Under the bill, 250,000 acres of wilderness in and near Utah's Zion National Park would win designation as wilderness.
(NEWSCOM/FILE)Photos (1 of 1)
House passes bill protecting 2 million acres of wilderness
By Eoin O'Carroll | 03.25.09
In what’s being called the most sweeping land protection law in a quarter century, the US House of Representatives Wednesday passed a conservation plan to set aside more than 2 million acres of desert and forest in nine states.
The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, which cleared the Senate last week, was approved by a margin of 285 to 140 and has been sent to President Obama for his signature.
The bill would officially designate land in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia as wilderness. That means no logging, mining, drilling, or even vehicles.
The Associated Press details the provisions by state. They include setting aside more than 450,00 acres of wilderness near Santa Clarita, Calif., and along the California-Nevada border, nearly 250,000 acres of Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park, 517,000 acres in Idaho’s Owyhee Canyonlands, and more than 250,000 acres of wilderness in and near Utah’s Zion National Park.
Environmentalists are hailing the measure. Upon passage of the bill, this blogger’s email inbox was flooded with press releases.
William H. Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society was quoted as saying:
“This is a monumental day for wilderness and for all Americans who enjoy the great outdoors. With passage of this bill, Congress has made a great gift to present and future generations of Americans. These special places make our communities better places to live, clean our air and water for free, and provide ecological resilience in the face of climate change. They’re also great places to hike and camp and fish with family and friends, of course.”
And here’s Dave Jenkins, director of government affairs for Republicans for Environmental Protection:
“This bill is the most important conservation legislation that Congress has passed in many years. We are especially pleased that 38 Republicans from all parts of the country supported this bill. It’s a powerful demonstration of the good that can be accomplished for our country when Republicans return to their roots as the party of conservation.”
Of course, not all were thrilled about the bill. The AP notes that opponents of the measure, mostly Republicans, called the bill a “land grab.”
The news agency quotes Rep. Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican who argued that the bill would deprive the US of much-needed energy development.
<< One third of US bird species are in peril | Main“Our nation can’t afford to shut down the creation of jobs for jobless Americans, and we can’t afford to become even more dependent on foreign sources of energy,” Hastings said.
The bill “even locks up federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar,” he said.
Comments
2. david07003 | 03.25.09
Beware of paper parks. All the government is doing is claiming that these areas are parks. What it means is that if you live near there, you cant access the property, except by foot. And even then, there are plenty of rules and regulations to boot. Imagine that you live in a rural area with forests and mountains behind your property. You like to go fishing, hiking, hunting, hang gliding, mountain climbing, etc. Once day the government comes by and declares it a paper park and you can no longer access the property, even though that you are the only one that does because of the sparten population. This is what is going on. Scary.
3. Joseph Ross | 03.25.09
I think it’s great that we are conserving this vast area for our future generations.
I do have questions;Would be wise to conceder the use? I read about rec. use, but how will we access this area. What about crimminals hiding in the area, or illegal drug production. How will this area be monitored? And what about building dams to capture water for food production and drinking. Then there is energy production from solor and wind, could this be an area where these kinds of facilities could be built?
If those questions arn’t addressed then it is a land grab of sorts.
Also, will the U.S. have control of this area or will it be given to the U.N?
v/r, Joe
4. mary | 03.25.09
I hope this is only the first of decisive steps to reverse the damage we have done to our natural world. One author stated that our grandfathers put their mark on the land and now our job is remove those marks. I’ve just committed to eating vegetarian for one month because Paul McCartney’s words made sense to me: “If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is just stop eating meat…vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot; ecology, famine, cruelty”.
5. Bill Edmonds | 03.25.09
A wonderful surprise. What became of the Republican slogans, Like: “If youve seen one redwood tree, you’ve seen them all.”
7. dale | 03.25.09
This is sad for people who enjoy the outdoors (which most politicians don’t who are too busy lengthening their careers in urban centers). Now thousands of acres won’t be accessed by vehicles nor used by responsible vehicle recreationalists, like Jeeping. In wilderness areas, you can’t even use a bicycle. So basically the land will be no good to the public (especially not the handicapped who require vehicles to get to lakes and places of interest). It’s all political. And I’m sad to see the public lose these lands for political interest groups who are reshaping their images into something green. Weep, America, weep.
8. Jim | 03.25.09
“Our nation can’t afford to shut down the creation of jobs for jobless Americans, and we can’t afford to become even more dependent on foreign sources of energy,” Hastings said.
Response: Well I think you should get serious about investing in renewable energy sources. Destroying our national wilderness areas does not speed that development along.
The bill “even locks up federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar,” he said.
And!??? There is no requirement that wind and solar generating facilities need to be deposited on these “protected” lands.
