On July 29 The Herald published an editorial headlined “Wild Sky – let’s try a constructive approach.” About two thirds the way through it, the writer states: “Many, including the late Sen. Henry M. Jackson, who helped write the original Wilderness Act, have repudiated this ‘purity argument.’ “
My question is this: Can you back up this statement by providing the time, date, and place of this “repudiation?” I will be extremely surprised if you can.
The U.S. Wilderness act of 1964 is a legal document with a legal description of what constitutes wilderness and the U.S. Forest service itself states only 33,000 of the 106,000 acres qualify as wilderness under the law. Many could live with the proposal had only 16,000 acres of the proposal been excluded (the ones with 35 miles of roads, bridges and culverts).
Now I would guess that to be constructive would be to compromise. If that is the case, then exactly who is not being constructive here? Three proposals – the same every time?
I have lived in Snohomish County most all of my life and I have driven most of the 35 miles of roads that you want to close to the public.Why? My nephew just returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq (thank God), and I cannot understand where our boys and girls should be fighting and dying for freedom in Iraq and Afganistan daily, while the likes of Rick Larsen, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Dave Reichert and people like yourselves want to deny freedoms for all to enjoy this section of the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest.
Rep. Richard Pombo and Ed Husmann, thank you for your efforts and I will be there at your rally on Thursday in Sultan!
Jim Zielasko
Arlington
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
