It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Team Reversing Wilderness Act's

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:28 PM
Forty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson enacted one of the most forward-looking environmental laws in human history. By signing the 1964 Wilderness Act and creating the National Wilderness Preservation System, President Johnson endorsed a uniquely American philosophy: America's wild lands, untrammeled by industry or machinery -- yet open to the enjoyment of all citizens -- possess special values that merit permanent protection for their own sake.

The decision to preserve wild lands was without precedent anywhere in the world. It symbolized Americans' deep pride in our greatest national asset -- our public lands. The act also inspired an extended period of reflection among the nation's historians, who saw the good in a people who collectively could act beyond the immediate desires of the present and protect something for those who came after them:

"In wilderness I sense the miracle of life, and behind it our scientific accomplishments fade to trivia." Charles A. Lindbergh, LIFE magazine, 22 December 1967

with the arrival of the Bush Administration, the nation's remaining wild lands are instead now targeted for development by the oil, gas, timber and mining industries.

By definition, Wilderness Areas are off-limits to industrial use, and so have a natural enemy in the extractive industries. When President Bush came to power in 2000, he stacked his cabinet and federal agencies with industry lobbyists who spent their careers fighting the protection of wild lands.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton cut her teeth learning legal tricks from her infamous predecessor and mentor, Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt -- a man who actually advocated selling off our National Parks.

Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a life-long oil and gas man, headed a methane company that is aggressively fighting wilderness designation in the Rockies. Mark Rey, Undersecretary of Agriculture for Environment and Natural Resources, made his living as a top lobbyist for the timber industry before gaining oversight of the National Forest system.

This team of industry handmaidens quickly went to work dismantling the system that allows for Wilderness preservation. The first major volley was an under-cover-of-night decision by Secretary Norton to settle a controversial lawsuit with then-Utah Governor Mike Leavitt (now chief of the Environmental Protection Agency).

Would this coincide with Bush wanting to insert nuclear weapons into that mountain? If I could just remember the name of it... I'll have to find a link...
This just makes me sick.. See what happens when you don't have a leash on capitalism and government, it runs wild and will just destroy the ecosystems and our environment...
Who wants to live in an industrialised dump? Bring on the smog

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:41 PM
Holy @!*%, I seriously hope they don't do that. However, I would not be one bit surprised if it happened. I guess they might as well sell it to big oil and manufacturing companies or "whoever" since our govt. is determined to turn the world into a wasteland. Maybe if they did it some Americans would wake up, but I higly doubt it.

Nice find by the way!

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 02:27 PM
This concerns me, but puzzles me at the same time. I suspect the article may be a bit deceptive.

Quote 1:
This team of industry handmaidens quickly went to work dismantling the system that allows for Wilderness preservation.

Quote 2:
While the wilderness characteristics President Bush aims to sacrifice are worthy of preservation on their own merits, there is more at stake. Many cities in the West increasingly rely on the clean water that flows from Wilderness Areas; some of the cleanest water in the nation originates there.

Notice the subtle difference between 'wilderness' and 'Wilderness'. I don't believe (and if anyone can prove me wrong, please do) that the Bush Administration has or is seeking to abolish the 1964 Wilderness Act. Areas that have already been designated as federal 'Wilderness' are NOT AT RISK.

I'm pretty sure that the battle referred to in this article is the battle over designating other public lands (most are probably National Forest) as Wilderness. Now, I'm not saying that these lands aren't beautiful and worthy of protection. I'm simply stating that I think the article is deceptive by making you think that Wilderness areas are under assult, which they aren't. The areas that under assult are the areas people think should be made Wilderness.

And for those of you who don't know, once an area has been designated as Wilderness, no machinery is allowed into it whatsoever. This includes even bicycles!!! We have a few Wilderness areas in Missouri, and I can attest to their beauty as a hikers' paradise, free from man's hands. (OK - that's not entirely true. They were clear cut in th 50s & have 'recovered' since 1964. They are quite nice, though!)


log in