OCR Text |
Show Letters from our readers . . . Dear Sam: I would like to comment upon your "Community Comments" of February 23rd dealing with the Forest Service RARE II. I io not want to argue your Final point that the bu-eaucracy bu-eaucracy is not responsive, respon-sive, because I agree, nore often than not, with hat point. But I do want ,o comment, in some dead, de-ad, on your column and ,he RARE II program. First, the RARE II workshops held during the iummer of 1977 were not Dublic opinion polls and :an not be used to display sublic opinion toward wilderness. The Forest Service made it very clear ,hat the workshops were lot designed to evaluate public opinion or senti ment toward wilderness. The workshops were held to have the public rate criteria to evaluate potential poten-tial wilderness and do not represent opinions toward wilderness. The closest these ratings ra-tings toward a particular criteria (77 per cent of the public supports developing devel-oping timber resources in roadless area, for example) ex-ample) come to an opinion toward wilderness is the evaluators' knowledge of what wilderness is. For example, many respondents respon-dents indicated they felt wilderness and multiple use are in conflict. Not at all! The Multiple Use Act in Section 2 makes it clear that wilderness is compatible com-patible and nn integral part of the multiple use philosophy. The Wilderness Wilder-ness Act furthers this prncticulity. In fact, ull of the uses mentioned in the Multiple Use Act, including inclu-ding mining which is not mentioned (range, water recreution, timber ana wildlife), except commercial commer-cial timber harvesting, are allowed in wilderness by law and are taking place in many wildernesses. And for timber, Utah is the smallest producer of the western states because be-cause it has so little commercial timber. For example, according to the Forest Service document, "The Rocky Mountain Timber Situation, 1970" 88.4 per cent of Utah's National Forest timber is in the lowest site class of timber producing potential poten-tial (barely commercial timber). In fact, 99.1 pet cent of National Forest timber in Utah is in the two lowest site quality categories (officially classed as poor and very poor potential). In terms of minerals, a recent U.S. Department of Energy points out that most of the roadless areas in this region of the Forest Service have little or no potential for uranium, hydroelectric power or coal. The point is the antagonism anta-gonism that is revealed toward wilderness oftentimes often-times comes from a misunderstanding mis-understanding of what wilderness is. Many of the roadless areas in Utah do have development potential poten-tial and should be developed. devel-oped. Many, also, have wilderness values and we would be doing a disfavor to ourselves if we simply say "no" to any wilderness. wilder-ness. That is as foolish as saying "no" to all development devel-opment . Dick Carter Utah Hepresenl alive The Wilderness Society Salt Lake City |