It is long overdue that our governement got serious with the development of renewable energy technology and stopped accepting lobbying dollars that prevents that development.
9. molly colorado | 03.25.09
Very exciting! Just imagine wild wilderness. What a novel idea!Thanks to Ken Salazar and all the hard working American conservationists for your dedication and love of American landscape and open space.
10. Sup’r Man | 03.25.09
Let the bears live freely. We need wolves to eat the deers. Fish will flourish, and people can live in the cities. We don’t need loggers in the U.S., because we can just import timber from Canada or other countries. This way we outsource jobs to them, which will help their economies recover. I feel very good about helping the world economy in this way. Great concept!
11. L Shepard | 03.25.09
I live right next to a significant amount of the land in CA/NV that is part of this bill. While I support protecting our open space, it saddens me that to do so there are folks who believe 100% restriction of OHVs is necessary. We have zero emissions and stay on trails, and I usually pick up hikers’ and campers’ trash as we ride. It’s unfortunate that environmental protectionism now means extreme exclusion.
12. Felipe A. rodriguez | 03.25.09
Amen, good job guys. We need to preserve our wildlife and the wildernness that harnesses it. Lets not stop there lets keep it going.
13. Carolyn Riddle | 03.25.09
Thanks to all the far-sighted representatives across the nation and across the isle for having the courage and wisdom to do the right thing for all Americans and for future generations. Big business and the military have had too free a rein to destroy sensitive ecosystems with their irreplaceable flora and fauna these last few years. I am a voter in “Doc” Hastings district and am not surprised by his ignorant assertion. He has always been an enemy of conservation. What jobs are being lost by preserving wilderness areas? Washington State and the other regions protected by this new bill have vast areas of land on which to develop renewable energy sites.
14. B Garrison | 03.25.09
We seem to want both sides of the coin without regard to what is on the other side…
We want renewable energy, like wind, but we don’t want wind turbines; they ruin the view and kill birds.
We want solar, but we don’t want transmission lines to carry the power.
We want oil independence, but we won’t do what it takes to make the large scale renewables viable.
Now, we want to close off 2 million acres and turn it into a wilderness when in fact, we may need some of this land to support what we say we want…
I agree with wilderness areas. When I get to go, it is awesome. But I still have a family to raise and a business to keep going and employees to keep working: I don’t understand where we are going…we can’t worship the land more than people and people can’t use the land without regard to how linked we are to it. There has to be a better way to strike a balance…
15. Jim Banister | 03.25.09
This is a great thing. Rep. Hasting’s comment is representative of the increasingly transparent special interest double-speak wrapped in contemporary crises. If he thinks “mining” those 2 million acres are going to solve our energy or jobs problems, then he should be run right outta office… and please don’t give him the keys to the car, matches, or let him operate power tools. I’d much rather have those lands available to my children’s children to enjoy as I and millions of others have, than to spoil them for the 6 months of oil those lands might produce. We need bold, entrepreneurial, creative solutions to both jobs and energy. Further raping of beautiful natural resources is not the answer.
16. Paul C | 03.25.09
The article title should read “House passes bill locking its own citizens out of 2 million acres of public land.” Most people don’t realize that Wilderness Area designation means that you can’t use the land unless you hike or ride horses in to the area. As a disabled veteran I used to be able to enjoy some of the area that this bill locks up, but now I can’t go there any more. Most of the land affected by this bill was already protected from logging and other potentially destructive activities but the environmentalists still think they need to lock up more land. When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964 it was to protect areas that were untouched by man, but most of the land in this bill are areas that are used for recreation and does not fit the description of the original Wilderness Act. Congress should be ashamed.
17. David Smith | 03.25.09
Now my grandchildren will be able to know the joy of the wilderness like I have!
18. Steve | 03.25.09
Why don’t we just set aside the whole national forest system. That is what the US Forest NO-Service is doing right now! And the US tax payer is paying at least $100,000-500,000 for each impact study that follows no science or sense.
19. M | 03.25.09
“It’s only a dumb little lake” how arrogant-When it’s the last “dumb little lake”, will you care then?
20. Mike | 03.25.09
It figures most of the Republicans would be against it. If there’s money to be made, Drill baby Drill. Don’t pay any attention to the environmental nightmare that’s left behind.
21. Richard | 03.25.09
“Environmentalists” self perpetuating conglomerates have caused more death, destruction and economic destruction in the United States than all the terrorist combined. When are the citizens of this country going to wake up and start calling them what they are “terrorists” who are trying to destroy this once great land.
22. Heather | 03.25.09
Well, if they are setting aside all this dessert land, were do they plan on putting the solar power plants and wind farms?
23. cecil | 03.25.09
This is a day for rejoicing. May this beautiful land remain free of human physical interference forever.
