Public opposition to the OMAB nomination did not begin to surface until 1995, was in full swing in by 1996, and remained vigorous well into 1997. Quite probably, discussion and expressions of concern continue to echo around the Ozarks. In response to the nomination, opponents inundated the Steering Committee and local communities with questions, claims, and accusations regarding the MAB Program and the OMAB nomination effort. One of the primary goals of this research was to determine the nature of the controversy, and to discuss the grievances, claims, and strategies of those people who came out publicly in opposition to the nomination. This chapter is devoted to addressing these issues. Despite the vast array of claims, some quite extraordinary, opposition grievances can be attributed to opponent perceptions of: 1) the nomination process; 2) the betrayal of Ozark citizens by nomination participants, particularly agencies; and 3) the substance and implications of the MAB program for local residents.
Determining the specific breadth of anti-OMAB or pro-OMAB sentiment among Ozark citizens was not within the scope of this research. However, the data indicate that a number of opponents and interested citizens contacted Steering Committee representatives, local papers, and political representatives to get the information and to express their feelings about the OMAB nomination. While it is impossible to say conclusively if opponent sentiments were widely held or concentrated among a few individuals, most OMAB proponents and non-opponent bystanders interviewed indicated that nearly all public opposition came from a small group of very vocal individuals aided, perhaps, by a couple of property rights organizations. The dominant impression expressed by pro-OMAB and bystander interviewees was that the public at large was either apathetic to the issue in general or, after investigating the issue for themselves, did not believe there was cause for concern. Because no empirical assessment of the public was undertaken, again, we cannot say if this perspective was accurate or if it represents pro-OMAB rhetoric to de-legitimate opposition claims.
OMAB supporters attributed the bulk of the opposition to local people distrustful of government in general. Kevin Larson, the editor of a southern Missouri newspaper, described local OMAB opposition in this manner:
The Man and Biosphere project itself I think was a handy-peg onto which a lot of people who just generally don’t trust or dislike the government, to hang their anger and distrust on. Whether they were anti-abortion, …pro-gun ownership, [or] anti-tax people, they all tend to kind of float around and join and follow various groups and movements which are just generally anti-government. The hard core people were just interested in the Man and the Biosphere movement, but a lot of familiar faces from other causes showed up at the meetings too. So, I think there were a lot of disgruntled people there who, [to them], this was just one more thing that the government was doing to them, that they didn’t like …as opposed to them knowing very much about it. (Kevin Larson, personal interview)
Our impression is that a core group of individuals were responsible for much of the public discourse and activism on the issue, such as obtaining and publicizing information. This is not to say, however, that the community in general was passive or non-supportive of OMAB opponents and their cause. There were many letters to the editor written by citizens and high attendance at local anti-OMAB meetings. Moreover, it seems counter intuitive to believe that the nomination would have been dropped if just a few vocal individuals had expressed isolated concerns. Although we cannot speculate as to the full extent of public opposition regarding the OMAB nomination, it elicited enough intense social and political pressure for the Steering Committee participants to be driven away from the nomination.
Although there was no consensus among proponents as to whether the controversy began in Missouri or Arkansas, our analysis of media publications indicates that it first surfaced publicly in Missouri. The epiphany is thought to have come from watchdog property rights activists in 1995 who noted an obscure reference to the Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Reserve in a Missouri Department of Conservation publication regarding their since discontinued Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) program initiative (The Current Local, 1997:1).
The earliest newspaper notice of the OMAB issue appears to have been in the March 29, 1995 edition of a small town Missouri paper called The Mansfield Shopper II. The publication contained an advertisement warning the public about the impending United Nations program to confiscate Ozark land and offered for purchase a packet of information proving the "conspiracy (The Mansfield Shopper II 1995:16)." Fourteen months after this warning was published, informal interagency correspondence from the Missouri Department of Conservation to Buffalo National River reported insurmountable public opposition to both Coordinated Resource Management and the OMAB nomination in Missouri (McGrath, Missouri Department of Conservation. Correspondence 5/21/96). The controversy was in full swing in Missouri.
Conflict blossomed publicly in Arkansas in early fall of 1996. One Arkansas newspaper in Fayetteville attributed the discovery of the proposed nomination to an anonymous Arkansas woman, a preacher’s wife. The mystery woman was quoted as saying, " ' I am not a political activist,… I simply called and asked a question…Apparently I'm the only person in Arkansas who thought to ask this question and found out what's happening (Garret 1996:A1+).’" A majority of opponent letters to the editor in Ozark newspapers began showing up in late Summer to early Fall 1996 in both states. However, we collected letters published on the OMAB nomination well into 1997.
Much of the public controversy, consequently, took place well after participating agencies and organizations had withdrawn from the nomination effort. In summary, the public controversy over the OMAB nomination began sometime in early 1995, most probably in Missouri. Arkansas activists joined the fight in the Fall of 1996 and Winter 1997, when the controversy seemed to peak in both states.
Once opposition began it was swift, intense, and extremely effective. There was no one anti-OMAB group or organization; activism against the OMAB was comprised of loosely networked individuals and organizations. New groups sprang up, and some groups already in existence, like Take Back Arkansas, opened new chapters or gained new members as a result of the controversy. There were a variety of organizations that supported events and efforts to oppose the OMAB. Organization names linked to the opposition were Keep the Ozarks American, Society for the Preservation of Ozark Culture, Take Back Arkansas, Citizens for Private Property Rights, People for the West, and the Missouri Farm Bureau.
Media and Steering Committee representatives we visited speculated that organizations from outside the Ozarks financed or otherwise supported anti-OMAB activism. An editor of a local Ozark newspaper cited such organizational support as one reason for the success of the opponents, he said:
They (the Steering Committee) didn’t realize there was some big money behind it. These aren’t just local people. They are well funded. Some of the speakers that passed through the area initially were related to the People for the West movement. People for the West is funded by big timber industries and the big cattle industries up in the Pacific Northwest. …Some of the advertising that was put in this newspaper advertising…’learn about the danger to your property and the Man and the Biosphere movement,’ … were paid for by checks drawn on an agency in Pueblo, Colorado which is one of a corporate entities of the People for the West. … There’s a movement called Take Back Arkansas… who I’m told is subsidized by the mining and timber industries. So, I don’t think our local people (agency representatives) took it nearly seriously enough, soon enough. (Kevin Larson, personal interview)
While there may have been influence from people and organizations outside the Ozarks, it is undeniable that bona fide Ozark citizens acting together and acting alone played an extremely important role in the protest. Several individuals stood apart from the pack in terms of their activism, serving as speakers at anti-Biosphere Reserve meetings, relentlessly writing letters to the editor, continually contacting Steering Committee members and politicians, and networking intensively. Those opponents who appeared to be most active were Connie Burks from Jasper, AR; William Jud from Fredericktown, MO; Everett Middleton from Flippin, AR; Ed Manor from Jasper, AR; Mary Rivera of Jeep, AR; Mary and Elam Denham (of TBA) from Fayetteville, AR; and Ray Cunio (of Citizens for Private Property Rights) from Japan, MO. These individuals frequently took center stage, aggressively informing Ozark citizens about the OMAB nomination.
Opponents, individuals and organizations alike, formed alliances with each other to coordinate their efforts. This allowed them to work together quickly and efficiently to gather and exchange information. OMAB opponents were very successful in mobilizing against the nomination. Their goals were to disseminate information about the OMAB ‘plot’ and to rally support, both in the public and political arenas, against the nomination. To accomplish these goals they employed five central strategies: a) contacting Steering Committee and US MAB representatives; b) holding public/town meetings; c) writing letters to the editor; d) setting up information websites on the Internet; and e) contacting local, state, and federal politicians.
Opponents sought information on the OMAB from a variety of sources, including Steering Committee representatives and US MAB officials. Activists wrote letters and made phone calls asking for explanations and information. Most Steering Committee representatives we talked with indicated that numerous phone calls were received about the OMAB nomination. One Steering Committee representative described his attempt to assist an information seeking opponent, saying, "…she called me a couple of times and acted very objective, [saying] ‘I just wanted to get information,’ but she was obviously biased. She was looking for the dirt (Ben Johnson, personal interview)." Also, George Oviatt of Buffalo National River reported a couple instances where he sat down with opponents to answer questions and discuss their allegations. Once opponents collected information, they worked relentlessly to get the word out.
