I ask him, "I understand the Center of Biological Diversity uses lawyers and lawsuits a lot, isn't that kind of backwards?"
"We litigate as a last resort," Suckling says. "If you look at Algodones, for many years, environmentalists and scientists tried to argue with the BLM about what needed to be done and they said, 'we will not do it.' And when the agency says we refuse to do it, that’s when you go to court. I certainly hope that the BLM has learned its lesson and be more receptive at Sand Mountain, but if at the end of the day the agency refuses, then we have no other choice."
I say, "But Jon Crowley Jr. says the endangered species act needs to be reformed?"
"No, I think he doesn’t like it precisely because it does work. The Endangered species act is successful because it changes the way we manage the land. When he says let's reform it, he means let's gut it. It is a very successful act precisely around off road issues such as this."
I ask him, but why should we save subspecies?
“At the Center for Biological Diversity, we don’t just look at the species. We look at the subspecies and populations. Because if you look at the patterns of extinction, it begins with the populations, then the subspecies, and then soon enough the species is gone.”
In a less populated world, a sole off-roader rummaging across a dune is of no consequence. It is these vast numbers and their collective preference for small biological islands, that make them guilty of damaging ecosystems. Regular off-roaders, who tread thousands of miles through the wilderness, are often regarded with little concern by environmentalists. Their route, no impact. Those off-roaders are many times our environmental leaders, our cheerful outdoorspeople.
