Election Becomes a Fight Over Sierra Club's Future

Comments by Paul Watson on the Los Angeles Times Article

Comments in brackets

Election Becomes a Fight Over Sierra Club's Future

Animal-rights activists and anti-immigration advocates are teaming in a bid
to control the board, to the dismay of traditionalists.

By Miguel Bustillo and Kenneth R. Weiss Times Staff Writers

7:50 PM PST, January 17, 2004


The election has attracted the interest of anti-immigration groups, which
are encouraging their members to join the club to help elect the insurgent
candidates.

(Do we actually know if there has been a surge in memberships and do we know
where they are coming from?)

"What has outraged Sierra Club leaders is that external organizations would
attempt to interfere and manipulate our election to advance their own
agendas," said Robert Cox, a past Sierra Club president.

(If there are external organizations attempting to interfere and manipulate
the election, they are organizations with absolutely no affiliation with any
of the candidates running or with any of the directors. In a free country,
any person is free to join the Sierra Club. None of the candidates running
would be influenced by bigotry even if they did get votes from bigots. There
is no possible way to restrict who can and cannot join the Sierra Club and
there is no possible way to restrict them from voting.)

Moreover, club officials argue that members of the two insurgent groups
share fundamentally anti-human views, in their opposition to immigration and
in their belief that people should take a backseat to other species.

(When did being pro-wilderness, pro-species protection and pro-population
stabilization become "anti-human" views? When did people who are concerned
about these things become "insurgents"?)

The Sierra Club's "dominant perspective has been to protect nature for
people," said Executive Director Carl Pope. "But by pulling up the gangplank
on immigration, they are tapping into a strand of misanthropy that says
human beings are a problem."

(I do not agree that the Sierra Club's dominant perspective is to protect
nature for people. We protect nature for nature's sake and because people
are a part of nature. Carl seems to want to separate humans from nature and
this advocacy of separation is the root cause of our alienation from the
natural world and the reason we have so many environmental problems. Whereas
Carl accuses us of being misanthropic, I will counter and call him a human
chauvinist who does not understand the ecological laws of diversity,
interdependence and finite resources. No species is an island entire onto
itself yet Carl is taking the position that nature exist to serve humanity
and I reject this idea as radically anthropocentric.)

Pope noted that 18% of Sierra Club members like to fish or hunt, and he
worried they could be driven out by the new agenda from animal-rights
advocates. "It's important to have hunters and fishermen in the Sierra
Club," Pope said. "We are a big-tent organization. We want the Sierra Club
to be a comfortable place for Americans who want clean air, clean water, and
to protect America's open spaces."

(If it is a big tent Carl then animal rights advocates, immigration
activists etc should be allowed in with the hunters, fishermen and those who
support cheap immigrant labor. If you want clean air, clean water and open
spaces then we need to address the waste caused by animal husbandry and the
sprawl caused by over-population.)

The list of insurgent candidates features some high-profile names, including
former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, Cornell University entomology professor
David Pimentel, and Frank Morris, former director of the Congressional Black
Caucus Foundation. All three have been outspoken advocates of controlling
population growth or restricting immigration. Lamm is coauthor of "The
Immigration Time Bomb: The Fragmenting of America."

(I would think the Sierra Club would be proud to have such distinguished
people running for the Board. What's wrong with Frank Morris - is it because
he is an African American with a perspective that white liberals feel
uncomfortable with? I think it is racist to expect that a person should be
predictable because of race. Here we have a White guy like Morris Dees
accusing a Black man of pushing an agenda to keep America White. Not one of
the sitting SUSPS directors or any of the candidates has advocated
restrictions on non-white immigrants. The advocacy of restrictions is across
the board - the bottom line being population stabilization. Personally I
don't care if the United States is predominantly Hispanic, Black, White or
Native Indian (as it once was) - I just want to see the numbers stabilized.)


Club officials say the campaign got underway quietly with the recent
election of three activists, including UCLA astronomy professor Benjamin
Zuckerman, a longtime champion of curbs on immigration; and Paul Watson,
head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a marine environmental group
perhaps best-known for ramming whaling ships. During their campaigns, the
candidates downplayed the views they are now advancing.

