Bravo to Robert H. Boyle for his fine editorial regarding James Watt, the Reagan Administration and Westerners (SCORECARD, Aug. 10)! Yes, Watt is diluting Western support of Reagan. During the past election, Ronald Reagan received tons of support from the millions of outdoor-minded Westerners who believe strongly in sound fiscal policy. After all, both Colorado and Wyoming have a constitution that prohibits deficit spending by the state government, and the climate for business out here is sunny. But now, many of us are viewing support for the current Administration with mixed feelings.
Let's not forget that the rest of the country comes here to hunt, fish, ski, hike, camp, bicycle tour, raft rivers, kayak, etc. One or two false moves concerning water (precious little out here) or energy development or automobile pollution, and the fragile Western environment will hold little enjoyment. Already the air pollution in Denver makes a trip to Mile High Stadium to watch our beloved Broncos a choking experience.
Perhaps we should move to the family farm in Vermont. What is acid rain anyway?
GLENN H. LAMBERTZ
The crescendo of criticism exposing Interior Secretary James Watt is growing deafening. Your editorial, " James Watt and Other Environmental Hazards," was one of the most insightful.
Anne Gorsuch + John Crowell + James McAvoy = James Watt = President Reagan = the worst threat to this earthly turf since geometric population growth.
Let's hope (pray) your stand helps redirect the thinking of our misguided leaders. Keep calling 'em as you see 'em.
MARK A. ISHKANIAN
James Watt, John Crowell, Anne Gorsuch and President Reagan himself were not given a mandate to destroy our environment last November. In a 1980 survey, the Council on Environmental Quality found that only 20% of the respondents favored relaxing environmental standards to achieve economic growth, while 39% believed that environmental protection and economic growth could be achieved at the same time, 27% favored a slower rate of economic growth in order to protect the environment and some 13% had no opinion. If the Administration continues its strange and backward policies toward the environment, it will run into serious public-opinion troubles. The test might come this fall when the Administration tries to gut the Clean Air Act.
ALAN P. MYRICK
Thank you for Robert H. Boyle's fine editorial regarding the ridiculous environmental policies of James Watt. Being a Californian, I am particularly disgusted with Watt's inane ways. I can only hope that Boyle's outburst will help this country realize that it takes only one Watt in power to ruin our environment.
I congratulate you on your editorial concerning Secretary of the Interior James Watt. I'm sure many armchair athletes would prefer that you stick to reporting on football, baseball and basketball, but I'd like to think that there are many other subscribers who are not quite so narrow-minded. I'm delighted with the broad range of sports reporting that you engage in. That we have a President and a Secretary of the Interior who seem to have little regard for the preservation of untouched land, when there are those of us—hunters, backpackers, fishermen, birders—who delight in it, is well worth your attention. It seems ironic that this land will be desecrated so that we all may share in our nonrenewable energy sources, while federal funding for renewable-energy development (solar energy, etc.) has been drastically cut.
I'd also like to thank you for devoting some of your magazine to those of us who prefer to participate in sports activities rather than spend our lives as watchers.