OCR Text |
Show tL MOUNTAIN Wilderness TIMES Debate Intent on Shooting the Messenger Hatch, Hansen and Bennett Just Can’t Get It Right By Mike Matz niable economic benefits. People in Utah don’t regard 5.7 million acres of Wilderness as unreasonable because fter the US Senate refused to consider an omnibus parks package they know 16 million acres of BLM land because it included the Utah Public would remain available for roads, dams, Lands Management Act (setting aside coal mines, oil and gas complexes, milonly 2 million acres in federally proitary installations, communication facilities, and other such development. tected Wilderness), Utah’s CongresPeople in Utah generally don’t sional delegation began lashing out at think it extreme to set aside 10 percent “elitists” from back East and “extremof the state’s land base for the next genists” in this state. They charge that the eration’s use and enjoyment as desigSouthern Utah Wilderness Alliance nated Wilderness. They don’t agree that (SUWA) spent tens of millions of dollars national forests, where logging and for advertisements and paid “clappers” to attend public hearings. mining can and do occur, or even None of these unfounded accusanational parks, which act as magnets tions are intended to defend the merits for escalating numbers of tourists, adequately protect open space and opporof their bill, but cast aspersions on the means by which the American public tunities for solitude, or other values that and their elected leaders came to reject Wilderness designation was specifically conceived to address. it. Utah’s members of Congress appear now to be guided by the political The Governor’s Office of Planning & Budget then comes along dismissing adage: “If you can’t defuse the message, attack the messenger.” Utah’s politicians petition signatures from concerned citizens. If Utah's politicians want to in Congress seem intent upon maligning those who support more designated expunge part of the governor's tally of Wilderness. public participation, then they ought not cite the totals —absent the results But of all their innuendo, the most — when inferdisappointing is their disavowal of ring to their colleagues that they public sentiment “Utah’s politicians in Congress were responsive for protecting seem intent upon maligning to those public wilderness. those who support more comments in forIn a letter to mulating their his colleagues, designated Wilderness.” Wilderness bill. Rep. James V. But they simHansen noted, ply weren’t. One incontrovertible fact “Since January 1995, 45 public meetings needs to be pointed out. Had our have been held, over 600 personal tesCongressional representatives listened timonies were taken and over 22,000 to what most people of this state were written comments were submitted.” saying at this time last year at the pubThat’s true but not the whole truth. Rep. Hansen curiously fails to lic hearings the Utah delegation orchestrated, likely by now we could have all acknowledge a tabulation by the goverbeen celebrating the natural heritage nor’s office showing 73 percent of we'd be passing along to future generthose 22,000 comments indicated supations. port for the citizens’ proposal to desigInstead, we're listening to inflamed nate 5.7 million acres as protected rhetoric in a conflict of their own makWilderness. ing. It doesn’t help to fan the flames. Why is it that they can use the figPainting constituents as “extremists” to ures to depict an extensive public their colleagues in Washington repreprocess, but then omit a very relevant sents something less than decorum fact about the outcome of that process? appropriate for members of Congress. To reveal all would undermine their In the atmosphere they have creatclaim that most in Utah support their ed, it’s hard to say where to go from measure. A quick review of last year’s here. We've tried to extend the olive headlines in The Salt Lake Tribune may branch, and we will continue trying. We serve to remind us: “S. Utah Residents welcome the opportunity to work with Urge Lots of Wilderness;” “Proponents our Congressional delegation. Speak Loudly for Wilderness;” We would be pleased to look at “Wilderness Backers Pack U. Meeting;” “A Cry for More Wilderness Resounds in Salt Lake City;” and, “Utah Wilderness Bill Doesn’t Reflect Public nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Anything inconsistent with this definition should not be in our proposal. If there is, we will modify the boundaries accordingly For their part, now might be the time for Utah’s politicians to become familiar with another political maxim: “If people will lead, leaders will follow.” Maybe it’s time for them to consider seriously the strongly stated wishes of the people of Utah. Certainly, it’s time for them to desist from pitting them against us. @ Mike Matz is executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance A full service ay florist Mon-Fri. 9 - 6 \ Saturday 10 - 5 | 801-649-4144 Holiday Village Mall © Park City “Plugged In” Real E Let he two Live specific examples of primary residences, or cultivated farm fields, or other development that they allege lie Opinion.” inside the citizens’ Wilderness proposal. People in Utah really do want to protect our spectacular landscape for its incomparable natural values and unde- The 1964 Wilderness Act, in section 2(c), defines Wilderness as public land “affected primarily by the forces of PAGE ele 1 >. 801 649-1884 orice * 800 641-18844 ot 1283 Deer Valley Drive ¢ BO. B fated: f | |