(Hey what about Doug? - our honorable Secretary of State for Wisconsin - the
Times mentioned three but described only two)

Club members who support the insurgent candidates accused the organization's
old guard of trying to demonize them as radicals in order to head off the
increasingly popular efforts to win a new majority.

"I really think we ought to be judged on our merits and what we've done in
the past, and not divide the Sierra Club," Pimentel said.

(Well said David Pimentel)

Some longtime Sierrans worry that a takeover by the insurgents would brand
the organization as bigoted and xenophobic.
"I don't think that Lamm, Pimentel and Morris are racists," Pope said. "But
they are clearly being supported by racists."

(If they are being supported by racists they did not court or welcome such
support. What Carl is saying here is I don't think they are racists but.....
In other words he imlies that they are racists. This is a ridiculous
accusation to suggest that candidates are responsible for the motives of the
people who vote for them. You cannot judge a person based on weather other
people support or don't support such a person for reasons of their own.
There is nothing racist about advocating population stabilization. There is
nothing racist about restricting immigration. It is restricted now. The
borders are not open and there is a limit to the number of immigrants
allowed in each year. Is this a racist policy? I don't think so. At what
point does it become racist? Is there a magic number? We are advocating
stabilization. We are advocating putting the brakes on out of control
population growth and sprawl. How in the hell is this racist? Has political
correctness evolved to the point that ecological common sense is racist?)

Zuckerman and Watson call those claims ludicrous. They argue the club has a
responsibility to take strong positions on the issues affecting the health
of the planet.

"Everything else the Sierra Club is doing is doomed to fail if the United
States continues on its rapid population growth," said Zuckerman,
50, who was the leading vote-getter in the Sierra Club board election two
years ago.

(And I think this position is why Ben was the leading vote getter in 2002)

"There are people who are being born today who will see a California that
has more people than the entire United States when I was born," he said.

Asked what the Sierra Club could do to curb population growth, Zuckerman
said the group must "talk about the numbers - how much immigration we should
have and how many babies - so the mix of fertility and immigration is
debated and we can come to a level where the population will stabilize."

(I don't see any keep out the non-whites in this remark. It's about the
numbers)

Watson, who was a co-founder of Greenpeace but who broke ranks with that
organization because he advocated more aggressive tactics, said he did not
expect the Sierra Club to adopt the confrontational methods of Sea Shepherd.


But the club, he said, should promote eating habits that protect Earth's
other inhabitants.

"Human beings are literally stealing resources from all the other species on
this planet," said Watson, a Canadian immigrant.

In an e-mail response to the letter by the 11 former presidents, Watson
wrote, "Is the advocating of low-impact vegetarian diets a cause for
concern? I guess it is if you have a vested interest in grazing or the beef
or poultry industry. I fail to see how vegetarianism in the age of Mad Cow
Disease, E. coli, PCBs in fish, etc., can be considered anything but
practical and realistic."

(Again, I see this as ecological common sense.)

Sierra Club President Larry Fahn and the other prior presidents have pointed
out that the club's members already voted to remain neutral on immigration
in 1998 after a lengthy public debate, and argue that revisiting the
divisive dispute would detract from what board members have agreed is the
most immediate action needed to protect the environment: unseating President
Bush.

(With the delivery of the letter from the former Presidents to the Los
Angeles Times, the debate on immigration became a public one. We were
dealing with it inside the Board and we were keeping it quiet so as to avoid
detracting from the campaign to beat Bush in 2004. The argument that SUSPS
opened it up by running candidates is bogus. If SUSPS candidates win or
don't win, the agreement was to keep a lid on it in 2004. I don't recall any
agreement that SUSPS was to disband or to not field candidates for the March
election. The fact is that this controversy has gone public because of the
former Presidents and it is not the fault of SUSPS or the Board of
Directors.)


The presence of the anti-immigration candidates has led civil rights leader
Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks what it
considers hate groups, to join the Sierra Club and run for its board. Dees
said he decided to throw his hat into the ring to generate publicity after
his staff found that anti-immigration groups were urging members to join the
Sierra Club and help swing the vote.

