Keep the ‘wild’ in wilderness

WHILE OUR attention is on other parts of the world, an insidious movement is underway at home to privatize nationally owned land. Its proponents are using federal “quid pro quo” bills, which typically include just enough wilderness designation to get a buy-in from selected conservation groups. Roughly 250,000 acres have been privatized through such legislation since 2000.

One such bill is the proposed Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, which has passed in the House and is pending in the Senate.

Why is a bill for Idaho of interest to Los Angeles residents or anyone else outside of Idaho? Because public lands in Idaho are owned by all Americans, including my mother in Florida, your father in Highland Park and the president’s housekeeper in Texas.

This bill asks Americans to accept the outright giveaway of thousands of acres of public land in Idaho for private development. In return for their support, the handful of conservation groups backing it may claim its passage as a “win” because some land is designated as wilderness.

But this bill does not protect federal water rights, thus threatening salmon recovery. It dedicates about 540,000 acres to a locked-in level of off-road vehicle trail use and takes away U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management authority to control damage caused by such use, giving that authority instead to a new entity created specifically to manage the off-road vehicle area. It also allows some motorized use and activities in designated wilderness areas that are inconsistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act.

That law defines wilderness as “an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man [humankind] ... a visitor who does not remain.” We owe it to those who came before us to make sure that designated wilderness continues to honor the spirit and intent of that stalwart act.

Forty-seven conservation groups -- including the Sierra Club and 15 organizations based in Idaho -- oppose this legislation. Only a handful of conservation groups support the bill, including the Wilderness Society and the Idaho Conservation League. Both groups are on record as saying that public land should remain public, but they’ve abandoned that position to support this bill.

As a 30-year Idaho resident, I understand how supporters who have failed to get wilderness designated in Idaho over the last 25 years might be frustrated enough to accept the drastic compromises in this bill. However, with a poll funded by the Idaho Conservation League and the Campaign for America’s Wilderness (an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts) showing that 67% of Idahoans want more wilderness, supporters don’t need to accept substandard wilderness to get a “measurable result.”

Some of the same groups that support the Central Idaho bill oppose quid pro quo bills for Utah and New Mexico. They claim that Idaho is different and that major compromise is the only way to protect wilderness in Idaho. I beg to differ. Their own poll shows that most Idahoans recognize the benefits of true wilderness protection.

Supporting a bill that encourages recreational oil consumption, as this one does, is irresponsible; supporting a bill that gives away nationally owned land is unacceptable. Indeed, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), opposes the president’s proposal to sell public land in our national forests, yet his bill would give public land away for free. Which side of the mouths of the bill’s proponents should we believe?

Americans have greeted recent proposals to dispose of public land with a resounding “No way!” Saying “no” to the Central Idaho bill is a chance for all Americans to show those who would exploit our public lands that we are paying attention. Help stop the state-by-state march of quid pro quo bills by asking your U.S. senators to say “no” to this bill and to similar ones for other states. Don’t settle for substandard wilderness. We can do better.