Ha! I haven’t postd on this site for a month, and it tells me to slow down because I am posting to often. HA!
24. Bob | 03.25.09
So I suppose all the “tree-huggers” will be happy about this, they will fight offshore drilling which would make us independent of foreign oil, or any taking of oil reserves from the Bakken and Williston reserves in the western states which would drive gas and diesel prices down to well below $1 per gallon for the American people, but that would be too much to ask of the groups that want to deny us the ability to come back from a recession/depression which we are now in. I love the outdoors also but this is too much.
25. Richard Clark | 03.25.09
I live in a country, Aotearoa, aka New Zealand, where we sell an image World Wide of a Clean Green 100% Natural Environment, what ****, we are so busy destroying the landscape and so I applaud the American People their courage in taking a step to roll back the Bush Administrations attack on the Natural beauty of the American West which I explored, 2003-5, filming and photographing, an extra ordinary landscape. Thank you America for leading the way.
26. Toot | 03.25.09
Oh god this landgrab is a scary thing. I can’t believe we allow government to control and take so much. It’s truly frightening to think about.
27. Dan Theman | 03.25.09
Since Wilderness only allows people to tiptoe through it, how are normal
American expected to enjoy it? It should be multi-use and allow motorized access.
28. Mike | 03.25.09
One additional benefit that is often overlooked when creating wilderness is the un-interupted flow of clean, fresh water. Hopefully, the provisions of these wilderness bills will continue the concept of reserved water rights, where the federal government retains the rights to water flowing through these wilderness areas and all public lands. Many many Americans depend upon this supply for their very existence. Adding Wilderness protection should continue to protect this vital resource.
29. gil braulick | 03.25.09
In the state of Oregon the government already has control or owns the majority of our state.
Pretty soon they will be building fences to keep the people corraled
from touching this vacant land .
We need to protect our lands for people to enjoy them but this latest grab is going too far .
30. Mike | 03.26.09
I realize their are folks on both sides of this issue with strong feelings so I’ll try to keep this to the facts:
1) Currently, only 4.72% of the entire United States-an area is protected as Wilderness. Since 53% of America’s Wilderness is found in Alaska, only 2.62% of the contiguous (lower 48) United States is protected as Wilderness. This leaves a LOT of space (97%) for other activities…mining, logging, roads, energy extraction, houses, cities, people, accessibility by cars and ORVs, etc.
2) Many believe that wilderness is a “lock-up” of land that locks people out and Wilderness prohibits many types of recreation. In fact, more than 12 million people visit Wilderness each year on their own or with a guide to climb mountains, ride horses, hunt game, fish blue-ribbon trout streams, ski snowcapped peaks, raft rivers, canoe lakes, take pictures and stargaze. In short, most types of recreational uses are allowed in Wilderness, except those needing mechanical transport or motorized equipment, such as motorboats, cars, trucks, off-road vehicles, bicycles and snowmobiles.
3) Unseen and uncounted benefits. Wild and clean areas help provide resources that all of us need to survive (clean air, water, etc.). We need to ensure that some of our land remains “healthy” so that we remain healthy. Have you ever taken a close look at a river that flows through a city? Would you want to drink that water? Most would say no. Many cities get their water from miles away in areas that are off limits to activities that pollute the water we drink. These lands provide valuable services that many take for granted…this should be a consideration for us all.
These are just a few reasons that preserving 3% of the land in the lower 48 for wilderness designation makes good sense. It doesnt seem like too much of a sacrifice considering the huge benefits it provides.
31. S. Sandlin | 03.26.09
At last. After all these decades of exploitation of our wildlife, at last!
32. L. Suits | 03.26.09
I truly hope that this helps Big Bay, Michigan. This little town has been fighting The Kennicott Mining Company who wants to put a Sulphur mine in a pristine fishing and Wilderness Area. Big Bay has few jobs outside of tourism and Kennicott is waving large sums at the local people.
Lake Superior is one of the largest sources of fresh water and shouldn’t
be polluted for 100 jobs for five years.
“Save The Wild UP” and “Say nah to da sulfide mining, eh!”
33. Will Parker | 03.26.09
For those who oppose wild lands and restrictions on use of machines to access them, I say look at Pinedale, Wyoming. Before the advent of energy development there it was a quiet, sleepy, picturesque, genuine, honest Western town. Now it has been taken over by trucks, heavy machinery, crime and drugs. The land and water are being destroyed. The energy companies are only seem to be interested in making a fast buck.
34. J Piotrowski | 03.26.09
“An ecological footprint is the amount of productive land area required to sustain one human being. Globally, there are about 1.9 hectares of productive area per person, but the average ecological footprint is already 2.3 hectares. So we would need 1.5 Earths to live sustainably.”
