"NOW JUST A DARN MINUTE!"
| Readers will recall that in the last issue of THUNDERBEAR, we left Cindy Orlando, Superintendent of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, with the distinct possibility that an obscure NPS guideline would require that she phase out the 2,000 Hereford cattle now operating as "organic lawn mowers " in the new Kahuku Ranch unit of the park and replace them with historically accurate, but vicious, Hawaiian Longhorns, which would make visiting the park a more thrilling experience.
Sadly, this does not appear to be the case. Cindy is off the hook. She is not required to replace the effeminate Herefords with lusty longhorns. Here is a note from Jerry Rogers, former Associate Director, Cultural Affairs of the NPS |  |
| "Hi PJ,
Like the preceding # 278, this issue is as good and as fun as always. Thanks for what you do for all of us. As seems to have become usual, I don't really know the answer to the question you asked me in the Hawaii story in the # 279 issue. I am copying Bob Utley on this message because I know he will recall the incidents I mention below. I cannot think of any overall requirement of law to preserve "breeds" as opposed to species. I am thinking of some situations in which a park believes it should do so--specifically. Lyndon B. Johnson NHS, where Johnson's "effete English" Herefords (your phrase) are deemed to be park cultural resources. Having been at the LBJ ranch in about 1965 in the company of Bob Utley and a mad genius Texas Tech Park Administration Professor named Elo Urbanovsky, and having observed the President's ranch foreman Dale Malacek polishing the hooves of the ancestors of said Herefords with a power buffer, I would have to say those animals are very much cultural resources of the park. If there are other examples, my guess is that they would result from case by case consideration of the mission of the individual park unit. Some people have engaged in careful breeding programs aimed at selecting out certain breed characteristics in order to recover breeds such as Spanish Churro sheep that Navajos began to herd a couple of centuries ago. Essentially they are trying to breed out the "improvements" that have been bred into certain animals over time. I recently saw an ox that resulted from such breeding at Shaker Village at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. Again, I am not aware of much of this sort of thing happening in NPS units, nor of any requirements to do so. Some parks that have bison herds are dealing with the fact that not all bison were the same 150 years ago, and that some bison that survived the great slaughter managed to acquire cattle genes. I think Yellowstone may still be dealing with some of this from bison brought to the park decades ago from Texas--probably from the herd of Charles Goodnight who actively bred cattalos. There is a current issue related to this question at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, where a herd of horses that are almost certainly direct descendants of 'Sitting Bull' ponies is not acknowledged as such by the park or the region. They were removed from the park rather than being managed as cultural resources, as Bob and others believe would be correct. Your Hawaii story reminds me that J.Frank Dobie said the feral longhorn was the second most dangerous animal in North America, right after the Grizzly bear. Long ago at Fort Davis National Historic Site, I was sifting through the Post Surgeon's daily reports. The Post Surgeon was exasperated by a requirement that had come down from Headquarters to monitor the health of beef animals delivered to the post as food for the troops, reporting that he was unable to perform the required check of the temperature of this bunch of longhorns "owing to the wildness of the animals." That conjured images of a guy wearing an officer's hat and a white smock running around a corral behind giant steers with a rectal thermometer in his hand while dodging the horns of other steers. By the way, I never actually held the coveted title "Chief Historian." Verne Chatelaine, Herb Kahler, Bob Utley, Harry Pfanz, Ed Bearss, Dwight Pitcaithley, Martin Pechir, and others maybe including Russ Mortensen and Ross Holland did, but not I. (Jerry is being a bit modest, the Chief Historian of the NPS reports to the Associate Director, Cultural Affairs, in this case, Jerry--Ed.) Keep up the good work. Jerry Rogers |
Thank you, Jerry!
Hawaii Volcanoes Superintendent Cindy Orlando tells me that HAVO is ending the cattle operation in the new Kahuku Ranch addition in April this year, and, JUST A DARN MINUTE! she has no intention of replacing them with historic "Vancouver" Longhorns from the Parker Ranch. (Nor is she required to by NPS regulation, as Jerry Rogers pointed out.)
Incidentally, if you would like to hunt the "Vancouver Longhorns," Hawaii's historic wild cattle, the Parker Ranch can arrange a hunt of Hawaii's most dangerous game for a little over $2,000 (there is no season). The Parker Ranch supplies everything including guns; ammunition and a paniolo (cowboy) guide who will make sure you don't end up on the horns of the beast. The Parker people will also cut up the critter for you; not a bad deal, considering.
Still, the issue of historic breeds of livestock in a national park setting is an interesting one.
Jerry brought up several interesting points in his letter.
The first is the fascinating story of the Ponies of Sitting Bull.
If this story is true, then these horses are living historical artifacts connecting us with the way of life of one of greatest Native American leaders, Sitting Bull.
In 1876, after defeating General George Crook at the Battle of the Rosebud, and virtually annihilating, Colonel Custer's 7th cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Sitting Bull deemed it prudent to take his people across "The Medicine Line", that invisible border that the superstitious Americans dared not cross, and into "Grandmother's Country" (Queen Victoria's Canada) where they were allowed to settle in the Cypress Hills under the benign supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
By the 1880's, American cries for vengeance had diminished to the point where it would be possible for the Lakota to return to the United States. The buffalo were gone and therefore the Lakota would not need all those horses if they were going to be peaceable farmers, now would they? So as part of the homecoming deal, Sitting Bull had to give up the pony herd. A willing buyer was the visionary Marquis De Mores, a French count who built a chateau in the Badlands and named a town after his wife, Medora. He envisioned a vast cattle empire, complete with slaughterhouse and rail spur for processing and shipping the meat and so on. The idea of Indian ponies fascinated him. Here was a working animal that had been bred by the Indians to suit the rugged Northern Plains environment. It was (relatively) small and not as pretty as European horses, but it was incredibly hardy and enduring. It did not freeze to death in the winter or die of thirst in the summer. It happily lived on grass and did not require supplementary grain or hay.
The Marquis bought many of Sitting Bull's ponies. Possibly, so did his near sighted neighbor and fellow rancher, Theodore Roosevelt.
Things went reasonably well until the Great Blizzard of 1886, which put the cattle out of existence and the open range cattle industry out of business.
The Marquis and Roosevelt went on to other things. Sitting Bull's ponies? Some undoubtedly died in the blizzards, some lived out their lives on other ranches, and some, it is said (and here it gets tricky) drifted into the Badlands and became the "Wild Ponies" of Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota.
Now neighbors, generally speaking, most "wild" horse legends are just that; rural legends and federal land managers accept them at their peril.
Nothing brings the crazies out of the woodwork faster than a "wild" horse story.
If the horses are on an Eastern or Gulf Coast barrier island, then OF COURSE they are the descendents of horses shipwrecked on a 16th century Spanish treasure galleon!
If the "wild" horses are in or even near Shenandoah National Park, then OF COURSE they must be the descendents of Col. John Singleton Moby's ghostly cavalry horses.
