Communities Welcome Wilderness

  • Eric Fernandez of Oregon Wild says wild areas still allow for a lot of activity - "just leave your chainsaws and bulldozers at home." (Photo by Sadie Babits)

More than two million acres in nine states could soon become permanent wilderness. Congress is expected to vote on the plan today. Sadie Babits recently visited one of the sites, Mount Hood in Oregon:

Transcript

More than two million acres in nine states could soon become permanent wilderness. Congress is expected to vote on the plan today. Sadie Babits recently visited one of the sites, Mount Hood in Oregon:

A steady stream of traffic runs through the small town of Sandy, Oregon every day.

It’s known as the “Gateway to Mount Hood.”

This used to be a town of lumberjacks. The timber industry was king here.

And a wilderness designation means no logging.

“It wasn’t that long ago that this was a mill town so for the city council unanimously support wilderness is an interesting thing.”

That’s Scott Lazenby. He’s the town’s city manager. He says in the past a wilderness proposal would end up in a Paul Bunyan sized tussle.

But Lazenby says the city council saw real benefits to having wilderness in Sandy’s backyard.

“We do have a watershed that our city water comes from. It’s important to protect that and part of that watershed would be protected by the wilderness bill.”

Not only that. Lazenby says these days, it’s not timber – it’s tourism that brings money to Sandy.

“Even though the number of people who can go into wilderness is relatively limited, the presence of wilderness is a very positive thing.”

Under a massive bundle of bills now before Congress, 127,000 acres surrounding Mount Hood would become wilderness along with other sites across the nation.

“Right now we’re standing in White River Canyon and in the winter this is a really popular place for cross country skiing, snow showing.”

That’s Eric Fernandez. He’s the wilderness coordinator for Oregon Wild – a conservation group out of Portland.

He says a wilderness designation still leaves a place open to all kinds of activities hunting fishing camping.

“You just have to leave your chainsaw and bulldozer at home.”

Fernandez says, yes, this entire area will mean clean drinking water, and wildlife protection.

“But in this instance, the reason I’m so excited about protecting this area of White River Canyon as wilderness is because it has the world’s best sledding habitat.”

Yep, he said sledding – like tobogganing. There’s nobody sledding today.

But, we did bump into Jeff McKnown, who’s out skiing.

“It’s great to come here on the weekday when no one is here.”

McKnown says he loves the trees and the snow so bright it hurts your eyes.
He’s been escaping to White River canyon when he can for the last fifteen years.

“You know when you have a wife and five kids these moments are pretty precious.”

The law that makes wilderness designations possible has been around since 1964. There are more than 700 wilderness areas in 44 states.

But Oregon has lagged behind. Even conservative Idaho has more wilderness than the more progressive Oregon.

Mike Matz thinks that could change. He leads the ‘Campaign for America’s Wilderness’. It’s been pushing for the new wilderness designations before Congress.

“It’s really become amazingly so a motherhood and apple pie issue. This is something that Republicans and Democrats alike have gotten strongly behind.”

And from Oregon’s Mount Hood, to rolling hills in West Virginia, from red rock country in southern Utah, to sand dunes along the Great Lakes – it looks like Congress will preserve two million acres more as wilderness.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

Mountaintop Mining (Part One)

  • In his last days, President Bush changed rules that made it easier to blow off the tops of mountains to mine for coal. (Photo by Sandra Sleight-Brennan)

One of the last things the Bush administration did was change a rule to allow coal mining companies to dump debris into streams. That means one mining company will be able to remove one of the last mountaintops in a West Virginia county. Sandra Sleight-Brennan reports:

Transcript

One of the last things the Bush administration did was change a rule to allow coal mining companies to dump debris into streams. That means one mining company will be able to remove one of the last mountaintops in a West Virginia county. Sandra Sleight-Brennan reports:

Gary Anderson takes me out on his back porch and all you can see is Coal River Mountain. Even on a cold, gray winter day, it’s beautiful.

“All of that mountain range of there, that is Coal River Mountain– that mountain runs for about 3 miles up there.”

