Now, we move ahead 12 years to 1976 when Congress mandated that all government land agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) inventory their land to determine what met the wilderness criteria. The significance of the inclusion of the BLM in this process is that, along with controlling a large portion of federally owned lands, they are often accused of being controlled by industries such as coal and timber. This is where the Utah wilderness issue comes into play. The Utah BLM was not at all pleased with having to set aside land on which no development, and therefore, no direct economic benefit for them, would occur. We all know there are two sides to every story and if I had the opportunity to speak with the Utah BLM, I believe that they would tell me that extensive surveying and studies were conducted in selecting the places they felt qualified as wilderness. However, according to the SUWA and other organizations in Utah, their research was not only inadequate but also flawed. Out of 23 million acres that the Utah BLM managed, they decided that only 3.2 million acres fit the wilderness criteria. If this weren't already a diminutive number, Utah Representative James Hansen and Senator Orrin Hatch proposed a bill which would actually designate only 1.8 million acres. Adding insult to injury, this bill would even allow for development, in the form of construction of dams, reservoirs, roads, and pipelines, within the boundaries. Even if someone wasn't a wilderness advocate, how could they not see that this blatantly disregard of the definition of wilderness?

0