Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

Jim Stiles, blowhard? Half blowhard?

The iconic Delicate Arch at Arches National Park. (Author photo)
Jim Stiles, proprietor of the Canyon Country Zephyr online newsmagazine, likes to portray himself as the intellectual heir to Cactus Ed Abbey. Maybe I should say "THE heir" to emphasize that. And, what led me to this blog post was seeing High Country News run a retrospective on the 50th anniversary of "Desert Solitare," Abbey's memoir, environmental manifesto and quasi-anarchist screed about his years of seasonal ranger service at Arches National Monument, today a national park. I checked the Zephyr (which I sometimes like as a tweaker of the more mainstream HCN, to see if Stiles had something similar up, and he didn't yet.)

Among his heirship angles is attacking eco-tourism as wrecking Moab, Utah in particular and the American West in general.

I'm no defender of swapping the single-industry mining or logging nature of many Western towns for one of tourism. And, per that link just above, Stiles is half right, maybe more. But, to say that eco-tourism has caused the problem is itself bullshit. I told High Country News the same when it wrote a semi-puff piece about Moab's retiring mayor.

Western small towns and counties, unless forbidden by state law, can ameliorate this issues with eco-tourism (or the stagnant wages of extractive economies on the decline) by:
1. Increasing the local minimum wage
2. Getting developers to build affordable housing, including through either the carrot of subsidies or the stick of requiring it as part of a larger development.

Stiles mentions neither of those. (Moab's mayor never mentioned trying to get the rest of the city council to sign off on such, either.)

That's not all. Other actions could include:
3. Funding for other things to broaden the local economy done via an increased hotel-motel tax, which would primarily tag high-end tourism.
4. Getting the nearest recreationally developed federal area to work better to promote local attractions and events.
5. Getting counties to adopt county zoning policies outside of city limits.

Stiles' ERMIGOD GREEN TOURISM reached shitstorm level over the creation of Bears Ears National Monument. With Trump's (will it stand?) downsizing of BENM, Stiles reiterates claims that national monument designation involved no additional protection, gave American Indian tribes in the area no additional empowerment, and other things.

He's half-right on the first; the protection would have been even better were it to have been moved to the custody of the National Park Service.

But, he's not all right, and that's because he's all wet on No. 2. Jonny Thompson covered that by noting specifically:
A monument manager would be overseen by a commission, made up of one representative from each of the five tribes, and one each from the U.S. Forest Service, BLM and National Park Service. The tribes, collectively, would have the loudest voice in decision-making.
That's more than just "advisory," Jim.

Yes, most of the tribal powers with Bears Ears are advisory, not statutory. But not all of them.

He then ventures into Anglocentric stances from the top, when he claims:
For the purposes of this story I refer to the area of Grand Gulch and Cedar Mesa as “Bears Ears.” But please note that in the forty-seven years I’ve known and wandered southeast Utah, literally NOBODY ever referred to the region as ‘The Bears Ears”  until two years ago. That title is a piece of product packaging and marketing by mainstream environmental organizations and the outdoor recreation industry and has never been a name that meant anything more than the two buttes that lie along the southern edge of Elk Ridge…JS
Gee, Jim, maybe you should expand your circles.

First, what do Navajos, or Ute, or Hopi, call "Cedar Mesa"? Or "Grand Gulch"? We know what the Navajos call "Bears Ears," and that is "Bears Ears."

Second, and related, what do they call the entire area?

Third, other National parks and monuments are named after just one portion of the territory. Saguaro National Park, which surely was not called "Saguaroland" 100-plus years ago, has more than just saguaros. Really, Jim, this is dumb shit.

Fourth, related to Point No. 2 on my first bullet points? Why not empower tribal cops for patrolling? Since this is outside any reservation, I presume that they could, as appropriately deputized, arrest Anglos, which SCOTUS says they can't on their reservations. The "Jim Chees" comment aside, Stiles in that piece, and per this HCN submission of his last year, seems conflicted or schizo in general about the idea of antiquities protection actually being put in place.

And, Jim, progress in gear is often good. So what if a CamelBak or other brand is called "portable hydration"? It uses no more plastic than the inside liner of a 2-quart canteen of 40 years ago, is a lot lighter, and less bulky. My Kelty tent is a lot less bulky than an old Army pup tent.

Beyond that, while Stiles is half-right, it's rarely more than that. Among areas where he's not close to all-right, per Paul Larmer, is to blame only environmentalists for the "amenities economy." Every been to Aspen or Vail, Jim? Jackson Hole? Or, even closer to you, Park Cities? The ski industry is worse than greenies.

Ditto on people building second homes in Montana or whatever. Most of them have nothing to do with environmental tourism. Stiles is conflating problems and issues with others.

On the third, hand, with a company like Patagonia hiring as an "ambassador" the guy who climbed Delicate Arch, sometimes he is more than half right.

On the fourth hand, not everybody who goes to Arches is always hiking 40 miles a day with backpack. Nor do we think carrying a CamelBak rather than that old plastic-line aluminum canteen, let alone old Army surplus ones, lessens the value of the hike.

And, per an HCN commenter of a decade ago, and also an HCN review of his book, I do think he is a son-of-an-Ed cultist, self-created, and he likes that. And, like Cactus Ed, maybe he's not all environmentalist. Maybe he's got a bit — or a bit too much — of Ed's anarchist blood. That said, I think his anarchist level is less, and less activist than Ed's. I've never heard Stiles talk about throwing car tires off canyon rims.

And finally, Jim, speaking of tourism being a new version of extractive industry, how much money do you make portraying yourself as "THE Heir" of Abbey and "THE Protector" of what's truly best for that area? I mean, you clearly, premeditatedly, spin Abbey mythology. (And Stiles does that while seeming to avoid Abbey's dark side on things like immigration, as Charles Bowden noted, and things like alcoholism, which most of Abbey's groupies ignore.)

What Stiles needs to do is address the issue of capitalism and hypercapitalism.


This post first appeared on SocraticGadfly, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Jim Stiles, blowhard? Half blowhard?

×

Subscribe to Socraticgadfly

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×