« Return to this article

for people who care about the West

'Paying for wilderness' undermines environmental goals

  In covering wilderness campaigns, HCN has invited us to party with Nevada "wilderness warriors" (HCN, 3/3/03: Wild Card); watch a rancher in Owyhee County, Idaho, kill a rattlesnake (HCN, 12/8/03: Riding the middle path); and learn the personal philosophies of the central players in Idaho’s Boulder-White Clouds proposal (HCN, 11/22/04: Conservationist in a Conservative Land). The stories offer testimonials to "common ground" found between conservationists and their traditional foes, and painstakingly describe the calculations of a new breed of wilderness negotiators. But in choosing to personalize the story, you largely fail to discuss what is at stake for the public lands.

The new proposals mark a huge shift in wilderness protection strategy and carry far-reaching implications. In the new paradigm, wilderness is "paid for" through the sacrifice (sale, trade, disposal) of other, supposedly less desirable public lands; relinquishment of federal water rights; myriad development schemes; and new mechanisms for local control over federal lands. To speed land giveaways and development, the new bills waive environmental laws that activists — including the wilderness groups — are fighting to uphold elsewhere.

Whenever "we" go along with a waiver of this or that formerly precious environmental statute; whenever we go along with the disposal of just a bit more public land as a quid pro quo to save aesthetically superior wilderness; whenever we engage in backslapping with politicians like Rep. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Rep. James Gibbons, R-Nev., we are sanctioning more of the same and helping them raise the threshold (and political price) for public lands protection. We are undermining our own goals — or at least the goals that we used to share before rampant pragmatism took over.

Janine Blaeloch
Seattle, Washington