The recent editorial concerning the alleged "body blow" dealt by environmentalists to southeast Utah's film industry ("Cut environmental red tap for films to be shot in Utah," Deseret News, Feb. 14) is troubling on two fronts. It not only misrepresents facts about the situation, but also attempts to place blame where no blame is warranted.
First, the facts. Flimmakers, including those responsible for "Slaughter of the Innocents," have never been exempt from land-use permit procedures. All that has changed recently is that the BLM has finally agreed to enforce the laws and regulations they are required to enforce. It is a mistake to consider BLM's previous lackadaisical attention to filming projects as constituting an exemption for the film industry.Also, the roadless area involved in the filming of "Slaughter of the Innocents" is in Ida Gulch, which has been recommended for wilderness designation by the Utah Wilderness Coalition. The editorial states incorrectly that the area was "not on a wilderness study list," which implies that the area was not under consideration for wilderness status.
Dropping 7,000 pounds of junk wood and a pickup truck - not just "a large wooden boat," as the editorial erroneously states - could very well have harmed the wilderness character of the site. This potential was in fact acknowledged in BLM's environmental analysis.
Second, the blaming. It is implied that environmental organizations are responsible for bringing the region's economy to a grinding halt when they asked the government to enforce its own laws. These charges, unfortunately, are leveled whenever environmentalists successfully compel federal or state agencies to assert themselves. However, as the editorial notes, "(Department of) Interior lawyers ruled that . . . the rules do not make an exception for film projects."
That's all there is to it - the government's own lawyers determined that filmmakers must obey the law when operating on the public lands. So, too, must timber operators, mining companies, off-road vehicle users - even backpackers and bird watchers.
Yet, to read the editorial, environmentalist concerns that the laws be applied uniformly to all public lands users constitutes "petty obstructionist demands." Such a statement is ridiculous and mirrors the charges made most recently by the timber industry, that environmentalist please for adequate public involvement and adherence to lawful forestry practices are responsible for economic problems at local sawmills.
Your readers will be better served by a more informed discussion of the issues surrounding this, and other, public-lands conflicts. I hope that you will avail yourselves of the opportunity to meet more often with environmentalists to obtain a complete picture of the situation - an opportunity, by the way, that has been consistently ignored by the film industry itself.
Mark MacAllister
Salt Lake City