Spring
2001 - Blanchard Mountain
Introduction
by Tiffany Campbell
Americans put a price
on everything. But some things are worthwhile, simply because they exist.
Blanchard Mountain, the only part of the Cascade Range that touches the
sea, is one of those places.
We consume our natural
resources, in the forms of oil, timber and water, at a voracious rate.
Often, we are not alarmed because we, as a species, are so ingenious we
will simply find alternatives to these resources.
My response to this
is invariably to ask, what it is that we are waiting for? Why dont
we find those sources now? Why not invest our efforts into new ways of
utilizing and conserving resources than getting worked up over the loss
of the old ones? Why not save some of the land and species these materials
reside in or around that are perhaps just as worthwhile?
Blanchard Mountain
is an example of larger societal issues: loss and worth of green space,
continuing urban sprawl, management of public and private lands. The Planet
staff deals with some of these issues explicitly, some not. But Blanchard
Mountains future lies against a backdrop of these larger issues.
We want green space we crave it, we want to be able to escape into
our regional parks and our backyards. Blanchard Mountain, for Bellingham,
is a bit of both. At the same time, we want jobs that pay a living wage.
We need paper and wood products, and the timber, pulp industry and land
management in this country employ 1.2 million people.
So where do we draw
the line? In some ways, the management of Blanchard Mountain has become
controversial simply because the people of this community like it. People
do not necessarily want to save Blanchard Mountain because it is ecologically
diverse or because endangered species are there or because it is the last
possible chance for a significant corridor between the Cascades and the
sea, though all those things may be true. They want Blanchard Mountain
protected because they like to spend time there.
This is not as noble
a cause, as, say saving endangered whales. We use this mountain in a way
that we do not use endangered species. But this decision represents a
responsibility and knowledge that we need nature. We like trees. We like
having a place to get lost in close to where we make our home.
And that shows the
human species proverbial line in the sand. Perhaps we are not always
able to articulate it, but many people feel a balance should be struck
between production and aesthetics. For the last 150 years, the bottom
line has been the deciding factor for everything. Perhaps now, in this
time of unparalleled wealth and prosperity, we can find some sane, fair
way to simply decide to say we love this land as it is, and we
will simply have to find alternative resources.
Our world is changing,
and with that comes the need for adaptation. In the same way this community
is reassigning the value of a mountain, Americans need to reassess their
own values. It would be ridiculous and hypocritical for any of us to say
timber harvest must stop completely. What we can do is evaluate our insatiable
need for wood and wood products and find other, more sustainable alternatives,
so that we can leave natural places as they are. We can use less and recycle
more.
If we can change our
estimation of the value and use of a mountain, perhaps we can learn that
there is more than one way to live. We need to start planning, not for
the next year, but for the next century. We can assess what we would like
to keep and what is expendable, by urban and resource planning; by setting
aside corridors, rangeland for large carnivores, green space and wilderness.
Instead of waiting until resources run out, or are threatened, we can
make rational decisions and plans that reflect not just the short-term
bottom line. We find many other things worthwhile clean air and
water, jobs and a place for other species to live. Even if we cant
put a monetary price on it, thats okay. We usually cannot put a
price on the most precious aspects of our lives.
|