When he retired, Gary and his wife Barbara moved from Connecticut back to her family home in Colcord, West Virginia.

“That’s basically what brought us back. Is the mountains and the beauty. We grew up here and we came back to spend the rest of our days here. We thought were coming back to what we remember– the beautiful mountains. And really they just started doing the mountaintop removal over here in the past couple years.”

Other mountains in the area– Cherry Pond Mountinan and Kayford Mountain have been flattened so energy companies could get to the coal inside them.
Over one million acres in West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky have already been leveled to mine the thin vein of coal.

The mining companies dynamite the tops off to get to the coal underneath.

“Once in awhile you’ll see a big puff of dust go up in the air like a bomb has been dropped and in awhile it will settle down and then it will happen again the next day.”

Mountains are shorted and flattened–- often by 100’s of feet to get to a 14-inch seam of coal. What the dynamite loosens is dumped in the valleys. Thousands of miles of streams have been covered over and nature destroyed.

It’s pretty simple. They put dynamite in the mountain and blow it up.

Joe Lovett is the Executive Director of the Appalachian Center on the Economy and the Environment. He’s been fighting mountaintop removal for the past 10 years.

It’s like a layer cake. The mountain is like a layer cake and that coal is the icing. The dirt and rock in between is the cake. There is a lot more dirt and rock and mining waste than there is coal. And when they blow up the mountain the dirt and rock swell. So they have even a bigger problem because they have more material than they know what to do with. So, as they blow the mountain up they need to find something to do with the dirt and rock and they dump it into the streams and the valleys.

Dumping into streams was stopped. The Surface Mining Act’s Stream Buffer rule protected the streams. But the new Bush administration rule changes that.

Joe Lovett says that Coal River Mountain fair game for Massey Energy to blow the top off and fill the valleys.

“We have always believed that the rule prevented these fills, that and I guess so did the coal industry and the Office of Surface Mining because this has been the main thing that the coal industry has wanted from the Bush administration for a long time is that change in this rule.”

Lovett says its not good for the environment and it’s not good for the local economy.

“We are taking mountains that could support sustainable timber jobs for generations and, in a few short years, destroying them forever and mining them in such a way that those forests will never come back.”

The mining industry argues that we need this inexpensive energy source in order to be energy independent. But, says Lovett and other environmentalists, if valley fills were outlawed tomorrow the cost of coal for our electric rates would only go up by pennies.

I’ll also talk to an official of the mining industry about why this type of mining needs to continue. The fact it provides American energy and jobs and that West Virginia’s economy depends upon it.

Back at Gary Anderson’s home, he wonders how it came to this.

Who gave them the right to blow the tops of mountains off to get the coal? I mean, that’s what gets me. Where, back in time, did they get the permission to come in and just below the mountains up? It’s really unbelievable. You can’t go back and reconstruct a mountain that’s been here for hundreds of millions of years. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.”

But, the mining companies now have the legal right to level the top of Coal River Mountain and fill up the valleys and streams above Anderson’s home.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sandra Sleight-Brennan.

Related Links

Mountaintop Mining (Part Two)

  • Gary Anderson in Front of Coal River Mountain (Photo by Sandra Sleight-Brennan)

Mountaintop removal coal mining blows off the tops of mountains to get to a thin layer of coal. Environmentalists say there’s a better way to extract energy from mountain tops. They want to put up wind turbines. Sandra Sleight-Brennan reports they believe it will mean more energy in the long term and less environmental destruction:

Transcript

Mountaintop removal coal mining blows off the tops of mountains to get to a thin layer of coal. Environmentalists say there’s a better way to extract energy from mountain tops. They want to put up wind turbines. Sandra Sleight-Brennan reports they believe it will mean more energy in the long term and less environmental destruction:

Coal River Mountain is one of the last in Raleigh County West Virginia, and it’s next in line for mountaintop removal mining. A local group, the Coal River Wind Project, wants to build a wind farm along the mountain’s ridges.

Lorelei Scarbro has lived most of her life in the West Virginia coal fields. She’s the daughter, granddaughter and widow of coal miners. She knows her opposition to coal mining is seen by her neighbors as a direct threat to their jobs.

