Bush's "No more wilderness" policy to be overturned

[scooterbug44]

Woo-hoo!

Wilderness rules restored for public lands - Yahoo! News

The Obama administration plans to reverse a Bush-era policy and make millions of undeveloped acres of land once again eligible for federal wilderness protection, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday.

The agency will replace the 2003 policy adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Salazar said. That policy ? derided by some as the "No More Wilderness" policy ? stated that new areas could not be recommended for wilderness protection by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and opened millions of acres in the Rocky Mountain region to potential commercial development.

Salazar said the agency will review some 220 million acres of BLM land that's not currently under wilderness protection to see which should be given a new "Wild Lands" designation ? a new step for land awaiting a wilderness decision. Congress would decide whether those lands should be designated permanent wilderness areas, Salazar said."

 

[GoodWitch58]

 

[floridafarm]

I applaud additional wilderness protection but I disagree with giving a federal agency the right to decide what constitutes a wilderness area. Currently, Wilderness Study Areas must be authorized by Congress. To circumvent Congress, we now have the BLM usurping Congressional authority and declaring "Wild Lands".
Sometimes when you win on an issue, but the way you won doesn't sit well with you, you have to say I don't want to win that way.

 

[Rita]

.
This is good news! An extra Christmas surprise!

.

 

[scooterbug44]

No, they didn't change the process at all.

All they did was say they would allow new items to come under review as per the same process as usual.

Bush just said "no, forever" and let his cronies develop public land.

 

[30ashopper]

A federal land grab by any other description, usurping the power of congress to make such decisions. This is not a surprising development under a our current administration.

 

[scooterbug44]

How exactly is allowing a review (the way it was allowed for decades before Bush) of their existing land a "government land grab"?

There is no ownership change. And Congress still decides - specifically stated in my original post.

This just lets the BLM make recommendations of areas to Congress.

 

[30ashopper]

How exactly is allowing a review (the way it was allowed for decades before Bush) of their existing land a "government land grab"?

There is no ownership change. And Congress still decides - specifically stated in my original post.

This just lets the BLM make recommendations of areas to Congress.

The way I read it, it places new restrictions on the property once it gains that designation.

BTW, what do you mean "their land"? Who's land?

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

'Their' as in public land already governed by congress. I think you need a vacation 30aShopper...

 

[scooterbug44]

Yes, it does place more restrictions - because the whole point is that the land can become more protected if Congress deems it appropriate.

The land in question is ALREADY public land that noone but the government "owns."

No land grab. No ownership change. Just some additional restrictions to preserve special areas so more Americans can enjoy them.