Wilderness = the devil

I've grown to respect Governor Huntsman over the past year - his principled stances during the 2006 legislative session and his positions on high level waste and the value of education in Utah are commendable. So I was a little surprised to see that he was essentially getting rolled on the whole roadless forest designation situation. I'm guessing it has more to do with delegating to a rogue committee than actually reflecting his values. But I could be wrong. Here's the article, below's my letter to the editor.

Regarding Huntsman's roadless forest petition (Sunday, December 10):
Once again, Lynn Stevens and the Public Land "Policy Coordination" Office are in knee-jerk reaction mode, claiming that any effort to maintain roadless areas - on federal land, mind you, not state land - is the work of the devil. It's a shame to think that these "policy coordinators" are 1) being funded with our collective tax dollars, and 2) horse-whispering into the ear of the Governor the self-aggrandized, simplistic, and utterly short-sighted pablum that passes for policy advice. From the looks of it, the only coordinating that's happening is a simultaneous nodding of heads of a small group of ideologues at the notion that wilderness is evil and the maximum short-term exploitation of natural resources is good. Is there any back-and-forth up there in that fifth floor office? Any real debate? Anyone up there dare suggest that maybe, just maybe, roadless areas are good for our state's economy because they attract not only hunters and anglers but many other recreationists? Anyone up there willing to acknowledge that one of the things that makes Utah great is the vast amount of open space, and that slicing it up with more roads not only fragments critical animal habitat but also destroys the very thing that attracts untold numbers of people, as visitors and residents, to Utah in the first place? Even Idaho's figured that out, apparently.

Governor, please ignore this ill-gotten advice. It does not reflect Utah values, and it serves only the interests of a few polarizing politicians who have long forgotten the intrinsic value of leaving some places alone. Our economy, our quality of life, and our children's inheritance will all benefit from a thoughtful public lands policy that can actually see the forest for the trees.