Opponents wanted to warn the public and politicians about perceived threats associated with the nomination. The Fayetteville reporter who interviewed the mystery woman wrote:
The woman said since she has learned of the MAB program and its potential threats, she has felt compelled to alert the citizens of Arkansas to the issue. She has found allies in her cause in state property rights groups, including the Fayetteville-based Take Back Arkansas (Garret 1996:A1+).
Virtually every letter to the editor cited important sources of information accompanied by pleas for readers to get educated and get involved. Opponents believed that if people were informed about the threats associated with a MAB, there would be enough public outcry to stop the nomination. Which was, of course, the case. To inform the public, opponents held public/town meetings, published letters to the editor, and utilized the Internet both as a source and conduit for information.
A series of public/town meetings held in various towns in the Ozark region proved to be an extremely effective strategy employed by OMAB opponents interested in reaching out to the Ozark public. At these meetings local activists and national environmental-conspiracy experts provided Ozark citizens with documents, sources, and their interpretation of the MAB program, among other things. It is difficult to get a sense of how many gatherings were actually held or how many citizens were in attendance. Numerous public meetings were held in local cafes and in the homes of Ozark citizens. Newspaper articles reporting on the happenings at such meetings, especially in Arkansas, began to show up in local papers in the Fall of 1996.
Several large-scale public meetings were held in southern Missouri between February and April of 1997, long after the actual demise of the OMAB nomination. Meetings covered in local newspapers took place in Winona (February 28), West Plains (March 22), and Thayer (April 17). Attendance estimates reported for these meetings ranged from 100 to more than 300 citizens. Other large-scale town meetings were reportedly held in Houston, MO; Salem, MO; and Deer, AR (Midkiff 1997; Robert Martin, personal interview). According to some, these large meetings were organized and/or sponsored by organizations in opposition to the OMAB, including Missouri Farm Bureau and, later, People for the West (Midkiff 1997; Kevin Larson, personal interview). These public forums often received coverage from local print media, and even drew attention from larger media markets such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as well as piqued the interest of news reporters from Time Magazine16.
By reading newspaper coverage of these large-scale meetings, as well as surmising from researcher experiences in attending property rights conferences, we can generally describe what an attendee might have experienced at one of the Ozark gatherings. Speakers at such meetings were a combination of local Biosphere Reserve ‘researchers,’ seasoned private property rights activists, as well as some national UN/environmental conspiracy experts. The goal of speakers was to share information and interpretations about Biosphere Reserves, the OMAB nomination, and a variety of other pertinent issues. Audience members were probably provided with some information in the form of handouts or source citations, as well as information on how to obtain necessary information on the issues. Most importantly, attendees would have been encouraged to contact OMAB Steering Committee participants and politicians to express their views on the nomination proposal. These public meetings were very effective avenues of publicity and networking for opponents.
Individual efforts were largely accomplished through print media, the Internet, and by contacting agencies, officials, and politicians. In addition to public meetings, letter to the editor columns in local Ozark papers served as a major conduit for information exchange and dissemination. Trying to mobilize Ozark citizens, opponents wrote letters to the editor expressing their interpretation of the Biosphere Reserve program, their concerns about the potential threats it brought, and outrage at those who supported or sympathized with the nomination effort. Such letters were submitted and published in numerous local and regional newspapers, as well as publications with statewide circulation like Rural Missouri, published by the state association of electrical cooperatives, and Missouri Ruralist, a state farming magazine.
Opponent letters often cited documents and provided the names of agencies and individuals associated with the OMAB nomination and the US MAB Program and encouraged citizens to contact them. Also, many letters included the names of local experts on the OMAB conspiracy along with national UN conspiracy researchers for concerned citizens to get more information.
In addition to these more traditional mobilization strategies, a fairly new tool utilized in the OMAB protest was the Internet. The Internet became an extremely important way for citizens to find information, as well as a way for OMAB opponents to disseminate information they had collected. At meetings and in published letters, opponents provided citizens with specific weblinks to pertinent sites, including those managed by US MAB and the UN. The Internet made it possible for opponents to quickly access and download information posted on the Internet, as well as to order information they felt was important, such as federal and UN publications.
In addition to finding information, the Internet made it possible for opponents to quickly share information. For example, concerned Ozark citizens could easily access the Take Back Arkansas webpage and view documents associated with the OMAB nomination, as well as read the organization’s interpretations and opinions about such documents. Ozark citizens against the OMAB nomination also used the Internet to easily network with national organizations mobilizing against MABs and other environmental programs and efforts throughout the United States. Ozark activists new to environmental controversy thus benefited from the experience of older, more established organizations and veteran activists.
After opponents found information and gathered evidence supporting their conclusions about the OMAB, they focused their efforts on lawmakers. Influencing politicians who were willing to exert their authority against the MAB program proved to be a momentous achievement for opponents. Activists aggressively campaigned for citizens to contact local, state, and federal politicians. Through meetings and published letters, opponents implored Ozark citizens to write or call politicians to stop the OMAB nomination and, later, to support legislative efforts to eliminate MAB and other federal environmental programs.
As discussed in the previous chapter, citizens contacted state and federal Congressional representatives, county judges and city officials, and, at least in Arkansas, the State’s governor. Politicians got involved by writing letters to the National Park Service and US MAB demanding that they stop the Ozark nomination. In addition, shortly after the Ozark experience came to political light, the American Land Sovereignty Act was resubmitted in Congress. Jo Ann Emerson and Tim Hutchinson, who were very vocal political opponents of the nomination proposal, were in support of the bill. Connie Burks, a high profile activist from Newton County in Arkansas, spoke at a meeting and reportedly warned citizens "not to let up on calls and letters opposing the [MAB] program and supporting the American Land Sovereignty Act (Newton County Times 1996A:1)."
On the state level, the governor of Arkansas reportedly responded to requests by OMAB opponents by consulting with UN/environmental conspiracy expert Henry Lamb about the implications of a Man and the Biosphere Reserve (Robert Martin, personal interview). Later the governor demanded that state agencies immediately withdraw from participation in the nomination. An article in the Harrison Daily Times about a speaking appearance by Connie Burks before the Society for the Preservation of Ozark Culture, reported that Burks "..said both the congressman [Hutchinson] and the governor [Huckabee] had told her to keep encouraging people to call and write (Newton County Times 1996a:1)." OMAB opponents enjoyed extensive support in state and federal political arenas.
Local governments and politicians also took action against the OMAB. In Newtown County, Arkansas, after testimony from OMAB opponents, the county quorum court (the law-making body of the county) "went officially on record …as opposing the designation of Crooked Creek as an Extraordinary Resource Waterway and opposing the Ozarks Man and the Biosphere Programme (Newton County Times 1996b:1)." Federal, state, and local politicians were powerful and influential allies for OMAB opponents. While the nomination was, for all practical purposes, dropped by the time political officials really got involved, the enthusiastic participation of politicians brought more media and public attention to the issue.
Probably the most effective effort of opponents was outreach efforts to engage the public and politicians. As individuals and as a collective, they did a phenomenal job of reaching out to Ozark citizens. Opponents believed they were doing a more effective job of publishing and publicizing the nomination than the Steering Committee. One activist publicly commended the efforts of another activist, comparing her efforts to that of the Park Service:
Connie Burks of Jasper did what the agencies were unwilling to do. With her research, quick analytical mind and actions, she made it public. Mrs. Burks and others have been instrumental in getting this information to the public, including Governor Huckabee, and Senator Elect Tim Hutchinson. (Denham 1997:2)
In my opinion, opponents deserve just such praise. They organized quickly and disseminated information clearly and efficiently. While Ozark citizens were largely unaware of the nomination prior to 1995, by 1996 the OMAB had become a topic of conversation throughout the region, and beyond.
Opponents involved the community; they encouraged citizens to seek out information for themselves and to become educated about the plan to establish a MAB in the Ozarks. One opponent implored citizens to get involved, she wrote, "Please find out for yourself—this issue should not be ignored, and you do not have to rely on hearsay. Information is available for those willing to do a little research (Vandergriff 1997:11)." The call to action was an important dimension of opponents’ effort to mount public opposition against the nomination and MABs in general. Such motivating statements were often accompanied by claims that the evidence was available in black and white, albeit in a multitude of documents and web of associations, and this evidence was what had sparked concern in many Ozarkers.
