[stuartcr]

Why are you against preserving the wilderness?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

We can't take care of the wilderness we already have.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Read #8. And, what do you have against wilderness access? How can you justify locking citizens off "public" lands? Forget about development, you can't even be there. I thought it belonged to everybody. It only belongs to people like Robert Redford.

[TonyWojo]

We should be protecting these areas for future generations

Always sounds like a wonderful plan. Until individual property owners start losing, grazing rights, land, virtually everything they own.

Do a search on wild lands project or sustainable environment.

The term public lands is also false it is privately held government lands.

[Issaquahking]

I love wilderness, but I hate it when a bunch of socialist morons think they can be arm chair quarterbacks for mother nature. Robert Redford is a buffoon when it comes down to real nuts and bolts managing of wilderness, it should be managed by those who derive they're living from natural resources. That would be farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners, and others who actually live with nature, derive their income from, and have a vested concern in the way in which we manage nature to the fullest possible benefit to all. For a common sense approach see how the farmers of the of the Klamath do it by clicking here. or there are a lot of links on my "profile page". Ask to be on farmfriend's ping list. I think you'll be surprised at the whole truth.

[sauropod]

Take a look at a map that shows the amount of land under Federal control. It's over 40% of the country and growing.

"Public land" my ass...

[Carry_Okie]

Preserving wilderness is a physical impossibility. Nature is a dynamic and adaptive system. It is subject to enormous perturbations both sudden and gradual. To assume that it should be as it "always has been" is to take a subjective, romantic, and casual impression derived over a few years of a horrendously complex system and attempt to force it to comply with that vision. Humans have always had an enormous impact on nature and operated as a part of that system. To remove human influence on the assumption that would be beneficial to do so may be the most destructive thing we have ever done to nature, particularly when most habitat is under attack by introduced species and subject to changes in boundary conditions (such as the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide).