I appreciated Doug Ferrell's (Dec. 22) letter hoping the proposed Scotchman Peaks Wilderness was boosted by the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act being passed. I also was glad the Heritage Act passed, but I do not agree with him on the Scotchman Peaks area, as he knows. I have lived in the Bull River Valley most of my life, and look on this area out of my living room window.

I like it the way it is now, and how it has always been, as it is a roadless area, and as such, no development has, or can be, done within its borders, with no legal changes ever probable. The roadless rules have been upheld in court, and will not change with the political reality of increased urbanization of America. No matter what some fear-mongers may say to support their agendas.

So why legally designate it as wilderness, with the potential of future restrictions of human access, or an "entrance fee" that also could happen (it has elsewhere), and don't forget "management," also due to the urbanization of America. Would there be increased traffic in the Bull River Valley due to there being on a map just a narrow strip of land between two designated wilderness areas? You don't think that may attract more travelers? It will definitely attract more hikers. There aren't very many right now.

So I say just keep it like it is. No wilderness designation. I believe that would be worse for that area. Maybe I'm just selfish.

Wayne Hirst,


You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.