In addition to being efficient, OMAB opponents were very convincing in their presentation of the facts. One public meeting attendee wrote,
My name is Fred Roe and I write "Our Neck of the Woods" as a freelance columnist for the South Missourian News in Thayer. My articles are a favorite among the locals in Oregon County, I believe, because I come across as being honest and homegrown. I attended one of the biosphere meetings in Winona and I have since then educated myself to some of the realities of politics in this country that should have been apparent to me for several years. It was not until I listened to a representative from the Farm Bureau and Mrs. Mary Rivera and weighed the factual substance of the materials they provided that I realized how far things have gotten out of our control. (Roe 1997:13)
Ozark citizens may have been receptive to opposition claims because opponents were local folks appealing to their neighbors for help in protecting the Ozarks. They encouraged people to stop and consider the possibility of potential problems associated with the OMAB. Opponents were successful in that their message elicited concern, or at least curiosity, among fellow Ozark citizens and resulted in action from politicians and OMAB participants.
This successful outreach campaign posed a significant problem for the Steering Committee in terms of the nomination effort. The most damaging aspect of the Ozark experience was that opponents to the OMAB and MAB in general were able to gain the upper hand, both in time and credibility, by doing the outreach that should have been done by the Steering Committee. Opponents were able to present their interpretation of the MAB program and their version of the implications of such a program to an uninformed public, with virtually no response or challenge by those associated with the program. Any information local citizens got on the issue more than likely came filtered through MAB opponents and not directly from the Steering Committee or US MAB.
Opponents put participating agencies, organizations, and the US MAB program on the defensive. Rather than presenting the MAB concept to Ozark citizens, proponents were forced to respond to opponent accusations. Moreover, the general public witnessed the public bantering of opponent allegations and official explanations, although few explanations were actually attempted. The silence of OMAB participants and supporters was surprising, as opponents took the lead in communication.
Opponents informed the general public of the grievances all Ozark citizens had a right to claim as a result of the OMAB. Broadly, opponents expressed three grievances: the exclusion of citizens from the nomination process; the betrayal of Ozark citizens by nomination participants, particularly agencies; and the substance and implications of the MAB program for the Ozarks.
As discussed in previous chapters, opponents were angry about being disregarded and overlooked throughout the nomination process. They expressed great displeasure and resentment toward Steering Committee participants for having betrayed citizen interests by pursuing the nomination behind closed doors. Anger elicited from resentment attitudes toward the process were compounded by opponent beliefs about what a MAB was and what it meant for Ozark citizens. To opponents, it was alarming and infuriating that citizens had been excluded from the formulation of an environmental program that would have, in their opinion, far-reaching and dramatic impacts on the lives and livelihoods of Ozark citizens. In this section, we will focus on the claims opponents made regarding the substance and implications of a MAB and what this would have meant in the Ozarks.
The claims opponents made regarding the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program were often extremely complex, convoluted, and, occasionally, somewhat fantastic. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this report to detail the origin and extent of opponent allegations about the United Nations, the environmental movement, and their connections to the US Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program. However, the environmentalist-United Nations conspiracy was well summed by one opponent, who wrote,
Individuals, especially in the environmental and world government movements, demand that governments violate constitutionally guaranteed rights and property of other people to further their own narrow interests. Demands are rationalized by public statements that greed, exploitation and immorality of others stand in the way of fulfilling the environmentalists’ utopian dream. Theft by political means, the transfer of property and wealth from "haves" to "have nots," is their "higher morality" which environmentalist fanatics and rogue politicians pursue to "remedy social injustice" and "save the planet." [quotations original] (Jud 1997a:12)
For opponents, the OMAB issue was another symptom of a wider problem facing citizens of the United States, the problem of loss of individual rights and personal freedoms. This loss was sometimes attributed to regulation from the United States government, international forces such as the United Nations, or both.
Opponents often claimed that demise of democracy is desired by government globalists associated with the United Nations and/or environmentalists. In order to protect the environment on a global scale, globalists or environmentalists desire the implementation of a world government, which was often referred to by opponents as ‘the New World Order.’ While it is impossible to determine who exactly would be at the helm of the impending ‘green,’ world government, it was clear that OMAB opponents believed the environmental movement would be the vehicle whereby individual rights would be quashed to make way for a universalized government force.
The fall of democracy, from opponents’ perspective, would be an outgrowth of global efforts to protect or restore the environment. They regularly cited the Biodiversity Treaty, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and numerous international environmental efforts, proposals, and conferences as proof of an environmental agenda. According to OMAB opponents, the Biodiversity Treaty is the United Nation’s master plan for the implementation of global environmentalism, or socialism, and the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program was a major component of this wider environmental scheme. As one opponent wrote, "If you don’t believe the federal government and the U.N. have conspired to create a biosphere reserve for our area, please refer to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, the U.N.’s ecological plans for the planet Earth (Roe 1997:13)"
According to some OMAB opponents, the move toward a ‘green’ socialist government is loosely disguised as ‘sustainable development.’ In a 1995 ęco·logic column, conspiracy expert Henry Lamb described the problem,
Sustainable development is the buzz word of the 21st century. In the 70’s, "environmental protection" was used to cover a multitude of intrusions into private property rights. In the 80’s, "biodiversity" was born and was used to further erode individual liberty. Now "sustainable development" encompasses both and, like pac-man, is gobbling up what remains of free enterprise and individual rights in America. (Lamb 1995:28)
Opponents frequently drew connections between the environmental movement and alleged globalist efforts to take over the United States. They pointed to UN documents as proof about the ‘true’ nature of Biosphere Reserves and their place in broader design of globalists and environmentalists. The goal essentially being the eventual ‘re-wilding’ of the United States to further the implementation of a ‘green’ socialist government. The US MAB program was objectionable to opponents because it furthered the global agenda.
According to opponents, the primary symptom of a coming ‘green’ socialist government is the erosion of private property rights. The loss of ownership and control of private property was equated with the loss of Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and privileges. Access to property ownership and land use rights are, according to opponents, tantamount to the preservation of democracy and national sovereignty. The trend toward environmental regulation, which threatens property ownership and control, is conceived of as a trend toward socialism or communism. Jane Darcy, a Take Back Arkansas representative, indicated that the Biosphere Reserve issue highlighted growing problems of suppression and control of individual rights and freedoms by government. She commented on the core issue saying:
There isn’t one government agency given the opportunity to spread their authority and take rights that won’t put this nation in real… I don’t know what you would call it… throes of actual communism. I mean, there are two systems of government essentially. The system of government that respects individual rights and the system of government that takes those rights, there’s no in between. (Jane Darcy, personal interview)
A variety of extraordinary claims about the OMAB circulated throughout the Ozarks and beyond. Some of the more popular allegations were the following: forced reduction and relocation of the Ozark population and placement of citizens in concentration camps; destruction of homes, businesses, and infrastructure in order to reclaim areas as wilderness; accession of Ozark land and natural resources to the United Nations; and the presence or likely arrival of United Nations military troops in the Ozarks, which explained the alleged black helicopter and white tank sightings in the Ozarks region. One letter to the editor suspiciously reported,
They imply the U.N. is concerned about certain life forms, but is this true? Or just another insult to our intelligence? To be honest, the entire matter reeks of subversion. Rumor has it that the U.N. is to train foreign troops on our soil in the art of warfare, but under the guise of "ecological research," and if the federal government goes through with this U.N. land grab the citizens of the Ozarks region will be left out literally in the cold. (Dean 1996:2)
The Ozark Regional Land Trust representative shared
some allegations he heard from one opponent, who claimed that
"...people were going to be moved off their land [and] moved out of
the Ozarks. If they picked a flower, like one on [the] endangered
species list… they would be taken, not to the United States
Court, but to a world tribunal (Ben Johnson, personal interview)."
George Oviatt, the Buffalo River representative, reported,
Many opponents believed that these events either
were already taking place or that they would have followed a
successful OMAB nomination.
While some opponent claims rivaled the popular
television conspiracy thriller "The X-Files" in their complexity and
believability, other opponent claims required far less imagination to
understand. An Arkansas journalist summed the ‘on the record’
concerns of one anti-OMAB activist he interviewed saying,
The central concern about the substance of the OMAB
plan was the threat of land seizures and potential land use
regulations. Opponents feared having their land taken to make nature
reserves or losing control of their property due to government or
international regulation. Also, they believed that a MAB would result
in the exclusion of humans from certain areas of the Biosphere
Reserve.
