End of American "Wilderness"?

Jesus W. Bush strikes again. May he rot in syphilitic dementia like that jackass third rate actor Reagan.

Don't mince words Dan, tell us how you really feel.

And you don't "access" wilderness, you walk into it. Much of what we have in Utah & the western US as wilderness and wilderness study areas are such for simple reasons. They are so rugged, remote or thought of as useless that they are the only areas left relatively untrammeled by man. If they were thought to have any 'real value' they would already be covered with WalMarts or their equivalent in sewage treatment/disposal sites, dump sites or 'hazardous waste' storage as we have in Utah.

Odly enough, with all our spare time, the dutch are the most productive country in the world, with very high quality. But note that Amsterdam is NOT holland.

 

I disagree that America is a democracy, you only vote every 4 years for a new dictator. In holland there is no way that one party gets all the power. We always need to agree and look at the other guy's opinion. Sometimes it slows things down, and the current situation isn't histories best, but in the end it is imo THE way to run a country.

 

What is wrong with redistrubuting some of the extreme wealth we have, which we achieved over the backs of other coutries by plundering their national resources? Ever read No Logo?

The main reason the rest of the world starts hating the west and mainly US is the way we treat them. We think it is ok to build sex-clubs and get drunk it a country which despises of these things. And have no respect for their high cultural values. No wonder there comes a violent response. Compared to the average (non extremist) budhist or muslim, our 'culture' is crude and egocentric.

Ok, who read the article? Congress passed a law more than 10 yeats ago to study lands as 'wilderness' areas, perhaps with the intent they could be turned into national parks... Instead of passing bills to turn any of these places into national parks (and using federal tax dollars to fund them) congress has been sitting on them. These states could choose to turn these areas into parks, but they can't.<br><br> I don't have the time to go to each of these states and explain to the people there why they can't develop these lands or use them as parks, perhaps we should let them decide for themselves?

<br>BTW scott I am a card carrying Republican (in NJ of all places), I am just constantly sickened by the extreme bluster the pervades every newsgroup.

Just for the record Aaron, the government was not considering these lands for

national parks, but for designated wilderness areas. It's a very big distinction.

Oh, so the national govt can tell the state what to do with the land and they won't even get a tax benifit? Sounds fair to me.

Yes, Aaron. The government can tell the states what to do with the F*****g land. It is government land for the most part. In many cases, such as in Utah, it was offered to the State years ago for FREE and the state was so damn stupid they turned it down. Now that the states think they have a better way to rape the land they want it. Or, they claim they don't want Washington Bureaucrats involved while at the same time they suck on the federal tit as much as possible. Ranchers here are the worst... BLM grazing is a farce & these ranchers cry every time actually paying for what they use is brought up.

 

We need more wilderness designated a lot more than we need more national parks.

�I disagree that America is a democracy, you only vote every 4 years for a new dictator.�

 

I have read some truly uniformed garbage on the WEB before but this rips the rest up. I suggest the author of the above learn something about the United States political system before making such idiotic statements.

"�I disagree that America is a democracy, you only vote every 4 years for a new

dictator.�

 

I have read some truly uniformed garbage on the WEB before but this rips the

rest up. I suggest the author of the above learn something about the United

States political system before making such idiotic statements."

 

well, for one thing, the people of the United States don't directly elect their Presidents - something I've always thought that, if put into place in say a third world emerging democracy would be seriously frowned upon by the international community.... :-)