Fighting Wilderness Designation…Ideas?
I know that this general Idea has been discussed before, but I will try and go more in depth.
“When an action has a disproportionate effect on some group (racial, ethnic, gender, whatever), it can be challenged as illegal discrimination--even if there was no discriminatory intent.”
This is not law but, the framing many groups or individuals use to sue. It should not surprise you that this idea has been used to block or render illegal all sorts of stuff. Think employee rights, National ID card, public transit. This brings me to the root of our problems; The Wilderness Act, specifically this little section:
PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
There are currently 107,436,608 acres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act) designated wilderness in this country. This is a huge track of land virtually inaccessible to large numbers of people. The two main groups I am thinking of are, some disabled and Low income people. They pay taxes to maintain lands that that is in essence fenced off to them. Not to cut on disabled people but it’s fairly obvious why accessing wilderness would be tough for them, I will expand on low income.
Low income family X Dad remembers when he was a kid driving to see some cool stuff in some recently designated wilderness area. Family X gets to the park only to see gates where the road once existed. Family X finds out it’s a 6 day hike in and out to see the cool stuff over some pretty gnarly terrain. They would all need backcountry gear, a guide, more time off work, and the stamina to complete the journey. That adds up to some serious $$$. Just to get a glimpse of their, and every other tax paying citizens land.
My point is; whether or not you get to see what lays within these sacred wilderness areas greatly deepens on your situation in life and how much money you have. The cost to visit a wilderness area on foot safely is much greater than if there were mechanical access. This difference in price will most definitely limit or stop some people from accessing their land. It is public land that’s only open to a privileged few. Just imagine the outrage if the US government started to charge for tours of the US capital. You would hear the same argument I just laid out.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1-1. IMPLEMENTATION.
1-101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth In the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Marian islands.
I think I could make a strong argument that the wilderness act and this executive order are contradictory. E.G. the best 107,436,608 acres in this country are off limits to me, that negatively affects my health, mental or otherwise. I don’t know what the hell “environmental effects” means exactly, seems like kind of a catch all old slick Willie snuck in there. I don’t think this order would be effective in fighting wilderness designation but I do think it’s interesting. Especially since liberals cant live with the ideal of policy having a disparate negative impact levied on minorities, or the poor by anyone.
The open access community could sue under these guidelines. All they would need is a group or individual who thinks wilderness designation unfairly targets them. Even if it didn’t work it would slow them down. I am guessing that some lawyer at BRC or somewhere else thought of this already and could tell me why it wouldn’t work. I am interested to hear what people think and other ideas to stop this Wilderness nonsense.
I know that this general Idea has been discussed before, but I will try and go more in depth.
“When an action has a disproportionate effect on some group (racial, ethnic, gender, whatever), it can be challenged as illegal discrimination--even if there was no discriminatory intent.”
This is not law but, the framing many groups or individuals use to sue. It should not surprise you that this idea has been used to block or render illegal all sorts of stuff. Think employee rights, National ID card, public transit. This brings me to the root of our problems; The Wilderness Act, specifically this little section:
PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
There are currently 107,436,608 acres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act) designated wilderness in this country. This is a huge track of land virtually inaccessible to large numbers of people. The two main groups I am thinking of are, some disabled and Low income people. They pay taxes to maintain lands that that is in essence fenced off to them. Not to cut on disabled people but it’s fairly obvious why accessing wilderness would be tough for them, I will expand on low income.
Low income family X Dad remembers when he was a kid driving to see some cool stuff in some recently designated wilderness area. Family X gets to the park only to see gates where the road once existed. Family X finds out it’s a 6 day hike in and out to see the cool stuff over some pretty gnarly terrain. They would all need backcountry gear, a guide, more time off work, and the stamina to complete the journey. That adds up to some serious $$$. Just to get a glimpse of their, and every other tax paying citizens land.
My point is; whether or not you get to see what lays within these sacred wilderness areas greatly deepens on your situation in life and how much money you have. The cost to visit a wilderness area on foot safely is much greater than if there were mechanical access. This difference in price will most definitely limit or stop some people from accessing their land. It is public land that’s only open to a privileged few. Just imagine the outrage if the US government started to charge for tours of the US capital. You would hear the same argument I just laid out.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1-1. IMPLEMENTATION.
1-101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth In the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Marian islands.
I think I could make a strong argument that the wilderness act and this executive order are contradictory. E.G. the best 107,436,608 acres in this country are off limits to me, that negatively affects my health, mental or otherwise. I don’t know what the hell “environmental effects” means exactly, seems like kind of a catch all old slick Willie snuck in there. I don’t think this order would be effective in fighting wilderness designation but I do think it’s interesting. Especially since liberals cant live with the ideal of policy having a disparate negative impact levied on minorities, or the poor by anyone.
The open access community could sue under these guidelines. All they would need is a group or individual who thinks wilderness designation unfairly targets them. Even if it didn’t work it would slow them down. I am guessing that some lawyer at BRC or somewhere else thought of this already and could tell me why it wouldn’t work. I am interested to hear what people think and other ideas to stop this Wilderness nonsense.
