Wilderness would preserve our way of life

I was saddened to find that Dave Reynolds experienced such a powerful emotional response to my previous letter that he was unable to read the letter carefully and understand its contents.

First, Reynolds stated that I was being misleading by pointing out that the Forest Service did in fact hold a hearing regarding the proposed Scotchman’s Wilderness Area, while Stan Myers (in a previous letter) falsely claimed there was no such hearing. Second, Reynolds misinterpreted this factual assertion and a recommendation that Myers might be happier in a state with less wilderness, to be a “personal attack.” A factual statement with some logical advice hardly qualifies as a personal attack, though referring to this as “shameful and uncalled for” could qualify as such.

Third, Reynolds implied that I am a “hired gun” of the Friends of Scotchman’s Peak Wilderness and that I am lacking in civility. I won’t dignify all of Reynolds’ baseless accusations with a response, but he might be surprised to learn that I am in no way affiliated with FSPW, and that any such hiring occurred without my knowledge, consent, or compensation.

Fourth, at no point did I claim that a “majority” of Clark Fork residents expressed support at the hearing ­— I don’t know the actual numbers, and neither does Reynolds. I claimed that “many” residents expressed support, which is true. Incidentally, Reynolds may have confused the Forest Service personnel providing information at the aforementioned Clark Fork hearing with members of FSPW, in spite of the uniforms.

Finally, in another personal attack against myself, Reynolds referred to the claim that wildfires are beneficial as “troglodytical” (despite the modern, empirically-sound evidence supporting this claim) and “sick and disgusting,” in reference to the impact fires have on homes, farms, etc. To be clear, I actually pointed out that these fires benefit forest ecosystems, not individuals and their private property. It is hardly my fault that wildfires enrich soil nutrients, accelerating tree growth, increasing disease resistance, and improving wildlife habitat (I paid attention in ecology class while earning my B.A. in biology). Reynolds will be happy to know that a hypothetical fire in the small proposed wilderness area would have no such human casualties, since there are no farms, homes, or “countless lives” located within its boundaries. Any wildfires outside this area would be managed like any other fire, minimizing potential risk to locals and their infrastructure. After all, my family and property are much closer to Scotchman’s than Reynolds’.

To his credit, Reynolds did get one thing right that I wholeheartedly agree with: “Let’s agree to disagree without resorting to lies, distortions, and insults … there is already too much divisiveness in this country.” I would encourage Reynolds to heed his own advice, and to vote “yes” on the wilderness issue if he truly wants to preserve our traditional way of life.

NATTY ROLE

Clark Fork