I think you got it backwards in your recent editorial on Utah wilderness: The Utah Wilderness Coalition's 5.7 million acre wilderness proposal is too small, not too large.
It is beyond the scope of this letter to discuss all of the many reasons for this conclusion. Instead, I will mention only three:The demand from the American public for wild places has grown rapidly in the past and shows no sign of slowing down in the future. This is particularly true in southern Utah. If there is to be enough wilderness to satisfy this future demand, it must be designated now, before shortsighted development renders the issue moot.
The amount of de facto wilderness is shrinking fast. It therefore becomes increasingly important to preserve the few remnants left. Is there a level of wilderness designation which would be too much? Yes, of course. But even if all remaining roadless areas were designated as wilderness, we would not reach that level, since so much has already been destroyed.
One shouldn't forget there are compelling reasons for preserving wilderness for its own sake and for the sake of future generations. Wild places with intact ecosystems are the result of millions of years of evolution. Most such areas in the world have been destroyed or significantly degraded in the past few hundred years. It is arrogant to decide that these places would be improved by the introduction of oil wells, four-wheel-drive playgrounds and domestic livestock. It is selfish to rob all future generations of the opportunity to experience these areas for the short-term gain of a few people.
I also caution against the temptation to scale back wilderness proposals to the "most spectacular core." Even rarer than wilderness is wilderness that has not been fragmented into relatively small pieces. Furthermore, what makes much of southern Utah so special is not this fin or that riparian area, but the fact so many of these small, local special places exist within relatively large areas which are still significantly undisturbed by people. The setting is important, and to preserve the setting large wilderness areas should be designated whenever possible.
Your suggestion that the presence of I-70 renders the San Rafael Swell unsuitable for wilderness shows that you are utterly unfamiliar with this area. The large size of the swell, together with its rough topography, guarantees that I-70 has a negligible to nonexistent impact over the vast majority of the area.
Kevin Walker
Moab