GOP-backed bill is most serious attack on America's Wilderness Act in history
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 2276
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry, I think that's bullshit. What the authors and I want (and millions of others) is that people who want to enjoy what wilderness remains do so without changing that wilderness so that it's no longer wilderness.
Cite me something from the text of the bill that indicates there will be ANY bad effect on the wilderness. Folks will be able to hunt and fish there if they follow the same rules as folks who want to hike and camp there.
This "Oh no, they're going to build AIRSTRIPS" stuff is like folks finding DEATH PANELS in the ACA. It's a tool by folks who oppose it, for whatever reasons, to fire up those who won't take the time to actually read the legislation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." ... “its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation” ... “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.”
Geezer, are you just lazy, or are you stupid, or perhaps are you corrupt?
Given the quotes of what a wilderness is supposed to be, the bill is very evidently in conflict with the concept of wilderness.
In fact, right here, below the title it says:
"To protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting."
"Federal public land management officials shall exercise their authority ... to FACILITATE USE OF AND ACCESS TO Federal public lands, including Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or lands administratively classified as wilderness eligible or suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas, for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting ..." sounds like permanent improvements, like (but not limited to) roads. By this language, you could include snowmobile trails, ATV trails, helipads - even small airports. And yes, the dams, blinds, ldges and other items mentioned in the bill are also not excluded.
"No action taken under this title ... shall be considered to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and NO ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS, OR CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, including cumulative effects, is necessary or required."
By this language, and environmental impact report is not required for ANY wilderness project undertaken under this bill. That could mean dams, logging, killing fish - anything. As mentioned in the discussion.
"Lands may be subject to closures or restrictions if determined by the head of the agency to be necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence, for purposes including resource conservation, public safety, energy or mineral production, energy generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, protection of other permittees, protection of private property rights or interests, national security, or compliance with other law."
In other words, federal agencies that want to close land to hunting etc have to 1) prove it's necessary 2) for the protection of "resource conservation, public safety, energy or mineral production, energy generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, protection of other permittees, protection of private property rights or interests, national security, or compliance with other law". Simply maintaining a designated wilderness as a wilderness is apparently not a good enough reason to prevent those activities. Which makes a wilderness designation rather moot.
"(A) IN GENERAL- The head of each Federal agency shall use his or her authorities in a manner consistent with this Act and other applicable law, to--
(i) lease or permit use of lands under the jurisdiction of the agency for shooting ranges; and
(ii) designate specific lands under the jurisdiction of the agency for recreational shooting activities."
Because nothing says wilderness like a shooting range!
ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The most serious attack in history? Your forgetting WW2. The secret Jap plan to burn American forests.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cites?
ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The Japanese sent bomb-equipped balloons to bomb the U.S. and most if not all of them landed in unoccupied areas. It wasn't a particularly serious attack, being rather ineffective. So ineffective, in fact, that it was largely covered up and forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon
After considering the Wilderness issue, I am in favor of there being some lands reserved to be utterly absent permanent improvements.
If the new bill can preserve this aspect of the existing definition, I'd be fine with it. No permanent improvements.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, Kiki, for doing my work for me. I gave up, recognizing the futility of attempting to debate further. But you made the case excellently and I should have kept going for the information of OTHERS. I owe you one. It's an important issue for me; I shouldn't have let my frustration make me give up.
Anthony, that's difficult if not impossible to accomplish. How do you "unpermanent" a road...even a dirt one? That's just one example, and as Kiki has pointed out, there are lots of loopholes that COULD allows permanent things. One has to decide whether one trusts people to abide by the apparent intent of the wording, or if there are those who know how it's written--or wrote it--to allow things not stated clearly in the legislation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm for keeping the rules the way they are now, we don't need to change it, so I'm opposed to the bill.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Anthony, that's difficult if not impossible to accomplish.
Hello,
If the aims of the new bill are inconsistent with this basic protection, then it is clear what the truest aims of the bill are: To destroy the wilderness as currently defined, and reform it into some man-managed entertainment center.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's exactly the point, Anthony. They want to open up the wildnerness; while we already have many, MANY "man-managed entertainment centers" in our proteced lands, they want to make money off them ALL. As shown, obviously even the hunters and fishermen they are using to rationalize it recognize this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME