No headline

In his Jan. 19 letter in the Bee, Dave Reynolds correctly recognized that economics should not be the main consideration when deciding if to designate Scotchman Peaks as wilderness. The real value of wilderness goes far beyond economics.

More important considerations are: one, does it meet the definition of wilderness in law and, two, is there a risk of losing its “wilderness character” if it is not designated. The definition of wilderness in the Wilderness Act includes phrases such as: (the area is) “untrammeled by man” and (an area that is) “retaining its primeval character, without permanent improvements.”

Most everyone agrees that Scotchman Peaks meets these and then some. On the other hand, there is disagreement about how much the area is at risk. We all recognize that logging has the greatest chance for human infringement in the Scotchman Peaks. Whether it’s designated wilderness or not, there will always be somebody who thinks the timber there should be logged and designation would make that much harder. We keep hearing the argument “but it’s already managed as wilderness, why designate it?” The answer to that is the decision to allow logging in the Scotchman Peaks at some point in the future would be a short-sighted political one and the more barriers that can be put in that process the better. As it seems, almost anything is possible in the realm of politics.

KEN THACKER

Sagle