To the editor:
Joseph Bauman, Oct. 2, in a column titled "Land-use stalwarts way off base," challenged Gordon Parker and me for our claims that he has not told the whole truth about the consequences of congressionally designated wilderness on Utah BLM lands.I do not expect to change Bauman's thinking on public land issues nor do I expect that he will change mine. I am not alone, however, in believing that Bauman's views are one-sided wilderness zealotry.
William Howell, "Wilderness issues disservices study," challenges Bauman's writings. Clyde Thompson, "A conflict with wilds ideology," does not agree with Bauman's writings. Michie Kroph, "Need new writer for wilderness," challenges Bauman's one-sided ideology. Gordon Parker, "Tell the whole truth about wilderness," questions Bauman's bias. My letter titled, "Wilds policy have catch to them," claimed that Bauman glossed over the serious negative consequences of congressionally designated wilderness. Calvin Black, "Powell land swap would benefit Utah," expresses disagreement with Bauman's writings. The trend is apparent.
In referring to BLM wilderness management policy, Bauman downplays or fails entirely to discuss the word "should" that is used in connection with activities he claims will be allowed to continue in designated wilderness. For example, "grazing should be allowed to continue." The word "should" permits a vast range of hollow promises about future interpretations by federal land managers and "environmental" writers. If "should" were to be deleted and "shall" inserted, expressing determination, command or the power of deliberate action, than the future effect of congressional designation could be more easily measured.
Bauman suggests that if an overzealous land manager or wilderness zealot should try to restrict a grazer unduly, the grazer can win in court. Can he? Garfield County has the right to upgrade and pave its Burr Trail highway. Despite this right, the county has been dragged before two federal courts and the Interior Board of Land Appeals with legal challenges by wilderness advocates.
Garfield County's court costs are approaching $1 million. They have lost two years in the fight. After conducting at least two comprehensive studies of the upgrades' potential environmental impacts, they are now required by IBLA to conduct yet another study. All this because the road passes between two wilderness areas. The road is not even inside a wilderness!
Bauman cannot tell me that a grazer could survive this kind of harassment and legalistic intimidation. Nor could any other citizen who had some supposedly protected, prior existing "right" in a wilderness area.
The Burr Trail road has become the wilderness advocates' dirty little war that shows their true colors and the true impact and purpose of congressionally designated wilderness. The purpose of wilderness is to stifle multiple-use activities that put land to beneficial use.
Paul Young, member
Western Association of Land Users
Carbon County chapter