“It has been difficult. But people begin to understand that we’re not trying to take something away from them. You’re trying to add something to the area.”

She says mountaintop removal coal mining is short-term gain with long-term damage.

“The pace we’re going; it will be nothing left. I have a five-year-old granddaughter, and I can’t imagine what the air and water will be like when she is at childbearing age if we continue at this pace, because they’re covering headwaters streams, they’re starving off the water supply, they are destroying the air.”

And the next mountain in Scarbro’s home area to be mined is likely Coal River Mountain.

That’s why Coal River Wind Project commissioned a study to see if wind turbines would work. It turns out, the mountain has industrial strength wind. Enough to power 164 turbines. The project would create 200 local jobs during construction, and 40 permanent jobs. Rory McIlmoir is the project coordinator.

“The wind farm would generate an average of $1.74 million a year for the first 20 years. In year one it would generate over three million dollars. That’s the property tax. Blowing up the mountain for coal, on the other hand, would only bring $36,000 back to the county.”

That’s just the property taxes. The wind farm would make about $1.75 million dollars a year in revenue according to the study.

But the wind project has hit a stumbling block. A recent Bush administration rule change allows mining waste to be dumped into streams. That’s cleared the way for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to approve a permit for Massey Energy to do mountaintop removal mining here. If the mining occurs, the mountains would be lowered by several hundred feet. That would scrap the wind turbine project.

Activist Lorelei Scarbro thinks the wind project is the one thing that can stop the destruction of Coal River Mountain and others targeted for mountain top removal coal mining.

“It will save the mountains, it will save the wildlife and the hardwood forests and the vegetation and the water. It’s something that is desperately needed. Of course, our biggest obstacle is the fact that that the land is leased to the coal company.”

But the people who own the land say, if coal mining were stopped by the government, they’d consider the wind farm. The wind farm project coordinator, Rory McIlmoir, says they’d benefit for a lot longer if they did.

“Because, if they can make a few million each year from royalties then they’re interested in that. But, the choice right now is easily coal.”

The Coal River Wind Project has presented the study to West Virginia’s Governor. And 10,000 people signed a petition asking the state to think beyond coal and think about the future of energy, the economy, the mountains and the people.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sandra Sleight-Brennan.

Related Links

Mountaintop Mining (Part Three)

  • Christians for the Mountains field worker Robert "Sage" Russo standing on Kayford Mountain overlooking an MTR site in West Virginia (Photo courtesy of Christians for the Mountains)

Environmentalists have been fighting to stop mountain top removal coal mining for
decades. They say they want to preserve the mountains, the water that’s polluted by the
mining and the people. But many of the people don’t want the help. They want the jobs
provided by the mining operations. Sandra Sleight Brennan reports the struggle
between the two sides is complicated. Now churches and synagogues are introducing
religion into that struggle:

Transcript

Environmentalists have been fighting to stop mountain top removal coal mining for
decades. They say they want to preserve the mountains, the water that’s polluted by the
mining and the people. But many of the people don’t want the help. They want the jobs
provided by the mining operations. Sandra Sleight Brennan reports the struggle
between the two sides is complicated. Now churches and synagogues are introducing
religion into that struggle:

The line drawn between environmentalists who want to stop mountain removal
coal mining and the coal miners who depend on it for jobs has always been
smudged.

Often the environmental activists had relatives and close friends who worked for
the mining companies. There aren’t a lot of jobs in the Appalachian Mountains.
Of the jobs that are there, the coal mining jobs pay the most.

In the small Appalachian towns in the coal fields, the God-fearing families who
depended on the mining jobs have often seen the environmentalists as people
who were out to destroy their way of life.

But lately some people are seeing things differently. More than a dozen churches
and synagogues have passed resolutions against mountaintop removal mining.

Allan Johnson is the co-founder of Christians for the Mountains, a group that’s
sided with the environmentalists.

