Los Padres Forest Association issued an obsequious letter to the Forest Service declaring their full embrace of the two month closure of Los Padres National Forest.
They called the shutout “wise.”
That’s a word of exceptional assuredness. Not just smart, but much more than that, wise. Yet, oddly, they provided no insight into their thinking.
Why was it wise?
They did not say, other than a vague reference about “making sure people were okay,” whatever that means.
We have been left wondering where the wisdom lies, because their letter held nothing of explanative substance, only a few words of empty rhetoric.
The trail maintenance group—toiling volunteers doing a tremendous amount of great field work—failed to offer any reasoning supporting their opinion; that the forest threatened public health and so it was imperative to close it entirely.
Who knows what happened after the storm? Who knows what’s out there? Better close it. All of it.
That’s the essence of their position. And that’s not wisdom.
The letter thus followed suit with most all other local commentary and reportage about the closure; remarkably superficial and unserious.
Most writers online in local hard news and opinion have served as unquestioning bullhorns for authority and amplified the Forest Service’s false narrative, that the forest is damaged and a threat to our health.
This is an issue of great import regarding public health and the curtailment of civil rights by diktat that has cleaved the people from their public lands.
Yet, even though they chose to take a position publicly endorsing the diktat, Los Padres Forest Association glossed right over the issue in blasé fashion.
The Forest Service closed thirty percent (30%) of Santa Barbara County based on the notion that a few people might get hurt if it remained legally open.
Opportunities for the betterment of the vast overwhelming majority’s well-being through healthy pursuits of happiness in these public lands was coldly denied due to the purported concern that something might happen to a tiny minority.
This is not rational policy. And it does not comport with our common experience elsewhere in American life.
So how is it wise?
This is a stifling standard of micromanagement, inconsistent with many other areas of our daily lives, where it’s not uncommon for people to get hurt or even killed, and where we accept much greater rates of injury and death, without issuing dictatorial prohibitions to save the people from themselves.
There were “so many unknowns,” Los Padres Forest Association said, casually, echoing the Forest Service.
“We simply don’t even know what we don’t know,” Andrew Madsen said, Los Padres National Forest spokesman, repeating a phrase taken from risk management theory.
But we don’t have to live averse to rational thought and blind to information, fact and reason. And we don’t have to react emotionally out of ignorance in kneejerk fashion to make sure “people are okay.”
We can look to the science of probability for guidance and we can look to our lives elsewhere in society for context and perspective in how we face risk sensibly, rationally.
Pursuits of happiness in Los Padres National Forest are relatively safe compared to many other common activities outside the forest.
How many deaths, injuries and need of emergency services could there possibly have been if the forest had remained legally open? Not many. That’s the answer on that one. If history is any guide to the probability of future happenings.
Only a slim sliver minority of recreationists–a miniscule number–would ever possibly have gotten hurt.
The American roadway with its rates of injury and death is a horror show relative recreation in the forest. It’s one of many examples.
Motorcyclist, 18, Killed In Collision On Santa Barbara County Road (March 5, 2023)
Is it not true that a hiker stands a much greater chance of dying on the drive out of town before they even get to the forest than they do when walking in it?
We can look elsewhere for additional context to maintain perspective.
From economists we understand life as a series of questions about tradeoffs and opportunity costs.
Certain levels of pollutants are accepted by society although known to be harmful, in order that we may engage in industry and common activities we agree in general, on balance, tend to better our lives.
Life is not an all or nothing game. It’s a balancing act.
Why should we have wildly different public health standards applied to our public lands than we do nearly everywhere else in life?
Why should we apply a zero tolerance policy of injury to our public lands?
How is this wise? Cowboy up, and explain it.
This is a serious issue. And so serious people grant it serious thought and consideration.
Los Padres Forest Association appears flippant in their letter, not to have given much thought to the issue at all. They advocate curtailing civil rights without appearing informed by any degree of due diligence whatsoever.
In my previous blog posts opposing the closure I have offered opinions, surely, even lampooned Stubbs and the Forest Sevice.
But I have also put up lengthy, well-reasoned arguments. And I have offered context from our common lives outside the forest to provide perspective. We stand on principle on this blog, guided by reason by way of facts and information, with a long view.
Would that Los Padres Forest Association do the same if and when they dabble in politics supporting such serious policy proscriptions that separate people from their public lands.