Chapter 4

The Opposition: Who, How, and Why?

 

Public opposition to the OMAB nomination did not begin to surface until 1995, was in full swing in by 1996, and remained vigorous well into 1997. Quite probably, discussion and expressions of concern continue to echo around the Ozarks. In response to the nomination, opponents inundated the Steering Committee and local communities with questions, claims, and accusations regarding the MAB Program and the OMAB nomination effort. One of the primary goals of this research was to determine the nature of the controversy, and to discuss the grievances, claims, and strategies of those people who came out publicly in opposition to the nomination. This chapter is devoted to addressing these issues. Despite the vast array of claims, some quite extraordinary, opposition grievances can be attributed to opponent perceptions of: 1) the nomination process; 2) the betrayal of Ozark citizens by nomination participants, particularly agencies; and 3) the substance and implications of the MAB program for local residents.

 

The Extent of Opposition

Determining the specific breadth of anti-OMAB or pro-OMAB sentiment among Ozark citizens was not within the scope of this research. However, the data indicate that a number of opponents and interested citizens contacted Steering Committee representatives, local papers, and political representatives to get the information and to express their feelings about the OMAB nomination. While it is impossible to say conclusively if opponent sentiments were widely held or concentrated among a few individuals, most OMAB proponents and non-opponent bystanders interviewed indicated that nearly all public opposition came from a small group of very vocal individuals aided, perhaps, by a couple of property rights organizations. The dominant impression expressed by pro-OMAB and bystander interviewees was that the public at large was either apathetic to the issue in general or, after investigating the issue for themselves, did not believe there was cause for concern. Because no empirical assessment of the public was undertaken, again, we cannot say if this perspective was accurate or if it represents pro-OMAB rhetoric to de-legitimate opposition claims.

OMAB supporters attributed the bulk of the opposition to local people distrustful of government in general. Kevin Larson, the editor of a southern Missouri newspaper, described local OMAB opposition in this manner:

Our impression is that a core group of individuals were responsible for much of the public discourse and activism on the issue, such as obtaining and publicizing information. This is not to say, however, that the community in general was passive or non-supportive of OMAB opponents and their cause. There were many letters to the editor written by citizens and high attendance at local anti-OMAB meetings. Moreover, it seems counter intuitive to believe that the nomination would have been dropped if just a few vocal individuals had expressed isolated concerns. Although we cannot speculate as to the full extent of public opposition regarding the OMAB nomination, it elicited enough intense social and political pressure for the Steering Committee participants to be driven away from the nomination.

 

The Rise of Opposition

Although there was no consensus among proponents as to whether the controversy began in Missouri or Arkansas, our analysis of media publications indicates that it first surfaced publicly in Missouri. The epiphany is thought to have come from watchdog property rights activists in 1995 who noted an obscure reference to the Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Reserve in a Missouri Department of Conservation publication regarding their since discontinued Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) program initiative (The Current Local, 1997:1).

The earliest newspaper notice of the OMAB issue appears to have been in the March 29, 1995 edition of a small town Missouri paper called The Mansfield Shopper II. The publication contained an advertisement warning the public about the impending United Nations program to confiscate Ozark land and offered for purchase a packet of information proving the "conspiracy (The Mansfield Shopper II 1995:16)." Fourteen months after this warning was published, informal interagency correspondence from the Missouri Department of Conservation to Buffalo National River reported insurmountable public opposition to both Coordinated Resource Management and the OMAB nomination in Missouri (McGrath, Missouri Department of Conservation. Correspondence 5/21/96). The controversy was in full swing in Missouri.

Conflict blossomed publicly in Arkansas in early fall of 1996. One Arkansas newspaper in Fayetteville attributed the discovery of the proposed nomination to an anonymous Arkansas woman, a preacher’s wife. The mystery woman was quoted as saying, " ' I am not a political activist,… I simply called and asked a question…Apparently I'm the only person in Arkansas who thought to ask this question and found out what's happening (Garret 1996:A1+).’" A majority of opponent letters to the editor in Ozark newspapers began showing up in late Summer to early Fall 1996 in both states. However, we collected letters published on the OMAB nomination well into 1997.

Much of the public controversy, consequently, took place well after participating agencies and organizations had withdrawn from the nomination effort. In summary, the public controversy over the OMAB nomination began sometime in early 1995, most probably in Missouri. Arkansas activists joined the fight in the Fall of 1996 and Winter 1997, when the controversy seemed to peak in both states.

 

The Opponents

Once opposition began it was swift, intense, and extremely effective. There was no one anti-OMAB group or organization; activism against the OMAB was comprised of loosely networked individuals and organizations. New groups sprang up, and some groups already in existence, like Take Back Arkansas, opened new chapters or gained new members as a result of the controversy. There were a variety of organizations that supported events and efforts to oppose the OMAB. Organization names linked to the opposition were Keep the Ozarks American, Society for the Preservation of Ozark Culture, Take Back Arkansas, Citizens for Private Property Rights, People for the West, and the Missouri Farm Bureau.

Media and Steering Committee representatives we visited speculated that organizations from outside the Ozarks financed or otherwise supported anti-OMAB activism. An editor of a local Ozark newspaper cited such organizational support as one reason for the success of the opponents, he said:

While there may have been influence from people and organizations outside the Ozarks, it is undeniable that bona fide Ozark citizens acting together and acting alone played an extremely important role in the protest. Several individuals stood apart from the pack in terms of their activism, serving as speakers at anti-Biosphere Reserve meetings, relentlessly writing letters to the editor, continually contacting Steering Committee members and politicians, and networking intensively. Those opponents who appeared to be most active were Connie Burks from Jasper, AR; William Jud from Fredericktown, MO; Everett Middleton from Flippin, AR; Ed Manor from Jasper, AR; Mary Rivera of Jeep, AR; Mary and Elam Denham (of TBA) from Fayetteville, AR; and Ray Cunio (of Citizens for Private Property Rights) from Japan, MO. These individuals frequently took center stage, aggressively informing Ozark citizens about the OMAB nomination.

 

Opponent Strategies

Opponents, individuals and organizations alike, formed alliances with each other to coordinate their efforts. This allowed them to work together quickly and efficiently to gather and exchange information. OMAB opponents were very successful in mobilizing against the nomination. Their goals were to disseminate information about the OMAB ‘plot’ and to rally support, both in the public and political arenas, against the nomination. To accomplish these goals they employed five central strategies: a) contacting Steering Committee and US MAB representatives; b) holding public/town meetings; c) writing letters to the editor; d) setting up information websites on the Internet; and e) contacting local, state, and federal politicians.

