Larry Harvey | The Numbers Game | BLM Permit 1999

The Numbers Game

an interview with Larry Harvey [ED: Larry Harvey often wrote articles in which there was a fictional interview. Darryl Van Rhey is usually Larry’s pen name, although Stuart Mangrum also wrote as DVR from time to time]

Darryl Van Rhey: Let's discuss the long range land use plan for the Black Rock Desert.

Larry Harvey: Well, it's not actually called that. It’s the Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio Management Framework Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

DVR: Could we shorten that?

LH: [laughter] Sure. Let's call it the draft EIS.

DVR: I understand that you're dissatisfied with some of the recommendations contained in the draft EIS. From your point of view, what is the cause this disagreement?

LH: The source of it is human nature. I speak a lot about the virtues of community, but community can have its downside. Burning Man, of course, depends upon community. This explains our record for protecting the environment and preserving public order. All year long we organize to produce a communal and cooperative temporary city.

Over the years, however, I've learned that all communities are naturally tempted into two basic kinds of negative behavior. First, communities tend to exclude others, to turn their backs on the world and suspect outsiders, and, secondly, they engage in internecine feuds. You know what I mean. Look at any small town. That, I believe, has been the case with the user community of the Black Rock Desert.

DVR: Is Burning Man a newcomer to the desert?

LH: No, not all. Some others have been around longer, but we've been here since 1990. We've a long and responsible record. We aren't strangers at all. Yet, during this time, we have grown. We're like a Cuckoo chick smuggled into a nest. While all the other chicks maintain a "normal" size, we've seemed to swell out of all proportion. This phenomenon, by and of itself, is bound to cause alarm. That's why there is all this talk about numbers.

Some people in some user groups have perceived us as "too big". We became this big bald intruding bird that made them uneasy. You must remember that many other people have used the Black Rock Desert for years. It seemed a cozy nest. People feel they have a special relationship to it. It's a proprietary feeling. Suddenly the land speed people (ed. note: Spirit of America and SS Thrust) stage a large event, others, like AeroPac are growing, and then comes Burning Man-- an entire city planted in their backyard. Some feel the Black Rock is uniquely theirs. It seems like a violation. Some people want to close ranks and focus not on varied use, but on their own special use. It's a natural impulse.

DVR: That's understandable, but has this "bigness" of Burning Man harmed the environment?

LH: That's the great irony. It hasn't. There's no data to support that assertion. In fact, all the evidence is on the other side. We've developed strategies for containment and environmental education that have proven in 1998 to be enormously successful. We're in the forefront in pioneering these techniques. I believe we're setting a standard for large scale events on public land. This information will be extremely useful to the BLM. No one has come forward with any kind of proof that we've harmed the environment. We're siting on a mountain of data that proves this.

DVR: What are your specific problems with number limits put forward in the long range plan?

LH: There are two measures being advanced. The first would limit large scale events to no more than 41,000 user days or about a 10,000 person maximum.

DVR: Would that eliminate Burning Man?

LH: Yes, it would.

DVR: What is the basis for this standard of 10,000 people?

LH: It has no basis. Among those who have authored this document and those who've reviewed it, no one has come forward with any kind of rationale or explanation. It is completely arbitrary.

In 1997 we conducted an event drawing 10,000 people with no adverse environmental impacts. This year our population neared 15,000 people with the same result. In fact, no study of any kind, apart from a close monitoring of Burning Man, has ever been undertaken. This number was pulled from a hat.

DVR: Does it have anything to do with your attendance in '97?

LH: Well, it could. This EIS was being prepared at that time and we predicted a population of 10,000. If this limit correlates with anything at all, it could be that. Really, all this seems to represent is an attempt to say, "Stop! You're too big!", but those fears have no basis. Our event in 1997 and 98 has established this, but no such information was included in the plan. This decision was made in a factual vacuum. A study should be undertaken. I know that we've not arrived at any limit of acceptable change for that particular spot on the Black Rock Desert. So, without this variable how can one determine that we have harmed the environment?

