Every year I visit and rephoto a U. S. Forest Service study plot near Prescott, Arizona. This study plot was set aside in 1946 as a means to determine the best method to restore ecological health and function to damaged land in the U. S. West. The major method tested by this plot is the method considered by liberal environmentalism as a panacea for all that ails land in the American West. That method is — protecting the land from the impact of humans or as some people would say it: “returning the land to nature,” or just plain “protecting the land.” The photo shown below shows the result of protecting a piece of rangeland in the arid southwest from all human use for 66 years. What did the land look like when the project began? A U. S. Forest Service scientist said, "Pretty much the same as now, but the trees were smaller."
Another thing you should know is: this year has been one of the wettest in years for this area. Wet means more growth. How much growth do you see on this area that has been "returned to nature?"
 |
| PROTECTED FROM ALL FORMS OF HUMAN USE FOR 66 YEARS |
How well has liberal environmentalism's panacea worked? Compare the above photo to the one shown below of the land immediately adjacent to the study plot (just outside the fence). This land has been used by humans, mostly as pasture for livestock, for those same 66 years.
 |
| GRAZED BY CATTLE FOR 66 YEARS |
As you look at these two photos ask yourself which form of management -- protecting the land from humans or allowing humans to use the land -- would you consider most effective? Which would you consider most embraced by nature? Which would you consider more “natural” judged in terms of its results?
Below are another couple of photos of same areas -- outside and inside the study plot -- taken a couple of years ago. They are presented side by side for more effective comparison. As I said, I've been photoing this area for a number of years.
 |
| UNPROTECTED (GRAZED BY CATTLE) PROTECTED FOR 64 YEARS |
