The Eclectic Lapidary is currently undergoing renovation.
We'll have new issues soon!
INDEX
|
From the Editor
The works in The Eclectic Lapidary are edited for clarity and the mundane realities of spelling and punctuation. Occasionally, to keep the "flavor" of a story, even those grammatical conventions will be overlooked by choice. When it comes to personal
opinions, unless they are deliberately intended to be hurtful or offensive, you will see them unedited, as written. As an individual, I may not agree with the writer. As the editor, I will always try to provide an open forum of information, insight and
opinion.
Kind of standard editorial commentary, right? Well, I'm going to open a door that will acid test that policy.
In the last days of 1996, a very active discussion took place on the Rocks and Fossils group. It began with a list member relaying some information from a San Bernadino newspaper report of several plans being considered to revamp Fort Irwin. This
installation sits on a large tract of the Mohave Desert just beyond Barstow, California. Some of these plans would involve taking more territory for military training operations and thereby removing them from public access. Areas that have been
important resources for mineral collectors and rockhounds would be lost to these uses, probably for our lifetimes, if not forever, should some of these plans proceed as outlined.
According to the one list member who most strongly defended the military's need for more land, an expansion was essential to adequately prepare our smaller, more efficient, more technologically equipped fighting units. Without such an expansion, the lives
and safety of those military units would be put at unnecessary risk should they be sent into action.
The strongly voiced reactions to this position fell mainly into two camps: that the government has a history of not knowing what it needs, and being wasteful of resources; and additionally, that the military powers-that-be have enough miles of California
desert cut off from public access and already damaged beyond repair by previous military use.
Feelings ran high on both sides when an agreement to cease fire was reached. I doubt that anyone was able to move beyond the initially experienced reactions because there wasn't enough solid information. Whether that information is even possible to
obtain is an as yet unanswered question. But it's a question certainly worth asking.
The announcement that National Park and National Monument entrance fees were going up on the first of January (doubling for Yosemite, for example) reminded me of another related issue. When discussions were underway over expanding the Death Valley acreage
under "protection" of the National Park Service, one of our California representatives was asked if she had ever visited the Mohave Desert. The reported answer was that she had driven through it. It is up to those of us who know and love this desert and
all the areas that hold the minerals and gemstones and lapidary materials that provide a focus for our creativity and education and enjoyment to speak out. To inform and advise our government representatives that the desert is more than something to
drive through, and now, pay more to visit.
The Mohave Desert is a place of wonder and life and renewal. Before another mile is taken for learning more effective means of destruction of life and wonder, a lot more information needs to be presented. What happened to all those reasons the California
desert had to be protected from us? Why is it now suitable to destroy it in warfare practice?
I'll let you know next month what answers I get to these questions.
Carol J. Bova
Editor
For aerial maps of the Mojave Desert and the government installations there, and a discussion of impact on biodiversity, click here.
copyright 1997, Carol J. Bova
|
|
Copyright, 1997 Carol J. Bova, Editor
|
|
