Is this letter supposed to make some kind of sense?
Put me down as extremely skeptical of the writer's claim that the
Wilderness Society is seriously proposing designating half of the state as
federal wilderness. Can he back it up with any evidence?Taking the
claim at face value, it would mean designating as wilderness every acre of
national park, monument, recreation area, national forest, Hill AFB, the
Wendover test range, and wildlife refuge (22.4% of the state) plus two-thirds of
all the BLM land. Or, alternatively, all of the BLM land and about half of the
Forest Service land. It ain't gonna happen. There is not enough land of
wilderness quality, there is no intent by environmentalists to propose such a
thing, and there is no political will to support it. The writer is better off
focusing his fears on more probable threats, such as pink unicorn invasions. He
might try independently verifying facts, too.
The most ambitious serious wilderness proposal I am familiar with was the 5.7
million acre proposal of about twenty years ago. This accounted for about 10.5%
of the total area of the state. Even it got pared down to about 3.2 million
acres in the political wrangling and has still not passed. Any proposal for
more than 10% wilderness is sheer fantasy.
Huh?Come again? I didn't understand this letter at
I' m glad I'm not the only one who finds this letter obtuse and
pointless. It would be great if the writer could offer some clarification and if
the D-News would stick to publishing letters from people who have a valid point