DVR: Are you saying numbers are completely irrelevant?

LH: By themselves alone? Yes. Environmental impacts are conditioned by a lot of factors. We've learned that numbers are not nearly so important as where and how you use the land. The intelligent course would be to monitor our event over an extended period. We've already begun our own study and I'd like to share that information. I know we haven't reached any number sensitive limit yet. In fact, over the last two years, as our community and leadership infrastructure have become better organized, we've actually done a much better job.

DVR: What is the other measure in this plan that you oppose?

LH: It is proposed that all large scale events using a Special Recreation Permit be placed in a pool which caps recreation at 50,000 user days at per year. No single user group could claim more that 85% of that allotment. This is particularly obnoxious because it would pit user groups against each other. It creates an incentive to prove that other desert users are unworthy of receiving a permit. Everyone would fight to get a berth. This goes back to what I said before. At their worst, communities engage in feuds and demonize outsiders. We think that the solution to protecting the desert is 180 degrees different from this. The community of users should work together.

DVR: What would you like to see included in the plan?

LH: All of those things that would unite the user groups in a community. We've talked to OCTA. We've talked to Aeropac and High Rock Trekkers. We've opened dialogues with several other user groups. Among them there seems to be a lot of common sense agreement. Everyone knows that the real problem in the desert is not organized groups. Such people can be educated. The real problems are caused by isolated users who are ignorant of the damage they cause.

Vandalism happens, it turns out, when users are uninformed and no one is watching. What is needed, really, is more monitoring and an organized public information campaign-- and that can only be done with the resources that a community generates. Everyone knows that the BLM can't accomplish this without a lot of help. The agency is understaffed and underfunded.

An effective plan would stress a much enlarged citizen auxiliary in addition to the full-time year-round Visitor's Center. As the largest user group in the desert, Burning Man has produced the most volunteers for this purpose. We think this program needs to be greatly expanded. This would also afford an opportunity for members of different user groups to learn about one another.

Another thing that's been left out of the draft EIS is any reasonable standard for evaluating large scale Special Recreation Permits. There is a definition of who must obtain a SRP, but not what qualifications warrant receiving the permit. Again, waving number limits in the air is both unfair and irrelevant. What about stewardship? Is a group actively is involved in protecting the environment? Are they part of the solution? This should be an important factor. What about the history of a user group? Have they harmed the environment? Certainly, we haven't. What about containment? We've proven that numbers, by themselves, cannot damage anything. They can't grow feet. It has much more to do with what portion of the desert is actually used and how it is used. All of these variables should be taken into consideration when issuing a permit.

DVR: You sound somewhat frustrated.

LH: Perhaps a little. But, the upcoming hearings are being held for the purpose of evaluating this proposal. I think a plan can be crafted that will be fair to everyone. Part of the problem lies in the way draft EIS is presented. Three options are advanced, but this format seems a trifle disingenuous. One option would open the desert to massive exploitation. No protection at all. It even contemplates advertising and promotion. Who would support that? Another option is equally extreme. It would shut down the desert entirely, banning the majority of current activity. It's probably unenforceable.

The third and recommended option appears to be the middle and moderate course. It's positioned that way, but it's wholly negative, and attempts to actually turn the clock back on time. It would do all the things we've discussed. It would impose arbitrary standards, turn us all against each other, and, worst of all, positively destroy the base of volunteers that is our only real hope. We have succeeded in protecting the desert during the Burning Man event. Now we'd like to join with the greater community of users at Black Rock to preserve and utilize the desert year round. It's time for a constructive solution and I believe we can create one together.

Larry Harvey is the founder and director of the Burning Man Project

Letters to the BLM should be addressed to:

Gerald Mortiz
BLM Winnemucca Field Office
5100 Winnemucca Blvd
Winnemucca, NV 89445