| Congress pushing for wilderness conservation |
|
|
|
| Written by Greenwire | |
| Monday, 16 June 2008 | |
|
Conservation experts say Congress could by year's end place wilderness
protections on as many as 2 million acres, nearly as much as has been
designated in the past half-decade.
The change comes as Congress moves from Republican to Democratic control and as wilderness advocates have pursued more pragmatic approaches. "It may not seem like it on most issues, but this is one arena Congress is getting things across the goal line," said Mike Matz, executive director of the Campaign for America's Wilderness. "Nobody gets everything they want, but by coming together, talking with age-old adversaries and seeking common ground, wilderness protection is finding Main Street support and becoming motherhood and apple pie." The push for conservation comes as the Bush administration is opening huge swaths of land -- 40 million acres in the Rockies and 70 million in the Alaskan Arctic -- to oil and gas drilling and other "extractive uses," according to conservation group the Wilderness Society. But the administration has only been supportive of congressional efforts for conservation, especially as President Bush contemplates his legacy as he nears the end of his second term. Not everyone is equally enthused, with some legislators wanting to see better management on the land the government already controls. "If you're not preserving and taking care of what you've got, why are you adding to it?" asked Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is blocking action on several conservation bills. But since former House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), a fierce opponent of adding new wilderness areas, lost his seat and was replaced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the committee has been renamed and its mandate has changed. "When I changed the name from Resources to Natural Resources, it wasn't just for cosmetic reasons -- it's for what I view as the real guts of the responsibility of this committee," Rahall said. "To those critics who say, 'Why do we need new wilderness?' I say these areas already are wilderness. We simply want to preserve them as they are, as they have been for generations, and preserve them for future generations" (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, June 16). -- PR
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (0)
![]() Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 16 June 2008 ) |
Related Items
- Wilderness Act
- Democratic Congress breathes new life into wilderness legislation
- House OKs Wild Sky Wilderness designation
- Bush admin backs NLCS bill but thumbs-down on Mount Hood wilderness
- Colorado lawmakers propose Rocky Mountain N.P. wilderness
- Control over roads in parks, wilderness increasingly a court issue
- West Elk Livestock Association
- Proposal for northeastern N.M. canyons attracts broad support, but access needed
- Wilderness plan closes trails to bikes
- Coalition hopes to add 700,000 acres of wilderness in Colorado
- Senate panel takes up Va., W.Va., Calif. wilderness bills
- Controversial Idaho, Utah bills return to Senate, with enviro support
- One down, three to go
- Wilderness park bill advances in Senate
- Forest outlines weed management options
- House clears Calif., N.M. wilderness bills
- Groups file suit to protect fish from Rock Creek Mine
- Debate rages over grazing on Washington state's public wilderness
- BLM releases land-use plan for Utah's Kane, Garfield counties
- Not even the privileged can deter a porcupine
- Green group: BLM ignored laws in oil shale plans