Opponents sought information on the OMAB from a variety of sources, including Steering Committee representatives and US MAB officials. Activists wrote letters and made phone calls asking for explanations and information. Most Steering Committee representatives we talked with indicated that numerous phone calls were received about the OMAB nomination. One Steering Committee representative described his attempt to assist an information seeking opponent, saying, "…she called me a couple of times and acted very objective, [saying] ‘I just wanted to get information,’ but she was obviously biased. She was looking for the dirt (Ben Johnson, personal interview)." Also, George Oviatt of Buffalo National River reported a couple instances where he sat down with opponents to answer questions and discuss their allegations. Once opponents collected information, they worked relentlessly to get the word out.

Opponents wanted to warn the public and politicians about perceived threats associated with the nomination. The Fayetteville reporter who interviewed the mystery woman wrote:

Virtually every letter to the editor cited important sources of information accompanied by pleas for readers to get educated and get involved. Opponents believed that if people were informed about the threats associated with a MAB, there would be enough public outcry to stop the nomination. Which was, of course, the case. To inform the public, opponents held public/town meetings, published letters to the editor, and utilized the Internet both as a source and conduit for information.

A series of public/town meetings held in various towns in the Ozark region proved to be an extremely effective strategy employed by OMAB opponents interested in reaching out to the Ozark public. At these meetings local activists and national environmental-conspiracy experts provided Ozark citizens with documents, sources, and their interpretation of the MAB program, among other things. It is difficult to get a sense of how many gatherings were actually held or how many citizens were in attendance. Numerous public meetings were held in local cafes and in the homes of Ozark citizens. Newspaper articles reporting on the happenings at such meetings, especially in Arkansas, began to show up in local papers in the Fall of 1996.

Several large-scale public meetings were held in southern Missouri between February and April of 1997, long after the actual demise of the OMAB nomination. Meetings covered in local newspapers took place in Winona (February 28), West Plains (March 22), and Thayer (April 17). Attendance estimates reported for these meetings ranged from 100 to more than 300 citizens. Other large-scale town meetings were reportedly held in Houston, MO; Salem, MO; and Deer, AR (Midkiff 1997; Robert Martin, personal interview). According to some, these large meetings were organized and/or sponsored by organizations in opposition to the OMAB, including Missouri Farm Bureau and, later, People for the West (Midkiff 1997; Kevin Larson, personal interview). These public forums often received coverage from local print media, and even drew attention from larger media markets such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as well as piqued the interest of news reporters from Time Magazine(16).

By reading newspaper coverage of these large-scale meetings, as well as surmising from researcher experiences in attending property rights conferences, we can generally describe what an attendee might have experienced at one of the Ozark gatherings. Speakers at such meetings were a combination of local Biosphere Reserve ‘researchers,’ seasoned private property rights activists, as well as some national UN/environmental conspiracy experts. The goal of speakers was to share information and interpretations about Biosphere Reserves, the OMAB nomination, and a variety of other pertinent issues. Audience members were probably provided with some information in the form of handouts or source citations, as well as information on how to obtain necessary information on the issues. Most importantly, attendees would have been encouraged to contact OMAB Steering Committee participants and politicians to express their views on the nomination proposal. These public meetings were very effective avenues of publicity and networking for opponents.

Individual efforts were largely accomplished through print media, the Internet, and by contacting agencies, officials, and politicians. In addition to public meetings, letter to the editor columns in local Ozark papers served as a major conduit for information exchange and dissemination. Trying to mobilize Ozark citizens, opponents wrote letters to the editor expressing their interpretation of the Biosphere Reserve program, their concerns about the potential threats it brought, and outrage at those who supported or sympathized with the nomination effort. Such letters were submitted and published in numerous local and regional newspapers, as well as publications with statewide circulation like Rural Missouri, published by the state association of electrical cooperatives, and Missouri Ruralist, a state farming magazine.

Opponent letters often cited documents and provided the names of agencies and individuals associated with the OMAB nomination and the US MAB Program and encouraged citizens to contact them. Also, many letters included the names of local experts on the OMAB conspiracy along with national UN conspiracy researchers for concerned citizens to get more information.

In addition to these more traditional mobilization strategies, a fairly new tool utilized in the OMAB protest was the Internet. The Internet became an extremely important way for citizens to find information, as well as a way for OMAB opponents to disseminate information they had collected. At meetings and in published letters, opponents provided citizens with specific weblinks to pertinent sites, including those managed by US MAB and the UN. The Internet made it possible for opponents to quickly access and download information posted on the Internet, as well as to order information they felt was important, such as federal and UN publications.

In addition to finding information, the Internet made it possible for opponents to quickly share information. For example, concerned Ozark citizens could easily access the Take Back Arkansas webpage and view documents associated with the OMAB nomination, as well as read the organization’s interpretations and opinions about such documents. Ozark citizens against the OMAB nomination also used the Internet to easily network with national organizations mobilizing against MABs and other environmental programs and efforts throughout the United States. Ozark activists new to environmental controversy thus benefited from the experience of older, more established organizations and veteran activists.

After opponents found information and gathered evidence supporting their conclusions about the OMAB, they focused their efforts on lawmakers. Influencing politicians who were willing to exert their authority against the MAB program proved to be a momentous achievement for opponents. Activists aggressively campaigned for citizens to contact local, state, and federal politicians. Through meetings and published letters, opponents implored Ozark citizens to write or call politicians to stop the OMAB nomination and, later, to support legislative efforts to eliminate MAB and other federal environmental programs.

As discussed in the previous chapter, citizens contacted state and federal Congressional representatives, county judges and city officials, and, at least in Arkansas, the State’s governor. Politicians got involved by writing letters to the National Park Service and US MAB demanding that they stop the Ozark nomination. In addition, shortly after the Ozark experience came to political light, the American Land Sovereignty Act was resubmitted in Congress. Jo Ann Emerson and Tim Hutchinson, who were very vocal political opponents of the nomination proposal, were in support of the bill. Connie Burks, a high profile activist from Newton County in Arkansas, spoke at a meeting and reportedly warned citizens "not to let up on calls and letters opposing the [MAB] program and supporting the American Land Sovereignty Act (Newton County Times 1996A:1)."

On the state level, the governor of Arkansas reportedly responded to requests by OMAB opponents by consulting with UN/environmental conspiracy expert Henry Lamb about the implications of a Man and the Biosphere Reserve (Robert Martin, personal interview). Later the governor demanded that state agencies immediately withdraw from participation in the nomination. An article in the Harrison Daily Times about a speaking appearance by Connie Burks before the Society for the Preservation of Ozark Culture, reported that Burks "..said both the congressman [Hutchinson] and the governor [Huckabee] had told her to keep encouraging people to call and write (Newton County Times 1996a:1)." OMAB opponents enjoyed extensive support in state and federal political arenas.

