Seattle Press on Line - Leaving the Good Earth Alone

The Fishwrapper

Leaving the Good Earth Alone

By Jeff Boone

May 31, 2000 -- Some years ago I was travelling with my husband in Colorado and our route led through Estes Park. A road through the park winds to the top of the Rockies, and down again, which makes the drive immensely popular with car-bound tourists who desire a small taste of the Rockies. When we reached the top, we stopped to walk. This particular walk was marked by small alpine plants and few trees--a sign placed by the parks service noted that this landscape was tundra and the visitor should take care to keep to the path. One careless step would destroy an ecosystem of a 1000 years!

Good nature fascist that I am, I heeded the warning.

As we walked within the ropes, I spied ahead a group of Japanese tourists. Among them was a young woman who had strayed from the path onto the precious tundra itself and was now collecting objects as keepsakes.

It is useful to note that my trip had included a stop in Leadville, a town whose fortune was built on mining and now rests on Vail, a ruthless exploiter of wilderness for the pleasure of winter sports enthusiasts. My drive up to Boulder had passed the Ajax molybdenum mine at Climax, a vast panoramic view of mountains carved square by dynamite. It is also useful to note that from where I now stood, vast acres of roadless, tundra-topped peaks met my eye.

This did not cross my mind.

What did cross my mind was that this small Japanese woman was responsible for the devastation of an entire Rocky Mountain ecosystem. God forbid I should stand by idly and observe.

I marched over and delivered a lecture to the young woman, pointing at the sign, her feet and the objects she held in her hand.

I am reminded of this experience now because I have received in the mail the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Washington Park Arboretum Master Plan. This plan proposes to redevelop the city park and arboretum as an environmental education center. In short, more buildings, more parking lots, more signage, more gift shops and some food. Perhaps a tram to cart the infirm through the park should the planners achieve their wish and close Arboretum Drive.

The plan was written by a cadre of well-meaning nature fascists like myself; people who understand how insensitive the public is to the natural world. We are people who cringe when we see a dog on the beach or a child with a cup of rocks--we alone know the truth. Nature is not renewable.

And because we good nature fascists typically dwell in cities, it is our last uncluttered urban spaces that suffer most from our good intentions. Rather than appreciate the tree for the tree, we teach schoolchildren who will never weave a basket from western red cedar bark the various historical and ecological uses of the tree with some idea that it will cultivate within the child an appreciation for the tree because it is useful. And we do earnestly appreciate the tree until we need to enlarge the parking lot to accommodate tour buses or build a new education center to permit an expansion of our mission or create a great lawn to serve as a gathering space for revenue-generating events such as weddings and corporate retreats. Then the tree must go.

Because nature serves us. We do not serve it.

In the next year City Council will choose whether or not to adopt a new Master Plan for Washington Park Arboretum as is or choose among a number of alternatives put forth by park advocates and the Arboretum Park Preservation Coalition. Those who subscribe to the Muschampian view that parks are not scenic welfare but social equity argue to preserve the green space of the Arboretum and locate new buildings outside the park; those who believe a park is but a bit of vacant land waiting for a better use--the City of Seattle and the Arboretum Foundation--argue for inclusion of all buildings within the park; the well-meaning nature fascists--count the University of Washington among them--believe the arboretum would be better served if the park and its public were eliminated. The latter three envision a world-class arboretum; the former want to hold on to a precious bit of parkland within a rapidly evolving urban landscape.

The argument centers on use, and whose use has the greater claim to validity. Is it an arboretum or a park? Can it be both? Do buildings, the education of schoolchildren and the entertainment of tourists preclude park uses? If it's not world-class, can it be called an arboretum?

Years after my encounter with the Japanese woman, I walked through the Arboretum with a child. As we passed the blooming hydrangeas, she paused. With a mighty wrench, she snapped a stem from the bush and presented me with the blue flower. And I said thanks.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!