| OCR Text |
Show 3. on Wilderness f* f**6*- 7 Idaho has had available support from State Fish & Game A even " under conditions of legislature cuts in budgets. Public has been outsnoken in support of Fish & Game. WHEN UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIRECTOR WAS FIRED IN* 1978 for supporting Wilderness as a guarantee for wildlife survival - where was this public support? Where was Dick? ^ e r e "a?K CR™P? (This was my last week in Utah and I started a Letter to the Editor but was trying to put together our CUP document and ran out of time-) ,W* //./>« U~^ This lack of support was the beef'of/former Ashley Forest Supervisor Bob Ro^In. When the Squaw Pass fire*was raging (1974?) and the Sierra Club was screaming that we»l£l fires burn in Wilderness, no one suDported Rowan who would have done this. He challenged me one day, saying, "Where the hell were you people when I needed support?" D* nec<L OU,K a^t^oti^ wi+A u^t all 8. Idaho conservation groupsAwork on issues of broad concern in the State. Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, League of Women Voters, etc. Issues aren't isolated by group to the extendf they are in Utah. T h Q .niy tMn. T 5an aav is that there is someimprovement here. If CRCUP or some water group takes more positive approaches there could be suoDort from other groups which is lacking now. But this is a two-wav'street. CRCUP can't expect help from the Wasatch Mt. Club or"the Wilderness Society if they don't appear to support Wilderness efforts.. or oross Coc^mtry 5* «V~j <"ST«4CS.. or £«•*}««, •/ CO « n «-7t . League of Idaho Women sponsored a day long conference on the Future of Idaho. But this Conference was supported by other conservation groups in the State - <*ho participated in the Program. And, the Conference included a broad spectrum of issue conflicts - developers and conservationists! CUP opponents somehow have to tie in positive approaches for water suDDly needs in the State with the other positive efforts - classifying wilderness, classifying W & S Rivers, protecting the Deep Creeks and the Escalante, etc. If we interlock our concerns with other efforts - in combination with fighting the economic battles of taxes, cost overruns, repayment contracts, etc., we stand some chance of achieving our goals. Q. River of No Return Wilderness is a single idea - with simple appeal. Yet it was made up of a number of disparate issues. IN UTAH WE HAVE ALLOWED THE POSITIVE ASPECTS - THOSE OF PROTECTING WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS WHICH ARE, IN FACT, ASSOCIATED WITH WILDERNESS, TO ^E SEPARATED FROM THE WILDERNESS APPEAL. This was because Dick'insisted on it - for ourposes of isolating wilderness in the political arena! WE NEED ^0 CONSIDER HOW TO DEVELOP A POSITIVE IMAGE OF TROUT STREAMS AND WILDLIFE AS A COHESIVE WHOLE WITH THE UINTA RANGE AND ITS WILDERNESS RESOURCES /"Then, we can put the CUP in perspective as a negative factor in the protection of these entire Uinta Mountains resources. *cu,t 4or*+ trt^ *|ve«. <™ |
