Yes for Scotchman Wilderness

In response to Jane Purdy’s letter of March 16 (“No to Scotchman Wilderness”):

Ms. Purdy is free to oppose the wilderness and vote against it, but she should get a few facts straight. The area is already federal land, under the management of the U.S. Forest Service. Thus, making it wilderness will not increase the federal lands in the state. The access road to Scotchman Peak trailhead is hardly overgrown and decomposed. I can drive it in my low-clearance Subaru. The trail is also in great shape, having just been rerouted and upgraded by volunteers.

She mentions harvesting downed wood, which means firewood. (Timber harvest does not take trees already on the ground.) I don’t know about her, but I have no desire to haul my firewood miles down a rather steep trail. I prefer it near a road closer to my home.

One of the major benefits of a wilderness like Scotchman Peaks is the chance to “enjoy its beauty for the benefit of our health and wellness.”

Oh, and wildfire is a part of the natural forest system. The Scotchman area is the healthier for the fire there.

Susan Bates-Harbuck

Sandpoint