A popular belief was that the OMAB would have
resulted in the eviction of Ozark citizens from properties located
within the Biosphere Reserve. One opponent expressed this belief in a
letter to the editor writing, "The Biosphere Reserve program, despite
your protestations to the contrary, would have forced massive land
controls on Ozarkers and evicted tens of thousands of people from the
land which they own (Jud 1997a:12)." Evictions, opponents alleged,
would have occurred either because land would immediately be taken to
establish nature parks or because property owners would be so
restricted in use of their land that they must surely abandon it to
make a living elsewhere.
OMAB opponents were very concerned about the
potential for increased regulation and control of Ozark land should
the Biosphere Reserve have been designated. The Missouri Farm Bureau,
who came out in opposition to the OMAB nomination, stated in a press
release that, "the physical taking of property is not the issue. What
is of concern to our members are the cumulative effects of local,
state, and federal regulation. Regulation can affect land use and,
over time, actually make it impossible to for a family farm to survive
(Kruse 1997:1)."
It was obvious that opponents viewed the Man and the
Biosphere Reserve Program as a precursor to further attempts to
implement environmental regulations and restrictions in the
Ozarks. One letter writer complained,
Notions that humans would be restricted, banned,
controlled, and/or regulated within the Biosphere Reserve were
commonplace. An editor’s note prefacing an anti-OMAB letter to the
editor in the Mountain Echo (Yellville, AR) explained to
readers, that the Man and Biosphere Reserve Program "would involve the
establishment of large nature reserves in this country on which public
admittance would be limited or banned (Mountain Echo
1996:2)."
A handout included in a Take Back Arkansas seminar
packet, a publication from the Property Rights Foundation, contrasted
the myth vs. reality of various international and national
environmental programs, including Biosphere Reserves. The article
described what local residents could expect from the establishment of
a Biosphere Reserve in their area. First, the article indicated that
the goal of a MAB was to restore natural areas, meaning that the area
would be managed "so that human influence on nature is eliminated
(LaGrasse 1997:1)." As a consequence of this goal, the article
continued, Biosphere Reserves necessarily bring with them at the
request of environmentalists government sanctioned "land acquisition
and more ‘environmental’ restrictions on land-use (LaGrasse
1997:1)." The article summed the treatment by reporting that, "for
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites to be successful, areas
must be off-limits to hunting, and many roads used by hunters and
tourists closed (LaGrasse 1997:1)." Beliefs similar to these were
common among OMAB opponents.
Some Steering Committee representatives and U.S. MAB
officials answered opponent concerns regarding impacts to private
property rights by emphasizing there would be no regulations
associated with the OMAB and that the MAB program carried no force of
law. These explanations, however, were often met with disbelief. There
was suspicion and skepticism for a program that did not appear to
actually do anything. As one individual wrote, "…George Oviatt
asserts that this program is an innocent, benevolent proposal,
strictly voluntary with no regulatory authority. This is absurd. What
possible use is a program with no regulatory authority? (Middleton,
1996b:4A)." Similarly, another opponent wrote, "The notion that the
U.N. MAB is a toothless document is patently absurd. Has anyone ever
seen a government program that carried no weight of law or regulation
(Schlernitzauer 1997:B6)?" Opponents’ research and intuition led
them to believe that the OMAB would have brought threats to property
rights in the Ozarks, contrary to official protests stating
otherwise.
The more fantastic allegations about the OMAB were
readily picked up by the popular media in articles and superficially
defined the general opposition position. Punctuation of the more
creative and extravagant conspiracy claims may have contributed to a
blanket dismissal of opponent concerns and grievances by Steering
Committee members and others. For example, the West Plains Daily
Quill (1997b:1) reprinted a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial that
stated:
Such a cursory glance at the issue, however,
minimizes the fact citizens had real concerns and complaints regarding
the proposed Biosphere Reserve, regardless of how fanciful some
assertions seemed to those not inclined toward conspiracy
theories. The beliefs expressed by opponents were their perception of
the threats and consequences of an Ozark Biosphere Reserve. However
unlikely such claims were to agency personnel, journalists, or the
general public, they reflected the perceptions and belief systems of
at least some citizens of Ozark communities. Moreover, given some
aspects of the local culture and history of the Ozarks, citizen
concerns about property rights do not seem quite so far fetched.
Opponents perceived the OMAB nomination as yet
another threat to cultural and personal identities linked to
place. Even the Feasibility Study discussed the intense
cultural pride Ozark citizens felt and identified within the area
(Faulkner and White 1991). Many of the people we talked to described
Ozark citizens as independent, strong, and stubborn. One interviewee
stated that both the best and worst trait of an "…Ozark
hillbilly, which I consider myself, …[is] the hard-headed,
spirit of independence of the native Ozarker (Kevin Larson, personal
interview)." The representative of Take Back Arkansas described
herself and other "Ozarkians" as highly independent because they and
their ancestors had come to the Ozarks and survived by working hard,
being independent, and living by their wits (Jane Darcy, personal
interview).
Ozark citizens take pride in being independent and
capable of managing their own property. Therefore, the TBA
representative added, they resent it when people in Washington D.C.,
and perhaps other countries, make rules and decisions that private
property owners must abide by (Jane Darcy, personal interview-field
notes). The desire to control individual destiny and to maintain
ownership and control of private property are part of Ozark cultural
identity. Moreover, Ozarkers believe they can manage natural resources
and steward the land much better on an individual basis, without the
interference of government or anyone else. This excerpt from a letter
to the editor highlights the personal and cultural identity associated
with land ownership and control:
Ozark citizens are not strangers to controversy and
contention over the control and use of natural resources in the
region. Quite the contrary, the Ozarks has a rich history of conflict
over a variety of environmental and natural resource issues that have
at times pitted various stakeholders against each other. OMAB
opponents and proponents alike were often candid about the deep
distrust and resentment some Ozark citizens feel toward various
governmental agencies, especially the National Park Service. A member
of Take Back Arkansas stated that the OMAB experience was just another
example of how the National Park Service "…has overstepped its
bounds, egregiously… case after case, after case, they’ve
overstepped (Jane Darcy, personal interview)."
Many of the Steering Committee members we talked
with were keenly aware of this legacy of distrust and resentment. In
fact, all committee members were aware of these lingering sentiments
by 1991 when Faulkner and White reported that,
The cultural memory of the eminent domain takings in
the Ozarks served as an ominous foundation for the OMAB nomination
effort. One newspaper editor from southern Missouri described his
participation in this cultural memory:
The specter of eminent domain takings of private
property by the National Park service was raised time and again by
opponents of the OMAB. Many opponents cited historical eminent domain
takings in the Ozarks as proof that property seizures would accompany
the proposed Biosphere Reserve. One concerned Ozark woman
wrote,
To opponents, the idea of the government seizing
land from home and property owners was not far fetched. Instead, it
was practically a given that land seizures or land use restrictions
would certainly occur if the Biosphere Reserve became a reality.
In addition to eminent domain takings, opponents
cited a variety of historical and contemporary situations,
circumstances, and occurrences that they believed further supported
their contentions about the MAB program and the scheming of government
officials. Everything from the alleged government cover-up of
agent-orange to the imposition of zoning ordinances was cited as proof
of government desire to deceive, manipulate, and control Ozark
citizens. Narratives of people’s experiences in other regions and
states served as evidence of the potential negative impacts of further
government ownership or control of land, such as property rights
conflicts that have arisen from the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act.
Closer to home, the OMAB effort was likened to
proposed efforts to govern natural resources, like the Natural Streams
Act initiative in Missouri in 1989 and 1990, which critics alleged
would have led to the imposition of massive land use controls on
private landowners. In Arkansas, opponents’ often referred to the
then-raging Crooked Creek controversy where the state sought the right
to regulate gravel-mining activities damaging riparian ecosystems
along state waterways.
Although some Ozark citizens may have been
predisposed to object to natural resource programs based on
perceptions of past violations of citizen rights by government, it was
not merely past remembrances of objectionable government activities
that opponents relied on as the foundation of their beliefs. To the
contrary, opponent arguments rested heavily on more contemporary
evidence to support their claims about MABs and to substantiate their
beliefs about the hazards of a UN sponsored program in the US.
