Letter: National forests should be kept roadless, pristine

Wednesday, July 28, 2004 | 8:42 a.m.

Thank you for the enlightened editorial on July 19 about President Bush's proposal to reverse the "Roadless Rule" protecting wilderness areas of our national forests.

During the Clinton administration, that proposal received more comments from the public than any proposal in history, and they were overwhelmingly in support of protecting the remaining roadless areas of our national forests.

The editorial correctly pointed out that the land belongs to all of us and that no state governor should be allowed to pander to the special interests.

This proposal is yet another example of this administration's arrogant disregard for the will of the people and its influence peddling and giveaways to industry. This shortsighted approach would do irreparable damage to the wilderness, which, once it's gone, will be gone forever.

There is a euphemism commonly used by the timber industry and by the Bush administration when describing the wholesale destruction of forest ecosystems. They say they "selectively harvest" some of the trees. How do you "harvest" something you didn't plant and that was growing for hundreds of years before you were born? And, of course, only the largest, most valuable and fire-resistant trees are ever taken by the loggers.

Roads cause extensive damage to soil and streams, and the traffic destroys the wilderness quality. There are so few places left in this world untouched by man. The wild forest cannot be improved upon -- only ruined.

DEBBIE NETARDUS