|
The headline given to the appended Op-Ed was "Compromise not option on proposed wilderness." The author is adamant in his position and states it in three words "No Wilderness, period." I am not sharing this for it's rant value. I am sharing it because, it is so incredibly uncommon to see "compromise" taken off the table.
The writer of this Op-Ed states:
[ We are told that even if they become wilderness, we will still be able to snowmobile and ride ATVs, mountain bikes, dirt bikes and generally enjoy our recreation essentially unchanged. Wanna bet? ]
Did someone really say that after these areas became Wilderness, snowmobiling, dirt biking etc. would remain accepted uses? Perhaps he's making part that up. Or, perhaps, those who are promoting this Wilderness Bill have really offered that compromise as a price they are willing to pay in order to get their bill passed.
I'm sharing this piece because it offers an uncommon perspective on the subject of compromise in relationship to Wilderness designation and, by extension, Wilderness management.
I'd grown tired of hearing only the cry coming from my fellow conservationists saying we all must compromise, compromise and keep compromising until Wilderness-haters find it worth their while to abandon their principles and clinch the deal.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
(Douglas Country Nevada)
Compromise not option on proposed wilderness
by Phil Tucker - April 2, 2008
In response to your editorial regarding the Nevada Wilderness Project's
proposal to designate 693,000 acres of public lands as wilderness, we
have not the slightest intention of compromising with the wilderness
project, the U.S. Forest Service or anyone else.
The people and their commissioners in both Lyon and Mineral counties have clearly stated, "No wilderness, period."
The notion of compromise with the wilderness project's proposed wilderness plan is patently absurd.
I keep hearing the word from the project and some of their local
adherents. However, their idea of compromise is that we surrender some
unspecified amount of public land to them and consider ourselves lucky.
That's like a thief coming to your home and telling you, "Hey, if you
compromise with me I'll only take half of what you own."
The public lands in question are designated for multiple uses. We are
told that even if they become wilderness, we will still be able to
snowmobile and ride ATVs, mountain bikes, dirt bikes and generally
enjoy our recreation essentially unchanged. Wanna bet? The history of
wilderness designations is littered with metal gates and locks and
riding prohibitions that ensure you will never enter the area again. If
you doubt this, read Andi Vogt's article "The Gate People" at
www.sharetrails.org.
It's hard to tell whether some sort of limited arrangement could have
been reached by local people regarding Wovoka. But clearly that time is
past. When the wilderness project intruded with their ludicrous
proposal and our senators became little more than their water boys any
chance of compromise was utterly ruined. The notion that our elected
representatives were somehow soliciting our input is laughable. We have
invited them to the meetings, not vice versa. And we invited the
wilderness project, but they declined to attend.
The wilderness project and our elected representatives will now start
to search for residents who are agreeable to compromise. They will look
for the weak links, the Judas goats, who will be willing tools to
support their agenda. In this they will be disappointed. Of the
hundreds and hundreds of citizens I have seen at meetings, I've yet to
see anybody that remotely resembles a goat. On the other hand, I have
certainly seen a lot of determined people for whom I have the deepest
respect.
One thing in this whole mess is crystal clear. Lyon and Mineral county
residents want no compromise. We are sick and tired of federal bullying
on behalf of arrogant special interests. Compromise equals defeat for
both counties.
Phil Tucker is writing for the Coalition for Public Access.
|
BLOG 