“It’s a serious issue, ultimately it is a moral issue and, as a moral issue, we’re appealing
to the religious communities, the Christian communities. We’ve got to do right. We
cannot destroy God’s creation in order to have a temporal economy.”

And Johnson is getting help from other Christians. Rebekah Eppling is an
Ameri-Corps VISTA volunteer. She’s working with Christians for the Mountains.

“We present ourselves that we are a Christian organization and we are working for
Creation Care and we are following the Biblical mandate to take care of God’s planet – it
brings a different sense of what we’re doing to people. So a lot of people who
traditionally wouldn’t be interested all the sudden start to realize the different aspects of
it. It kind of hits a different spark for them.”

Creation Care is how some Evangelical Christians describe their brand of
environmentalism. One of the most prominent spokesman for Creation Care is
Richard Cizik. He’s a former Vice President of the National Association of
Evangelicals.

“We say Creation Care because first of all we believe the earth was created and
second of all we know from God’s word in Genesis that we are to care and protect
it. So, we call it Creation Care.”

The group, Christians for the Mountains, works with many different
denominations. They teach people who want to get involved about the issues
surrounding mining. They go into detail about how the short term benefit of the
destructive form of mining not only alters the mountains, but pollutes the streams
and ultimately the drinking water. They point out that once the coal fields are
mined, the jobs are gone and the communities are left to live with the damage to
the environment.

Volunteer Rebekah Eppling says there’s resistance to the message.

“The term environmentalist is kind of a dirty word in the coalfields region. Since we are a
religious organization that puts us in a unique spot.”

“We do get some pretty harsh criticism.”

Allen Johnson with Christians for the Mountains.

“We are concerned about people’s jobs. We want to have a healthy economy. And it is
not a healthy economy in that area. If you go down into the area with the mountaintop
removal is going on it in some of the impoverished areas in the country.”

Like the more traditional kinds of environmentalists, these Creation Care
environmentalists have ties to the community. Eppling says her family comes
from an area that’s targeted for coal mining in the near future.

“My family is very supportive of what I’m doing. Because they see the place where they
used to live are now being destroyed. The mountain very close to where my
grandmother and father grew up its being blasted away. My father and his family are
from Boone County – which is one of the big coal producing areas. Coal River runs right
behind his house where he grew up.”

The Christians for the Mountains know the families that depend on the coal
mining don’t always understand why anyone would want to stop one of the very
few industries that offer good paying jobs in the region. But Rebekah Eppling
says there has to be a better way than blowing up the tops of the mountains and
filling the valleys with rubble.

“It’s not just environmentalist versus workers. It’s a very complex. It’s not just about
stopping coal – it’s about bringing in more options for people.”

And some of those options include preserving the environment by finding alternatives for
the region – such as wind energy, tourism, and not letting the mining companies decide
the fate of the Appalachian Mountains and the people who live there.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sandra Sleight-Brennan.

Related Links

Bark Beetle Forest Fire Risks

  • The bark beetle (pictured) is native to forests in the Rockies. (Photo courtesy of the Colorado State Forest Service)

In much of the West populations of the bark beetle have exploded. Trees
are dying, and the risk of forest fires is huge. Some ecologists are
saying that global warming is responsible, but forests will survive.
Steve Zelaznik reports the risk of fire is forcing communities to balance fire
prevention, and ecological preservation:

Transcript

In much of the West populations of the bark beetle have exploded. Trees
are dying, and the risk of forest fires is huge. Some ecologists are
saying that global warming is responsible, but forests will survive.
Steve Zelaznik reports the risk of fire is forcing communities to balance fire
prevention, and ecological preservation:


(Sound of trail)


We’re surrounded by forest, mostly lodge pole pines. The bark beetle is native to forests in the Rockies. The landscape is a patchwork of green and red. The red trees have been
killed by the bark beetle. Jan Hackett with the Colorado State Forest
Service says many of the green trees are also infected:


“Well I’m just pointing to the pitch tubes, and those are fresh hits
from this year’s beetles. The beetles are flying right now. This is a
result of this year’s flight, a successful hit. This tree will be red
next year.”


