Wilderness Areas and Republican Representation
Dear Editor,
I would like to write in response to an article that appeared in the March 18 issue of the Statesman, documeneting one republican congressman’s view on roadless/wilderness areas and oil dependancy in United States.
According to the article, there appears to be ambiguity between what is a “roadless area” and what is not? The speaker was quoted as asking, “Are roads just interstates or highways, or are they state roads too”. I appoligize if I fail to understand the question, but where is the ambiguity? Are they all not roads, regardless of who owns them? Raising such questions only places setbacks on legislation created to protect a diminishing resource in this great country, wilderness areas.
The article also stated that the United States needs to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge in order to decrease our dependance of oil from foriegn sources. Would we not be better served by increased funds towards research in alternative energy sources. Drilling oil in Alaska only applies a temporary bandage to our growing problem, our overdependance on non-renewable resources for energy.
Perhaps we all need to be reminded that the actions we take today will affect our childeren in the future. I hope my children can still find solitude in our wilderness areas, and not roads and oil wells.
Abraham MedinaGraduate Student amedina@cc.usu.edu435-787-7079student id #518-19-8784