Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate again passes bill to expand wilderness

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 03:28 PM
Original message
Senate again passes bill to expand wilderness
Senate again passes bill to expand wilderness

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- For the second time this year, the Senate has passed a long-delayed bill to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness, from a California mountain range to a forest in Virginia.

The 77-20 vote on Thursday sends the bill to the House, where final legislative approval could come as early as next week.

The Senate first approved the measure in January, but the House rejected it last week amid a partisan dispute over gun rights. The gun issue was not raised during Senate debate.

The legislation - a package of nearly 170 separate bills - would confer the government's highest level of protection on land ranging from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range and Oregon's Mount Hood to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would win designation as wilderness, and more than 1,000 miles of rivers in nearly a dozen states would gain protections. The proposals would expand wilderness designation - which blocks nearly all development - into areas that now are not protected.

Supporters called the legislation among the most important conservation bills debated in Congress in decades.


more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_WILDERNESS?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hope And Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Excellent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Terrific!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. it sucks if you like being in the outdoors cuz suddenly you cant go there
unless you walk ---which means 99.9% of this land is lost to us until the facists come in and log and mine it in a few years ---do any of you actually trust these people to do something right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'd rather have a wilderness than a concrete jungle. And yes,
this IS doing something right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftyclimber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The Wilderness Act of 1964 permits horses/mules/etc and has been interpreted
after the Americans with Disabilities Act to include wheelchairs by all federal land management agencies.

There are plenty of other places you can ride a four-wheeler or whatever it is you want to do. Wilderness is a tiny fraction of the federal land open to recreation in the conterminous United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Are you fucking high?
What good is it to be able to go someplace if when you get there there is a housing development on the spot? Protecting what little natural area we have left is about as basic as it gets, I can't believe anyone would stand in opposition to such an idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadesOfGrey Donating Member (646 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-19-09 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Very good news! K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC