Editing Wise use movement (section)

==Criticism==
Academics Ralph Maughan and Douglas Nilsona write that wise use is a "desperate effort to defend the hegemony of the cultural and economic values of the agricultural and extractive industries of the rural West", and have  "argued that the Wise Use agenda stemmed from an ideology that combined ''laissez-faire'' capitalism with cultural characteristics of an imagined Old West".<ref>Beder, Sharon (2006), [http://ro.uow.edu.au/artspapers/40 "The Changing Face of Conservation: Commodification, Privatisation and the Free Market"], in Lavingne, D.M. (ed), ''Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability'', International Fund for Animal Welfare, Guelph, Ontario & University of Limerick, Ireland, 2006, 83–97.</ref>

Some{{Who|date=February 2010}} critics of the wise use movement claim that the strong rhetoric used has deepened divisions between opposing interest groups, and has indirectly increased violence and threats of violence against environmental groups and public employees. "Many observers noted that Wise Use activity in some areas overlapped heavily with the 1990s formation and growth of militias, self-styled volunteer paramilitary organizations presciently committed to their own version of homeland security."<ref name=mccarthy2004>McCarthy, James, and Hague, Euan (2004), "Race, Nation, and Nature: The Cultural Politics of "Celtic" Identification in the American West", ''Annals of the Association of American Geographers'', Volume 94, Issue 2 June 2004, pages 387–408</ref>

Environmental historian Richard White has criticized Wise Use for upholding the rights of large landowners at the expense of working rural people in his essay, "'Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living?': Work and Nature."<ref name=white>White, Richard (1996), "Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living?", in William Cronon, (ed.), ''[http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9780393315110-2 Uncommon Ground: Rethinking Human Place in Nature]'', W. W. Norton & Company</ref>

Broadcast journalist Stephenie Hendricks claimed in her book ''Divine Destruction'' that wise use is in part "being driven by [[biblical fundamentalists]] who believe exhausting natural resources will hasten the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."<ref name=hendricks>Hendricks, Stephenie (2005), ''[http://www.powells.com/biblio/0976658348?&PID=25450 Divine Destruction: Dominion Theology and American Environmental Policy]'', Melville House</ref>

===Grassroots or front groups===

Environmental activists have argued that the wise use movement is orchestrated largely or entirely by industry. [[David Helvarg]]'s book ''The War Against the Greens'' contends that the wise use movement is not a collection of grassroots uprisings, but a set of [[astroturfing]] movements created by big business. [[Carl Deal]], author of ''The [[Greenpeace]] Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations'' also makes the same claim: that wise use groups give the appearance of being popular [[grassroots]] movements, but are actually [[front organization]]s for industry groups with a financial interest in the movement's agenda. [[Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.]] also described this conspiracy against the environment by wise use organizations in his 2004 book ''Crimes Against Nature.''

These critics have largely portrayed so-called "grassroots" groups as being front groups and rural Westerners as serving as dupes for extractive industries and their interests. However, while corporate power played an important role in the wise use movement, the relationship between rural westerners and extractive industries was not a result of individual citizens blindly accepting corporate narratives; instead, wise use was an alliance between groups with similar goals regarding private property rights and access to public lands.{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}} Corporations also were better able to connect with rural residents because, according to James McCarthy, "[c]orporations were in fact often more sensitive to the region's cultural politics than many environmentalists and so were better able to engage culture for instrumental purposes."<ref name=mccarthy/>