Dear HCN,
Since when is standing firm on
fundamental wilderness principles seen as counter to those very
principles? “The wild card” by Matt Jenkins (HCN, 3/3/03″ The Wild
Card) portrayed Wilderness Watch as an organization more concerned
about “purity” than reality. The reality is: They seem to be the
only organization that has the courage to articulate wilderness as
the one land-management category that “needs” purity.
There are no “new deals” for wilderness. The description reeks of
the same old public-land exploitation that has destroyed our
old-growth forests, salmon runs, wildlife diversity and areas of
solitude. The difference is: that exploitation is now wrapped in
new rhetorical packaging and stamped with the name wilderness.
Opposition to that may be espoused by some as elitism — as
was insinuated in Jenkins’ article — but, if wilderness
doesn’t survive as a modicum of purity in the scheme of
America’s land management, where will wilderness
survive?
The article indicated that ranchers in the Steens
are getting a raw deal because they can’t drive into the new
“wilderness.” I’ve hunted and hiked in the new Steens
“Wilderness” since the 1960s — when most of the ranchers rode
horses in that country. As a horse travels, there isn’t 10
miles between any two borders of the new wilderness boundary
— a three-hour horse ride. Driving 4x4s and quads isn’t
traditional, nor is it necessary. It’s a travesty in that
arid and fragile land.
When compromise reaches the stages
that it evidently has today in regards to “new” wilderness
designation, we’d better think up a new name for it.
Wilderness Watch is the one bright light in today’s brownout
of wilderness proponents.
Scott Stouder
Corvallis, Orego
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Wilderness Watch stands firm.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