Local governments and politicians also took action against the OMAB. In Newtown County, Arkansas, after testimony from OMAB opponents, the county quorum court (the law-making body of the county) "went officially on record …as opposing the designation of Crooked Creek as an Extraordinary Resource Waterway and opposing the Ozarks Man and the Biosphere Programme (Newton County Times 1996b:1)." Federal, state, and local politicians were powerful and influential allies for OMAB opponents. While the nomination was, for all practical purposes, dropped by the time political officials really got involved, the enthusiastic participation of politicians brought more media and public attention to the issue.

 

Opponents’ Public Outreach

Probably the most effective effort of opponents was outreach efforts to engage the public and politicians. As individuals and as a collective, they did a phenomenal job of reaching out to Ozark citizens. Opponents believed they were doing a more effective job of publishing and publicizing the nomination than the Steering Committee. One activist publicly commended the efforts of another activist, comparing her efforts to that of the Park Service:

In my opinion, opponents deserve just such praise. They organized quickly and disseminated information clearly and efficiently. While Ozark citizens were largely unaware of the nomination prior to 1995, by 1996 the OMAB had become a topic of conversation throughout the region, and beyond.

Opponents involved the community; they encouraged citizens to seek out information for themselves and to become educated about the plan to establish a MAB in the Ozarks. One opponent implored citizens to get involved, she wrote, "Please find out for yourself—this issue should not be ignored, and you do not have to rely on hearsay. Information is available for those willing to do a little research (Vandergriff 1997:11)." The call to action was an important dimension of opponents’ effort to mount public opposition against the nomination and MABs in general. Such motivating statements were often accompanied by claims that the evidence was available in black and white, albeit in a multitude of documents and web of associations, and this evidence was what had sparked concern in many Ozarkers.

In addition to being efficient, OMAB opponents were very convincing in their presentation of the facts. One public meeting attendee wrote,

Ozark citizens may have been receptive to opposition claims because opponents were local folks appealing to their neighbors for help in protecting the Ozarks. They encouraged people to stop and consider the possibility of potential problems associated with the OMAB. Opponents were successful in that their message elicited concern, or at least curiosity, among fellow Ozark citizens and resulted in action from politicians and OMAB participants.

This successful outreach campaign posed a significant problem for the Steering Committee in terms of the nomination effort. The most damaging aspect of the Ozark experience was that opponents to the OMAB and MAB in general were able to gain the upper hand, both in time and credibility, by doing the outreach that should have been done by the Steering Committee. Opponents were able to present their interpretation of the MAB program and their version of the implications of such a program to an uninformed public, with virtually no response or challenge by those associated with the program. Any information local citizens got on the issue more than likely came filtered through MAB opponents and not directly from the Steering Committee or US MAB.

Opponents put participating agencies, organizations, and the US MAB program on the defensive. Rather than presenting the MAB concept to Ozark citizens, proponents were forced to respond to opponent accusations. Moreover, the general public witnessed the public bantering of opponent allegations and official explanations, although few explanations were actually attempted. The silence of OMAB participants and supporters was surprising, as opponents took the lead in communication.

Opponents informed the general public of the grievances all Ozark citizens had a right to claim as a result of the OMAB. Broadly, opponents expressed three grievances: the exclusion of citizens from the nomination process; the betrayal of Ozark citizens by nomination participants, particularly agencies; and the substance and implications of the MAB program for the Ozarks.

 

Opponent Claims

As discussed in previous chapters, opponents were angry about being disregarded and overlooked throughout the nomination process. They expressed great displeasure and resentment toward Steering Committee participants for having betrayed citizen interests by pursuing the nomination behind closed doors. Anger elicited from resentment attitudes toward the process were compounded by opponent beliefs about what a MAB was and what it meant for Ozark citizens. To opponents, it was alarming and infuriating that citizens had been excluded from the formulation of an environmental program that would have, in their opinion, far-reaching and dramatic impacts on the lives and livelihoods of Ozark citizens. In this section, we will focus on the claims opponents made regarding the substance and implications of a MAB and what this would have meant in the Ozarks.

The claims opponents made regarding the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program were often extremely complex, convoluted, and, occasionally, somewhat fantastic. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this report to detail the origin and extent of opponent allegations about the United Nations, the environmental movement, and their connections to the US Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program. However, the environmentalist-United Nations conspiracy was well summed by one opponent, who wrote,

For opponents, the OMAB issue was another symptom of a wider problem facing citizens of the United States, the problem of loss of individual rights and personal freedoms. This loss was sometimes attributed to regulation from the United States government, international forces such as the United Nations, or both.

Opponents often claimed that demise of democracy is desired by government globalists associated with the United Nations and/or environmentalists. In order to protect the environment on a global scale, globalists or environmentalists desire the implementation of a world government, which was often referred to by opponents as ‘the New World Order.’ While it is impossible to determine who exactly would be at the helm of the impending ‘green,’ world government, it was clear that OMAB opponents believed the environmental movement would be the vehicle whereby individual rights would be quashed to make way for a universalized government force.

The fall of democracy, from opponents’ perspective, would be an outgrowth of global efforts to protect or restore the environment. They regularly cited the Biodiversity Treaty, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and numerous international environmental efforts, proposals, and conferences as proof of an environmental agenda. According to OMAB opponents, the Biodiversity Treaty is the United Nation’s master plan for the implementation of global environmentalism, or socialism, and the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program was a major component of this wider environmental scheme. As one opponent wrote, "If you don’t believe the federal government and the U.N. have conspired to create a biosphere reserve for our area, please refer to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, the U.N.’s ecological plans for the planet Earth (Roe 1997:13)"

According to some OMAB opponents, the move toward a ‘green’ socialist government is loosely disguised as ‘sustainable development.’ In a 1995 êco·logic column, conspiracy expert Henry Lamb described the problem,

Opponents frequently drew connections between the environmental movement and alleged globalist efforts to take over the United States. They pointed to UN documents as proof about the ‘true’ nature of Biosphere Reserves and their place in broader design of globalists and environmentalists. The goal essentially being the eventual ‘re-wilding’ of the United States to further the implementation of a ‘green’ socialist government. The US MAB program was objectionable to opponents because it furthered the global agenda.