There is a lesson for Land Managers here: Never EVER refer to a loose horse that has strayed onto federal property as a "wild" horse! If you do, hundreds of "wild" horse crazies and dozens of equally crazy "wild" horse organizations will immediately descend upon you and your operation and make life miserable for you!
Geography will not save you! If your park is in the Midwest, then OF COURSE your "wild" horses will be descendents of those used by Jesse James! If your park is back East, say Saratoga Battlefield NHS then OF COURSE your "wild" horses will be the descendents of the horses of the Connecticut Light Horse.
The correct terminology, particularly when dealing with a reporter, television or otherwise, is that you have some "strayed livestock" in the park and that you are assiduously searching with due diligence for the rightful owners, who are undoubtedly wetting their pillows with grief over the loss of their beloved ponies. In the interim, you have placed these "strayed livestock" in a fenced enclosure where teenaged girl volunteers from the local 4-H are caring them. (Horses have a terrifying constituency in the Perpetual Teen Age Girl, ranging in age from 16 to 60, who regard all horses as "Sacred" and God help any federal land manager who inconveniences the object of their affection in any way!)
If, after due diligence, you are unable to find the owners, then and only then will you place the strayed animals with devoted foster families who will sign a blood oath that they will not sell the horses for dog food or steaks for perverted Europeans.
Now neighbors, by now you should have concluded that your kindly editor is not a sucker for a "wild horse" tall story.
Just to reinforce my prejudices, I sent off an inquiry on the legend of Sitting Bull's Ponies being the ancestors of the feral horses of Theodore Roosevelt National Park to the superintendent of that park, Ms Valerie Naylor.
("If in doubt, ask a ranger" and all that) Anyway Superintendent Naylor wrote me back very promptly and said:
"...There is NO evidence that the feral horses in Theodore Roosevelt are descended from Sitting Bull's ponies and there is no way to determine that. There are some people who perpetuate that story."
Your editor was soon to discover who those "some people" are.
They are Robert Utley and Dr. Castle McLaughlin, two of the premier experts on Western Americana in the United States, as well as retired NPS historian Jerry Rogers, no slouch himself in the worship of Clio. They vehemently dispute the position of Superintendent Naylor and the NPS on the subject of Sitting Bull's ponies.
In addition to having been the Chief Historian of the National Park Service and the author of 16 books on the Western frontier, Utley has the reputation among fellow historians as the finest historian of the American frontier in the 19th century. Indeed, the Western History Association provides the annual " Robert M. Utley Award" for the best book on the military history of the frontier and Western North America.
Even more to the point, Utley is the author of THE LANCE AND THE SHIELD: THE LIFE OF SITTING BULL. This means that the author has more than a passing knowledge of Sitting Bull and his ponies.
Naturally, I decided to check with Bob. Here is what he had to say:
| Dear PJ,
As Chief Historian of the National Park Service, 1964-72, I was instrumental in formulated the policies and standards for the care of park historic resources that basically remain in place. As one of the architects of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and as Deputy Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1976-80, I am familiar with federal preservation law. I judge the horses to have represented two important heritages of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The cowboy heritage of Theodore Roosevelt and the Marquis De Mores, the basis for the park's creation in the first place, and the heritage of the Northern Plains Indians, particularly, Sitting Bull's Lakotas, who ranged over and fought other tribes in this area for generations. In fact, two important battles between Sitting Bull's warriors and US Army troops were fought very near the existing park. The wild mustang horses that the park disposed of some years back were a mixed bloodline that remained basically intact during the century they had run wild in the Little Missouri Valley. The strains were two: cow horses that entered this area when the Marquis de Mores set up his cattle operation, and the Indian horses confiscated when Sitting Bull surrendered with his following at Fort Buford in 1881, and which the Marquis purchased. Thus these horses represented a highly significant resource of the park. I therefore believe that the decision to dispose of these horses violated the policies and standards of the National Park Service and constituted a federal undertaking within the meaning of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This was not recognized or acknowledged by park management at the time, so of course, no compliance was initiated under Section 106. Thanks to the Nokota Horse Conservancy, a philanthropically supported enterprise based in Linten, North Dakota, the bloodlines of these two heritages have been preserved. In other words, significant historic resources of the park still exist outside of the park. I believe it is advisable for the National Park Service, at the least, to open a dialog with the Nokota Horse Conservancy described in the enclosed brochure. These horses have been preserved largely through the interest and effort of Frank and Leo Kurtz and Shelly Hague, with vital support of Castle McLaughlin, the last an anthropologist, is now with the Peabody Museum at Harvard and did much of the research groundwork during two tours as park seasonal in 1986 and 1987. I don't know whether it is feasible to restore some of these horses to the park. That is the outcome I would like to see flow from the talks I am advocating. In any event, since the horses at the conservancy are still park historic resources of major significance, some kind of partnership or relationship between the park and the conservancy seems to be in order. At the very least, Dr. Castle McLaughlin should be invited to present her evidence. Sincerely, Robert Utley |
OK, next enter Dr. Castle McLaughlin. Dr. McLaughlin is Associate Curator of North American Ethnography at the Peabody Museum at Harvard University. In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. McLaughlin is also vice-president of the Nokota Horse Conservancy, so she does have a dog in this fight.
