforts on preserving the unique biodiversity of the Galápagos Islands through education, policy advocacy, and collaborative conservation initiatives. When I spoke to him in April 2025, he stated that the most serious long-term threat to the Galápagos is runaway tourism growth, which has compromised the natural resources and local infrastructure on the Ecuadorian islands. Like Blanton, Kareus emphasized the need for stricter environmental standards and accountability to ensure that ecotourism remains a tool for conservation, rather than a vehicle for unchecked commercial growth.

Kareus says that the issue is not whether luxury ecotourism is necessarily better or worse than other forms of tourism; instead, it’s a matter of how well tourism itself is managed and regulated in individual regions.

“There are a lot of potential benefits when it’s done thoughtfully and responsibly, just as there can be a lot of downsides to more budget-friendly modes of tourism if they aren’t done in the correct way,” said Kareus, who offered an example: “Imagine a 15-room eco-lodge surrounded by a nature reserve—it could potentially generate similar economic and employment benefits as a standard 100-room hotel, with far less negative impact on the surrounding environment.”

Luxury ecotourism developments are increasingly incorporating advanced eco-friendly design, planning, and investment strategies, emphasizing features such as solar energy systems, rainwater harvesting, passive cooling architecture, the use of locally sourced and renewable building materials like bamboo or reclaimed wood, as well as carbon offset programs. Operators assert that strategic site planning minimizes ecological disruption by preserving native vegetation, protecting wildlife corridors, and adhering to low-impact construction methods.

The Commodification of Culture

While mass-market ecotourism promises immersion in natural environments and meaningful cultural exchanges, some critics argue that the result is often a curated version of nature and culture—polished, exclusive, and often removed from the realities of place.

Researchers attribute this conceit to the “white savior complex,” a mindset—often held by well-meaning but misinformed Western travelers—where they perceive themselves as heroic figures “rescuing” impoverished or marginalized communities, particularly in the Global South, through short-term volunteerism or conservation work, but often end up reinforcing colonial-era power imbalances, where Western values, knowledge, and presence are seen as superior or necessary for progress. At the same time, local expertise, autonomy, and cultural practices are undervalued or ignored.

In my interview with her in May 2025, Michelle Mielly, professor of law, management, and social sciences at Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM), commented, “Indigenous people want to be left alone. We keep colonizing these cultures.”

Commodification not only undermines the integrity of local traditions but also distances travelers from the raw, unfiltered experiences that make travel transformative, turning sacred rituals and cultural practices into spectacles for outsiders. Academic researchers refer to the practice as “cultural extractivism”—the appropriation of Indigenous cultural practices and traditions by commercial enterprise.

Professor Mielly offered an instructive example in the increasing popularity of ayahuasca retreats in the Amazon River Basin. Ayahuasca, a psychedelic brew made from native plants that has been used for centuries by Indigenous tribes for its spiritual and therapeutic properties, is being successfully marketed to Western tourists as a psychedelic substance that promises a mind-altering experience worth traveling for.

According to studies, ayahuasca has demonstrated antidepressant effects, offering hope for many who don’t react to classic interventions. Retreats are often hosted in remote jungle settings in countries like Peru, Brazil, or Colombia, and are led by Indigenous shamans or facilitators trained in local spiritual and healing practices. However, Mielly explains that the significance of the Amazon rainforest extends far beyond its role as a habitat. “[Indigenous communities] derive their culture, language, and social order from the natural structure of the forest,” she says.

Preservation Without Permission

In many cases, protected areas are established or expanded to accommodate ecotourism without the full consent or involvement of the people who have historically lived on and stewarded the land. This has led to the displacement of Indigenous groups, stripping them of access to ancestral territories and traditional livelihoods under the guise of environmental preservation.

“While it’s no surprise that the original concept of ecotourism has been obscured by less virtuous projects, they become more problematic when they block local communities from ancestral lands or even involve their forced relocation,” wrote Mielly in a 2023 article in The Conversation. Mielly cites several examples of forced displacement of Indigenous populations under the crush of ecotourism development—including the eviction of 16 villages on Rempang Island, Indonesia, to make way for a solar panel factory and “eco-city.”

“Eco-projects are not necessarily humanitarian projects,” noted Mielly, invoking how the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic— are not always upheld within the ecotourism industry. Together, these pillars support the goal of meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. But Mielly is cautious. “We are so lucky to have Indigenous people,” Mielly says. “They are our past, our future, and the key to our survival.”

“A Contest for Land”

Major infrastructure projects are increasingly encroaching on ancestral lands, displacing Indigenous communities and cutting them off from traditional territories and livelihoods, says Mielly, noting that “a contest for land is a contest for life; ecotourism is an invasion of these spaces.”

To study the ways in which poorly regulated ecotourism initiatives can reinforce historical patterns of exclusion and dispossession, Mielly and a team of researchers from GEM organized a dialogue with members of the Mbyá Guaraní community in the coastal region of Maricá, Brazil, to examine how business schools and multinational corporations influence Indigenous land rights.