According to opponents, the primary symptom of a coming ‘green’ socialist government is the erosion of private property rights. The loss of ownership and control of private property was equated with the loss of Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and privileges. Access to property ownership and land use rights are, according to opponents, tantamount to the preservation of democracy and national sovereignty. The trend toward environmental regulation, which threatens property ownership and control, is conceived of as a trend toward socialism or communism. Jane Darcy, a Take Back Arkansas representative, indicated that the Biosphere Reserve issue highlighted growing problems of suppression and control of individual rights and freedoms by government. She commented on the core issue saying:

A variety of extraordinary claims about the OMAB circulated throughout the Ozarks and beyond. Some of the more popular allegations were the following: forced reduction and relocation of the Ozark population and placement of citizens in concentration camps; destruction of homes, businesses, and infrastructure in order to reclaim areas as wilderness; accession of Ozark land and natural resources to the United Nations; and the presence or likely arrival of United Nations military troops in the Ozarks, which explained the alleged black helicopter and white tank sightings in the Ozarks region. One letter to the editor suspiciously reported,

The Ozark Regional Land Trust representative shared some allegations he heard from one opponent, who claimed that "...people were going to be moved off their land [and] moved out of the Ozarks. If they picked a flower, like one on [the] endangered species list… they would be taken, not to the United States Court, but to a world tribunal (Ben Johnson, personal interview)." George Oviatt, the Buffalo River representative, reported,

Many opponents believed that these events either were already taking place or that they would have followed a successful OMAB nomination.

While some opponent claims rivaled the popular television conspiracy thriller "The X-Files" in their complexity and believability, other opponent claims required far less imagination to understand. An Arkansas journalist summed the ‘on the record’ concerns of one anti-OMAB activist he interviewed saying,

The central concern about the substance of the OMAB plan was the threat of land seizures and potential land use regulations. Opponents feared having their land taken to make nature reserves or losing control of their property due to government or international regulation. Also, they believed that a MAB would result in the exclusion of humans from certain areas of the Biosphere Reserve.

A popular belief was that the OMAB would have resulted in the eviction of Ozark citizens from properties located within the Biosphere Reserve. One opponent expressed this belief in a letter to the editor writing, "The Biosphere Reserve program, despite your protestations to the contrary, would have forced massive land controls on Ozarkers and evicted tens of thousands of people from the land which they own (Jud 1997a:12)." Evictions, opponents alleged, would have occurred either because land would immediately be taken to establish nature parks or because property owners would be so restricted in use of their land that they must surely abandon it to make a living elsewhere.

OMAB opponents were very concerned about the potential for increased regulation and control of Ozark land should the Biosphere Reserve have been designated. The Missouri Farm Bureau, who came out in opposition to the OMAB nomination, stated in a press release that, "the physical taking of property is not the issue. What is of concern to our members are the cumulative effects of local, state, and federal regulation. Regulation can affect land use and, over time, actually make it impossible to for a family farm to survive (Kruse 1997:1)."

It was obvious that opponents viewed the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program as a precursor to further attempts to implement environmental regulations and restrictions in the Ozarks. One letter writer complained,

Notions that humans would be restricted, banned, controlled, and/or regulated within the Biosphere Reserve were commonplace. An editor’s note prefacing an anti-OMAB letter to the editor in the Mountain Echo (Yellville, AR) explained to readers, that the Man and Biosphere Reserve Program "would involve the establishment of large nature reserves in this country on which public admittance would be limited or banned (Mountain Echo 1996:2)."

A handout included in a Take Back Arkansas seminar packet, a publication from the Property Rights Foundation, contrasted the myth vs. reality of various international and national environmental programs, including Biosphere Reserves. The article described what local residents could expect from the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in their area. First, the article indicated that the goal of a MAB was to restore natural areas, meaning that the area would be managed "so that human influence on nature is eliminated (LaGrasse 1997:1)." As a consequence of this goal, the article continued, Biosphere Reserves necessarily bring with them at the request of environmentalists government sanctioned "land acquisition and more ‘environmental’ restrictions on land-use (LaGrasse 1997:1)." The article summed the treatment by reporting that, "for Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites to be successful, areas must be off-limits to hunting, and many roads used by hunters and tourists closed (LaGrasse 1997:1)." Beliefs similar to these were common among OMAB opponents.

Some Steering Committee representatives and U.S. MAB officials answered opponent concerns regarding impacts to private property rights by emphasizing there would be no regulations associated with the OMAB and that the MAB program carried no force of law. These explanations, however, were often met with disbelief. There was suspicion and skepticism for a program that did not appear to actually do anything. As one individual wrote, "…George Oviatt asserts that this program is an innocent, benevolent proposal, strictly voluntary with no regulatory authority. This is absurd. What possible use is a program with no regulatory authority? (Middleton, 1996b:4A)." Similarly, another opponent wrote, "The notion that the U.N. MAB is a toothless document is patently absurd. Has anyone ever seen a government program that carried no weight of law or regulation (Schlernitzauer 1997:B6)?" Opponents’ research and intuition led them to believe that the OMAB would have brought threats to property rights in the Ozarks, contrary to official protests stating otherwise.

The more fantastic allegations about the OMAB were readily picked up by the popular media in articles and superficially defined the general opposition position. Punctuation of the more creative and extravagant conspiracy claims may have contributed to a blanket dismissal of opponent concerns and grievances by Steering Committee members and others. For example, the West Plains Daily Quill (1997b:1) reprinted a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial that stated:

Such a cursory glance at the issue, however, minimizes the fact citizens had real concerns and complaints regarding the proposed Biosphere Reserve, regardless of how fanciful some assertions seemed to those not inclined toward conspiracy theories. The beliefs expressed by opponents were their perception of the threats and consequences of an Ozark Biosphere Reserve. However unlikely such claims were to agency personnel, journalists, or the general public, they reflected the perceptions and belief systems of at least some citizens of Ozark communities. Moreover, given some aspects of the local culture and history of the Ozarks, citizen concerns about property rights do not seem quite so far fetched.

 

The Influence of Place

Opponents perceived the OMAB nomination as yet another threat to cultural and personal identities linked to place. Even the Feasibility Study discussed the intense cultural pride Ozark citizens felt and identified within the area (Faulkner and White 1991). Many of the people we talked to described Ozark citizens as independent, strong, and stubborn. One interviewee stated that both the best and worst trait of an "…Ozark hillbilly, which I consider myself, …[is] the hard-headed, spirit of independence of the native Ozarker (Kevin Larson, personal interview)." The representative of Take Back Arkansas described herself and other "Ozarkians" as highly independent because they and their ancestors had come to the Ozarks and survived by working hard, being independent, and living by their wits (Jane Darcy, personal interview).

Ozark citizens take pride in being independent and capable of managing their own property. Therefore, the TBA representative added, they resent it when people in Washington D.C., and perhaps other countries, make rules and decisions that private property owners must abide by (Jane Darcy, personal interview—field notes). The desire to control individual destiny and to maintain ownership and control of private property are part of Ozark cultural identity. Moreover, Ozarkers believe they can manage natural resources and steward the land much better on an individual basis, without the interference of government or anyone else. This excerpt from a letter to the editor highlights the personal and cultural identity associated with land ownership and control:

Ozark citizens are not strangers to controversy and contention over the control and use of natural resources in the region. Quite the contrary, the Ozarks has a rich history of conflict over a variety of environmental and natural resource issues that have at times pitted various stakeholders against each other. OMAB opponents and proponents alike were often candid about the deep distrust and resentment some Ozark citizens feel toward various governmental agencies, especially the National Park Service. A member of Take Back Arkansas stated that the OMAB experience was just another example of how the National Park Service "…has overstepped its bounds, egregiously… case after case, after case, they’ve overstepped (Jane Darcy, personal interview)."