Much of the general information about the United
Nations led environmental movement conspiracy is well documented by
individuals who seem to have devoted their lives and careers to
informing others about such plots. Many opponents pointed to the
writings and speeches of self proclaimed experts on conspiracies of
the United Nations and the environmental movement. Three of the most
influential of these experts are Henry Lamb, Michael Coffman, and Texe
Marrs.
Henry Lamb publishes a journal entitled
ęco·logic and attends conferences as a featured speaker
who reveals the United Nations plan to implement a global, socialist
regime through environmentalism. Michael Coffman of Environmental
Perspectives, Inc also publishes books and, in addition, sells
videotaped lectures of himself describing the United Nations
conspiracy. In addition to elaborating on the efforts of the United
Nations to implement a global government, Coffman spends a good deal
of time debunking scientific evidence supporting the existence of
environmental problems. Coffman is widely known for the creation of
colorful maps hypothetically depicting the limitations in human land
use in the United States should the environmental conspiracy be
realized. The maps visually record the potential combined impact of
the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program, Wildlands Project, the
Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
Finally, Texe Marrs of the Living Truth Ministries
focuses his research and publishing on the immoral and Satanic
undertones of the United Nations and the environmental movement,
particularly the conspiracy to replace Christianity with Earth Goddess
or pagan religions. An Arkansas journalist who interviewed key
Arkansas opponents reported that the individual who initiated OMAB
opposition in Northwest Arkansas relied heavily on the
‘investigative reports’ of Texe Marrs (Robert Martin, personal
interview). In the Ozarks, where fundamentalist religions are
widespread, such claims found significant resonance among citizen
belief systems.
While OMAB opponents often referred to these experts
and their ideas, it is unclear how much influence such experts had on
opponents or when their ideas became integrated into opposition
rhetoric. To fully elaborate the belief systems upon which
opponents’ claims were based would be a report within itself. The
remainder of this section, however, provides a synopsis of the major
sources used by opponents to verify the need for public concern
specifically relating to the Man and the Biosphere Reserve
Program.
Opponent claims were grounded in a variety of
non-MAB documents and sources of information believed to support and
confirm their suspicions and fears about the consequences of a
Biosphere Reserve. They referenced non-governmental books and articles
such as Earth in the Balance by Al Gore and the infamous
Wildlands Project proposal published in the June 1993 issue of
Science magazine. Opponents found the Wildlands Project to
contain the most objectionable objectives. It proved their worst fears
about the plans of extreme environmentalists to depopulate the land of
humans and restore it to wilderness. Gore’s book, on the other
hand, was most often cited to prove opposition claims relating to the
contamination of the United States government, especially the
Executive Branch, by extremist environmental ideals. This
contamination includes the commitment of the US federal government to
assist in the global plan to replace Christianity with nature or Gaia
worship.
Opponents did not rely solely on secondary sources
of information as proof of government efforts to seize and control
property in the Ozarks as part of wider environmental agenda. Much of
their proof came from original documents published by US MAB, UN MAB,
the United Nations, and, remarkably, the OMAB Steering Committee.
Opponents aggressively acquired information on
MAB’s, the OMAB nomination, and any related topics or issues. They
cited numerous documents published by the United Nations, especially
the Biodiversity Treaty, the Global Biodiversity Assessment,
Our Global Neighborhood, and various UN MAB publications. In
addition to United Nations publications, opponents referred to various
federal programs and publications such as reports on the
President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, and
reports published by federal natural resource agencies. Finally,
lending a good deal of credence to their assertions, they quoted from
documents directly related to the OMAB nomination effort such as the
1991 Feasibility Study, official correspondence between
agencies and organizations, and even internal agency memorandums and
notes.
When engaged in public discourse on the issue,
opponents often promoted the empirical nature of their evidence and
the reliability of their sources. Many opponents evaded direct,
detailed, and clear explanations of their claims by summarily
referring to the mass of evidence available and irrefutable
credibility of source documents. One letter to the editor assured
readers,
Often, the mere existence of a large amount of
evidence or a particular publication was offered to the public as
proof of the conspiracy, without specifically detailing the
objectionable information or facts. For example, a reporter covering
the anti-OMAB public meeting in Thayer, MO described the presentation
of a local activist. She stated that the speaker, Ray Cunio, while
talking about the notorious connection between the Biodiversity Treaty
and the "1,040-page" Global Diversity Assessment, held up the
Assessment saying, "‘You don’t want to know what’s in
here and what they are going to do!’ (Henderson Vaughn 1997:7)."
However, Cunio did not continue to "explain what he objects to in the
book (Henderson Vaughn 1997:7)." Similarly, Don Hartley, an OMAB
opponent from Yellville, AR, stated:
Like many opponents Hartley did not present the
evidence, but alluded to its existence. He continued to report that he
and other activists "have the facts" and that documents "will be on
display in Marion County for any and all members of the public and
residents of Marion and surrounding counties to see for themselves
(Hartley 1996:3)."
While OMAB opponents often did not specifically cite
and explain evidence of a conspiracy, they frequently encouraged
citizens to obtain the original documents for themselves and, in most
cases, gave tips on why, where, and how to look for information on the
conspiracy. One activist encouraged citizens to get the facts, he
wrote:
Opponents spoon-fed concerned Ozark citizens a
complex soup of documents, narratives, and claims relating the
potential horrors of MABs, then buttressed their position by stressing
the urgent need to act. If interested citizens took time to venture
forth in search of original documents and evidence themselves, they
were already primed on how to interpret the bits of evidence taken
from here and there.
At public and town meetings concerned citizens could
actually see the primary sources of evidence for themselves. Offending
documents were displayed as speakers generally articulated their
meaning and described impending implications for the United States,
especially the Ozarks. Any citizen attending the Take Back Arkansas
meeting in November of 1997 had an opportunity to view copies of most
of the incriminating documents first hand, including the Global
Biodiversity Assessment and text books on conservation biology
(Field notes, TBA Conference 11/15/97). In addition to exhibiting big
books, opponents made packets of literature, including copies of
evidence from primary and secondary sources, and offered hordes of
handouts for citizens to take and examine for themselves.
Many of the sources opponents referred to and quoted
from were deemed quite reliable. In fact, OMAB proponents routinely
recommended opponent sources when interested citizens inquired about
the nomination. The Feasibility Study and MAB documents, for
example, served as evidence for OMAB proponents and opponents alike.
The reliance on original documents from noteworthy sources provided
opponents with credibility and at the same time made it difficult for
Steering Committee members to refute all opponent allegations. The
fact that they were using and interpreting primary sources to prove
that an OMAB would have negative consequences for the Ozarks was an
important point of legitimization for opponent claims.
After the controversy was well under way, proponents of the OMAB
and officials associated with the MAB program asserted that opponent
claims were rumors and lies. In addition, a few newspaper articles and
editorials discounting OMAB claims appeared in some Missouri and
Arkansas newspapers. In response attacks on credibility, one
representative of Take Back Arkansas confidently retorted:
The complexity of the MAB program in terms of both
its conceptualization and the difficulty of describing the
program’s management strategies in practice likely amplified the
concerns of Ozark residents. A Missouri newspaper reporter shared
wonderment about program goals saying:
Opponents had similar reactions when they were given
the official explanations about the MAB program. It was difficult for
them to understand why the program was necessary and exactly how it
would work.
To answer these questions for themselves and other
Ozark citizens, activists examined words, phrases, and passages from
various documents. This research allegedly pointed to the negative
consequences of a Biosphere Reserve and a government cover-up of the
nomination effort. Evidence, however, was consistently interpreted
out of context and in tandem with a multitude of other documents not
connected with Biosphere Reserves. As previously noted, the Man and
the Biosphere Reserve Program was at times linked to the Wildlands
Project, Global Biodiversity Assessment, Heritage River Corridors, and
many other programs, legislation, scientific research, international
treaties, and events. It was also linked to general management
philosophies like ‘ecosystem management,’ ‘conservation
biology,’ and ‘sustainable development.’ And in some cases,
the Biosphere Reserve Program was conceptually linked to
non-environmental programs and publications, such as Habitat for
Humanity.
