Scotchman Peaks can be protected in other ways

What will be gained by including the Scotchman Peak area in wilderness? Anyone familiar with this area know it will never be developed due to the rugged terrain. I am very familiar with the area, and even fought fire there while I was ranger at Sandpoint.

Most of us have different ideas about what wilderness should be (and I respect that.) Webster defines wilderness as an area kept in its natural state to prevent road construction, buildings, etc.

Is this the purpose of making it wilderness? Classification would even preclude using chainsaws for fighting fires. Would access ever be lost? Can it be managed for game animals? It is too rugged for road construction. One can view man’s activities from many places.

In conclusion, this area is beautiful and will never be developed. Classification doesn’t fit what wilderness should be. Please, call it anything but wilderness.

JERRY STERN

Sagle