[stuartcr]

That doesn't seem like a good reason for not wanting to preserve the wilderness. As bad as it is, I would think that a few rich people would be better for wilderness preservation, than a whole bunch of people with RVs, logging trucks, and off-road vehicles. Since I'm not rich, I may not be able to use this property, but at least the critters that live there would be better off.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Preserving the wilderness is not what this is about, that is only the cover story. This is about a bunch of Hollywood near-billionaires and people who are politically connected having exlusive access to the wildernesses and locking everybody else out. Do you know what "no mechanical access" means? That means you ain't getting in there unless you own a helicopter or can afford to rent one for a few hundred dollars an hour. The average person can't do this.

I'll believe Robert Redford when he admits to a fit of guilt that leads him to remove Sundance ski resort, replant the trees that were cut down, and allows it to only be wilderness. Robert Redford is real credible when he owns Sundance resort and has a house in Provo Canyon. He's as guilty as anybody for cutting down trees, developing wilderness land, and encroaching on the critters. But when Hollywood demands conservation and reducing use of resources, they mean the little people like us. Liberal "principles" apply to everybody else, not them.