to provide your thoughts in writing via letter or e-mail. Your comments should be specific, detailing the points that are good or bad about the proposal and why, and any alternatives that you suggest for consideration. Points to consider: is the proposed action consistent with laws, policies, and regulations? If not, be specific in pointing out the inconsistencies. It is useful to quote directly from law, policy, or regulation when making your point. To make your comments useful, focus on the issues, not the managers or their personalities.
Priorities for Advocacy How does one decide which issues to tackle? In part this depends on your own interests and values. For example, you might be most concerned with the increasing motorized use that is occurring throughout the NWPS. If so, stay alert to the types of situations most likely to trigger motorized proposals. These include trail work, fish stocking, livestock management, scientific research, game management, restora-
tion of historic structures, fire management, and access to private land inholdings in wilderness. If wildlife and habitat issues are your singular passion, you may be interested in proposals affecting threatened or endangered species, migratory birds, fish stocking, removal of feral species, predator control, habitat modifications such as vegetation manipulations, and wildlife impacts resulting from high visitor use such as species displacement and removal of large predators. To assess a proposal’s range of impact, ask yourself the following questions: Does the proposal affect many wildernesses nationwide (such as new agency policies or regulations), or does it only affect one wilderness? Will the proposal affect the entire wilderness (such as a wilderness management plan, fire management plan, or some research proposals) or is it site-specific, such as restoration of a historic structure, trail maintenance, or placement of a weather station? Even site-specific projects can have farranging impact— word travels through the agencies re-
A speed limit sign in the Brigantine Wilderness area in New Jersey where vehicles have been allowed on the beach area. Photo by Dennis Schvejda.
16
International Journal of Wilderness
APRIL 2002 • VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1
garding what types of actions are being approved and whether they are being challenged by the public.
Comment Points How do you decide what points to emphasize in your comments? Some proposals may violate laws, while others may violate principles of good wilderness stewardship. Following are five common themes to consider when writing a comment letter. 1. Legality. Determine if the proposed activity is legal in your wilderness. Review pertinent sections in TWA and in your wilderness’s designation legislation. Examples of activities that may be legal in some wildernesses include livestock grazing, snowmobiles for subsistence hunting in Alaska, landing of aircraft, jet skis in Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, and truck portages in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In such cases your comments should emphasize reducing unnecessary impacts and appropriately regulating the use. For example, chasing wolves with snow machines occurs in some Alaska wilderness areas—your comments could point out that this is questionable as a subsistence-related activity and that managers have authority to curtail this activity to protect wildlife as an important component of wilderness character. 2. Wilderness character. The overarching mandate of TWA is that wilderness character must be preserved, and this should be emphasized in every comment letter. Preservation of wilderness character takes precedence over cost, convenience, or the goals of projects unrelated to wilderness protection, such as most scientific research or