| Dear PJ,
When Theodore Roosevelt National Park was created in the 1950's, a concerted effort was made to get rid of the wild horses, which are strongly disliked by the NPS and most rangers whose mission then was to "recreate" the biological landscape of the 19th century. A superintendent who was also a historian, reversed that policy, circ 1970, and advocated treating the horses as an historical resource rather than a nuisance. At that time, the park decided to maintain an "historical demonstration " herd. Then in the 1980's, another superintendent went into a partnership with local ranchers who proposed getting rid of the wild horses in the park and breeding bucking horses instead, so that the park could make money by selling them as rodeo stock, That decision was protested by the public, as well as a number of wild horse biologists, but they forged ahead. I entered the story in 1986, when I was hired to ride a round up as a seasonal ranger, and was subsequently hired to conduct research on the history, administrative history, and social organization of the horses; a project I worked on for three years. Regardless of the Sitting Bull connection, the NPS has been criticized from many quarters for getting rid of the original horses, which are well documented to have been in the Badlands since the 1880's, when Theodore Roosevelt wrote about them. Most American wild horse herds started in the 1930's with cast off ranch horses augmenting the Badlands' herds during the Great Depression. However, most of the tamer and slower horses seemed to have been culled out over the years as local ranchers often chased and captured a few for sale. When I arrived, the horses were extremely wild and very difficult to approach. Many also had Spanish colonial characteristics, as has been documented by several independent horse experts. However, the NPS got rid of those and replaced them with domestic stock. I was young and deeply discouraged to discover that local politics trumped doing the right thing; especially when the park turned a deaf ear on the protests of respected biologists etc, as I thought the public deserved to see "real" wild horses, rather than quarter horses and also felt that the original breed stock, not others, deserved to be there after all that time. The Sitting Bull connection came up during my research, it was mentioned by several local ranchers and had in fact, been published as early as the 1930's. The paper trail is really quite clear. The Lakota horses surrendered at Fort Buford in the 1880's, were purchased by the Marquis de Mores, who founded the town of Medora, now park headquarters, and raised the horses on the open range there. After a few years, he sold them to another local who continued to breed them and to lose them in the Badland. It's pretty clear that the Lakota horses were not the only wild horses in the area, and that they were not the only ancestors of the modern herd. But the real evidence is the horses themselves. We have photographs of the original wild horses, and the correspondence between them and the horses called "Nokotas", the ones removed from the park and purchased by the two ranching brothers is really astounding. In fact, the "Indian pony" appearance of the park horses and the dominant colors of black, roan, and grey were what the ranchers and the NPS objected to in the 1980's, and they justified "modernizing" the herd by saying that there was no market value for old time horses like that, whereas the public would buy the offspring of currently popular domestic breeds. This is documented in NPS records. The numbers of horses has been contentious, but since Theodore Roosevelt is an enclosed park, everyone has recognized that the population would have to be managed. The issue at THRO has been the change in the herd. The public can literally walk up and pet some of the horses. These are "wild" horses? I am not alone in feeling that something has been lost in the process. Apparently, the problem is that the park cannot admit a mistake or re-think a superintendent's decision. Also there is still anti-horse sentiment, and the park has been very reluctant to invest in horse management expertise of any kind. I am sure a contributing factor is the increased cost of more careful and informed horse management in these straitened economic times. But it seems to me that they have simply dug in their heels on principle. Recently the park has stated that the Sitting Bull connection would require genetic proof; but since no one thought to take a blood sample from the horses in the 1880's, that is clearly impossible. Also, it is unlikely that these Lakota horses were "pure" anything in relation to known breeds. so I am not sure they would have genetic markers/signatures that would distinguish them anyway. I don't believe that Lakota horses or other plains herds were "pure" Spanish mustangs; that is one of those romantic notions, but they evidentially did have some Spanish colonial characteristics. One has to wonder why the NPS would be so hostile toward several of their most distinguished former staffers such as Bob Utley and Paul Hedrin, and so adverse to the possibility, which, if true, could only enhance the appeal of Theodore Roosevelt National Park as a destination and demonstrate good will toward scholarship and the Native Peoples whose land they now manage. These horses could well be the only bona fide descendants of an important Native American Herd. Objectively, it makes no sense. I believe that is why this situation is so galling to Utley, Hedren, and others. Sincerely, Dr. Castle McLaughlin |
Well now, neighbors! As old timers used to say "It's a difference of opinion that makes a horse race!" and we seem to have a difference of opinion between the present administration at Theodore Roosevelt and the NPS on one side and Jerry Rogers, Robert Utley, Dr. Castle McLaughlin, et al on the other side.
In the next issue of THUNDERBEAR, we will present the views of superintendent Valerie Naylor and her staff as well as the Regional staff, who are backing the position of Superintendent Naylor, i.e. that there is no provable connection between Sitting Bull's ponies and modern day horses in and around Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
Clearly, this issue requires more publicity. Your kindly editor has been told that NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine has a larger circulation than THUNDERBEAR.
I don't believe that for a moment, but it is worth considering that we take the issue to THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC for more publicity and possible resolution.
You see "wild" horses, American Indians, The West, and Theodore Roosevelt are iconic symbols of America! Put them all together and you have the kind of story that only NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, with its incomparable color photography can tell!
One can visualize a two-page color spread of blue roan ponies running through the badlands! That and other photos of the horses, ranchers, the Badlands, Utley, Naylor, McLaughlin et al, would complement the text, which would be an interesting debate between the two factions on the subject of Sitting Bull's horses.
Your friendly editor will return to the Washington, DC area, on or about April 15 and will straightaway broach the idea of an article on the " Mystery Horses of Theodore Roosevelt National Park: Fact or Fiction?" to the editors of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine. The NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC should be able to get a well known Western writer such as Tim Egan, George Wuerthner, or Terry Tempest Williams to do the text, asking questions of Utley, McLaughlin, and Naylor.
Such a debate should lead in the direction of a solution if not the solution itself!
So where does your kindly editor stand on the subject of Sitting Bull's Ponies? Well, I'm agnostic on the subject, but I'm looking forward to a good argument from all concerned!
WOULD YOU BUY A USED FORT?
Fort Ticonderoga is one of our most interesting historical parks.
We use the term "our" in the broad American sense rather than the narrow National Park sense, as Fort Ticonderoga is what might be called a private national park.
That is, Fort Ticonderoga is of national significance but is under the ownership and management of a private foundation.
This is not particularly unusual in the case of historic homes and estates of national significance, such as Mount Vernon, Monticello, Montpelier, Ash Lawn, The Hermitage and a host of other buildings held by private trusts.
However, private ownership of nationally significant forts or battlefields is less common. New Market Battlefield in Virginia is a privately owned and operated battlefield (Whether the Battle of New Market is of national significance is a discussion best left to Ed Bearrs)
Fort Ticonderoga is another example. It is an old private historical park, established in 1909, making it older than the National Park Service. The site was opened to the public by the influential (and wealthy) Pell Family, to commemorate the 300 the anniversary of the discovery of Lake Champlain. President Taft attended the dedication.
Actually, the preservation and reconstruction of Fort Ticonderoga was a Pell family affair. William Ferris Pell purchased the abandoned fort in 1837 to keep neighboring farmers from using the fort as a quarry. Pell's efforts place it in the first rank of historical preservationists predating the Mount Vernon Ladies as pioneer preservationists. Indeed one of the most romantic works of "Hudson River School" of landscape painting is Thomas Coles "Ruins of Fort Ticonderoga", circa 1831. Pell wished to prevent further ruination of the fort.
The fort remained in the hands of the Pell family until 1931, when Stephen Pell established Fort Ticonderoga Association to act as a non-profit trust to preserve the fort and provide public education on American Revolutionary History.
Although the Fort does charge a fairly hefty admission and has the usual historical society fund raising events, much of its recent support comes from the Mars family (of candy bar fame). Recently there has been a dispute between the Trust and the Mars family.
Also, there has been an economic down turn that even affects candy sales and rumor has it that the Mars family might have to rethink its commitment to Fort Ticonderoga. This may mean simply a belt tightening, or a sale of some of the Fort's art collection, or sale of the fort itself.
As there is a somewhat specialized market for used forts; sellers usually default to State parks or the National Park Service.
Why would the NPS be interested? Well, Fort Ticonderoga is one of the key sites in the Saratoga Campaign of the Revolutionary War and the only one in private hands.
Is it for sale?
Well, I don't know, just retailing a rumor.
Does the NPS want it?
The NPS is not saying.
Should the NPS want it?
Well, I don't know, neighbors! You see there are some problems.
Much of Fort Ticonderoga is a reconstruction.
Reconstruction is something that the National Park Service officially does not like.