Many of the Steering Committee members we talked with were keenly aware of this legacy of distrust and resentment. In fact, all committee members were aware of these lingering sentiments by 1991 when Faulkner and White reported that,

The cultural memory of the eminent domain takings in the Ozarks served as an ominous foundation for the OMAB nomination effort. One newspaper editor from southern Missouri described his participation in this cultural memory:

The specter of eminent domain takings of private property by the National Park service was raised time and again by opponents of the OMAB. Many opponents cited historical eminent domain takings in the Ozarks as proof that property seizures would accompany the proposed Biosphere Reserve. One concerned Ozark woman wrote,

To opponents, the idea of the government seizing land from home and property owners was not far fetched. Instead, it was practically a given that land seizures or land use restrictions would certainly occur if the Biosphere Reserve became a reality.

In addition to eminent domain takings, opponents cited a variety of historical and contemporary situations, circumstances, and occurrences that they believed further supported their contentions about the MAB program and the scheming of government officials. Everything from the alleged government cover-up of agent-orange to the imposition of zoning ordinances was cited as proof of government desire to deceive, manipulate, and control Ozark citizens. Narratives of people’s experiences in other regions and states served as evidence of the potential negative impacts of further government ownership or control of land, such as property rights conflicts that have arisen from the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.

Closer to home, the OMAB effort was likened to proposed efforts to govern natural resources, like the Natural Streams Act initiative in Missouri in 1989 and 1990, which critics alleged would have led to the imposition of massive land use controls on private landowners. In Arkansas, opponents’ often referred to the then-raging Crooked Creek controversy where the state sought the right to regulate gravel-mining activities damaging riparian ecosystems along state waterways.

 

The Sources

Although some Ozark citizens may have been predisposed to object to natural resource programs based on perceptions of past violations of citizen rights by government, it was not merely past remembrances of objectionable government activities that opponents relied on as the foundation of their beliefs. To the contrary, opponent arguments rested heavily on more contemporary evidence to support their claims about MABs and to substantiate their beliefs about the hazards of a UN sponsored program in the US.

Much of the general information about the United Nations led environmental movement conspiracy is well documented by individuals who seem to have devoted their lives and careers to informing others about such plots. Many opponents pointed to the writings and speeches of self proclaimed experts on conspiracies of the United Nations and the environmental movement. Three of the most influential of these experts are Henry Lamb, Michael Coffman, and Texe Marrs.

Henry Lamb publishes a journal entitled êco·logic and attends conferences as a featured speaker who reveals the United Nations plan to implement a global, socialist regime through environmentalism. Michael Coffman of Environmental Perspectives, Inc also publishes books and, in addition, sells videotaped lectures of himself describing the United Nations conspiracy. In addition to elaborating on the efforts of the United Nations to implement a global government, Coffman spends a good deal of time debunking scientific evidence supporting the existence of environmental problems. Coffman is widely known for the creation of colorful maps hypothetically depicting the limitations in human land use in the United States should the environmental conspiracy be realized. The maps visually record the potential combined impact of the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program, Wildlands Project, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Finally, Texe Marrs of the Living Truth Ministries focuses his research and publishing on the immoral and Satanic undertones of the United Nations and the environmental movement, particularly the conspiracy to replace Christianity with Earth Goddess or pagan religions. An Arkansas journalist who interviewed key Arkansas opponents reported that the individual who initiated OMAB opposition in Northwest Arkansas relied heavily on the ‘investigative reports’ of Texe Marrs (Robert Martin, personal interview). In the Ozarks, where fundamentalist religions are widespread, such claims found significant resonance among citizen belief systems.

While OMAB opponents often referred to these experts and their ideas, it is unclear how much influence such experts had on opponents or when their ideas became integrated into opposition rhetoric. To fully elaborate the belief systems upon which opponents’ claims were based would be a report within itself. The remainder of this section, however, provides a synopsis of the major sources used by opponents to verify the need for public concern specifically relating to the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program.

Opponent claims were grounded in a variety of non-MAB documents and sources of information believed to support and confirm their suspicions and fears about the consequences of a Biosphere Reserve. They referenced non-governmental books and articles such as Earth in the Balance by Al Gore and the infamous Wildlands Project proposal published in the June 1993 issue of Science magazine. Opponents found the Wildlands Project to contain the most objectionable objectives. It proved their worst fears about the plans of extreme environmentalists to depopulate the land of humans and restore it to wilderness. Gore’s book, on the other hand, was most often cited to prove opposition claims relating to the contamination of the United States government, especially the Executive Branch, by extremist environmental ideals. This contamination includes the commitment of the US federal government to assist in the global plan to replace Christianity with nature or Gaia worship.

Opponents did not rely solely on secondary sources of information as proof of government efforts to seize and control property in the Ozarks as part of wider environmental agenda. Much of their proof came from original documents published by US MAB, UN MAB, the United Nations, and, remarkably, the OMAB Steering Committee.

Opponents aggressively acquired information on MAB’s, the OMAB nomination, and any related topics or issues. They cited numerous documents published by the United Nations, especially the Biodiversity Treaty, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, Our Global Neighborhood, and various UN MAB publications. In addition to United Nations publications, opponents referred to various federal programs and publications such as reports on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, and reports published by federal natural resource agencies. Finally, lending a good deal of credence to their assertions, they quoted from documents directly related to the OMAB nomination effort such as the 1991 Feasibility Study, official correspondence between agencies and organizations, and even internal agency memorandums and notes.

When engaged in public discourse on the issue, opponents often promoted the empirical nature of their evidence and the reliability of their sources. Many opponents evaded direct, detailed, and clear explanations of their claims by summarily referring to the mass of evidence available and irrefutable credibility of source documents. One letter to the editor assured readers,

Often, the mere existence of a large amount of evidence or a particular publication was offered to the public as proof of the conspiracy, without specifically detailing the objectionable information or facts. For example, a reporter covering the anti-OMAB public meeting in Thayer, MO described the presentation of a local activist. She stated that the speaker, Ray Cunio, while talking about the notorious connection between the Biodiversity Treaty and the "1,040-page" Global Diversity Assessment, held up the Assessment saying, "‘You don’t want to know what’s in here and what they are going to do!’ (Henderson Vaughn 1997:7)." However, Cunio did not continue to "explain what he objects to in the book (Henderson Vaughn 1997:7)." Similarly, Don Hartley, an OMAB opponent from Yellville, AR, stated:

Like many opponents Hartley did not present the evidence, but alluded to its existence. He continued to report that he and other activists "have the facts" and that documents "will be on display in Marion County for any and all members of the public and residents of Marion and surrounding counties to see for themselves (Hartley 1996:3)."

