SALLY WESTERN

Perspective

It is misleading and misinformed to compare the Buffalo Commons proposal and wilderness designation, as Ray Hunkins did in his op-ed, "Oil and gas drilling makes sense," in the June 30 Star-Tribune.

It is stretching the argument to draw general parallels between a hypothetical project promoting deprivatization of land long marred by man's presence and a federally sanctioned program that protects large tracts of undisturbed public wildlands. The Buffalo Commons is about land reclamation. Wilderness is about preserving what remains intact of our wild landscapes.

Hunkins assumes that wilderness is "locked away" from human use or economic activity. Hunkins is one of the few holding fast to the misconception that there exists some fundamental conflict between official wilderness designation and the ability of the public to utilize these areas. This is simply not the case. It is within the very objective of the original 1964 Wilderness Act that wilderness may be used by the public:

" … it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness … these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness." (Section 2(a). 16 U.S.C. 1131)

Congress saw that there is intrinsic value in setting land aside, away from exploitation by logging and drilling. Must legitimate appreciation of land come with an industrial proposal?

Those of us who like wilderness do so because it gives us fresh air, peace of mind, a place to hunt, fish, ski, backpack, raft, etc. We visit wilderness to enjoy the fruits of nature given freely, not those drilled from beneath the surface. We observe and participate in the workings of land as nature intended it: free of destructive and blatant evidences of human interruption caused by the likes of roads, drilling and off-road vehicles. This is what Congress has ensured by creating the concept of wilderness.

Wilderness can, in fact, be profitable, albeit not to the same margin of oil and gas. Tourism is Wyoming's second leading economic contributor, and wilderness is an intrinsic part of the package for those who buy hunting and fishing licenses. Even grazing is allowed, so long as the grazing lease predates the area's wilderness designation. But, as suggested above, it was not primarily profit that Congress intended, or what the BLM and Forest Service have in mind when they propose new wilderness areas.

Hunkins mentions Adobe Town in southern Wyoming as an example of a place being unnecessarily proposed as "off limits" from oil and gas exploration. Unnecessary for whom? Adobe Town is a remarkable expanse of high desert buttes and one of the most spectacular and remote set of badlands and geological formation in the state, providing hikers with towers, grottoes, caves, and mazes to explore. It is, according to the University of Chicago, one of the three most important palentologic areas in North America. It produces trophy antelope and provides habitat for several unique and sensitive species, including ferruginous hawks. Oil exploration would disturb and erode unusual geologic formations and wildlife habitat, as well as tarnishing the scenery that attracts so many. Wyoming is full of areas like this, characterized by their own immaculate and delicate beauty.

The continued interest in promoting wilderness stems from a growing awareness of the fact that around the world primitive places disappear at an alarming rate: the boreal forest, the rainforest, the coral reefs, all vanishing due to indiscriminate consumption of the earth's resources. It is the same gluttonous tendencies that fuel the need for oil and gas exploration that feed environmentalists' desire to preserve what is left of the land unadulterated by the crude hand of human exploitation.

Hunkins shows his hand when he states that "oil and gas is what will fuel our transportation needs for the foreseeable future." His future, perhaps, but not those of his grandchildren and probably not even mine. As a young, native resident of Wyoming, I think that this is not a mere question of the "ends" (more oil and gas for our nation) justifying the "means" (sacrificing our wild places). It is a question of whether or not we want to sully ecosystems that rest at the very core of why we live here. We cannot drill our way out of an energy shortage. I want the wilderness here long after the oil and gas is gone.

Sally Western of Sheridan is an intern with the Wyoming Wilderness Association.