According to NPS dogma, a structure is either old or historic or it is new (fake) and not historic.
The NPS does not do reconstructions, (except, of course when it does)
According to the 2006 Management Policies Directive 5.3.5.4.4 Reconstruction of Missing Structures:
"No matter how well conceived or executed, reconstructions are contemporary interpretations of the past rather than authentic survivals from the past.
The NPS will not reconstruct a missing structure unless:
- There is no alternative that would accomplish the park's interpretive mission.
- Sufficient data exists to enable the accurate reconstruction based on the duplication of historic features substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or features from other structures.
- Reconstruction will occur on the original location.
- A structure will not be reconstructed to appear damaged or ruined. Generalized representatives of structures will not be attempted.
- Reconstruction is approved by the Director of the NPS."
Well now, neighbors, sounds like a brass bound, leak proof guarantee against over enthusiastic reconstruction, don't it?
Well yes, until the NPS runs up against political reality.
Here is the average congressional response to The Management Policies Directive on Reconstructions of Missing Structures:
"Now listen you nit picking little bureaucrat! My constituents want a replica of that damn historic structure and they want it now! Before next tourist season! I will get the money and you will do it and your Director will rubber stamp it or I will see that your damn agency doesn't get a penny increase over last fiscal year!"
Well now! When you put it that way...
A case in point would be another fort, this time Bent's Old Fort NHS in southern Colorado.
When the site of this famous Rocky Mountain fur traders' headquarters was acquired by the NPS, the "fort" consisted of rather historically uninspiring piles of weed covered clay; unsupervised adobe, the fort's main ingredient, being notoriously soluble.
"Not to worry." The Colorado Congressional Delegation said cheerfully, "We'll appropriate enough money to build a reconstruction!"
The NPS did not want a maintenance white elephant and adobe construction requires almost constant maintenance or you will have a mud pie.
"Again, not to worry! We will build you a replica fort made of cement blocks with a neat adobe colored concrete stucco; virtually maintenance free!"
Indeed, when another NPS replica, Fort Clatsop NHS caught fire and burned to the ground, the local tourist industry (and their Congressional representatives) anxiously asked when the NPS would get off the dime and rebuild?
So, being a replica or reconstruction may not be an absolute deterrent for an historical property to be acquired by the NPS.
"Yes," you ask impatiently. "But is Fort Ticonderoga really of national significance?"
Now, neighbors, since this country is fantastically in debt, staring into the abyss of a depression, and involved in two no-win wars, the prudent tax payer has every right to ask if further extension of National Park holdings is in the best interest of the nation?
Double affirmative, friends! Fort Ti was the linchpin of North America in two wars and was the first offensive effort of the Americans in the Revolution, and played in key role in the Saratoga campaign. While it is true that the present economic meltdown may appear dramatic and all consuming, it does provide a window of opportunity to acquire this historic property, unencumbered, for the American people, should it be offered for sale.
Sir Winston Churchill called the Seven Years War, "The First World War" as it stretched across the continents and oceans from Europe to India to the Philippines, North America and Cuba.
A not very well supervised junior militia officer by the name of George Washington started the whole bloody thing by ambushing a French patrol, killing 12 sleepy Frenchmen in what is now western Pennsylvania on May 28, 1754 It would end, more than seven years and nearly a million corpses later in 1763 Was it justified? Well, compared to the Iraq War, I would say it was a model of foresight, planning, and good judgment.
Now we Americans prefer to call the Seven Years War, the French and Indian War after our major opponents.
Fort Ticonderoga started out as the French built Fort Carillon on the narrows of the 110 long Lake Champlain, a watery dagger aimed either at the heart of New France to the north or British America to the south.
The French held Fort Carillon in 1758, with 4,000 men under General Montcalm. Montcalm found himself hopelessly outnumbered four to one when General James Abercromby arrived with 16,000 British regulars and American militia; the largest army yet assembled in North America.
The Brits were serious.
However, with a little planning, numerical advantage can be overcome and defeat snatched from the jaws of victory! (The modern Democratic Party is very good at this sort of thing!)
The French General Montcalm had done the best he could. Although Fort Carillon had not been completed, Montcalm employed his men building an abatis, an 18th century version of a barbed wire entanglement. Trees were felled and dragged into position with their top most branches facing the enemy; the upper or outer branches were sharpened. The Abatis was essentially a delaying tactic, but it also prevented the enemy from advancing in massed formation, the staple of 18th century warfare. No one would charge directly into an Abatis unless one's artillery had reduced the enemy's artillery and cleared the parapets.
Months before the French had been outnumbered at another Fort this time in Western Pennsylvania, awaiting the attack of General Edward Braddock. The French and their Indian allies had prepared an ambush in the forlorn hope that the British would be arrogant enough and stupid enough to fall into the trap.
Amazingly, they were, and Braddock and his men were slaughtered, not quite to the last man, but close enough for government work.
General Montcalm realized that the French had been lucky; that it was unlikely that the British would be stupid twice.
Montcalm underestimated the staying power of stupidity.
Incredibly, General Abercromby had left his artillery behind in his march through the New York wilderness. This was somewhat understandable. Artillery slowed the march and had not been of much use to poor general Braddock against phantom Indians who fired from behind trees. Also Abercromby had to feed and provision 16,000 men as they moved farther and farther into the spooky green wilderness of North America. What lurked behind all those trees and shrubs? Speed and numbers were of the essence. He knew he heavily outnumbered his French opponent. They would not dare attack such as large body of men on the march. If he could reach the fort and take it before Montcalm could be reinforced and his own supplies ran out, all would be well. It was unlikely that he could be ambushed, as unlike General Braddock, he had the legendary Roger's Rangers scouting ahead of him.
General James Abercromby had not particularly wanted the command. He was a logistics officer by nature. His job had been organizing the material and the logistics of the march and he was very good at that (The men called him "Mrs. Nancy Crummy" because of his fussy attention to detail and insistence that everything is in order). However, he was not a tactician.
That was the specialty of one of Abercromby's subordinates, commander of one of the columns George Augustus Lord Howe; charismatic, knowledgeable, affable, a natural leader of men. Indeed, he had almost convinced Abercromby to wait for the artillery. Unfortunately for all concerned, Lord Howe, always at the head of his troops, was killed in a brief skirmish with a French patrol.
Abercromby pushed on.
When his awesome force reached Fort Carillon, (soon to become Fort Ticonderoga), Abercromby was faced with a decision; wait for his siege artillery or attack immediately.
Fort Carillon was surrounded on three sides by water and by the abatis on the forth.
Abercromby chose a frontal attack directly into the Abatis, without artillery, counting on numbers to carry them through.
The Rangers went in first, hoping to establish sniping positions in the Abatis They were followed closely by the 42nd highlanders (The Black Watch), bagpipes screaming, and the rest of the army following. The branches were still green and springy, making them difficult to cut. The Black Watch slung arms and hacked at the abatis with their Claymores.