Opponents read between the lines of documents and
reports for hidden or covert meanings and made broad, sweeping
connections between MAB and a variety of other documents, programs,
and events. Robert Martin, an Arkansas news reporter, read excerpts
from an interview he conducted with an anti-OMAB activist. He
explained how she alluded to the hidden meanings in a meeting agenda
from the National Forest Service:
Opponents saw links between MAB and other programs,
project, and publications because many shared the same jargon and
broad conceptual ideas. Words, events, and activities associated with
MAB and the OMAB nomination process were a major source of confusion
and misunderstanding about the project and its implications.
The MAB program is complex, as are the scientific
and managerial concepts on which it is founded. Much of the program,
in official documents for example, is explained using natural resource
and scientific jargon common to natural resource professionals,
scientists, and even some environmentalists. The meanings associated
with such terms as core area or buffer zone, vary depending upon who
uses them and how they are being employed17. In the Ozarks, the
meanings of words and phrases used and defined in other programs or
projects were continually ascribed to the MAB program by
opponents.
Of particular concern to opponents, and where most
of the confusion manifested itself, was with the design of the
MAB. The concentric circle reserve design, consisting of the reserve
core, a buffer zone, and a transition area, is a general concept now
widely discussed and utilized by natural resource managers and
scientists (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Inclusion of the reserve design
and use of technical jargon were problematic in the Ozarks, however,
because as a consequence opponents equated the Wildlands Project with
the MAB program. When asked if opponent grievances sprung from
terminology and definitions associated with the MAB program, Robert
Martin responded, "Yeah, and in particular about the way that the
Biosphere concentric circles looks like the Wildlands
project. …Some of the terminology I guess is the same. It was a
constant source of confusion (personal interview)."
As indicated earlier, opponents feared the Wildlands
Project because it advocated radical steps in management activity in
order to protect biodiversity. An article about the Wildlands Project,
referred to me by an OMAB opponent stated,
Later, the authors reported that the design of the
Wildlands Project "consists of three elements: core reserves, buffer
or multiple use zones, and connecting corridors. Core reserves,
consisting of a quarter or more of an area in any given bio-region,
would be off limits to much human activity (Mann and Plummer
1993:1869)." OMAB opponents consistently ascribed the management goals
articulated in this article about the Wildlands Project to the OMAB in
their anti-MAB rhetoric.
Opponents believed there were connections between
programs and documents because they shared jargon and
concepts. William Jud, a very vocal OMAB opponent, connected the
Wildlands Project to the Biodiversity Treaty saying, "The United
Nations adopted Wildlands as its preferred plan for protection of
"biodiversity" and made Wildlands part of their Biodiversity Treaty
(Jud 1997b:B6)." In turn, the Biodiversity Treaty, a United Nations
sponsored document, was connected to UN MAB program and, ultimately,
to US MAB.
Opponents extrapolated the meanings of terms in a
variety of other programs and research, with the meaning of jargon in
the MAB program. They frequently attributed the goals of various
environmental programs, as well as the enforcement strategies of
environmental laws, to that of the MAB program. Opposition claims were
constructed based on this collage of information. They consolidated
all the information they found no matter what document, agency, or
entity published it. As a result, their interpretation of MAB was
based on a conglomeration of a wide array of environmental, and even
non-environmental, programs and policies. No distinctions were made
between programs, agencies, or entities.
In most cases, they envisioned the worst case
scenario, claiming that core areas would be totally off limits to
humans and that access to the other reserve zones would be severely
limited in a MAB. Ray Cunio, an OMAB opponent who spoke at a public
meeting in Thayer, MO, reportedly told the audience that "A biosphere
reserve starts on public lands and expands from there. No human
activity would be permitted in the core area, and in the transition
area, humans could live, but could do nothing without government
control (Henderson Vaughn 1997:1)." Opponents, such as Cunio,
articulated the potential impacts of a MAB in the Ozarks based on a
synthesized and hypothetical knowledge base.
Although interpretations and implications often
varied from activist to activist, they were all derived from the same
type of accumulative synthesis of information. Opponents meticulously
referenced, cross-referenced, and quoted offending documents, often
including page numbers and cross-references. For example, Ed Manor, a
regular letter writer in Arkansas, provided readers with offending
quotes from the Feasibility Study that proved Steering
Committee members wanted to keep the nomination secret:
Another example, found in the Newton County
Times, is an editorial. Ruth Ann Wilson provided readers with the
pertinent quotes from various sources proving the U.N.-environmental
conspiracy by quoting passages from a variety of sources. She quoted a
passage from the article "The Wildlands Project" published in Wild
Earth magazine. She also provided quotes attributed to: Maurice
Strong, the Secretary General of the 1992 Earth Summit and Co-founder
of UNEP; John Davis, a member of Earth First! quoted in Wild
Earth magazine; Reed F. Noss, author of the Wildlands Project; and
Daniel Sitarz, "editor of the United Nations-approved abridged version
of Agenda 21, main agreement of the Earth Summit (Wilson R. 1996:2)."
She summed her patchwork presentation of evidence by saying "You be
the judge (Wilson R.1996:2)."
The nature of the opponent information gathering and
interpretation made it difficult for agency representatives to refute
or even address activist claims. To argue against another person’s
interpretation of words, meanings, and phrases, one must be familiar
with the sources as well as the logic being applied to interpret and
connect them. Answering such allegations and complaints was not an
easy task for Steering Committee representatives. The convoluted and
inferential nature of opponent claims made contradiction somewhat
difficult.
As discussed earlier, opponents and proponents often
referred to the same documents as proof of their own claims. When
citizens would call asking questions, Steering Committee
representatives would refer them to the Feasibility Study or US
MAB publications for more information. Opponents, however, often cited
these same documents as proof of their allegations. Frequently, it was
not the source of information in dispute; rather, the interpretation
of documents was contested between opponents and Steering Committee
representatives. Brent Conner of AG&F shared his experience
trying to decipher and refute opponent allegations:
Proponents and journalists agreed that there was
really no way to argue with opponent logic since they made countless
references and numerous leaps of faith in their interpretations. A
newspaper reporter described opponent preparation and evidence. In
this portion of the interview, he recounted his experience
interviewing an OMAB opponent from Northwest Arkansas,
saying:
Many Steering Committee representatives who talked
with opponents were frustrated and unsure of how to respond to their
concerns and complaints. Conner, of AG&F, reflected on various
conversations with opponents saying,
Possibly because of the nature of opponent allegations, agency
efforts to address anti-OMAB claims in a public manner were minimal.
Buffalo National River and the Missouri Department of Conservation were
the only agencies that attempted to publicly contradict opponent
assertions. However, both agency press releases came after the Ozarks
was already deeply embroiled in controversy, November of 1996 and March
of 1997 respectively. Kevin Larson, a Southern Missouri newspaper
editor indicated that the nature of citizen complaints likely caused
agency officials to ignore the issue. When asked his opinion on the
Steering Committee’s effort to answer citizen concerns, he stated:
The eruption of public opposition, the often times convoluted nature
of opposition claims, and mounting political pressure to abandon the
nomination effort no doubt led Steering Committee representatives to be
somewhat non-responsive to citizen inquiries.
The two attempts to publicly address opposition claims appeared to
exacerbate rather than resolve the conflict. Jerry Conley of the
Missouri Department of Conservation drew criticism from OMAB opponents
when, in a press release, he responded to the OMAB fervor saying,
Many opponents disliked what they thought was the
trivializing of their message and being summarily referred to as
scarecrows. The Buffalo National River attempt to address opponent
claims fared no better. George Oviatt stated that "…we issued
our own letter to the editor, which really seemed to fuel the
controversy even more because the people who were against it then used
that as a point to say, ‘we struck a nerve.’"
In the Ozarks, a relatively small number of
opponents did an effective job of gathering and disseminating
information on alleged evils of the OMAB nomination and MABs in
general. Once they discovered the nomination effort, they worked
quickly and furiously, confronting Steering Committee representatives,
legislators and other politicians, as well as US MAB officials with
their objections and accusations. They sought information from a wide
range of sources trying to find out what a MAB was and what it meant
for the Ozarks.
Opponents voiced their fears to the people of the
Ozarks and, more importantly, to politicians sympathetic to opposition
claims. By working quickly and efficiently, networks of opponents
spread their versions of the facts about the MAB program. Although the
OMAB nomination was dead by the time opponent activism actually
reached full force, their efforts paid off in terms of casting a haze
of suspicion around the US MAB Program. Unfortunately, the haze still
lingers in the Ozarks and is spreading throughout the country,
clouding a program meant to benefit people as well as the
environment.
