I have been a member of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) for a number of years. I am a native West Virginian, living in Cumberland, Md.-- right up the valleys from the Dolly Sods where I have been tramping around for a good part of my adult life.

Although I have not been what you would call an "active" member, I certainly have admired the legacy of the WVHC in terms of protecting and keeping viable the natural spirit of one of the best pieces of wild real estate in the country. The WVHC’s efforts have added immeasurably to my experience of the Alleghenies. The wilderness areas, especially the Dolly Sods and the Cranberry Wilderness, I have seen as cherished gifts in my life, and over the years these areas have become almost extensions of my own personality. These places sort of figure into my self-definition now.

My experience of them has also been woven into my dual-track careers in Environmental Education and Family Therapy -- as well as into my stab at nature writing. And so the WVHC’s efforts have had some far reaching effects as far as my own personal journey is concerned. And I know that I am certainly not the only person who has reaped these benefits.

The WVHC’s activism through the years has paid off quite well, indeed. But a recent experience I have had in regard to the Corridor H controversy has prompted a few new thoughts about the WVHC’s future role in assuring the long term integrity of West Virginia’s unique natural heritage. Here’s the scoop.

Recently, in the Cumberland Times-News, I read a commentary by a member of the "Corridor H Action Committee" inciting people to rise up against the "aging hippie, pantheistic, anti-war element" whose activity has been blocking the construction of Corridor H through the courts. In this writer’s mind, and likely in the minds of the people he represented, Corridor H was the Potomac Highland’s last best hope for a slice of the economic pie in the Alleghenies. He also championed Corridor H because it would reduce traffic fatalities due to outdated, winding single lane mountain roads. I felt that his letter merited a challenge, which I hastily composed. There have been several other letters to the Times-News now sent in by other Corridor H supporters in response to my comments.

As I have composed replies, it kept occurring to me to me that these folks are mostly people like myself who passionately want their communities to thrive. Nobody can fault them for that dream. But where we differ is in our visions of how that end can be accomplished. I don’t want to polarize our points of view but to evoke dialogue. I think that these Corridor H supporters honestly believe in the possibilities of the highway as the conduit of which will bring that prosperity in all of its manifestations in this region.

I sharply disagree with this position, and I feel that they are basing this belief on certain assumptions, accumulated over a lifetime, about how rural communities can come alive economically. In my opinion, that particular kind of information has relegated them to working within a very narrowly defined conceptual frame which does not allow for all the complexities of this issue. Also, it certainly ignores the knowledge we now have about how intrinsically interwoven are the processes of a region’s ecology and economic life. To me, their voices in so many ways represent the utter failure of public education to provide an adequate information base about concept of sustainability. Being provided with this learning does not necessarily mean that a person would not still believe in the highway as the answer. But his position would at least have been better thought through.

This observation nicely segues me to where I’m going with all this. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who first advanced the idea that a democracy presupposes an informed citizenry. I’m wondering then, based upon the above experience, if the mission of the WVHC could not be immeasurably strengthened by consciously preaching beyond the "choir" of the already converted. Dynamic ideas always gain more political clout when the larger community embraces them. The WVHC cannot change the educational system overnight, but we can surely use our vast intellectual and spiritual resources to balance the advocacy activities with an equally robust public environmental educational venue of some kind. As an Environmental Educator, I would strongly support that this effort center around the themes Connectedness and Sustainability rather than advocacy. I think this avenue would better bridge the WVHC’s interests with needs of communities.

The outreach effort could consist of a combination of different activities tailored to specific kinds of groups. These might include field trips, media presentations, articles in local newspapers, workshops and seminars, and conservation projects. Such an endeavor might actually inject the conservancy with some money, too ( through grants and participant fees, etc.)

I would like to know how other members view an expanded public educational role of some kind for the Conservancy in light of the present times and the urgency for communities in the Alleghenies to reinvent themselves economically in environmentally sustainable configurations.

That’s the scoop.