The discussion centered on the Mareay project — an ambitious proposal to develop a vast coastal area through partnerships with major hospitality companies, which will include five luxury hotels, a resort with a golf course, residential units, an education complex, a health center, and a commercial area. Mielly cautioned that the “Disneyfication” of ecotourism ventures on the scale and scope of the Mareay project raises critical questions about the harm ecotourism developments inflict on coastal landscapes, local livelihoods, and Indigenous ways of life.

“When we have great income inequalities, ecotourism becomes ethically challenging,” said Mielly. “This is where we have to shift our gaze. Indigenous people want to be left alone. They don’t understand the value of these enterprises engulfing their communities, and if they do, they may take large cash settlements, but they lose their land,” she said, adding, “We keep colonizing these cultures.”

Infrastructure & Impact

This tension mirrors broader patterns observed across Latin America, where ambitious infrastructure projects often claim to be sustainable while dramatically reshaping environments and economies.

Increasingly, governments and private stakeholders are developing and investing in new airports, eco-friendly lodges, and transportation networks. These developments aim to strike a balance between supporting economic growth through tourism and protecting the ecosystems that attract visitors. However, studies suggest that large-scale infrastructure projects could shift the tourism model from high-value, low-impact travel to runaway mass tourism, with irreversible environmental and sociocultural consequences.

For instance, in preparation for hosting the COP30 climate summit in November 2025, Brazil is constructing the Avenida Liberdade, a four-lane highway through protected Amazon rainforest near Belém, designed to improve access for an anticipated 50,000 attendees. The project includes wildlife crossings, bicycle lanes, and solar-powered lighting.

The highway has sparked controversy due to its ecological impact on the rainforest. Local resident Claudio Verequete told the BBC that he used to make an income from harvesting açaí berries from trees that once occupied the land where the highway is being constructed. “Everything was destroyed,” he said. “Our harvest has already been cut down. We no longer have that income to support our family.” Verequete added that he has received no compensation from the state government, and he worries the construction of the road will lead to more deforestation in the future.

Venezuela is also investing in infrastructure within ecologically sensitive areas. According to a 2024 Reuters article, Los Roques National Park is undergoing massive development to attract tourists, including the expansion of airport runways and the construction of hotels. The government’s promotion of these projects as eco-friendly contrasts with criticisms from environmental groups regarding their social, economic, and ecological impact, as they have led to damage to coral reefs, mangroves, and endangered turtle nesting sites.

Sharing the Wealth

When ecotourism aligns conservation goals with community development, it can generate significant social, economic, and environmental benefits—but without effective revenue-sharing mechanisms, the wealth often flows to tour operators or foreign investors, leaving residents with limited economic gains, minimal decision-making power, and few long-term benefits from conservation efforts.

By allocating a fair share of profits to those who live in and around conservation areas, revenue sharing fosters community support for environmental protection and discourages unsustainable practices such as poaching, deforestation, or illegal land use.

Despite their potential to support local communities, revenue-sharing systems are vulnerable to corruption and exploitation. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) initiative Targeting Natural Resource Corruption (TNRC), implemented from 2018-2024, environmental corruption offenses range from misallocation of conservation funds to the exploitation of natural resources and local populations, which TNRC attributed to “weak governance, lack of transparency, and poorly enforced regulations that allow unscrupulous operators and officials to profit at the expense of the environment.” Without well-managed revenue sharing, funds intended to benefit conservation efforts and local populations may be diverted, exacerbating inequalities.

While revenue sharing provides immediate benefits to communities, it is the integration of models like Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) that offers a more sustainable, long-term approach by empowering local populations to take active roles in managing and protecting their natural resources. Central to this model is the recognition of community ownership or rights over land, wildlife, or marine resources.

Namibia’s CBNRM program is widely recognized as one of the most successful examples of integrating ecotourism with community development and conservation. Launched in the 1990s, the program grants legal rights to local communities, organized into conservancies, to manage and benefit from wildlife and natural resources on communal lands. Through partnerships with private ecotourism operators and sustainable hunting concessions, these conservancies generate significant income that is reinvested into local infrastructure, education, healthcare, and conservation efforts.

According to a report from Community Conservation Namibia, in 2022 alone, tourism activities generated approximately $6 million in revenue for communities across 86 registered conservancies. Lodges, safari operations, and guided wildlife experiences provide direct employment for thousands of rural Namibians while also funding community-wide initiatives. Crucially, the program has created powerful incentives for conservation: as wildlife populations have rebounded, such as the growth of free-roaming desert lions and black rhinos, tourism revenue has increased, reinforcing a cycle of ecological and economic sustainability.

Beyond the Footprint: Ecotourism’s Positive Legacy

Despite the risks that ecotourism poses, it has also helped catalyze important gains in education and sustainable development in some areas. Volunteer travel, in particular, has brought resources, skills, and knowledge to remote regions, supporting the development of sustainable agriculture, architecture, renewable energy projects, and waste management systems.

