To the Editor:

Mr. Jim Gray’s letter concerning wilderness conservation in last week’s SMN, while well written, is based on a faulty assumption, and so arrives at incorrect conclusions.

His assumption is “wilderness advocates” are backward looking, only interested in returning tracts of our pubic land to a pre-Columbian state. That may have been a fair generalization a generation ago, but today we are faced with new circumstances that require a new perspective on wilderness. We need to look forward and envision a better land ethic.

Looking at current trends and projecting into the future, we see the grim realities of disappearing species and habitats, diminished ecological diversity, and even the possible collapse of whole ecosystems. America needs to preserve our remaining wild areas, not as memorials to some supposed pristine past but as genetic savings accounts that we can draw upon in the future. 

Furthermore, we cannot do this simply by picking out places that look pretty. We must choose wild areas based on where the most critical genetic information is stored.

It is laudable to bring different stakeholders together in order to balance the various forms of consumption each party represents, but it is not enough. We must listen carefully to those who actually have some scientific knowledge of the vital flora and fauna of our mountain habitats, who know which habitats are closest to vanishing forever and who have some overall plan in mind to protect and connect these threatened areas.

Wilderness isn’t a museum of the past; it is an essential bank account for the future.

Boyd Holliday

Lake Junaluska