An analysis of opposition that surfaced in the
Ozarks lends much insight into the motivations, strategies, and
grievances of anti-MAB activists in the Ozarks and throughout the
United States. After attending several property rights seminars, it is
clear that the beliefs and opinions of anti-OMAB activists were by no
means unique to the Ozarks. This being the case, there are several
lessons one can draw from the Ozark experience.
First, US MAB and future nominating committees
should note the insurmountable confusion and angst scientific jargon
and other terminology could lead to during a nomination effort. The
nature and direction of opposition claims suggests the need to
evaluate the implications of the language of the MAB program. MAB
proponents must recognize that some of the terms used in this program
carry considerable cultural baggage and, more than likely, conjure up
in many people’s minds a series of meanings that do not match the
intents of the program. In addition, use of ambiguous, popular
scientific jargon makes it very difficult for people to understand
what the program does and what differentiates it from other programs
and policies.
Key terms such as ‘biosphere’ and
‘reserve’ are notable cases. The word ‘biosphere’, for
example, is not part of everyday vernacular. Many individuals are only
familiar with the term in reference to sterile environments employed
in medical treatments of severe immune deficiency or the thus far
ill-fated attempts to develop new human communities in created and
self-contained ‘biosphere’ environments. Individuals who turn to
the dictionary for a definition of ‘biosphere’ find, for
example, "the totality of regions of the earth that support
self-sustaining and self-regulating ecological systems (American
Heritage Dictionary 1981:133)."
Such conceptualizations denote very controlled
environments with well-regulated human behaviors within Biosphere
Reserve areas. The very term ‘biosphere’ denotes the primacy of
biological systems. While scientists understand biospheres to
incorporate all living organisms (including humans), the word
continues to be defined in exclusionary terms and with implications of
strict control. Similarly, the term ‘reserve’ is not neutral. It
has a tradition of use that associates it with areas set-aside from
normal human activity and in some instances, as in the case of
wilderness reserves, denoting severely restricted human activity. For
others, ‘reserve’ also seems to imply an area kept apart or
saved for some other use. In each of these usage’s, there is an
implicit assumption that there will be major changes in current uses
of these spaces.
We are not suggesting that MAB or other programs
need to jettison these terms in order to succeed. There are many
instances of successful use of ‘biosphere’ in environmental
protection efforts. Over time, residents in these areas have developed
more valid knowledge of these terms’ implications. Proponents of
new efforts need to recognize the existing cultural meanings
associated with the program’s nomenclature, however, and should
mount appropriate efforts to differentiate the specific meanings of
MAB usage from those in the vernacular.
The inclusion of new or additional terms that better
communicate the multidisciplinary goals of the program ought to be
considered. For example, the notion of "Man and the Biosphere Reserve"
is intended to deliver the message of human-nature interactions, but
prefacing the notion of ‘biosphere’ or ‘reserve’ with
‘community’ might better connote the notion of community
ownership, sponsorship, and involvement. This job will not be easy
because opposition groups now attach negative connotations to so many
of the current words used in environmental protection, including
‘sustainability,’ ‘bioregion,’ and ‘ecosystem.’
However, attempts should be made to find terminology or phraseology
that effectively expresses the human dimension of the program, in
addition to the environmental.
Once terms are chosen and defined, nominating
committees must take care to do the proper community outreach and
education about the program. This outreach should include efforts to
define the meanings of any terms or concepts, including those that
seem self-explanatory to natural resource managers. When necessary,
extra efforts should be made to explain how the proposed program is
similar or different from other programs utilizing similar jargon or
concepts.
The Ozark experience indicates a need for nominating
committee representatives to actively and, when necessary, personally
take time to answer citizen questions and inquiries about the
program. Sending brochures or pamphlets in the mail, for example, is
often not sufficient and a rather impersonal means of addressing
personal inquiries. As we see from the OMAB case, citizens are no
longer content with being uninformed or half-informed about natural
resource programs. If neglected, they will seek out and interpret
information on their own. Letting the public fend for themselves is
not wise, as the OMAB Committee discovered, because citizen
interpretations may be very different from those of a nominating
committee and may bias the public against the program before
proponents have shared their interpretation. In short, providing
citizens with information does no good if citizens cannot understand
what they are given and are left to interpret the meaning on their
own. Efforts must be made to make the U.S. MAB program conceptually
more citizen friendly. If citizens are to make an informed decision as
to the acceptability of a MAB in their region, they must be fairly and
adequately informed about the program and the nomination.
The US MAB program also suffers some public
opposition due to its structural and linguistic links to UN
programs. Many American citizens have, at best, ambivalent feelings
about the United Nations. Public opposition to UN programs appears to
have greatly increased as a result of events during the Reagan
presidency. Although the US MAB program is independent of the UN, the
fact that it uses the same language, similar rationales and rhetoric,
and relies on UN approval of its nominations raises both confusion and
concern among some people18. Individuals often overlook agency
structural differentiation and can only see the commonalties.
Again, we are not suggesting that the US program
must necessarily change its language or process because of these
connections. However, the program must realize the implications of the
UN associations and develop strategies that emphasize the local and
national dimensions of the program and consider means by which the US
program might develop its own distinctive identity.
The Ozark MAB experience highlights the need for
proponents who wish to create a new Biosphere Reserve to take the time
to identify and understand any local or regional historical events
that might impact on contemporary efforts. Such knowledge is necessary
for three primary reasons. First, and as we have discussed, individual
and collective memory of the negative consequences of previous
environmental protection programs may condition local communities to
reject proposed new efforts, even when new initiatives are markedly
different from its predecessors. Historical events have a way of
entering into local narrative and customary traditions and to serve as
a template for interpreting newly proposed programs. Biosphere Reserve
proponents may often have to make special efforts to distance
themselves from this legacy.
Second, the history of previous negative events
should be suggestive of how new efforts should be constructed, from
the selection and implementation of community partnerships to the
identification of key agencies and individuals whose participation in
the nomination process should either be avoided or condoned. Knowledge
of actors and agencies involved in previous disputes, both in terms of
opposition and advocacy, ought to suggest which individuals and
organizations need to be involved in any nomination process. Moreover,
such knowledge may indicate where opposition will come from and in
what form.
In terms of the inclusion or exclusion of
individuals, organizations, or agencies participating in the
nomination process, it is important to remember that power structures
within communities typically include both formal and informal
organizations and public and private groups. While elected officials
and individuals in visible public offices are normally important, very
often community sentiment and decision-making are swayed by
individuals and groups working behind the scenes. Such powerbrokers
must be identified.
Further, historical knowledge ought to suggest which
individuals or groups may pose a liability to a nomination effort as
active proponents. It is not that these persons or organizations
should be excluded from a nomination, rather their public roles and
presence might be de-emphasized. Frankly, considering the OMAB
nomination, it would not have been difficult to predict that an effort
led by the National Park Service would meet some stiff
opposition. Previous public conflicts over the creation of NPS sites
and controversies over public access, hunting and trapping, wild
horses, and other issues are historical events that have primed the
Ozark public to stand in opposition to NPS endeavors.
We realize this is a difficult subject, particularly
as the NPS was committed to the MAB concepts and provided strong
leadership to the Steering Committee. However, we know, for example,
that among Federal agencies there is probably better receptivity to
the Forest Service than to NPS, and that local attachment to state
agencies (e.g., Missouri Department of Conservation) is stronger and
more positive than to most federal agencies. It would likely have
helped matters if MDC had taken on a more major role and the federal
partners, in turn, had worked more behind the scenes. Finally, proponents should use the substance of previous
controversies to identify issues of local concern and, more
importantly, those individuals and groups most likely to hold and
express those concerns. This knowledge, however, should not be used to
skirt likely confrontational issues. Instead, such knowledge should be
used to implement proactive activities to mollify or even circumvent
conflict.
In the Ozarks, proponents appeared to have
recognized dimensions of likely local opposition and chose
processional routes they hoped would avoid those dimensions. Avoiding
potential controversy by excluding publics deemed inconsequential or
unnecessary, however, is no longer an effective strategy for natural
resource managers. In this era of telecommunications and increasing
citizen scrutiny of government, it is implausible to believe major
programs can be initiated without the knowledge and support of
affected constituencies.
