While working on my Bachelors of Science my major was in the field of Geography.
Within my coursework in Geography we explored the theory behind Landscape. I was
fresh off the farm when we first started talking about Landscape so I thought
the definition was pretty cut and dry. My understanding was that landscape was
the swath of country that lay before you. It didn’t take long for me to realize
that my professors were talking about something entirely different.
The concept behind landscape is an academic abyss of scientific theory enveloped
within an indefensible appeal to the human senses. My crude grasp of landscape
as simply being the swath of land before me was replaced by something much less
concrete. Landscape embodies the sights, the sounds, the smells, the history and
the spirit of the given place. It’s not just what I see but also the
perceptions that I have about the place. It’s all of the individual characteristics,
physical and cultural, coming together to make that place unique. The idea of landscape can get pretty fuzzy and
is no doubt open to interpretation. This
connection or identity can be personal or it can be shared with a community of
people who have the same values. One physical location is often defined by many
interpretations of what makes up a landscape.
I find it worrisome that the Bureau of Land Management has chosen to
run headlong into the theory of landscape as a tool to manage public lands. Our
land managers do not exactly a good record when it comes to managing our
cultural antiquities. The wrongful implementation or management of the landscape
theory can inflict irreparable damage by losing key components of the cultural landscape.
This management tool also enlarges the vulnerability in being susceptible to political
pressure to modify those aspects of the landscape that aren’t compatible with
the current political climate. As a
result one group’s view of what the landscape is gets imposed upon everyone
else who henceforth experiences that landscape. True interpretation of
landscape isn’t distorted to serve one specific perception of the area but
rather to truly encompass the whole history of the area.
Implementing the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System, Senator
Reid and Congressman Horsford have introduced a bill in each respective House
of Congress to designate the Gold Butte region an NCA with large quantities of
wilderness. The NCA is a designation within the National Landscape Conservation
System. This real life scenario regarding Gold Butte provides a perfect example
of this process being manipulated by outside factors to fabricate a landscape to
fit within one group’s view of an area and employing their political influences
to modify the landscape to fit their needs.
The cultural landscape of Gold Butte does not reflect a landscape that
has been untouched by human existence as the current proposal depicts. Rather
the rich cultural tones of the landscape are highlighted with the human
struggle to survive and adapt within the setting they inhabit. The cultural
features found on this landscape such as rock art, arastras, mines, corrals,
barbwire and roads enrich the cultural account of this beautiful and complex landscape. The theory of Wilderness contrasted against
the historical account of humans and their interaction with the landscape of
Gold Butte makes the claims by those seeking this designation laughable for
anyone who knows the history of the area.
I am not opposed managing our public lands through the theory of landscape;
however I am opposed when this concept is used to retool a landscape to fit a
political agenda. We need to focus our energy on documenting the full
historical account of this landscape and expend less energy on second rate
labels and categories to box these areas within. I hate to see the current path
the Interior is taking in managing our lands because we will again lose
generations of history and culture as their labels and bureaucracy erase what
made this country strong.
Posts