At this point, the French opened up with their artillery, firing grapeshot point blank into the abatis.
The roiling sea of green was soon flecked with crimson as the French methodically fired, sponged, reloaded and fired again and again.
Amazingly some of the Black Watch made it to the foot of the wall. Unfortunately, someone had forgotten the scaling ladders. Undaunted, the Scots formed human pyramids in an effort to get men over the walls. French enfilading musket fire cut them down.
It was in short, a preview of The Somme or Paschendale in the 1914-18 War in which raw courage counted for nothing against a hailstorm of metal.
In a very short time, the British had lost 2,000 men killed or wounded, far worse than even the Braddock disaster. For the British, it was the worst day in the entire seven years war.
Abercromby made a panicky withdrawal, abandoning some of the wounded on their stretchers as wild rumors spread of a forest full of Indians about to erupt on the fearful, retreating columns. Abercromby survived, but his military career did not.
However, Montcalm's spectacular victory at Fort Carillon only postponed the inevitable. The French were brave and resourceful, and their philosophy of life had more in common with the Native Americans than the Anglos, but the French were outnumbered 20 to one by the British settlers and the British Navy controlled the North Atlantic.
The British were back the next year, this time with cannon, a better plan and a better leader. The French had been forced to pull their limited forces back to defend the heart of New France itself--Quebec City and Montreal. This left little more than a skeleton force of 400 to defend the fort against Sir Jeffrey Amherst's 11,000 troops. The outnumbered French managed a plucky defense, inflicting 16 killed on the British before they fired the powder magazine and surrendered Fort Carillon
The Fort would now enter history as Fort Ticonderoga.
LIVING AND WORKING IN MEXICO
Joan and I are back down in sunny Oaxaca, Mexico, where Joan is teaching and I am writing. (I have the better end of the stick!). This has to happen until Global Warming removes the five months that Maryland doesn't need: November, December, January, February, and March.
The state and city of Oaxaca continues to work its "eternal spring" magic on winter shocked Canadians and Yanks as well as on de-Christianized Europeans determined to absorb the "spiritual purity" of the indigenous people (as well as some of the "magic" mushrooms).
The Historic District still bustles with tourists, both Mexican and foreign. The markets look like a NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC photo spread: Inscrutable indigenous people selling colorful goods and foods in front of a fortress of a church. Oaxaca is one of the few Mexican states where there really is a difference in the food ingredients. There are piles of spiced dried grasshoppers to whet your appetite and you can get grasshoppers in chocolate sauce in many of the restaurants around the Zocalo, or plaza. Jews will be pleased to know that grasshoppers (locusts) are Kosher. Locusts are the only members of Class Insecta or indeed, the whole phylum of Arthopoda (crabs, lobsters, shrimp etc.) that have made it onto the Jewish menu. Why is that the case?
I would imagine that as in most cases in our complex relationship with God, that kosher grasshoppers are a matter of expediency. (After all, if you are trying to eke out a living on a hard scrabble patch of Judean desert in biblical times, it is highly unlikely that someone is going to come along and offer you a plate of lobster & shrimp. Therefore, it makes sense to tell your kids to stay away from those foods. On the other hand, one reason you may be so hungry is the damn locusts have eaten the hell out of your crop; it makes perfect sense to let God make an exception and let you eat hell out of the locusts! (I understand that in a similar vein, the Pope declared the beaver to be a fish for the benefit of the French Canadian fur trappers who had to eat fish on Friday!)
The Marimba bands are playing under the Laurel trees of the Zocalo. I am always amazed that such dulcet, liquidy splashing tones can come from tapping strips of wood. I could listen for hours.
But wait! How could I? I'm supposed to be dead! Stone cold dead in the market! Somebody is supposed to shoot me!
Or at least that's what friends, relatives and the State Department seem to think.
Mexico is believed by many Americans to be a shudderingly dangerous country; sort of Somalia, only with tacos and tamales.
Friends and relatives e-mail us with anxious inquiries as to our yet being among the living.
Often these inquiries come with an attached bulletin from the NEW YORK TIMES warning of "increased violence in Mexico" and the possibility of a "failed state" like Haiti or The Congo, with chaos and apocalyptic armed gangs roaming the streets and mountains in an "End of Days" scenario.
According to the U.S. State Department:
"Some recent Mexican Army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades. Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including, Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Cuidad Juarez. During some of these incidents, U.S citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area. " (The horror! The inconvenience! --Ed)
Actually, Mexico is in pretty good shape and is a fun place to visit, live, or work!
Huh?
Yup! Mexico is in some respects, better off than the U.S. Its businessmen and politicians may be corrupt, but unlike ours, they are patriotic. Unlike ours, Mexico's manufacturing base was not shipped overseas. If you buy something in Mexico, it is likely to be stamped "Hecho en Mexico" rather than in "Chino".
In addition, Mexico will soon experience a labor shortage due to a spectacular falling birth rate. In 1960, the average Mexican family had 6.8 children; in 2008, it had dropped to just 2.1 children per couple, barely replacement rate. With a population growth rate of 0.8% and falling, Mexico may have to rely on immigration like the U.S. in order to maintain its population.
But what about all those Mexicans crossing the U.S. border? Well, many of them are not Mexicans (I will wager that the cook in your favorite Mexican restaurant is really from El Salvador.)
There are plenty of jobs in Mexico, but they don't pay anything. Despite the Revolution of 1910, the Constitution of 1917 and "Revolucion" this, and "Reforma" that, capitalism in Mexico still has a 19th century Dickensian edge to it. One can survive on Mexican wages, but you can't prosper or get ahead. To do this, you must go "El Norte" for three years, make your pile in construction and return with cash to start your business or build your house. A labor shortage in Mexico should increase wages.
But what about all that violence we read about in newspapers and see on television?
Everything you read and see in the media is true, but it is not likely to involve you, at least not directly. The folks over at State Department are paid to be professional worrywarts and to consider every possible evil that could befall an American overseas. If you check the State Department's country by country travel alerts, they will tell you how you can get killed or injured in each country, even flat, dull, white Australia. Only the Vatican is totally safe, according to State.
The violence in Mexico is mainly a result of the drug trade, with political violence a distant second, and garden variety, US style armed robbery, coming in third (and rather rare).
Last year, 2008, around 6,000 people were killed in the drug wars. These are serious casualty figures; more for one year in Mexico than the U.S. fatalities for the entire Iraq War.
Of the 6,000, about 10% are the "good guys" Mexican police or army, killed in action against the "Narcos". Another 4% are the classic "innocent bystanders"; the Taco stand guy or the Canadian tourist who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Narcos start hosing down the neighborhood with AK-47 fire (A classic case being that of the late Cardinal of Mexico, Juan Ocampo. His Holiness made the mistake of having the same make and color of car as that of a drug lord that rivals wanted totaled.)
The other 86% of the 6,000 killed are the bad guys (and they raise the definition of "bad" to new levels as they kill each other). Given any sort of leisurely time frame, the bad guys much prefer not just to shoot their rivals or supposed informants, but to torture them to death in the most creative and tedious manner possible, often arranging severed heads and other body parts in a whimsical manner in public places to cow the populace.
