When I see all the struggling over the SASS
designation in the 1000 Islands I just have to laugh.
(actually fairly
toothless in reality, yet still important) for this region to help preserve
some important aspects of it for future generations. They appear to have a rather ignorant, selfish
and provincial view of the issue.
Maybe they should consider what has been done nationally
since 1964 and earlier by leaders both political and environmental with some
actual courage to step up and really protect precious lands from rampant
development.
Some of our local leaders need to get a grip. No one is suggesting completely stopping
development, only making sure that the development is compatible with the
treasured scenic resources of our area, which are already recognized internationally...AND
are much of what actually supports the local communities.
Of course as with any issue like this it is always
money against conservation or preservation.
I live in N. AZ, and travel and recreate in the western U.S. much
of the time when I am not in Cape Vincent and the 1000 Islands Much of my recreation is in very remote areas
on federal land that is either designated as wilderness, national forest,
national monuments, national parks, and BLM lands etc.
And if you don't think these lands are important to a large cross section of the population then you should visit on a weekend or holiday. Often they spend a great deal of money in surrounding communities.
A prime responsibility of these entities is
preservation or conservation of our federal public lands, or at least to
critically examine any development or other activity that might take place and properly regulate it. Sometimes they do very well at carrying out
that mission…sometimes not.
But here is a point to consider as we debate this
SASS designation for our area. I wonder
if some of our leaders have ever considered a land use that outright says NO to
man’s development or even mechanized use of the land. A complete preservation for many future
generations, of wild animals and humans to use and enjoy keeping it essentially
as it is and was over millenniums. It is a radical idea, but has already been carried out in many places in the U. S. Especially in the western states.
Now I am sure that thought would make some of the people objecting to the SASS
cringe and would get their underwear in a real bunch!
Of course I am not suggesting a wilderness
designation or anything like it for the 1000 Islands, or any designation that would
prohibit careful, compatible, and reasonable development to take place. We are hundreds of years beyond that, and it
would be unreasonable.
However, to back off reasonable protections for the
1000 Islands is just plain stupidity and shows a lack of vision, thinking and understanding, considering the 1000 Islands are a prime scenic and
recreational wonder known around NYS, the nation, and the world. Not supporting reasonable protections is selfish,
irresponsible, and reckless.
And it is museum quality ignorance to not recognize
the relationship between preservation, conservation, recreation, and reasonable
protections to enhance those qualities, and how that can dramatically enhance
local economies.
An example.
I live in Flagstaff, AZ. We are a gateway city to the Grand Canyon and
many other spectacular natural scenic resources in our area. Every direction you go from Flagstaff you will
come into contact with public lands under some type of conservation or protection, some of which are large tracts under
strict wilderness protection.
And guess what?
That brings millions upon millions of people and their dollars to this
area. Not only as tourists, but as
residents and second home owners seeking a life style enhanced by the outdoors.
And not just limited to hikers who are willing to
put out extra effort to explore remote wilderness areas, but also people who
own ATV’s UTV’s Boats, RV’s snow mobiles’s, horses, skis, 4wd’s, bikes…and on
and on. Tourism is a HUGE part of our
economy as it is in many local N.AZ towns.
Not to mention the second homes and people who are willing to pay a
premium on homes to live here in this environment. Most of this because of the regions spectacular
scenic beauty, and preservation and access to it.
Even in places like Las Vegas that is the icon of
development and excess, where do millions of people generally go along with
visiting the casinos and shows? Many explore
the spectacular lands that surround or are near Vegas. Like a helicopter ride
to Grand Canyon, or a trip to Red Rocks, Valley of Fire, or Death Valley, The
Colorado River or Lake Mead.
So to those local leaders and people who don’t get
this and think SASS is going to unnecessarily strangle you…look beyond your noses and get a
clue.
And anyone who thinks that industrial wind energy
should not be constrained by scenic preservation efforts, or is compatible in
a place so precious and scenic as the 1000 Islands and it's surroundings needs to have their
brain examined and should not be entrusted with the stewardship of local communities.
Their scenic resources, which in fact have been PROVEN over many decades to be
a fundamental and a significant boost to the local economies. In fact I believe the SASS designation should also include much of Eastern Lake Ontario.
For a little perspective I have included some quotes
from the Wilderness Act of 1964. The
hard work of some political and environmental leaders that had real vision and
courage to protect our natural resources.
Living in the West and having been the direct beneficiary of so much protected
public land has had a real impact on how I think about issues such as this.
Imagine that…land completely protected from any
development, or the mechanized devices of man.
Below are some quotes from the Wilderness Act passed by Congress in 1964.
WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED - STATEMENT OF POLICY
SECTION 2. (a) In
order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding
settlement and
growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United
States and its possessions,
leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural
condition, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of
present and future generations
the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is
hereby established a
National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas
designated by the Congress
as "wilderness areas," and these shall be administered for the use
and enjoyment of the American people
in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness, and so as to
provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness
character, and for the gathering
and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as
wilderness; and no Federal
lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided
for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.
DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c)
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized
as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,
where man himself
is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to
mean in this Act an area
of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,
without permanent improvements
or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions and
which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man's
work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude
or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient
size as to make
practicable
its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain
ecological, geological,
or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical
value.