This means the tree will be dead. Dominick Kulakowski is a biology professor at
Clark University. He says climate change has caused warmer temperatures so the beetle can survive the winter and spread, but he says insect outbreaks like these are normal, and
the forest will recover:


“There have been very extensive, very severe outbreaks of bark beetles
in Colorado long before Colorado was even a state. Large disturbances
are a normal function of the ecosystems of the Colorado Rocky
Mountains. So while we may look out on this and be concerned by the
amount of mortality, what we need to remember is this may be
unprecedented based on what we’ve seen over the past hundred years, but
that’s partly a function of our relatively short temporal perspective.”


From an ecological perspective, Kulakowski just isn’t worried about the
beetles. But the dead trees increase the risk of fire. And with homes
nearby, the forest can’t be left to burn.


Driving up a winding road to a nearby subdivision, I’m in the car with Barry
Smith. He’s the emergency manager for the adjacent Eagle County. He says
roads like these make his job difficult:


“This is one of those subdivisions like many of our mountain
subdivisions that, from a fire safety perspective, this is the only road
to get into our out of this subdivision, so if we have a large fire
here, you’re trying to get fire equipment in and get homeowners out at
the same time and that’s going to create a lot of problems.”


So government is forced to protect nearby homes from fire, and also
preserve the health of the forest.


Increasingly, governments are addressing the problem by clearing dead
trees. State and federal governments have thinned eighteen thousand
acres in Colorado. This compares to the seven hundred thousand acres
infected.


Rob Davis is the president of Forest Energy Colorado. His company
takes dead trees, and makes wood pellets to heat homes. He says an
opportunity exists to improve the health of the forest and make a
profit:


“This is an extremely valuable resource,
do we want to use it? You know if this goes into energy and displaces
fossil fuels, it helps global warming. It helps climate change that is
one of the problems that we have with these forests. So are we going
to keep the narrow point of view that says ‘Oh! It’s got to stay
exactly like it was historically,’ or do we want to open our mind and
say ‘We can actually use this to help global warming, we can use this
in cases as long as remember that first thing is the health of the
forest…’ we can use it.”


But removing dead trees may have ecological costs. A 2002 study by the
University of Colorado concluded that harvesting forests leads to soil
erosion, loss of nutrients, and warmer ground temperatures. Professor
Kolikowski says the effects of harvesting might be worse than the initial
disturbance.


“That’s not to say that harvesting or salvaging is inappropriate, we
just need to be clear about what it is we want to do and why.”


And local governments may not have the money to do it all… to curb the
population of bark beetles, protect homes from fires, and preserve the
ecology. Tom Fry with the conservation group the Wilderness Society
remembers work he did on the Front Range. In the ten-county area, it
would have cost fifteen million a year for forty years to do risk
reduction and forest restoration:


“I think one of the messages here is we won’t have that money. We’ll
never have that money. So we as a community, and that community
includes all of us, need to be hyper strategic and surgical in where we
look to apply what resources we have.”


For the time being, governments are choosing to use their resources to
thin the forests to reduce the risk of fire from the beetle.


The U.S. Forest Service (White River National Forest) just auctioned
the right for timber contractors to remove dead trees from another
thirteen hundred acres. The work will begin by the end of the summer.


For the Environment Report, I’m Steve Zelaznik.

Related Links

Glassing Bottled Water’s Image

  • While your bottle of water may depict this... (Photo by Ian Britton)

Over the past ten years, sales of bottled water have tripled. There’s a huge thirst for water that’s pure, clean and conveniently packaged. As part of the ongoing series, “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Victoria Fenner takes a look at why we’re turning to bottled water and whether it’s worth the price:

Transcript

Over the past ten years, sales of bottled water have tripled. There’s
a huge thirst for water that’s pure, clean and conveniently packaged.
As part of the ongoing series, “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Victoria Fenner takes a look at why we’re
turning to bottled water and whether it’s worth the price:


On a warm sunny day, it’s easy to believe that sales of bottled water
are skyrocketing. People everywhere in this waterfront park in
Toronto are carrying plastic water bottles labeled with pictures of
glaciers and mountains. With a price tag of anywhere from fifty
cents to over a dollar a bottle, that’s a lot of profit flowing to
the companies that sell it.