There are a lot of corrupt Mexican police, but there are a lot of honest and incredibly brave ones too. Being an honest cop in the Mexican drug war is sort of like being Gary Cooper in the old film "High Noon" only not for just one day, but everyday for the rest of your career, which is likely to be short.
Sometimes being brave and honest doesn't matter. The Chief of police of Juarez could not be bought and could not be hit. The Juarez Cartel, perhaps the most vicious, wanted him out. So they told the newspapers they would kill one Juarez cop every 48 hours until he resigned. He did so, after two of his men were killed, But won't the bad guys kill each other off? No, the drug cartels prefer the classic Capitalist economic model to the Marxist. It is more efficient. (Yea! Milton Friedman!) At present, there are four drug cartels; The Tijuana, The Juarez, The Sinaloa, and The Gulf. Eventually, as capitalism at its purest eliminates (literally) waste and duplication, there will be only one cartel. It will be very, very efficient; Ayn Rand, only with guns.
This does not mean that Mexico will be a "failed State," like Haiti or Somalia as one high ranking American General apprehensively suggested. On the contrary, Mexico will be a very "successful" state with a Narco-President overseeing the efficient movement of drugs from all over the world into the United States, with drug cartel money being laundered into legitimate Mexican businesses, forcing Mexican businessmen, large and small to accept shadowy "partners "who don't mind cutting the heads and hands off business associates who offend. Capitalism at its most direct.
Every normal person on either side of the border has an interest in preventing a Narco-presidency in Mexico; the question is, how to do it?
The immediate, short term, band aid solution would be to provide up to date training, weaponry, access to intelligence and enough funds for salaries to keep the police and military slightly ahead of the corruption curve AND stop the other smuggling; that of high performance automatic weapons from the U.S. into Mexico. This will require the "cooperation" of the National Rifle Association as well as the U.S. government.
The long term (and probably most successful) solution would be the de-profitization of the dope trade by making the U.S. totally self sufficient in drugs, eliminating the cartels and dealers, by making a U.S. government monopoly of the production and distribution of dope in the same manner as the government has a monopoly on the production and distribution of $100 bills; a monopoly that has very draconian penalties for those who choose to violate it.
Dope grown and refined in the United States would be sold to addicts at a cost below the price of the Cartel. The drug lords are not chemical St. Francis of Assisis, yearning to bliss out the population free of charge. They will retire or go into extortion, kidnapping or bank robbery; unpopular crimes with high risk and low return and we will see the end of narco-terrorism on both sides of the border.
Would the US become a nation of addicts? No, dope would not be legal, or particularly available to anyone but an addict. An educational campaign, even more intense than the one that has made cigarette smokers pariahs (Even President Obama dares not light up in public!) would make addiction about as romantic as flatulence or incontinence. There would be non-prison addiction treatment programs available for those who wish to end their rather humiliating dependency (Robert Kennedy Jr., Cindy McCain, and Rush Limbaugh being poster children for these very successful programs).
But what of the present; the here and now? Should you visit today's Mexico despite the warnings of your aunt Nelly and the State Department?
Most assuredly, it is a fascinating country with friendly people, glorious scenery, awesome antiquities and history, a fine climate and great beer.
Actually, your aunt Nelly and the State Department's advice is not bad: Don't have anything to do with the dope trade or those that do; don't go to the Red Light District, even to save sinners; don't get falling down drunk enough to claim you're here to avenge the Alamo, avoid political demonstrations, protest marches, student gatherings, or any other loud, boisterous processions that are not carrying images of The Virgin or some saint. Don't display large amounts of money to those who don't have any and may want some, and don't bring a gun into Mexico; you won't get out of jail until your grandchildren finish their post doctorates.
It is probably a good idea to avoid the border states at this time, particularly Baja California Del Norte and Chihuahua, as well as the states of Sinaloa and Guerrero, unless you have local contacts there and a pretty good idea of what you want to do (A case in point is The Sierra Del Carmen range across the Rio from Big Bend National Park. Former Yellowstone Chief Ranger Roger Siglin is angry with George Bush for sealing the border at that point and suggests that he and your kindly editor might be able to make it into the Del Carmens to Boquilas through the "Back Door" of Del Rio, Texas, south Melchor Muzquiz and then take Mexico 53 into the Sierra Del Carmens; I believe it will be interesting rather than dangerous. I'll let you know if we make it.
Which brings one to the final question: Has your editor encountered any violence or anything untoward in Mexico?
Anecdotal evidence is basically worthless, because the reverse of your experience can happen to another person the very next day, but in the many years Joan and I have been coming to Mexico, we have witnessed only one major gun battle, and that was in a very remote mountain village, far off the tourist track, in northern Oaxaca in the Year of Our Lord, 2008.
So, the odds are with you. Come on down and I'll buy you a Negra Modelo!
TREE PLANTING TIME
I have always believed that George Bush (the most recent one) was a secret reader of THUNDERBEAR.
Why?
Because how else would he know of THE THUNDERBEAR CONCEPT OF ADDITIONAL BAD NEWS?
This revolutionary managerial concept is known only to dedicated readers of the 'Bear.'
To refresh your memories, the THUNDERBEAR CONCEPT OF ADDITIONAL BAD NEWS is designed to overcome paralysis of will in the face of a problem by suddenly adding a new problem. This will refocus your mind and give you the adrenaline boost necessary to solving the original problem (along with the new one).
Examples:
Should you encounter a Grizzly Bear on a narrow mountain trail in Glacier National Park you should immediately set yourself on fire. This will not only freak out the bear, but the pain will reset your mind.
Should you be lost and starving in Gates of the Arctic National Park, you should jump into the nearest glacial stream. The resulting hypothermia will refocus your mind and cause a solution to the original problem of being lost to leap into your now clear mind.
You will recall that in The Last Days of the Bush Presidency. (Now that you mention it, it DID resemble The Last Days of Pompeii.) We found ourselves fighting not one, but two no-end wars AND the economy on its way to total collapse.
What to do?
Fortunately, President Bush had his back issues of THUNDERBEAR, and recalled the "Additional Bad News Concept" in the nick of time!
He decided to restart The Cold War.
Now nothing rubs the Russian Bear's fur the wrong way quicker than entering into what it considers its "sphere of influence" without due consultation.
This we proceeded to do, grandly announcing the possibility of "missile shields" against Iran in former Russian colonies of Poland and Czech Republic more than a thousand miles from Iran.
The Russians were understandably suspicious of our intentions. You don't have to be Karl Von Clausewitz to figure out that the closer you are to a missile launch, the more time you have to respond. This would logically mean a joint Russian-American base on Russian soil around 5 kilometers from the Iranian border. That would have been logical. Apparently, we never suggested such a solution.
Then Barrack Obama became President. He has never read THUNDERBEAR, but he got Additional Bad News just the same.