In fairness to local MAB proponents, a number of
historical and cultural issues--some of them beyond the control of the
Steering Committee--combined to doom the nomination. Proactive steps
to develop local support and to address individual concerns before
they became collectivized, however, could have initiated a
collaborative process in which the community took greater ownership of
the project.
To contact authors direct correspondence to: Theresa
L. Goedeke, Department of Rural Sociology, 5 Sociology Building,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, Telephone (573)
882-7264, E-Mail: c677194@showme.missouri.eduI went over this with ___ because I wanted to make sure I
quoted her exactly right… But it was to the extent that a lot of
this property was going to be given over. Control of it was going to
be given to the UN, or it was at least going to have this
designation. And it was all going to happen without anybody knowing
about it. And that’s what she was willing to stand behind in
print. But you get to talking to these people and they go off way
beyond that premise, but that’s why I called her back because I
wanted to make sure I [was] understanding [her] exactly. (Robert
Martin, personal interview)
Through a jungle of bureaucracies Thomas Jefferson never imagined
possible, we are daily told how we must conduct our industries, our
businesses and our farms, and we are confronted with some branch of
government telling us what we must do or cannot do with out property.
(Roe 1997:13)
It’s one thing when the black helicopter crowd gets
together in paranoid little klatches to talk about an imminent
invasion by the United Nations. It’s another when the Missouri
Department of Conservation and the National Park Service cancel
worthwhile programs to placate the conspiracy buffs.
The Influence of Place
We own property in Nevada and most of that state is BLM
land. Go out and talk to residents and you learn more about government
mismanagement. Having worked for the Federal Government, I know far
too well just how inefficient it is. Most employees care about nothing
but being paid. Once they have tenure they do as little as possible
until they retire. And you want us to believe that these people will
care for our land better than we will? That is like telling me the
baby sitter cared more for my boys than I did. We own 235 acres in
Arkansas and we cherish and protect it. WE guard it like a child and
every single day we oversee it. (Blanchard 1996:2).
Overall the attitude toward the National River and National Scenic
Riverways agencies is the least favorable, in part because the National
Park Service condemned land and forced people from their homes more
recently than other agencies. Considerable ill will persists around
this issue. (1991:71)
…[during the creation of the national parks] if I
couldn’t make a deal with the government they eventually paid me
what a commission…or somebody said [my property] was worth, and
I was told to get off and they took it by eminent domain. So, that is
a reality and some people remember that from the 60’s. I think in a
lot of those cases people were allowed to live out their lives on the
property. It wasn’t the kind of thing where they came by with a bus
and herded everybody aboard and shuttled them away or anything. But
it’s not a great step in some people’s minds from using eminent
domain to buy a miles worth of property along… either side [of]
three rivers… to using eminent domain to move us out of an area
that is a part of the Biosphere Study Area that they want to keep
pristine and stop further development. It’s a big step for me, but
it wasn’t a big step for a lot of people. I guess what I’m
saying is that there is a seed there. (Kevin Larson, personal
interview)
Do they forget what happened on the Buffalo River in the 1970’s?
Selective memory, or, as my husband would say, ocular rectal vision. I
am amazed. My husband said to me, "If they put a gun to your head and
told you ‘We will only pay you $10 an acre for your land or shoot you,’
what would you do?" My response was "Shoot me. I will die for what I
believe in." (Kerstetter 1996:5J)
The Sources
Is the Man and the Biosphere program (MAB) a threat or not to our
way of life? Well, if we carefully examine the facts and source
documents it is quite clear the ultimate goals and objectives are in
fact quite anathema to America’s constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
and rights of self determination. (Schlernitzauer 1997: B6)
The sheer volume of publications, data, reprints and
handouts should lead any reasonable person of sound mind to the
conclusion that the dedicated and conscientious researchers of this
material are not indulging in misconceptions and rumors. (Hartley
1996:3).
"Facts will stand when name-calling and character attacks
will not. We must get busy or our demise will rest solely on our own
heads. Let’s not be willfully snookered when the facts are so
clear. By the way, the Internet is an incredibly good source of
information. If you are not online visit your local library and do a
search on the topic Man and the Biosphere, sustainable development,
etc." (Schlernitzauer 1997: B6)
Everything that has come from TBA [Take Back Arkansas,
Inc.] was first documented by papers obtained from the Buffalo
National River "Preserve", the U.S. State Department, UNESCO and other
sources considered reliable. The irrefutable information,
documentation and more is now public and available from Take Back
Arkansas, Inc. (Denham 1997:2).
Teasing Out the Conspiracy
I had heard a Man and the Biosphere presentation given by
a man with the Park Service at an environmental conference. At the
time I listened to his presentation and my reaction was what’s this
all about really? I don’t get it. (Devin Shaw, personal
interview)
…[She said,] ‘I take papers and belong to
organizations all over the United States. When you get to learn the
language you’ll know what’s going on… It’s [a] language
you have to learn.’… And she’s pointing to a government
Forest Service meeting agenda. They’re going to have a little
session on something and it’s called "Teaching Cats to Swim." She
points at that sentence and says, ‘teaching cats to swim, why would
you have to teach a cat to swim and overcome resistance to change
unless you’re going to take over the land and make it ecotourism
[and] watchable wildlife, a lucrative new market.’ She’s really
not nuts, she hasn’t lost it but she… this is how she sees
it. This lights a light bulb in her mind and she thinks she’s
seeing through, that [these are] code words for something
else. — (Robert Martin, personal interview)
The sweep of the idea (to protect biodiversity) elicited gasps from
the audience. On the Oregon coast, for instance—a shoreline dotted by
small towns and inundated by millions of summer tourists—the Wildlands
approach calls for 23.4.% of the land to returned to wilderness, and
another 26.2% to be severely restricted in terms of human use. Most
roads would be closed; some would be ripped out of the landscape. The
plan does not specify what would happen to nearby inhabitants. (Mann
and Plummer 1993:1868)
On page 114 of the Ozark biosphere feasibility study you
will find a total of sixteen American agencies, not ten, listed. I
quote page 43, paper 7: "the steering committee decided that public
meetings would not take place as such meeting[s] tend to polarize the
public view and have negative press." Page 100, paragraph 2: "There
should be no press conferences or large public meetings as they
encourage polarized views." (Polarized as in
"negative"). [parenthetical statement original] (Manor
1997:4A)
I spent lots of time on the phone with them trying to
convince them that I cannot find what they’re saying in these
reports and things. They’d tell me page by page where and I’d
go look it up and I’d say ‘that’s not what it says.’ I
said ‘…you’re reading things in here that’s not
here.’ They’d always say ‘well there could have [been].’
Well, yes, anything could happen. (personal interview)
RM: Oh, they’re amazing. You can’t counter them. If
you challenge them on one point, and my whole purpose was never to
challenge them, but they’ll point to something else. And ___, he
had the whole… he had a 10 pound book that had to do with
biology…
TG: The Biodiversity Assessment?
RM: Yeah, and he had it all dog-eared [with] little
yellow tab notes on each page and there’s no way anybody could
refute that, including the agency people. You know, because there were
references, oblique references to Wildlands or something. And it was a
matter of taking this book and matching this reference with something
over here on page 32 of this other thing that had to do with page 86
over here and weaving it all together. And it was supposed to show the
conspiracy. (Robert Martin, personal interview)
I would ask them, ‘where are [you] reading this and
where does it say that?’ and they [would] tell me ‘well, it’s
not written in there.’ ‘You can’t see it; it’s
hid[den]. So, there was no way you could ever respond to it. It was
always something out there looming [but] nobody [could] get their
hands on [it]…It was really odd, I’ve never handled anything
quite like this before. (personal interview)
In my opinion, they [the Steering Committee] did it
entirely the wrong way. They waited until almost the last minute. I
think their idea was ‘we won’t even [respond]… this is so
ridiculous… we won’t dignify it with a response.’ Which
was just the wrong thing to do. They should’ve jumped on it from
day one and had everybody from the top down in every agency out doing
public relations dispelling the rumors and that’s not what they
did. They didn’t take it seriously enough. (personal
interview)
The jump from general proposals and odd maps to a
conspiracy for evicting residents is ridiculous. People can believe
what they want, but when they start spouting off and scaring
vulnerable folks like some who’ve called our offices, they go too
far. Show the scarecrows to the door. (West Plains Daily Quill
1997a:12)
Conclusions and Recommendations