Creating protected natural areas is essential to the very survival of life on this planet.
35. Peter | 03.26.09
You have to feel sorry for people who, with an apparently straight face, can describe themselves as environmentally responsible ATVers or “Jeepers.” What’s scary is they probably believe that. Guess they don’t have the physical strength to get off their fat behinds and actually WALK anywhere. They certainly don’t have the mental strength to see how dumb and shortsighted they are. And then there’s guy who wrote about all this “dessert” land. Sweet.
36. Molly, Oklahoma | 03.27.09
If our great-grandfathers had not seen the need to preserve wilderness areas, we would not have our great national parks. Once one has visited Yellowstone and seen miles of cars and RVs and almost no one going off the paved roads and campgrounds, one has to think there is not much wilderness at Yellowstone. I am grateful for this new legislation setting aside lands while they are still pristine so my great-grandchildren can hike and experience what wildness really means.
This issue transcends politics and nationalistic thinking.
37. tom J. | 03.27.09
I see Mike beat me to the punch, thank you. Facts are useful to debunk political posturing (e.g. Hastings) and empty rhetoric. I will add two items: a vast majority of the designations of wilderness land are reclassifications of existing federal land so the argument of a federal land grab is just so much hot air. Second, wilderness is meant to be just that, land where human impact is minimal and is meant to represent what the land was like before we got here. If you can’t access it by horseback or walking or being disabled, too bad, you wouldn’t have been able to access it in the past either. I, too, have some disabilities that don’t allow me into some wilderness areas and I accept that. All those who complain about motorized access are just plain lazy. Get out of your car, off your snowmobile or your ATV and walk. They already have access to the other 97%.
38. Joe S | 03.27.09
I love the ‘locked out’ comments. If the land is wilderness, there are no roads anyway. Even without wilderness designation you wouldn’t be able to drive there anyway.
It just seems to me its all about wanting to destroy and do whatever you want, access to treat the untrampled areas of wilderness like a junk yard like the other 95% of the national forest system.
39. Joe S | 03.27.09
As far as exploiting the land for energy, there is no way to strike a balance. You need roads, housing, transmission lines at the very least to move energy from areas like these that are very isolated. They are isolated by location or by terrain. Infrastructure is expensive. Have you actually done the math how its possible to make money from creating all of this infrastructure when oil and other energies drop? You will see how ridiculous that argument is. It doesn’t add up, period.
40. Pam H | 03.27.09
This is great news! There are so so few areas left that are true Wilderness. It’s great to see them protected. It’s wonderful that there will be a few places left that are not over run by cars or those infernal ORVs that seems to crawl all over the back country these days.
I am stunned to see so many people saying this is “locking up” land. True this keeps vehicles out. But since when did we need vehicles to get everywhere?!? Horses are still allowed. Feet are still allowed. Even when my great-grandmother (who was a big time adventurer in her youth in the late 1800’s) could no longer get into the Wilderness herself, she was glad to know that us kids could still find places where the water clear, the air was quiet, and the land was much, much bigger than the people. I hope that my children and grandchildren will always have such places to shape their souls.
I, for one, am thrilled to know that there will still be some large places in North America where only the sounds of nature can be found traveling on the winds.
41. JonS | 03.28.09
A great day. For those who bemoan the fact that they can’t drive their ORVs in these lands, you now know how backpackers feel when they have to make way for some yahoo screaming by on a two stroker. Truth is, the land is for more than just humans and this point is continually negated by Manifest Destiny advocates. Get off the bike and out of the Jeep and feel the trail with your feet…the first step toward energy independence.
42. justin | 03.31.09
I wonder how many people who have responded or read this article have been to any of these places that were designated as wilderness areas? Personally, I have been to Zion and the national parks in Utah as well as around Rocky Mountain NP. Now granted I haven’t looked at a map to see the actual boundaries of the areas now being protected, but I can tell you that the area around these places is pretty rugged - not the type of place for any kind of renewable energy or vehicular roads without some pretty serious engineering and construction (i.e. money). I think its a great idea to protect land around these and other parks for future generations. The extent of use of these lands for both commercial and recreational use as well as the comments regarding the Feds taking away all use of the land is a bit cynical. I would advise readers to search for “wilderness areas NPS” and read more into it before passing judgment.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
3. Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy » Cool Green Morning: Thursday, March 26 | 03.26.09
4. » Congress Finally Gives Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Protection | 5280 Magazine | 03.26.09
11. PreservationNation » Blog Archive » Preservation Roundup: Off-Season Boardwalking, Public Lands Win, Sustainable Cities | 03.30.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. B-MAC | 03.25.09
Well thats a great start- now what about saving the amozon- so we can save ourselves?