| OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2002/2003 (SUWA) at the forefront. UWC did their own inventory and came up with a "citizens'" proposal of first 5.3, then 5.7 million acres of wilderness as an alternative to the BLM recommendation. Because wilderness advocates believed that this much greater amount of land was eligible for wilderness designation, they fought vigorously to defeat the first bill, and succeeded in doing so because of a filibuster by Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ). The decision by the BLM to conduct a wilderness re-inventory, along with the decision by the Clinton Administration to designate a new national monument will be explored in the next two sections. Both serve as prime examples of policies that created animosity and distrust on the part of local officials. REINVENTING WILDERNESS: THE BLM UNDERTAKES A MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT INVENTORY In the mid 1990s, the BLM began the process of conducting a re-inventory because of the controversy over the first inventory (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2000b). The Utah Association of Counties (UAC), State Institution of Trust Lands Association, and the State of Utah sued to stop the re-inventory, alleging that it was unnecessary and illegal, because the inventory period of 15 years authorized by section 603 of FLPMA had expired (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2000b). UAC won an injunction against the re-inventory in court, but the case was overturned on appeal, and the BLM continued with the re-inventory (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2000b). Local officials who didn't want more WSAs claimed that the BLM was giving in to pressure from environmental groups who wanted more wilderness, while environmentalists continued to claim that the original inventory was poorly done. Recently, the BLM re-inventory came up with 5.7 million acres of new potential wilderness. At about the same time the BLM introduced its new numbers, SUWA released a reworked "citizens'" proposal of 9.1 million acres that they claimed was the first thorough and extensive inventory of wilderness-quality lands in Utah. Subsequently, this proposal was introduced in Congress as "America's Redrock Wilderness Act," sponsored in the House by Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and in the Senate by Richard Durbin (D-IL). As the BLM Notice of Intent for the wilderness re-inventory in 1996 provoked celebration among environmentalists and infuriated local leaders and residents, this section will focus on the way in which the BLM has carried out that inventory. Locals charge that the re-inventory process has been biased and subjective from the beginning. In a letter to Representative Jim Hansen, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt wrote, "My own experience and knowledge of this area led me to believe that five million is the right number..." (San Juan County, 8). In another letter, Babbitt said, "Restoration is about having the power to visualize, to say that we can imagine a landscape that we don't see today, that we can create, or recreate, a landscape that was seen by Lewis and Clark, Kit Carson, and our forebears" (San Juan County, 8). Some have questioned the purpose of a re-inventory if Secretary Babbitt had already decided what number the BLM would reach. Furthermore, they criticize the idea that the BLM can undertake to "recreate a landscape" if it was explicitly instructed to only take an inventory of existing wilderness-quality land. It is clear that somewhere between the first inventory and the second, the BLM's direction and mission changed. The obvious explanation points to the election of an administration supported by wilderness advocates. Wilderness advocates have stated that the BLM has finally become more environmentally friendly with regard to wilderness issues; locals charge the BLM with engaging in mission creep: an unauthorized expansion of bureaucratic scope and power. Despite the new attitude of the BLM, SUWA and others have still attacked the BLM for not going far enough and for allegedly refusing to look at the 9.1 million acres in the "citizens proposal." The re-inventory itself was much more liberal in what it would consider for protection. Land quickly rejected in the first inventory was given much more consideration in the second. The BLM demonstrated that it had a goal of finding more wilderness from the beginning. Furthermore, the BLM demonstrated disregard for local concerns and an attitude of disdain towards local residents. For example, on an assessment of a road asserted by San Juan County as a valid existing right, one BLM evaluation team wrote that the road was, "pioneered by one group of idiots - checked out by a few others" (San Juan County, 54). In an effort to refute what they believe are false BLM wilderness claims, San Juan County has sent their own team to evaluate land that the BLM classified as wilderness in its re-inventory. The San Juan County teams have submitted over 3000 pages of photos, maps, and other evidence that the areas the BLM says are wilderness are full of roads, livestock corrals, mining scars, radio towers, and oil drilling wells. Wilderness advocates believe that these oft times faint, narrow roads are so insignificant that they can be reclaimed back to nature and still meet the requirements for wilderness. Rural residents, however, argue that the law should be followed to the letter; if a road existed before 1976, wilderness cannot nullify the public's right to use it, even if it is only barely visible today. Furthermore, locals argue that mining scars, oil wells, and other manmade changes that affect the landscape violate the fundamental purpose of wilderness: to provide solitude and shelter from man and his nature-altering presence. Currently, the battle continues over acreage, R.S. 2477 road claims, and the definition of wilderness. The differences between the proposals are striking: local leaders want 1.8 million acres, the BLM wants 5.7, and SUWA wants 9.1 million 35 |