While OMAB opponents often did not specifically cite and explain evidence of a conspiracy, they frequently encouraged citizens to obtain the original documents for themselves and, in most cases, gave tips on why, where, and how to look for information on the conspiracy. One activist encouraged citizens to get the facts, he wrote:

Opponents spoon-fed concerned Ozark citizens a complex soup of documents, narratives, and claims relating the potential horrors of MABs, then buttressed their position by stressing the urgent need to act. If interested citizens took time to venture forth in search of original documents and evidence themselves, they were already primed on how to interpret the bits of evidence taken from here and there.

At public and town meetings concerned citizens could actually see the primary sources of evidence for themselves. Offending documents were displayed as speakers generally articulated their meaning and described impending implications for the United States, especially the Ozarks. Any citizen attending the Take Back Arkansas meeting in November of 1997 had an opportunity to view copies of most of the incriminating documents first hand, including the Global Biodiversity Assessment and text books on conservation biology (Field notes, TBA Conference 11/15/97). In addition to exhibiting big books, opponents made packets of literature, including copies of evidence from primary and secondary sources, and offered hordes of handouts for citizens to take and examine for themselves.

Many of the sources opponents referred to and quoted from were deemed quite reliable. In fact, OMAB proponents routinely recommended opponent sources when interested citizens inquired about the nomination. The Feasibility Study and MAB documents, for example, served as evidence for OMAB proponents and opponents alike. The reliance on original documents from noteworthy sources provided opponents with credibility and at the same time made it difficult for Steering Committee members to refute all opponent allegations. The fact that they were using and interpreting primary sources to prove that an OMAB would have negative consequences for the Ozarks was an important point of legitimization for opponent claims.

After the controversy was well under way, proponents of the OMAB and officials associated with the MAB program asserted that opponent claims were rumors and lies. In addition, a few newspaper articles and editorials discounting OMAB claims appeared in some Missouri and Arkansas newspapers. In response attacks on credibility, one representative of Take Back Arkansas confidently retorted:

 

 Teasing Out the Conspiracy

The complexity of the MAB program in terms of both its conceptualization and the difficulty of describing the program’s management strategies in practice likely amplified the concerns of Ozark residents. A Missouri newspaper reporter shared wonderment about program goals saying:

Opponents had similar reactions when they were given the official explanations about the MAB program. It was difficult for them to understand why the program was necessary and exactly how it would work.

To answer these questions for themselves and other Ozark citizens, activists examined words, phrases, and passages from various documents. This research allegedly pointed to the negative consequences of a Biosphere Reserve and a government cover-up of the nomination effort. Evidence, however, was consistently interpreted out of context and in tandem with a multitude of other documents not connected with Biosphere Reserves. As previously noted, the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program was at times linked to the Wildlands Project, Global Biodiversity Assessment, Heritage River Corridors, and many other programs, legislation, scientific research, international treaties, and events. It was also linked to general management philosophies like ‘ecosystem management,’ ‘conservation biology,’ and ‘sustainable development.’ And in some cases, the Biosphere Reserve Program was conceptually linked to non-environmental programs and publications, such as Habitat for Humanity.

Opponents read between the lines of documents and reports for hidden or covert meanings and made broad, sweeping connections between MAB and a variety of other documents, programs, and events. Robert Martin, an Arkansas news reporter, read excerpts from an interview he conducted with an anti-OMAB activist. He explained how she alluded to the hidden meanings in a meeting agenda from the National Forest Service:

(Robert Martin, personal interview)

Opponents saw links between MAB and other programs, project, and publications because many shared the same jargon and broad conceptual ideas. Words, events, and activities associated with MAB and the OMAB nomination process were a major source of confusion and misunderstanding about the project and its implications.

The MAB program is complex, as are the scientific and managerial concepts on which it is founded. Much of the program, in official documents for example, is explained using natural resource and scientific jargon common to natural resource professionals, scientists, and even some environmentalists. The meanings associated with such terms as core area or buffer zone, vary depending upon who uses them and how they are being employed(17). In the Ozarks, the meanings of words and phrases used and defined in other programs or projects were continually ascribed to the MAB program by opponents.

Of particular concern to opponents, and where most of the confusion manifested itself, was with the design of the MAB. The concentric circle reserve design, consisting of the reserve core, a buffer zone, and a transition area, is a general concept now widely discussed and utilized by natural resource managers and scientists (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Inclusion of the reserve design and use of technical jargon were problematic in the Ozarks, however, because as a consequence opponents equated the Wildlands Project with the MAB program. When asked if opponent grievances sprung from terminology and definitions associated with the MAB program, Robert Martin responded, "Yeah, and in particular about the way that the Biosphere concentric circles looks like the Wildlands project. …Some of the terminology I guess is the same. It was a constant source of confusion (personal interview)."

As indicated earlier, opponents feared the Wildlands Project because it advocated radical steps in management activity in order to protect biodiversity. An article about the Wildlands Project, referred to me by an OMAB opponent stated,

Later, the authors reported that the design of the Wildlands Project "consists of three elements: core reserves, buffer or multiple use zones, and connecting corridors. Core reserves, consisting of a quarter or more of an area in any given bio-region, would be off limits to much human activity (Mann and Plummer 1993:1869)." OMAB opponents consistently ascribed the management goals articulated in this article about the Wildlands Project to the OMAB in their anti-MAB rhetoric.

Opponents believed there were connections between programs and documents because they shared jargon and concepts. William Jud, a very vocal OMAB opponent, connected the Wildlands Project to the Biodiversity Treaty saying, "The United Nations adopted Wildlands as its preferred plan for protection of "biodiversity" and made Wildlands part of their Biodiversity Treaty (Jud 1997b:B6)." In turn, the Biodiversity Treaty, a United Nations sponsored document, was connected to UN MAB program and, ultimately, to US MAB.

Opponents extrapolated the meanings of terms in a variety of other programs and research, with the meaning of jargon in the MAB program. They frequently attributed the goals of various environmental programs, as well as the enforcement strategies of environmental laws, to that of the MAB program. Opposition claims were constructed based on this collage of information. They consolidated all the information they found no matter what document, agency, or entity published it. As a result, their interpretation of MAB was based on a conglomeration of a wide array of environmental, and even non-environmental, programs and policies. No distinctions were made between programs, agencies, or entities.

