By definition, wilderness areas are generally roadless and therefore have very few if any houses. In some cases existing homes are “cherry-stemmed” with the home and the road to it excluded from the designation.
In other cases there are private property enclaves within the wilderness area, but road access is closed. They still own the property, but can only access it by foot or horseback.
With the exception of (generally inactive) mining claims there are seldom any businesses in wilderness areas when designated.
Guiding businesses and grazers generally continue to operate.
Do you know if there are currently any homes or businesses in the proposed area this article cites? If so, how many? (One or two, or dozens, hundreds...?)
My goal is to move to Alaska. I’m very much a “middle of nowhere” kind of person and Alaska offers lots of it. Areas closed off from development sounds good to me on the surface but your answers tell me that it’s not quite that simple.
Not wanting to allow a helicopter to come in for that injured boy is anally stupid. I would also think that any homes currently in the area would be grandfathered in and allowed to stay as they are, with road access. Kicking people out of their homes and off their land is also anally stupid, wrong on so many levels, and should be illegal.
I don’t see how a few dirt roads to provide access for needed maintenance would be bad. I don’t see how mainenance is bad either.
Illegals shouldn’t be here in the first place and drugs are supposed to be against the law. IMO it ought to be ok for the locals who come across them to get them out and make it clear that they risk life and limb if they try to come back.
I don’t make the rules though. I’d love to see more wilderness areas but not the way you’re saying it’s legislated.
What part of Alaska are you in? Freepmail me if you ever want to brag about your beautiful state.