(So the concern is that some people are running who have not been members
long. Let me see, David Pimentel has been a member since 1992. David Gray
joined in 1980. Frank Morris has been a member since 1998. Robert van de
Hoek has been a member since 1999. All from the last century. Kim McCoy
joined earlier last year and has been a Chicago chapter activist. She was
not recruited for this election. Karen Stickler and Richard Lamm recently
joined. I don't know if they were members previously. As for Richard Lamm, I
can forgive his late enrollment if he brings the dignity of the office of
former Governor of Colorado with him. The fuss is being made presumably
about Strickler and Lamm but the concern is insincere because the same fuss
is not being made about Morris Dees. In other words, the question of how
long one has been a member is relevant only to the politics of the
candidates.)


"I'm not running to win a seat on the board," Dees said. "I'm running to
sound the alarm of an attempt to take over this organization by the radical
element of anti-immigration people. They are interested in keeping this
country white."

(It is incredible that this is not an issue. Dees is bragging that he is
running as a spoiler and that he is not running to win a seat on the Board.
Oh this is real sincere isn't it! And this bullcrap about candidates wanting
to keep the country white is nothing but a smear campaign in the best
tradition of dirty politicking. There is not one director or candidate
running that is interested in keeping the country white. What we are
interested in is keeping parts of the country wild and undeveloped. What we
are interested in is stopping sprawl and increased material and resource
consumption. What we are interested in is addressing real ecological
problems before these problems escalate and bite us on the ass and then we
find it is to late to do anything about it. What we are interested in is
being pro-active instead of reactive. What we are interested in is
stabilizing numbers.)

Earlier this month, VDare.com, an anti-immigration website founded by former
Forbes senior editor Peter Brimelow, author of the book "Alien Nation," ran
an article discussing the Sierra Club elections. The article referred to
Dees as a "left-wing smear artist" and urged immigration-control activists
to join the Sierra Club and vote for like-minded candidates in its upcoming
elections.

(Influence by the Southern Poverty Law Center seems to be acceptable outside
influence it appears. The SPLC has definite direct hands on links to
influencing the election. They have a candidate albeit a spoiler candidate.
The various groups cited by Carl Pope do not have direct hand-on links and
they do not have any candidates.)

The article in turn was picked up by an anti-Semitic website and topped with
a homophobic, anti-Semitic headline. The author of the article, Brenda
Walker, said she was dismayed at that, but Sierra Club officials cited the
recycled article as evidence of extremist support for the anti-immigration
candidates.

(Brenda Walker was not responsible for the title and I am sure that Director
Zuckerman is not supporting any anti-Semitic organizations or websites. This
article is not evidence of extremist support for the anti-immigration
candidates because there are no anti-immigration candidates running. The
position is to restrict immigration not to ban it and the position does not
have any prejudice towards origins, only numbers.)

Roderick Nash, a retired UC Santa Barbara historian who has tracked the
environmental movement, noted that since its early days, the Sierra Club has
struggled with tensions over humanity's imprint on the environment.

(And it will continue to do so. The day it does not will be the day the
Sierra Club will no longer be a viable and effective force for
conservation.)

Gentlemen hikers and climbers - who wanted to preserve America's beautiful
places so the privileged could visit them - wrote diatribes in the early
20th century about Anglo Americans being overrun by unsavory immigrants from
Southern and Eastern Europe, he said.

(That was then and this is now - that kind of prejudice was the norm in the
early part of the 20th Century. This is no longer the case.)

Nor is it the first time the Sierra Club has been the target of a supposed
takeover. In the late 1970s, when the club was embroiled in a battle with
the Walt Disney Co. over a proposed ski resort in Mineral King near Sequoia,
the ski industry ran a slate of candidates to push for support of more ski
resorts, Pope said. Those candidates lost.

(This was good media ploy by Carl - linking the candidates that he opposes
to pro-development candidates from the 1970's and then adding that those
candidates lost indicating that the candidates he opposes have an agenda of
self interest and they will lose also.)

Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
www.seashepherd.org
Director - Instituto Sea Shepherd Brasil
National Director - Sierra Club
Director - Farley Mowat Institute
paulwatson@e...