Editorial: More wilderness?

In 2003, the Bush administration’s Interior Department entered into an agreement with the state of Utah that was instantly labeled the “No more wilderness” pact. It was a bad idea that essentially saw then-Interior Secretary Gail Norton unilaterally renounce the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s lawful duty to consider the preservation of some federal lands even as it parceled out other portions for everything from oil rigs to off-road vehicle playgrounds.

In 2010, the Obama administration’s Interior Department announced a new policy that might be labeled the “Some more wilderness. Maybe. After public comment and congressional review” policy. It is a better idea, and not nearly as radical a movement in the pro-wilderness direction as the Bush policy was down the anti-wilderness path.

In fact, the tentativeness of the new policy announced last week by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in no way justifies the knee-jerk opposition voiced by such Utahns as Gov. Gary Herbert, Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

Hatch’s reference to the new policy as a “land grab” is particularly off the mark, as it is in all ways impossible for any entity to “grab” land that it already owns, lock, stock and title-in-perpetuity. And cries that Interior is going to unilaterally “lock up” millions of acres of federal land are simply not justified by a policy that merely orders BLM offices to do what they always should have been doing: finding, listing and, sometimes, temporarily preserving land that Congress may someday choose to protect as eternal wilderness.

Or would we prefer the BLM to allow wilderness-quality land to be destroyed while Congress isn’t looking?

And the oft-heard objection to protecting more federal land — it will hurt the local economy — should have been belied by the location that Salazar chose to announce his decision: The flagship REI outdoor equipment store in Denver.

Salazar realizes something that Utah’s leadership seems eager to forget, that wilderness can be at least as much an economic boost for a region as any oil-gas-uranium-ATV-snowmobile extravaganza. Compared to the booms and busts of the energy and mining industries, the economic benefits of wilderness, like the wilderness itself, can last forever.

That is why it is not only the “environmental extremists” who are happy with Salazar’s policy change. It is also being hailed by such capitalists-in-good-standing as the Outdoor Industry Association and their many hunting, fishing and hiking customers who are eager to spend a lot of money, and create a lot of jobs, near areas that may, in due course, be protected by a federal agency that may now correctly consider all possible uses, including preservation, in its plans.

--

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50943508-82/wilderness-policy-interior-salazar.html.csp

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites