clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Wilds crisis is contrived

Environmental extremists who falsely claim that they are saving our natural resources "for" people in reality are using every devious argument imaginable to keep access to natural resources (including scenic ones) from people. First they argued that wildlife "would not cross roads." That argument won't stand up to the light of close scrutiny. They are now claiming (Deseret News, Feb. 8) that roads cause "accelerating soil erosion, contributing to landslides and disrupting normal flood cycles," which "takes a toll on wildlife habitat, especially of troubled salmon and trout species that rely on cold clear water in national forest streams."

This is another contrived crisis designed to drive the engine of nature worshipers. While some ruts may develop if roads are used heavily during rainy periods, the majority of roads are not major contributors to erosion (certainly not on the scale of the Babbit-induced flash flood on the Colorado). As for the claims of ill effects upon fisheries, we are bordering upon fantasy. Landslides? Please.The real thrust of the Clinton-Gore "budget plan" for Forest Service road work is that it "would triple the mileage of roads to be obliterated and replanted from 1,200 miles to 3,500 miles next year." What environmentalists are shooting for is to keep as many people away from public lands as possible. No roads, no harvest and, in reality, no management. Let the insects destroy the forests, they do not care. Let lightning fires burn the forest, it will grow back (in a hundred years). Let nature take its course, is their philosophy. Don't let hunters harvest big game animals humanely, let wolves rip them to shreds.

Unless more teachers, as well as those in higher academe, grasp the reality of the need for good natural resource "management," I fear we will continue down the path of politically correct foolishness.

Tanner Hall