It seems that The Taliban or the Pakistani Rotary Club, or somebody, blew up the only bridge that was carrying our supplies to our troops fighting in Afghanistan, a notably landlocked country. The Pakistanis said they would get cracking on getting the pass open, which should happen about the same time they capture Osama Bin Laden, a hulking 6 foot, four inch Yemeni Prince, who doesn't speak any of the local dialects, and who should stand out like a Mormon in Mecca.
What were we to do?
At this point, with the polite innocence of a Christian holding four aces, former KGB man and now ruler of Russia, Vladimir Putin, suggested that we might consider shipping our supplies across Russia to Afghanistan via the Russian National Railroad, which was safe, secure, and reliable, and he could get us reduced rates as it looked like we would be in the Afghanistan freight business, for, oh, the next ten years.
We gulped and agreed. It was either that or get out of Afghanistan.
Mr. Putin said nothing, just smiled that lazy, saturnine smile of his.
Even without his saying anything, we realized we didn't have too many poker chips on the table. You got to know when to hold and when to fold.
It fell to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to eat crow for the United States.
To soften things a bit, the State Department made an attempt at humor.
State Department staffers build a mock up of an electrical junction box. The fake junction box was larger than life size to show up in press photos and television, It had two huge buttons, one marked RESET and the other button marked with the Russian word for RESET (hopefully). The gimmick would be that Hillary Clinton would give her Russian counterpart, the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the junction box wrapped up as a present. The Russian would unwrap the "present" and Hillary would explain that the Bush Era had ended and that it was time to "Reset" Russian-American relations; whereupon Hillary and the Russian would smile for the cameras and press their respective RESET buttons and shake hands. (Yes, I know it's a bit heavy handed, but nobody asked me--ed.)
Anyway, the Russian opened his "present."
"Did we get it right?" Hillary asked expectantly.
"No, you didn't." The Russian replied frankly. (Russian is a difficult language with a subtle vocabulary, the Russian word the State Department staffer thought meant RESET, actually meant OVERLOAD.)
Now Hillary was not "voted most likely to succeed" by her classmates for nothing. With her trademark-clanging laugh, she said that after the RESET of Russian-American relations, there was sure to be an OVERLOAD of work for everyone! Everyone chuckled.
(I suspect that State Department staffer is looking forward to an assignment in the Republic of Chad, however.)
OK. Russian-American relations have been "RESET". What do we do next? What, exactly, do the Russians want?
Surprisingly, not very much. For a valorous people with a rugged and often bloody history, the Russians are remarkably sensitive and their feelings are easily hurt.
They feel that the U.S. has not been appreciative of all the good things Russia has done for both America and Western Civilization, like holding off the Tartar hordes in the 13th century, and the Nazi hordes in the 20th.
No American President has actually gotten up and thanked Russia profusely for its role in defeating the Nazis during the Second World War, a feat that cost them some 20 million fatalities. They would like an acknowledgement, a pat on the back and recognition that, in their own way they are also the "Good Guys."
Here's a scenario: Now that relations have been "Reset," President Obama goes to Moscow leading a delegation of American Land Management agencies; the National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and the US Forest Service. (Hillary can come along too if she promises not to laugh.)
President Obama might read King George III"s request to Empress Catherine II for "15-20,000" Russian troops to put help put down the American Revolution, as well as Catherine's refusal to do so. The Chief Historian of Saratoga Battlefield would be available for a discussion of whether the Battle of Saratoga might have turned out very differently has Barry St. Leger had an additional 15,000 Russian troops available when he marched down from Canada toward Saratoga.
Might not the Russian troops have arrived too late for the Saratoga campaign? Perhaps, but they would have been here in plenty of time for the Yorktown Campaign and Lord Cornwallis would have slept easy, knowing that the Russians were marching to his rescue.
Either President Obama or the Chief Historian of Yorktown could read George Washington's heartfelt thanksgiving that Catherine had decided not to reinforce the British Army, because she thought it "unfair".
We fast-forward 8 decades and Russia again steps forward to pull our biscuits out of the oven. It is the Civil War and Britain and France are neutral on the side of the Confederacy. Lincoln is planning to free the slaves; Czar Alexander II is planning to emancipate the serfs. They have quite a bit in common. Lincoln asks Nicholas if he could send the Russian fleet to San Francisco to forestall seizure by France or England. Nicholas agrees. The Chief Historian of Fort Point could tell of the palpable relief experienced in San Francisco when the Russian squadron dropped anchor in San Francisco Bay.
Naturally, this cooperation was not just one way. President Obama might like to recall how Thomas Jefferson suggested that we send our ace Naval hero, John Paul Jones to help Empress Catherine against the Ottoman Turks as thanks for her support in the Revolution.
Catherine's faith in Jones was well placed. In 1788, Jones destroyed the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Leman on the Black Sea, taking 15 ships, killing 3,000 Turks, and losing one Russian frigate. He said "I am delighted with the courage of the Russians, which is more glorious because it is without "show-off."
Fast forward into the 20th century; 1921: Russia is gripped in civil war and famine. The Bolsheviks are having their inherent problems of managing food. 20 million are at risk of starvation. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and other Republicans think that might not be a bad outcome as, well, they're Reds. Along comes a very improbable hero: Herbert Hoover, former mining engineer, future president of the United States, and, at that time, head of the American Friends relief effort. Rebuking his fellow Republicans, Hoover said:
"Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!"
And they were. It was perhaps Herbert Hoover's finest hour. The Chief Historian of Herbert Hoover NHS might display his awards for the benefit of cameras.
So how do we know all this stuff? Well, the Russians have sort of done our homework for us. They are opening a remarkable new museum in Washington DC on the grounds of the Russian embassy; it is "The Library of Russian American Cooperation" (The museum starts out with idea sharing between William Penn and Czar Peter the Great and continues down to Russian American cooperation in space.)
Note the name of the museum. The Russians are realists, not sentimentalists. We are not yet friends but we do cooperate in many spheres and this is important. Even during the depths of Cold War, the US and Russia cooperated in many cultural and scientific fields. President Obama might like to elaborate on this, with help from the historians of the various Cold War Presidencies.
In our scenario, we get to the reason for the meeting in Moscow, or rather outside of Moscow so President Obama can plant some trees at the point where the Nazi armies were stopped in 1941.
The Battle of Moscow, which lasted from October 1941 to early January 1942, was the biggest, bloodiest battle of the Second World War. Indeed, it was the biggest, bloodiest battle in the history of the world.
The Russians lost, at the minimum, 820,000 men (Some estimates place it as high as a million and a quarter lives lost). By way of contrast, the U.S. lost 416,410 men killed in the entire Second World War. The Russians suffered, including civilians, roughly 20 million killed.
Cynics might suggest incompetence on the part of the Russian commanders, and there is some truth in that. However, consider this: Of every ten German soldiers killed, eight of them were killed on the Eastern Front. Would General Patton done so well had he been facing 100 German Divisions instead of 10?