In most cases, they envisioned the worst case scenario, claiming that core areas would be totally off limits to humans and that access to the other reserve zones would be severely limited in a MAB. Ray Cunio, an OMAB opponent who spoke at a public meeting in Thayer, MO, reportedly told the audience that "A biosphere reserve starts on public lands and expands from there. No human activity would be permitted in the core area, and in the transition area, humans could live, but could do nothing without government control (Henderson Vaughn 1997:1)." Opponents, such as Cunio, articulated the potential impacts of a MAB in the Ozarks based on a synthesized and hypothetical knowledge base.

Although interpretations and implications often varied from activist to activist, they were all derived from the same type of accumulative synthesis of information. Opponents meticulously referenced, cross-referenced, and quoted offending documents, often including page numbers and cross-references. For example, Ed Manor, a regular letter writer in Arkansas, provided readers with offending quotes from the Feasibility Study that proved Steering Committee members wanted to keep the nomination secret:

Another example, found in the Newton County Times, is an editorial. Ruth Ann Wilson provided readers with the pertinent quotes from various sources proving the U.N.-environmental conspiracy by quoting passages from a variety of sources. She quoted a passage from the article "The Wildlands Project" published in Wild Earth magazine. She also provided quotes attributed to: Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the 1992 Earth Summit and Co-founder of UNEP; John Davis, a member of Earth First! quoted in Wild Earth magazine; Reed F. Noss, author of the Wildlands Project; and Daniel Sitarz, "editor of the United Nations-approved abridged version of Agenda 21, main agreement of the Earth Summit (Wilson R. 1996:2)." She summed her patchwork presentation of evidence by saying "You be the judge (Wilson R.1996:2)."

The nature of the opponent information gathering and interpretation made it difficult for agency representatives to refute or even address activist claims. To argue against another person’s interpretation of words, meanings, and phrases, one must be familiar with the sources as well as the logic being applied to interpret and connect them. Answering such allegations and complaints was not an easy task for Steering Committee representatives. The convoluted and inferential nature of opponent claims made contradiction somewhat difficult.

As discussed earlier, opponents and proponents often referred to the same documents as proof of their own claims. When citizens would call asking questions, Steering Committee representatives would refer them to the Feasibility Study or US MAB publications for more information. Opponents, however, often cited these same documents as proof of their allegations. Frequently, it was not the source of information in dispute; rather, the interpretation of documents was contested between opponents and Steering Committee representatives. Brent Conner of AG&F shared his experience trying to decipher and refute opponent allegations:

Proponents and journalists agreed that there was really no way to argue with opponent logic since they made countless references and numerous leaps of faith in their interpretations. A newspaper reporter described opponent preparation and evidence. In this portion of the interview, he recounted his experience interviewing an OMAB opponent from Northwest Arkansas, saying:

Many Steering Committee representatives who talked with opponents were frustrated and unsure of how to respond to their concerns and complaints. Conner, of AG&F, reflected on various conversations with opponents saying,

Possibly because of the nature of opponent allegations, agency efforts to address anti-OMAB claims in a public manner were minimal. Buffalo National River and the Missouri Department of Conservation were the only agencies that attempted to publicly contradict opponent assertions. However, both agency press releases came after the Ozarks was already deeply embroiled in controversy, November of 1996 and March of 1997 respectively. Kevin Larson, a Southern Missouri newspaper editor indicated that the nature of citizen complaints likely caused agency officials to ignore the issue. When asked his opinion on the Steering Committee’s effort to answer citizen concerns, he stated:

The eruption of public opposition, the often times convoluted nature of opposition claims, and mounting political pressure to abandon the nomination effort no doubt led Steering Committee representatives to be somewhat non-responsive to citizen inquiries.

The two attempts to publicly address opposition claims appeared to exacerbate rather than resolve the conflict. Jerry Conley of the Missouri Department of Conservation drew criticism from OMAB opponents when, in a press release, he responded to the OMAB fervor saying,

Many opponents disliked what they thought was the trivializing of their message and being summarily referred to as scarecrows. The Buffalo National River attempt to address opponent claims fared no better. George Oviatt stated that "…we issued our own letter to the editor, which really seemed to fuel the controversy even more because the people who were against it then used that as a point to say, ‘we struck a nerve.’"

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

In the Ozarks, a relatively small number of opponents did an effective job of gathering and disseminating information on alleged evils of the OMAB nomination and MABs in general. Once they discovered the nomination effort, they worked quickly and furiously, confronting Steering Committee representatives, legislators and other politicians, as well as US MAB officials with their objections and accusations. They sought information from a wide range of sources trying to find out what a MAB was and what it meant for the Ozarks.

Their interpretation of the MAB program was quite different from that of the OMAB Steering Committee. However, while some opponent claims appeared to be no more than well-crafted science fiction tales, their message was relatively clear. In the most basic sense, anti-OMAB activists were fearful of the imposition of regulations and losses of personal freedoms. They feared losing control over their property and, perhaps, their lives if the OMAB became a reality.

Opponents voiced their fears to the people of the Ozarks and, more importantly, to politicians sympathetic to opposition claims. By working quickly and efficiently, networks of opponents spread their versions of the facts about the MAB program. Although the OMAB nomination was dead by the time opponent activism actually reached full force, their efforts paid off in terms of casting a haze of suspicion around the US MAB Program. Unfortunately, the haze still lingers in the Ozarks and is spreading throughout the country, clouding a program meant to benefit people as well as the environment.

An analysis of opposition that surfaced in the Ozarks lends much insight into the motivations, strategies, and grievances of anti-MAB activists in the Ozarks and throughout the United States. After attending several property rights seminars, it is clear that the beliefs and opinions of anti-OMAB activists were by no means unique to the Ozarks. This being the case, there are several lessons one can draw from the Ozark experience.

First, US MAB and future nominating committees should note the insurmountable confusion and angst scientific jargon and other terminology could lead to during a nomination effort. The nature and direction of opposition claims suggests the need to evaluate the implications of the language of the MAB program. MAB proponents must recognize that some of the terms used in this program carry considerable cultural baggage and, more than likely, conjure up in many people’s minds a series of meanings that do not match the intents of the program. In addition, use of ambiguous, popular scientific jargon makes it very difficult for people to understand what the program does and what differentiates it from other programs and policies.

Key terms such as ‘biosphere’ and ‘reserve’ are notable cases. The word ‘biosphere’, for example, is not part of everyday vernacular. Many individuals are only familiar with the term in reference to sterile environments employed in medical treatments of severe immune deficiency or the thus far ill-fated attempts to develop new human communities in created and self-contained ‘biosphere’ environments. Individuals who turn to the dictionary for a definition of ‘biosphere’ find, for example, "the totality of regions of the earth that support self-sustaining and self-regulating ecological systems (American Heritage Dictionary 1981:133)."