But Catherine Crockett and Colin Hinz are packing water the old-
fashioned way. They don’t buy bottled water. Instead, they fill up
their own bottle before they leave home and refill it at the drinking
fountain.


Crockett: “Well, it’s cheaper and as an environmentalist, I’d rather
refill a container than waste a lot of money on pre-filled stuff that
isn’t necessarily any better than Toronto tap water. What’s the
point in paying a dollar for a disposable bottle full of what’s
probably filtered tap water anyway?”


Hinz: “Personally I think a lot of what’s behind bottled water is
marketing and I don’t really buy into that very well.”


Colin Hinz’s suspicions are shared by Paul Muldoon, the Executive
Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. His
organization has done a lot of research on water issues. He says the
reality often doesn’t live up to the image that companies have tried
to cultivate.


“There’s no doubt in my mind that when a person buys bottled water at
the cost they pay for it, they’re expecting some sort of pristine 200
year-old water that’s from some mountain range that’s never
been touched or explored by humans, and that the sip of water they’re
getting is water that is so pure that it’s never seen the infringement
of modern society. In reality, pollution’s everywhere and there are
very few sources of water that has been untouched by human intervention
in some way, shape or form.”


Environmentalists say it’s not always clear what you’re getting when
you look at the label on an average bottle of water. First of all,
it’s hard to tell by looking at the label what the source of the
water is. In many cases, it comes from rural areas just outside of
major cities. It can even be ordinary tap water which has been
refiltered. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does set maximum
levels of contaminants, and some labeling requirements as well. But
they don’t regulate water which is bottled and sold in the same
state. That’s one of the reasons critics of the bottled water
industry say the standards for tap water are at least as stringent,
and often even higher than for packaged water.


Lynda Lukasic is Executive Director with Environment Hamilton, an
environmental advocacy group in Ontario. She still has confidence in
tap water, despite the fact that the water supply in a neighborhood
in Hamilton was recently shut down because of the threat of
contamination.


“I think we’d all be better to focus on ‘what is the water
supply like in the place that we’re in?’ and ensuring that we’re
offering people who live in communities safe, affordable sources of
drinking water. And going the route of bottled water does a few
things. It creates problems in exporting bottled water out of
certain watersheds when maybe that’s not what we want to see
happening. But there’s also a price tag attached to bottled water.”


Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association says there
are other costs associated with bottled water that can’t be measured
in dollars.


“Some of the costs of bottled water include the transportation of water
itself, and certainly there’s local impacts. There are many residents
who are now neighbors to water facilities with truck traffic and all
that kind of stuff. There’s also the issue of bottling itself. You’ve
now got containers, hundreds of thousands… millions of them probably.
So there is the whole notion of cost, which have to be dealt with and
put into the equation.”


There are many things to take into account when you pick up a bottle
of water. You can think about the cost and whether or not there are
better ways of spending your dollar. You might think about
convenience. And whether the added convenience is worth the price. Ask
yourself what you’re really getting. Read the label to find out
where the water comes from and consider whether it’s any better than
what comes out of your tap.


The bottom line is, be an informed consumer. And keep in mind that
the choices aren’t as crystal clear as the kind of water you want to
drink.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Victoria Fenner.

Related Links

Low-Impact Trekking With Llamas

  • "Streak" heads to the trail.

For over 4,000 years, llamas have been used to carry loads through rough mountain terrain. Out West, it’s not uncommon to see llamas carrying tents, sleeping bags, and food for hikers. In the Great Lakes region, llamas are still an unusual sight on the trail, but an increasing number of people are starting to go trekking with them. They’re agile, surefooted, and tread lightly on the earth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports:

Transcript

For over 4,000 years llamas have been used to carry loads through rough mountain
terrain. Out West it’s not uncommon to see llamas carrying tents, sleeping bags, and food
for hikers. In the Great Lakes region, llamas are still an unusual sight on the trail, but an
increasing number of people are starting to go trekking with them. They’re agile,
surefooted, and tread lightly on the earth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar
Charney reports:


(leaf noise) (walking)


“This is pretty, the lake out here.”


