In reply to Dennis Linneman ("State still has plenty of wilderness," letter, Feb. 6): I am part of an often-silent majority; in this case I’ll speak up, as our opinions differ.
The bill U.S. Sen. Steve Daines introduced is S. 2206 in Congress, the one that would “allow nearly 450,000 acres to once again be managed by the U.S. Forest Service.” The wilderness study area is not a state of limbo.
I grew up on private property my dad leased, surrounded by Forest Service-managed lands and wilderness areas. Having spent the greater portion of my life dealing with the way the two different designations of land are treated and thought of, I can say personally, I would prefer to see the land maintain its wilderness study area status. While this isn’t the best solution, I believe it’s the best currently available.
There seems to be a lack of understanding of what these two different land designations mean long-term. When the majority can get together and agree on the healthy use of so-called common property resources, then less restriction would be welcome. Currently we have two sides arguing in fear of lost use of resources and the fear of degradation to those resources; neither side can agree to a common solution.
Andrea A. Fitzpatrick,