WSP00991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o OJ789 '. One of my long-time friends, Ted Trueblood, challenged the purity doctrine of the Forest Service in the September 1975 issue of Field & Stream.s As Ted put it, the Foresl Service with its purist doclrine is trying to scuttle the Wilder- ness Act. In arguing the case, Ted refers to requirements which make outfitter operations difficult, to fish and wild- life management activities which limit the enjoyment of hunters and fishermen, to the exclusion of deserving Idaho areas from wilderness classification because they contain minor evidence of man's prior activities, and perhaps most tragic of all, to the burning of historic cabins to eliminate the evidence of earlier human habitation. .. ... Such policies are misguided. If Congress had intended that wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have written the law as we did. We wouldn't have provided for the possibility of insect, disease and fire control. We wouldn't have allowed private inholdings to remain. We wouldn't have excluded condemnation as the means for forcibly acquiring developed ranches within wilderness areas - a practice allowed on ordinary national forest lands from which wilderness is created. We wouldn't have made wilderness classification subject to existing pri- vate rights such as mining and grazing. We wouldn't have provided for the continuation of nonconforming uses where they were established - including the use of motor boats in part of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and the use of air- fields in the primitive areas here in Idaho. As these examples clearly demonstrate, it was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashion as to need- lessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment. Quite the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide speclrum of Americans. 'II !I ".it., ...j~i, "(. .......: ...., 11