Costa Rica stands out as a global leader in ecotourism, recognized for reinvesting tourism revenue in national parks and local communities. While challenges like corruption persist, Costa Rica has made ecotourism a central element of its national identity and development strategy, often cited as a model for sustainable tourism worldwide.

For instance, in Costa Rica, the ecotourism industry has funded educational programs and conservation initiatives, including the Monteverde Institute, which offers community-based research and educational programs in sustainability, ecology, and cultural heritage.

In Tortuguero, a once-remote Caribbean village in Costa Rica, sea turtle ecotourism has played a pivotal role in improving both environmental and public health outcomes. According to the Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC),revenue generated from guided turtle-watching tours and eco-lodges has helped fund essential services, including local health clinics and clean water systems. Organizations like STC have expanded their efforts beyond wildlife protection to include environmental education initiatives that address public health concerns, including waste management and mosquito-borne disease prevention.

Uganda has strategically leveraged ecotourism to strengthen local community infrastructure through the Bwindi National Forest Park, which generates revenue from gorilla trekking permits that support both conservation efforts and community health clinics, such as the Bwindi Community Hospital, which now serves tens of thousands of people with maternal care, HIV treatment, and preventive health services.

Sustainable Travel, Shared Futures

While ecotourism revenue cannot replace the reach and impact of international aid, it may be a valuable complementary strategy for building resilience, fostering self-reliance, and supporting long-term development, especially when integrated with education, conservation, and community governance efforts. “Good ecotourism educates us,” says Mielly, as travel networks can lead to long-term partnerships, funding, and knowledge-sharing that transcend cultural and national boundaries.

Notably, some for-profit commercial travel companies actively fund vital health and social programs in impoverished global communities near conservation centers. G Adventures, an international adventure travel company, partners with its non-profit Planeterra Foundation to support health and education projects in over 100 countries. Their initiatives include building water tanks in Panama, combating child sex tourism in Cambodia, and helping women weavers in Peru.

Intrepid Travel, a certified B Corporation, operates small-group tours worldwide with a strong commitment to responsible tourism. Through its non-profit arm, The Intrepid Foundation, the company has funded various health-related initiatives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the foundation provided essential medical equipment, including oxygen tanks, to communities in India and delivered food packages to families in remote parts of Peru. Micato Safaris, a luxury safari operator in Africa, runs the AmericaShare program, which aids communities affected by HIV/AIDS in Kenya. For every safari sold, Micato sends a child to school and supports local clinics and meal programs, directly impacting community health and education.

Keeping Eco Ethical

The success of ecotourism is contingent upon the ways it integrates its benevolent vision into the development process. In some cases, well-managed ecotourism can promote conservation and economic benefits simultaneously. In other cases, it can inadvertently lead to environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and economic disparities if not adequately regulated.

Several reputable organizations, certifications, and frameworks help determine the legitimacy, ethical standards, and quality of volunteer travel companies. Some organizations are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Others are certified B Corporations, which undergo a rigorous accreditation process that evaluates social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.

Various bodies have emerged to define, regulate, and certify best practices in ecotourism, such as the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), Rainforest Alliance, and Travelife, which establish transparent guidelines that prioritize ethical business practices and hold companies accountable in the ever-growing, high-stakes industry.

Through comprehensive criteria, organizations like the GSTC define what qualifies as “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” tourism, covering environmental protection, cultural respect, fair labor practices, and local economic development. Additionally, they assess and certify tour operators, accommodations, and entire destinations to ensure they meet these standards.

These regulatory bodies often conduct audits and ongoing assessments to ensure compliance, which helps prevent greenwashing by providing training and support to help tourism providers improve their sustainability practices, especially in developing regions where resources may be limited.

Look Beyond the Label: Vetting Ecotourism

Certifications serve as a credibility marker for consumers seeking responsible travel options. Experienced conservationists strongly advise prospective ecotourists to thoroughly research and evaluate the credentials, practices, and ethical standards of ecotourism organizations to ensure that their travel choices genuinely support conservation efforts, benefit local communities, and minimize ecological harm.

IGTOA’s Kareus cautions that it is essential to dig deeper and ask questions: “How are they giving back to the communities where they operate? How do they ensure that the economic benefits of what they are doing are shared as broadly as possible in those communities? Do they have programs in place to help support conservation, or community development, or to reduce any potential negative impacts of their operations?” are a few he suggested.

Blanton, Kareus, and Mielly all agree that companies are doing excellent work and genuinely making a positive impact. As Mielly notes, “Good ecotourism educates us,” reminding travelers of their role in fostering awareness and respect. Yet she also adds that “eco starts at home,” underscoring the idea that sustainable values must begin with personal responsibility and not just be outsourced to the places we visit.

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

The post The Dark Side of Ecotourism appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.