OCR Text |
Show while th" Hasten) .Section fights against oil exploration. explor-ation. Thank you for allowing me to air my comments in your paper. Bul the Federal land grab is one issue that affects af-fects us all, regardless of location or residence. Sincerely yours, David Howard. Is there a double standard stan-dard when it come to White House appliation of environmental en-vironmental protection orders? or-ders? The answer clearly is, "Yes". How can there be any doubt, considering the evidence at hand in the matter mat-ter of identifying lands under un-der the RARE II program? This bit of wilderness protection pro-tection is formally known as Roadless Area Review and evaluation study, a federal program that calls for the National Forest Service to set aside from any development develop-ment or use vast areas of America in which there are no roads or highways. There is no part of America Ameri-ca with fewer roads and highways high-ways than Alaska and with more land already socked away in storage as the result re-sult of over-zealous environmental en-vironmental protection programs. pro-grams. In Alaska, President Carter Car-ter has proposed thai more than 5.5 million acres be locked into a wilderness classification and another 2.9 million acres be studied stud-ied further for possible preservation pre-servation in pristine form. Other states fared much better. A little bit here. A little bit there. But not enough anywhere to really stir up a hornet's nest of political reaction. There have been some protests. Western states were the most affected by President Carter's pandering pan-dering to the Lockup Lobby and from them have come some voices crying for reason. rea-son. But it is in two states Wisconsin and New Hampshire, Hamp-shire, that Mr. Carter's double standard becomes shockingly clear. In New Hampshire, the stamping grounds of Senator John Durkln, one of the great proponents of locking up proposed that 168,176 acres be placed in a wilderness category under the Rare II program. Senator Durkin, who sees nothing at all wrong about keeping Alaska lands safe from any use by Alaskans, howled like a stuck pig when It came to land withdrawals Feedback To whom It may Concern: If anyone has seen an animal ani-mal go through pain and misery, they know It Is a very unpleasant thing to watch let alone what the animal is going through. That Is what happened to our dog, Bandit. Ban-dit. It has been fenced and chained from the day we got him, and only let out of the yard on a leash or go to the farm in the back of our pickup. Never done anyone any harm, and he's brought a lot of pleasure to us. The persons or person who has been going around poisoning the dogs in Milford Mil-ford is ill. They think of nothing but getting their kicks. But what if this were to happen to a child. We have three. I am afraid to even let them play in our yard for fear they might come In contact with whatever was used. I am sure there are other people with the same feelings. feel-ings. Maybe if this person were to be given a dose of his own medicine, things would be different. It sure as hell wouldn't make him any sicker than he already is. Richard and Phyllis Mayer Dear Editor: In reference to your article arti-cle of April 5, 1979, I enclose en-close an editorial from our local paper. Although your article points out there is no im -mediate danger of losing local lo-cal mining operations,' a study of the Alaska "D-2" land issue will Indicate what Mr. Carter has done to us. The enclosed article falls to indicate that approximately 100 million acres of Alaska has already been closed off and locked up. this lock up has affected the mining industry of Alaska and the local lo-cal economy of these areas in question. Not only Utah and Alaska are affected by the Carter Federal land grab. All of the western states are affected. I question "Why do the Western States have to supply not only land, but also food and fuel for the Eastern Section of our country?" A part of my answer is reflected reflect-ed in the enclosed editorial. With research maybe you can add more to the answer. Remember western states conserve energy, in his state. It was unfair, he protested, for the president to suggest that 168,176 acres of little 01' New Hampshire be saved for future generations. His protests pro-tests were heard. President Carter took another look and revised the New Hampshire withdrawals slightly. Slightly? Well, you might say that, instead of 168,176 acres, the figure was cut to a mere 33,100 acres. Nothing at all political about that, of course. The same thing took place in Wisconsin at the time former Lt. Governor H. A. Boucher happened to be in the state making appearances appear-ances in an effort to win support sup-port for a more reasonable attitude for land withdrawals in Alaska. This week's White House announcement on RARE II lands said 39,100 acres of Wisconsin's national forest for-est lands would be included in the program. But another 55,200 acres won't be. "It's the old Afghanistan Afghani-stan approach," Mr. Boucher Bouch-er said. "A different set if ground rules for development develop-ment in the Lower 48 as opposed op-posed to ground rules for development in Alaska. One has to assume, that application of the double standard Is political and little lit-tle else. |