One of the more fatuous popular American military historians suggested that the "Turning point" of the war was the Normandy Invasion. More competent historians debate that it was either the Battle of Stalingrad (1942) or the great tank battle of Kursk (1943).
As the 20 million killed in the War, came on top of 18 million (official) killed by the Stalin Terror, plus the millions killed in the Civil War and the First World War, the Russian dead for the 20th century was most probably in excess of 50 million. It was a demographic and psychological blow from which Russia has not recovered.
One can see why the Russians have been looking for a "Thanks" and a pat on the back and even a bit of sympathy.
Clearly, President Obama could travel around the Former Soviet Union, planting trees like Johnny Appleseed at the sites of other immense battles, but time will be short, so he can do his tree planting outside of Moscow with Russian and American veterans of The War.
Now that Russian-American relations have been "RESET" and, according to Hillary, are ready to move into "OVERLOAD", we need a (relatively) easy project to ease ourselves into cooperation.
That would be the Preservation of the Boreal Forest and the Arctic.
The Boreal Forest stretches like a wreath around the top of the Northern hemisphere between latitudes 50 and 60 (roughly). It is the largest terrestrial biome in the world. Bigger than the Amazon Rain Forest and, unlike the Rain forest, is still largely intact. It has been called "The Lungs of the World" and bad things will happen to us if bad things happen to the Boreal Forest.
True, the Boreal Forest is not as biodiverse as the Amazon, and thus not quite as sexy to environmental do-gooders, (As George Bush might say, "Once you've seen one Larch tree, you've seen 'em all.") Still, the Boreal Forest has some neat animals like the Grizzly, the Siberian Tiger, Woodland Caribou, Moose, and so on.
Some six nations; Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the U.S. and Canada share the Boreal Forest.
The main threats are:
- Oil and gas explorations (roads, pipelines, infrastructure in a biome that is slow to heal.
- Logging. Mainly pulp: (How much junk mail do we need?)
- Hydroelectric development. (These "green" projects flood vast areas of Boreal Forest as "Nobody important lives there.")
- Global Warming. Will the Boreal Forest cheerfully "pick up sticks" and move north into the tundra? Nobody really knows.
The threats look daunting, but there are a number of positives that make preservation of the Boreal Forest and the Arctic not as difficult as one might think.
1. The Six Nations of Arctic Basin, (Eight if you count treeless Greenland and Iceland) are under populated.
2. More importantly, their populations are middle class, well educated and (somewhat) amenable to cooperation and compromise.
3. Unlike tropical areas, there is not a mass of landless, uneducated peasants who wish to chop down the forest to grow soybeans or raise cattle.
4. The Mosquito God demands a blood sacrifice and The God of Darkness demands too much of a psychological sacrifice for many to live permanently in the Boreal Forest.
This does not mean that there are not problems and that the Boreal Forest and the Arctic cannot be destroyed. (We're good at this sort of thing!)
Russia must agree to no more nuclear dumping in the Arctic. Canada must agree that gigantic hydropower projects may not be all that green, and the major consumer of such power, the US, must also agree that such power is all that Green.
But that is why Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin might convene a conference of Arctic Nations in St. Petersburg, right after the Moscow tree planting, so that all the government agencies of the nations can decide on what to do.
As the inimitable Hillary would say, "It's time to go into OVERLOAD."
THE SAFETY MESSAGE
Personal Safety and Loss Control in Oaxaca
Your kindly editor would be a bit remiss if he didn't point out a few things that might make your stay more memorable, but less enjoyable than you had planned.
First, personal computers (PC's are in high demand in Mexico). There are people who will try to obtain yours. You may prefer to travel without one and rely on the ubiquitous Internet cafés found in all but the smallest Mexican town. That is certainly the most prudent choice.
However, if you are writing The Great American Novel or simply like jotting down impressions or letters to your friends that you plan to electronically post when you come within range of a WiFi, then the computer will be part of your baggage, which you will not let out of your sight. The computer, in its protective case, should be carried in a well-used daypack, preferably made of Cordura, or similar fabric that is difficult to cut.
Do not use your computer sitting on a park bench in even a well-used park in the middle of the day. The M.O. of Oaxaca computer thieves goes like this. Villain # 1 of a two villain team, comes up behind your park bench and throws a bar arm hold around your neck. Unless you have just retired from 30 years of night patrol at Boulder Beach, at Lake Mead NRA, you will be totally surprised. Your hands instinctively leave the computer to engage the arm around your throat. At the point, Villain # 2, who has been idling nearby, grabs your PC and runs. Villain # 1 releases his hold and takes off in the opposite direction. It is unwise to chase either one unless you are Jackie Chan.
The above scenario happens very quickly, in far less time that it takes to type it up. It did not happened to your Esteemed Editor, but it did happen to an acquaintance. You will need to file a police report, so that you can file a claim with your insurance company back in the States.
The hoary old "New York Mustard Scam" did happen to us in Oaxaca. In this case, we were walking down the street near the main bus terminal, a good source of newly arrived innocent tourists. A well dressed, middle aged Good Samaritan asks concernedly if we realize that our backsides are covered with green salsa (mustard being unusual in Mexico) we looked and what he said was true.
"No matter!" He just happens to have access to a towel and will get us cleaned up in no time. At this point, you must do as I did. Drop into your best imitation "Walker, Texas Ranger" crouch, and start roaring maledictions and imprecations at The Good Samaritan, who ran away. Joan thought I had gone completely mad.
I explained to her how it worked. One guy walks behind you and sprays you with condiment, the "Good Sam" wipes you off and picks your pockets in the process.
This simple scam works, as people are so embarrassed to find their butts covered with some condiment, that they gratefully accept aid from a total stranger.
If you think about it, how many times in your life have you suddenly gotten accidentally dirty without having some idea of the source?
Another Oaxaca safety note: It is no longer considered entirely safe to eat the State dish of Oaxaca; Chapulines or grasshoppers. They are for sale in one form or another in the markets and in most of the tourist restaurants in Oaxaca, where George and Martha from Sioux City double dare each other to order Chapulines.
It seems that recent tests have shown extraordinarily high lead levels in the grasshoppers. The lead may be derived from the lead glazed pottery in which the Chapulines are prepared. The lead level is high enough, that the New Jersey Department of Health has forbidden the sale of Chapulines (New Jersey is a favored destination for Oaxacan workers, who want a taste of home.)
This leads to another health & safety warning. Do not cook or store food in Mexican, particularly Oaxacan pottery unless you are sure it is lead free. Lead poisoning is particularly tragic in young children as it can result in permanent mental retardation.
Last but not least, the real danger: Mexico is a land of levels, angles and depressions, all in the most unexpected places. Tripping and falls will be more of daily hazard to you than all four of the drug cartels. It is suggested that you not fall into holes in the street or sidewalk, but putting barriers around such holes is still a novel idea. Street lighting is often sparse; bring a flashlight after dark.
Other than that, you should have a safe time in Oaxaca!