The C.A.S.H. Courier Newsletter
Spring 2012 Issue
Destroying the Wilderness Act of 1964
By Peter Muller
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where
man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an
area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man
himself is a visitor who does not remain.
Howard Zahniser, author of the
Wilderness Act of 1964
The Wilderness Act of 1964, passed by
Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson almost fifty years
ago, created the “National Wilderness Preservation System” which consisted,
initially, of over nine million acres of national forest areas which were
administered by various federal agencies. This has by now grown to over 110
million acres. The criteria for the initial areas, as well as the areas
added later include:
1. Minimal human imprint
2. Opportunities for
unconfined recreation
3. At least five thousand acres in size
4.
Educational, scientific, or historical value
5. No enterprises within
them
6. Allows no motorized/mechanized devices (e.g.: vehicles,
motorbikes, or bicycles)
The Wilderness Act restrains human influences
within wilderness areas so that ecosystems can change over time in their own
way, free, as much as possible, from human manipulation. Wilderness areas
serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the
Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve
the “wilderness character of the area.”
Hunting is and always was
permitted in Wilderness areas for hunters who were willing to hike, ride a
horse, canoe or kayak into the wilderness areas. That left out the 90% or
more of licensed hunters who didn’t know how to hike, ride a horse, or
paddle a canoe or a kayak.
But more importantly, it locked the licensed
hunters’ best friends and hand-maidens – the game agencies – out of the
wilderness areas. These agencies manipulate areas through clear-cutting,
controlled burns (now frequently renamed “prescribed burns” because they
can’t be controlled), bulldozing, etc. to yield browse for deer and food for
other “game” species at the expense of all other species and the natural
progression of the ecosystems. All this is done to assure the “maximum
sustainable yield” of targets for hunters. These, perversely called
“conservation measures,” are not permitted in Wilderness areas by the
Wilderness Act.
Today there is a bill pending in Congress that would undo
all of that — H.R.4089, the so-called “Sportsmen’s Heritage ACT.” As I
write, this bill has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 274
for vs. 146 against. By the time you read this article, the bill may already
have passed or failed to pass in the Senate.
This bill, if passed, would
threaten to undo all that the Wilderness Act has achieved over the last 48
years. The bill states:
SEC. 104. RECREATIONAL FISHING, HUNTING, AND
SHOOTING. (a)
IN GENERAL.—
Federal public land management
officials shall exercise their authority under existing law, including
provisions regarding land use planning, to facilitate use of and access to
Federal public lands, including Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or
lands administratively classified as wilderness eligible or suitable and
primitive or semi-primitive areas, for fishing, sport hunting, and
recreational shooting “The provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing
and recreational shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to
provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on designated wilderness
areas on Federal public lands shall constitute measures necessary to meet
the minimum requirements for the administration.”
In other words, the
administration of the wilderness must assure that opportunities for hunting,
fishing and recreational shooting are met; and that fish and wildlife
conservation measures (clear-cutting, controlled burns, bulldozing, etc.)
are to be instituted by the administration of the wilderness areas so that
hunting and fishing can be maintained in wilderness areas.
This repeals
the intent of the Wilderness Act whose intent was to “let nature do its own
thing” without interference and, especially, without the “assistance” of
conservation agencies.
If hunting and fishing opportunities require a few
roads and parking areas “to facilitate use of and access” we’ll have to
construct them. If we need a little more “conservation measures” to grow
more deer we need some wider roads to bring in our construction equipment
and the fire trucks, etc. If we are to manage the areas to assure hunting
and fishing opportunities the “managers” need to bring in their equipment,
vehicles, radio transmitter towers to properly manage and monitor the
abundance of “recreational opportunities.”
If this bill passes, the
primary directive for the administration of wilderness areas will be to
accommodate the demands of hunters, anglers, and recreational shooters. The
invasion of wilderness areas by roads, vehicles, snack-ammo-worms-shops,
hunting blinds, and Porta-potties is inevitable.
The hunters and their
apologists deny that any of this is going to happen. They point out that,
for example, road construction and the use of motorized or mechanical
vehicles is prohibited by the Wilderness ACT in sections 4(c). Since this
paragraph is not referred to in H. R. 4089 – it is not repealed by
H.R. 4089.
However, even though H. R. 4089 does not explicitly
repeal sections of the Wilderness Act, by changing the overall mandate for
the administration of the Wilderness Act, it makes all provisions
subordinate to the requirements of hunters, fishers, and recreational
shooters – especially since it expressly requires the introduction of
“conservation measures” to accommodate the need of hunters, fishers, and
recreational shooters.
We can speculate as to the reason for the
introduction of this sinister bill. On the face of it, it seems a simple
enough attempt by and for the over 90% of hunters who are shut out of access
to wilderness areas by their lack of hiking, horse-riding, or paddling
skills, to gain easier access to wilderness areas. However, there are
others who speculate that this is only the initial assault on the primary
law to protect nature from the abuse and destruction by human activity.
Lurking in the background there are the lobbyists from the mining, oil and
gas-drilling companies who would like to see the 110 million acres opened up
to extraction and exploitation.
Whatever will ultimately surface as the
motive behind H.R. 4089, its passage would destroy the last remnant of sane
environmental protection legislation.
--------------------------
Peter
Muller is the Vice President of C.A.S.H.
Go on to
Joe's Sample Letter about HR 4089
Back to Spring 2012 Issue
Back to C.A.S.H. Courier Article Archive
|
