It cannot be stressed too much that cloudbusting is not unique. The very same issues that face us in the struggle to preserve an independent atmosphere, regulating itself with a minimum of human intervention, are also the issues faced by conservation biologists working to preserve intact and self-regulating ecosystems from blundering and incompetent interference by anthropocentric and self-centered egotists who think they are better qualified to "manage" the earth than the natural processes that have done so since the beginning of life on this planet.
Some people may think my position that the atmosphere should be left alone to regulate itself, with cloudbusting only engaged in as a last resort when conditions require it, is extreme or unusual. It is not. My policy on "managment" of the atmosphere is well within the mainstream of trained conservation biologists regarding "management" of wildlife or "management" of fires in wilderness areas. And for the same reason: Cloudbusting should not be regarded as a part of the physical sciences, such as physics or meteorology, as many people wrongly believe; it is properly thought of as a part of the BIOLOGICAL sciences, and engaging in cloudbusting is engaging in management of an ecosystem.
For anyone interested in doing cloudbusting, a sound working knowledge of ecology is one of the most essential elements of doing it safely and responsibly. The articles linked below are a good place to start learning this important background.
Guest Columns
Guest Columns
The Wallow Fire is now the largest in recent Arizona history, encompassing more than 500,000 acres. The media discussion of the fire often leads to misinformation and misunderstanding of wildfires, and feeds the political agenda of politicians and industries from developers to the timber industry.
One of the problems of media coverage is that most reporters have little or no training in ecology, much less in-depth understanding of wildfire ecology. Context for large blazes like the Wallow Fire are often missing from reportage. The emphasis on fuels makes for easy reportage, but misses some important nuances that lead to simplistic solutions—the common refrain that if we only logged more of the forest such fires would be prevented.
It also tends to reinforce the idea that thinning is needed in all forest ecosystems, when in fact, many fire regimes in higher elevations and more northern locations are more or less still within historic norms.
Furthermore, there is a tendency to focus on the most unfortunate losses which can exaggerate the perception that such fires have done a lot of “damage” to people, seldom holding people accountable for their own losses because they have chosen to build in a fire-prone landscape.
[more]
Do ranchers have a right to predator free landscape?
One of the unquestioned and unspoken assumptions heard across the West is that ranchers have a right to a predator free environment. Even environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife more or less legitimize this perspective by supporting unqualified compensation for livestock losses to bears and wolves. And many state agency wolf management plans specifically call for compensation to livestock producers—but without any requirements that livestock husbandry practices be in place to reduce or eliminate predation opportunity.
[more]