That certainly is a profound letter. I haven't previously seen it, and I'm glad you sent it to me.
I agree with Stegner about Wilderness. It is part of our national psyche, and indeed, a major part of mine. I've spent my time in the wilderness, and those moments have been the finest of my life.
I consider myself to be a part of the Wilderness, whether or not I'm actually 'within' its boundaries. In my mind, I'm usually within, but in body, not often enough.
Wilderness is an ethic that should be embraced by every political view.
By the same token, so-called 'environmentalists' waste their energy trying to interfere in the legal rights of others in land that is devoted to other uses and resources. I think these people are mistaken, and damage their own credibility with arguments that make no sense or behaviors that are violent or illegal.
There are places where land use values can be compatible with wilderness values, or can at least coexist. Such a place would be the ANWR in Alaska. This is a huge area, and the footprint of development needed to harvest the oil is miniscule by comparison. Developing that small portion will not affect the functioning of the place as wildlife habitat and its impact on 'wilderness' attributes is small.
Would I support a comparable development in the Lower 48, say in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness area where I've done most of my backpacking? No, and HELL NO!
Environmentalists have many other ways to achieve their objectives besides civil disobedience, monkey wrenching, and violence. They should look at conservation easements to achieve their objectives. These easements are much more effective and beneficial than people sitting in trees trying to stop a legal and highly analyzed timber sale or other project.
Large corporate landowners have a responsibility to be good land stewards, and to foster values on their land that are not necessarily contributing to the bottom line -- just because it is the right thing to do.
I believe the best conservation is achieved by people who put their money where their mouth is. The Nature Conservancy and The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are two organizations that do this, and there are others.
Some corporations also stand on good principles when they manage for environmental values beyond what they extract. They need to make a permanent commitment to these principles, to cast them in concrete, as it were.
Individual Americans should do their part. By this I mean, just because they are wealthy enough to build a trophy home or second home does not mean they should plunder special places to do it. Some of these people will pay a high price for their hubris. For example, someone who builds a home on a vista point at the top of a chimney might find that the chimney is a natural place for wildfire to make its run. But we all pay a price when an individual ties up thousands of acres with his trophy home. I would rather these folks build their homes in areas that are already developed and use the money they save to come and visit the wild places that they could destroy by building on them.
I don't support organizations that put their mouths where other people's money is, and there are way too many of these. They know who they are, so I'm not going to list them.
Thanks again for the article. |