Cheryl Topliff is leading her llama named Streak through the woods at Seven Lakes State
Park in Michigan. Streak is mostly black except for his feet, his face, and the front of his
neck


“And he’s got curly locks on the top of his head – he’s cute.”


And he’s a bit unusual; he’s a talker.


(llama noises)


“I’m getting a fully narrated tour.”


Cheryl Topliff originally got Streak because of his long wooly hair. She’s a fiber artist
and weaves with llama fur. But recently she and her husband got interested in hiking
with their llamas.


“For me personally, it is just getting outdoors on a nice fall day and getting some exercise and
walking, plus the comradery of the other llama people.”


Streak sets the pace for a group of hikers and their llamas. They wander through
meadows full of flowers. They find their way through deep wooded groves. And
trudge up and down hills.


He does like to walk and he likes to be out in front of the whole group.


But today’s trek isn’t for fun. Streak is working on getting certified as
a pack llama – that’s a llama that has been tested to make sure it’s trained
to carry loads and behave well in the backcountry. That means they go
where they’re led and don’t spit or kick.


Dave Foy is with the Pack Llama Association. It’s his job to make sure Streak and the
rest of the llamas are properly tested.


“Not every llama is a pack llama and people have a tendency to think so because that’s
what they’ve really been bred for but some of them don’t like it so a pack trial will put
through a regime of obstacles and trials.”


Such as jumping logs, crossing bridges, and walking through muddy streams.


“Now try to enter that water as close to the flag as possible. We want to make sure he
gets his feet wet.”


Cheryl Topliff’s husband, Don, goes first with a llama named Standing Ovation.


“It’s very shallow. Step over.”


But Standing Ovation wants nothing to do with the water. He hesitates, (“come on”)
(squish), slowly walks in (splash), and then suddenly lunges and jumps to the bank
(splash).


“That’s enough.”


It cost him. Standing Ovation loses points for bad behavior.


(splash)


Streak goes next. He crosses the water with out a hitch, and continues on down
the trail.


(amb of hiking)


(woof woof)


“Wow, I’ve never seen a llama up close.”


(woof)


“Hey, hey, quiet, nice guys.”


Streak and the rest of the llamas are an unusual site in the woods, so people out trekking
with llamas often have to stop to answer questions about what they’re doing. Margaret
Van Camp organized today’s pack trials. She says llamas seem to have gotten a bad
reputation.


“People who don’t have llamas don’t have a positive impression of llamas. They always
think they spit and they think you can’t ride them. What are they good for? But then they
see you doing this and they realize you can have a lot of fun with them.”


“Wow! Look at the pretty llamas.”


(woof woof)


Margaret Van Camp says the nice thing about llamas is that they find their own food,
don’t need much water since they are related to camels, and they don’t damage trails like
horses, mules, and bicycles.


“So that’s why llamas are so nice – because they’re so enviro-friendly they make it easy
to carry more with no more impact on the environment than you – probably less than you
with your hiking boots.”


That’s because llama’s have padded feet like a dog, not hooves which is why on federal
land, llamas are allowed on trails that are closed to horses. And that’s one reason llama
trekking is growing in popularity.


“All right, if you can come one at a time. This is a kicker hill. Next llama. He’s rearing
to go. He’s revving his engines.”


(llama noises)


“We’re going mountain climbing. You ready for this big boy? (llama noises) Good.”


By the end of the hike, Streak has negotiated all the obstacles and passed all his tests.


(amb: trailer door)


Cheryl Topliff loads him in the trailer and heads for home with damp feet, a muddy
husband, and a couple llamas ready for their next adventure in the woods.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamar Charney.

Paradise Lost

The effects of climate change are being felt around the world. And asGreat Lakes Radio Consortium’s Commentator Suzanne Elston hasdiscovered, even the greatest of our national landmarks cannot escapethe impact of human activity: