I rather doubt I shall ever get to Alaska -- but certainly the Tongass NF is likely more reachable than ANWR -- , and yet I entirely agree with Abbey on this.  The Society deserves much praise for the great work that they are doing to preserve the community of living creatures that make up the Tongass NF.

But I am confused by the term "grassroots."  Why should this society be referred to that way?  Yes, they are focused on a clearcut set of issues affecting the region in which they live.  But in fact the leaders seem to be people with a fair amount of professional training and experience.  They may indeed count on the volunteer services of many committed amateurs, but the Society in general looks carefully hierarchalized.  And I am not sure that that fits the usual connotation of "grassroots."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

A large percentage of the 1,075 member groups of the Orion Grassroots Network function with annual budgets under $100,000, and a big slice of those make do with much less, $25,000 or less, or no budget at all. Not that you can define grassroots groups by budget, but in my experience, whether a group is grassroots or not has little to do with the way the group's leadership is structured.

Grassroots does not necessarily equal scruffy. Leaders of today's grassroots groups are often well trained, bearing advanced degrees, and they are savvy. They could work in many sectors, and often come to advocacy from other fields, bringing their experience with them. Most report that the pay cut is entirely worth it.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

It is not really all that important to struggle over the meaning of "grassroots," and so far as I am concerned the matter could be dropped, had you not brought up the other, slippery matter of "empowerment."

As I see it, a "grassroots" movement is begun by one member, or a small number of friendly members, of a community, who recognize that the community faces a problem that needs to be solved.  Their first allies are other members of their community.  Initially, no one is a professional expert on the nature of the problem, though such experts may be brought on board as the movement procedes.  But the non-professionals are the ones making decisions and choosing directions; and they are the ones who decide when they are "empowered," not the professionals.

An example is the movement of the Gwich'in of Arctic Village, Alaska, more or less formally led by Sarah James (a Grist InterActivist), against development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, especially drilling for oil in the coastal plain.

Hopefully many such movements, of many Native peoples from throughout the hemisphere, will be introduced at the November symposium on global warming at the National Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, DC.

By contrast, there are admirable regional associations, which do excellent work, of a sort that no one else can do, yet which do not deserve to be called "grassroots."  Often, a local group of professionals will discover a cause or problem that needs working on, and will begin the kind of work that only they can do, sooner or later calling in other professional colleagues from elsewhere and getting them interested in the local cause.  And also, they will raise funds from local people with checkbooks, as well as visitors and other friends from afar, and will solicit the help of local volunteers.

An example is the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, of which I am a happy dues-paying member, though we barely get to Provincetown once every other year, and never for very long.  PCCS's hook is whales, and indeed they do a great deal with cetacean studies, and with whale rescue, needless to say an extremely popular cause; they imported a whale-rescue expert from Oregon last year.  But their research goes much further and deeper, into geology, oceanography and climatology of Cape Cod Bay, the Gulf of Maine and all the waters around Cape Cod.  The work of these people is magnificent.  Still, I would not refer to them as a "grassroots group."

Just where the Sitka Conservation Society lies, between those extremes, I do not know.  The sophistication of their website, and a number of references, and descriptions of personnel, suggest that they more closely resemble the PCCS than Sarah James's people in Arctic Village.  But it is hard to say.

Actually, the SCS seems most closely to resemble, from within my experience, the state Audubon societies of New Mexico and New York -- neither of which I would call "grassroots."

But as I said, the definition of "grassroots" is important only in relation to the issue of "empowerment."  Many of us may feel "empowered," somehow, by sending from a distance a contribution to SCS, or to PCCS, or to Audubon New Mexico.  But when do the SCS volunteers, who live in the vicinity of the Tongass NF, actually feel "empowered"?  Why should they wait for their leadership to tell them, "We have good news for you!  Today you are empowered!"?

Ideally, the elite, expert, professionally trained leadership, who can be making lots more money in other sectors, are but the tools and instruments of the inexpert, non-professional but committed volunteers and amateurs.  But it is not clear that it always turns out like that.  Rather, it seems, it is more like the elite leadership says, "This is the fight we are fighting, whether you understand it or not," and perhaps later says, "We won this fight! -- you may not have known that until we told you.  Yes, we won!  And so now, you may consider yourselves empowered!"

That is a very cynical portrait, and I doubt the Sitka Conservation Society is at all like that.  The SCS is clearly an excellent organization.  Still, while agenda, decisions and direction remain in the hands of an elite leadership, not necessarily local, then the SCS would not seem to deserve to fit into the class "grassroots group," as ordinarily defined, no matter how it is defined in Orion.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

You make some good points, but we disagree. To me these kinds of groups you mention are grassroots in every sense - seeing needs and filling them, struggling against long odds, making do with little funding, working in isolation...I find the work of these small groups heroic, and having worked for a number myself around the West and East Coasts, I can tell you that everyone on the team was important and brought good ideas and leadership to the table, not just the director.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

In fact, today being Independence Day here in the US, can there be any doubt that you and I most heartily agree that no fellow citizens of ours deserve our praise more than the members of these groups?  Does anyone give a better example of great American virtues than these people?

(That is Aaron Copland in the background, by the way, the "Billy the Kid" orchestral suite, as conducted by one of this country's greatest musicians, greatest gay men and greatest Jewish citizens, Leonard Bernstein.  NYC happens to be mourning right now the death of another spectacularly charismatic figure in classical music, specifically opera, also Jewish, the beloved Beverly Sills.  There are no less than three different memorials to her in today's NYTimes.  America is so blessed, with good, beautiful people.)

My quibble about "grassroots" is of little importance, but it is always useful to get our definitions as exact as possible.  Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has an article only for "grass roots," a "noun ... often attributive": "society at the local level esp. in rural areas [?; an historical memory?; do cities not have grassroots movements?] as distinguished from the centers of political leadership ... "  And they give a more or less illustrative quote by C.A. Buss [who?]: "cultural changes occurring at the grass roots."

"Centers of political leadership" is what is confusing me, I guess.  Building on that, I would say that "grassroots" should properly refer to local movements the leadership of which is also local, and which is not closely identified with conventional, extra-local "centers of leadership," not only political but also cultural, academic, scientific and financial.

On the evidence of your and Orion's definition of "grassroots," the meaning of the term has shifted somewhat.  Everyone is networking now, apparently, including Sarah James and the Gwich'in.  And your "grassroots groups" can bring in professionals from around the country; there is no reason to restrict the choice to local talent.

What is most interesting in all this is the dynamics of power and authority, as I suggested before.  I am glad that you observed many groups operating in a democratic, mutually respectful manner.  Or at least an oligarchic manner: unclear what you mean by "the team."

In my own experience, there is a clear distinction between "Indians" and "Chiefs" (to use a quaint Americanism on the 4th of July).  (And yes, you now hear a recording of a pow-wow in the background.)  Many groups are ready enough to receive new members who pay their dues, having presumably been attracted by the group's basic "mission," as well as their occasional offers of volunteer service.  But it is understood all round that the members are there "for the ride," as it were, and they have no real say in the direction of the group.  There is no question of their joining "the team."

That does not sound much at all like the original meaning of "grassroots."  But if the meaning of "grassroots" is shifting and evolving, well, fine, that is what language does.  I am just trying to catch up.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.