This is the essential question that I would also like answered.langenbacher wrote: Perhaps it would help if you told us what you think anybody will not be able to do after wilderness designation that they were able to do before ??? What will wilderness designation protect the wilderness against? Why should we bother to support it if it won't stop people from doing what they are doing now?
Then why all the emotion wrapped up in this wilderness legislation? If it doesn't close roads that are driven legally then that implies people are misusing the land and driving illegally....if it is already illegal then enforce the regulations those few fools are violatingMatilda wrote:Wilderness is not closure. This bill doesn't "close" anything that you drive on legally
Isn't this your error? You should be addressing the law violators instead of changing a designation that will add more restriction on law-abiders.(ORV free-for-all is a different issue--I can only address law-abiding recreation here)
On the selfish side of me, I think Wilderness areas are great things because I'm a hiker not a rider. But I see this as the typical lefty-enviro-big gubment solution to all problems...Take more control and deny more freedom (in the form of access)
Misconceptions (assuming you are correct) are usually based on passed experience. Government programs or plans never get smaller (try and name one that has) They always grow. And it may be a loose wilderness area tomorrow but it will grow into a more restricted-, limited access, pay-to-play area in the futureThat's one of the biggest misperceptions out there, and I'd like to know what it would take to correct this misperception
What is it exactly that you want to restrict? And please be complete.What is it, exactly, that you want to do on these lands that you won't be able to do if they are designated wilderness?