Such conceptualizations denote very controlled environments with well-regulated human behaviors within Biosphere Reserve areas. The very term ‘biosphere’ denotes the primacy of biological systems. While scientists understand biospheres to incorporate all living organisms (including humans), the word continues to be defined in exclusionary terms and with implications of strict control. Similarly, the term ‘reserve’ is not neutral. It has a tradition of use that associates it with areas set-aside from normal human activity and in some instances, as in the case of wilderness reserves, denoting severely restricted human activity. For others, ‘reserve’ also seems to imply an area kept apart or saved for some other use. In each of these usage’s, there is an implicit assumption that there will be major changes in current uses of these spaces.

We are not suggesting that MAB or other programs need to jettison these terms in order to succeed. There are many instances of successful use of ‘biosphere’ in environmental protection efforts. Over time, residents in these areas have developed more valid knowledge of these terms’ implications. Proponents of new efforts need to recognize the existing cultural meanings associated with the program’s nomenclature, however, and should mount appropriate efforts to differentiate the specific meanings of MAB usage from those in the vernacular.

The inclusion of new or additional terms that better communicate the multidisciplinary goals of the program ought to be considered. For example, the notion of "Man and the Biosphere Reserve" is intended to deliver the message of human-nature interactions, but prefacing the notion of ‘biosphere’ or ‘reserve’ with ‘community’ might better connote the notion of community ownership, sponsorship, and involvement. This job will not be easy because opposition groups now attach negative connotations to so many of the current words used in environmental protection, including ‘sustainability,’ ‘bioregion,’ and ‘ecosystem.’ However, attempts should be made to find terminology or phraseology that effectively expresses the human dimension of the program, in addition to the environmental.

Once terms are chosen and defined, nominating committees must take care to do the proper community outreach and education about the program. This outreach should include efforts to define the meanings of any terms or concepts, including those that seem self-explanatory to natural resource managers. When necessary, extra efforts should be made to explain how the proposed program is similar or different from other programs utilizing similar jargon or concepts.

The Ozark experience indicates a need for nominating committee representatives to actively and, when necessary, personally take time to answer citizen questions and inquiries about the program. Sending brochures or pamphlets in the mail, for example, is often not sufficient and a rather impersonal means of addressing personal inquiries. As we see from the OMAB case, citizens are no longer content with being uninformed or half-informed about natural resource programs. If neglected, they will seek out and interpret information on their own. Letting the public fend for themselves is not wise, as the OMAB Committee discovered, because citizen interpretations may be very different from those of a nominating committee and may bias the public against the program before proponents have shared their interpretation. In short, providing citizens with information does no good if citizens cannot understand what they are given and are left to interpret the meaning on their own. Efforts must be made to make the U.S. MAB program conceptually more citizen friendly. If citizens are to make an informed decision as to the acceptability of a MAB in their region, they must be fairly and adequately informed about the program and the nomination.

The US MAB program also suffers some public opposition due to its structural and linguistic links to UN programs. Many American citizens have, at best, ambivalent feelings about the United Nations. Public opposition to UN programs appears to have greatly increased as a result of events during the Reagan presidency. Although the US MAB program is independent of the UN, the fact that it uses the same language, similar rationales and rhetoric, and relies on UN approval of its nominations raises both confusion and concern among some people(18). Individuals often overlook agency structural differentiation and can only see the commonalties.

Again, we are not suggesting that the US program must necessarily change its language or process because of these connections. However, the program must realize the implications of the UN associations and develop strategies that emphasize the local and national dimensions of the program and consider means by which the US program might develop its own distinctive identity.

The Ozark MAB experience highlights the need for proponents who wish to create a new Biosphere Reserve to take the time to identify and understand any local or regional historical events that might impact on contemporary efforts. Such knowledge is necessary for three primary reasons. First, and as we have discussed, individual and collective memory of the negative consequences of previous environmental protection programs may condition local communities to reject proposed new efforts, even when new initiatives are markedly different from its predecessors. Historical events have a way of entering into local narrative and customary traditions and to serve as a template for interpreting newly proposed programs. Biosphere Reserve proponents may often have to make special efforts to distance themselves from this legacy.

Second, the history of previous negative events should be suggestive of how new efforts should be constructed, from the selection and implementation of community partnerships to the identification of key agencies and individuals whose participation in the nomination process should either be avoided or condoned. Knowledge of actors and agencies involved in previous disputes, both in terms of opposition and advocacy, ought to suggest which individuals and organizations need to be involved in any nomination process. Moreover, such knowledge may indicate where opposition will come from and in what form.

In terms of the inclusion or exclusion of individuals, organizations, or agencies participating in the nomination process, it is important to remember that power structures within communities typically include both formal and informal organizations and public and private groups. While elected officials and individuals in visible public offices are normally important, very often community sentiment and decision-making are swayed by individuals and groups working behind the scenes. Such powerbrokers must be identified.

Further, historical knowledge ought to suggest which individuals or groups may pose a liability to a nomination effort as active proponents. It is not that these persons or organizations should be excluded from a nomination, rather their public roles and presence might be de-emphasized. Frankly, considering the OMAB nomination, it would not have been difficult to predict that an effort led by the National Park Service would meet some stiff opposition. Previous public conflicts over the creation of NPS sites and controversies over public access, hunting and trapping, wild horses, and other issues are historical events that have primed the Ozark public to stand in opposition to NPS endeavors.

We realize this is a difficult subject, particularly as the NPS was committed to the MAB concepts and provided strong leadership to the Steering Committee. However, we know, for example, that among Federal agencies there is probably better receptivity to the Forest Service than to NPS, and that local attachment to state agencies (e.g., Missouri Department of Conservation) is stronger and more positive than to most federal agencies. It would likely have helped matters if MDC had taken on a more major role and the federal partners, in turn, had worked more behind the scenes.

Finally, proponents should use the substance of previous controversies to identify issues of local concern and, more importantly, those individuals and groups most likely to hold and express those concerns. This knowledge, however, should not be used to skirt likely confrontational issues. Instead, such knowledge should be used to implement proactive activities to mollify or even circumvent conflict.

In the Ozarks, proponents appeared to have recognized dimensions of likely local opposition and chose processional routes they hoped would avoid those dimensions. Avoiding potential controversy by excluding publics deemed inconsequential or unnecessary, however, is no longer an effective strategy for natural resource managers. In this era of telecommunications and increasing citizen scrutiny of government, it is implausible to believe major programs can be initiated without the knowledge and support of affected constituencies.

In fairness to local MAB proponents, a number of historical and cultural issues—some of them beyond the control of the Steering Committee—combined to doom the nomination. Proactive steps to develop local support and to address individual concerns before they became collectivized, however, could have initiated a collaborative process in which the community took greater ownership of the project.

 

Return to Table of Contents

To contact authors direct correspondence to: Theresa L. Goedeke, Department of Rural Sociology, 5 Sociology Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, Telephone (573) 882-7264, E-Mail: c677194@showme.missouri.edu