I am writing to respond to Christy Love's letter of Nov. 12, in which she expresses opposition to designating the Rock Creek area as wilderness.
I appreciate her point of view as a stakeholder who grazes cattle in the area. However, to state that her ranch "most definitely would be adversely affected" by the designation is misleading.
According to section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act of 1964: "The grazing of livestock, where established..., shall be permitted to continue..." after an area becomes wilderness.
To make absolutely certain, Congress developed additional guidelines to prevent administrative and management actions from discouraging livestock grazing in wilderness areas. The congressional report, which was incorporated into the Forest Service manual, states: "To clarify any lingering doubts, the committee wishes to stress that this language [from the Wilderness Act] means that there shall be no curtailment of grazing permits or privileges in an area simply because it is designated as wilderness."
As for the road encroachment issue Ms. Love brings up, there seems to be uncertainty about the development of the northern portion of the road she references (Forest Service Road 396), and when it became officially recognized by the Forest Service. What is certain, though, is that the Forest Service, supported by widespread public input, recommended wilderness designation for about 34,000 acres of the Rock Creek area.
The designation will not close any roads or motorized trails (not even the disputed portion of 396), but it will ensure Rock Creek will always be a rugged corner of the mountain for future generations of hunters, hikers and horse riders.
Dave Malutich
Story
