Federal Land in Utah

Your editorial “What’s the Wilderness For?” (Nov. 19) gives two powerful reasons for Congress to reject the Utah congressional delegation’s “wilderness” bill: not enough wilderness would be designated and the majority of Utahans oppose it.

There are more reasons to oppose the bill. It would undermine the Wilderness Act by allowing the building of roads, dams and pipelines in wilderness areas, as well as the use of motor vehicles. The bill also orders the Bureau of Land Management to open permanently for development 4 million acres of wilderness that would be denied protection.

Most Utahans support the citizens’ proposal for America’s Red Rock Wilderness (HR 1500), which protects 5.7 million acres without abandoning traditional wilderness values. Utahans and Americans already know what wilderness is for--health, sustainability and freedom.

WILLIAM CORCORAN

Culver City

* You quote a definition of wilderness by naturalist Edward O. Wilson: “All the land and communities of plants and animals still unsullied by human occupation.” And does this definition justify setting aside millions of acres of Northwest forests, Alaska, national parks and federal land in southern Utah? Only if you believe that the “invisible Indians,” the Eskimos, the fur trappers, pioneers, ranchers, miners, outlaws, farmers and campers were all non-human. Or that wigwams, igloos, pueblos, tents, lean-tos or sod houses were never “occupied.”

By your quoted definition, there is no wilderness in this country, except in contrast to such places as Downtown Los Angeles, yet there are many areas of scenic beauty or land unspoiled by “civilization.” But is it right to have set aside 150,000 square miles (96 million acres) of wilderness whose natural resources can never be used?

Currently, over 70% of our national forest areas do not allow harvesting our only renewable resource--trees. Consequently, our national forests now grow 60% more wood each year than is harvested and used.

STUART H. JONES

Claremont