OCR Text |
Show jsL Community yg Comments The U.S. Forest Service this week released some consensus opinions gathered last summer at a series of workshops relative to the future designation of forest lands for roadless, or wilderness, areas. But I'm not sure the officials at the head of the nation's forest management agency are going to like them. The . general opinion of the 48,400 persons attending the meetings, including 634 in Utah and over 200 in Moab, was that significant energy, mineral and timber resources should be excluded from designated wilderness and left available for extraction. In the Utah meetings, an overwhelming 84 per cent of those attending felt it was extremely important that energy resources remain available for extraction; 80 per cent felt the same way about mineral resources and 77 per cent about commercial timber resources. And before critics of the above stated conclusions jump to the pulpit to proclaim that the meetings were loaded, the Forest Service identified 23 percent of those attending as environmentalists; 22 per cent as recreationalists and 33 per cent as representing industry and business. The remaining numbers of those ' attending represented government agencies, agriculture, agricul-ture, and individual citizens. The Forest Service Roadless Areas Review and '. Evaluation Program (RARE H) was to gain public input ; on identifying locations in the forest system which were : in excess of 5,000 acres and included no roads, which : should receive legislative protection forever as roadless -. or wilderness areas. The attempt at identifying such areas was tried ; once before, but when the inventory reached Washington it was junked, and the second inventory was ordered. Why the first inventory was tossed in the round file was not detailed in Washington, bat obviously the study didn't come up with what the big : wheels wanted when they ordered the first inventory, so they sent the troops back to the drawing boards. But it appears that the' general public (at least that : segment of the general public interested enough to : attend the workshop sessions) don't want a whole lot more of our forest lands locked away as wilderness. Maybe now the Washingtonians will get the message, but I doubt it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when RARE III is ordered, it will be conducted within the confines of forest offices across the nation, without the benefit of input from the public. The bureaucrats will ultimately fall back on their historic belief that "it's not what the people think that matters, it's what they should think," and will go ahead and do our planning for us. sjt The lack of planning and zoning in Spanish Valley is beginning to get the attention of some angry residents of the Valley, who are tired of seeing warehouses and equipment storage shops going up in close proximity to expensive residential properties, and it's about time. Spanish Valley has been the victim of no planning or poor planning for twenty years, and even now the efforts which have been underway for some time to come up with an adequate zone plan don't seem to have a very high priority with county officials. Ia some areas of the Valley, it's already too late, due to helter-skelter development over the years. But in much of the Valley, a lot can still be accomplished. Strict planning probably makes more people mad than happy. It's alright to talk about the need when you're not personally involved. But the experience of Moab City over the years has been that good zoning, properly enforced, results in a much more attractive environment in which to live. Let's get with it and get the job done. sjt |