A massive national wilderness bill finally passed in Congress yesterday. What do you think about federally protecting wilderness and wildlife? Do we need more of it? Less of it? Why?

More

As an Oregonian, knowing how beautiful this entire state is, I am very glad the bill finally passed. Forests and animals are beginning to disappear at alarming rates and we need to maintain whatever is left, for the sake of humanity in general. For health reasons and general emotional well-being, as well as for the children. I know I don’t want to teach kids, “And this is what polar bears were.” They need to be able to see for themselves. The bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I think that more still needs to be done.

We need much more. We need a moratorium on all development. We can recycle land and usage so as to preserve what wilderness and resources we have remaining. Now if only we could do something about Central and South America.

I agree with @steve6 in recycling land.

There are a lot of urban renewal projects that could benefit humanity while also preserving the wilderness.
It just makes sense to re- use developed land first before destroying Eco-systems.
Of course it is easier and cheaper to build with a clean slate rather than demolishing prior development so there will always be resistance to renewal.

It needs to happen now and on a larger scale. I could make a list of a million reasons why, but the most logical is that destroying our natural wilderness lands destroys trees and less trees means more carbon dioxide absorbed which means less global warming http://www.arborday.org/globalwarming/treeshelp.cfm.

On top of that…we’re destroying something that I honestly believe we have no right to destroy, we work with the land, it’s not the land’s job to work for us.

Fly over any urban/suburban sprawl and you’ll understand why protection is important.

We need more and more and more and more. We need more on our soil and internationally.

We have to protect as much as possible before it is gone forever. Oceans too are vital.

Jesus H. Christ.

Dear US government,
Please take my entire paycheck. Just take it. The whole thing. Protect everyone and everything from every conceivable scenario imaginable without my say so. Insure the fucking clouds while you’re at it.

Love,
ubersiren

Only in America does a government simultaneously bailout an auto company and fund wild life conservation. I don’t remember voting for or against any of that.

@ubersiren In this country, you don’t vote on policies at all. You vote for people (representative government.)

I know. Isn’t that unfair?

Always more!

@ubersiren I take it you’re not in support of this? Do you support any taxation?

@Jiminez : Not really, no. I’m in favor of environmentalists and activists. I think nature needs them because we’ve effed it up so much with our abundant spreading. But the government needs to let me decide which groups to pay.

@Marina : I’m told we live in a democracy, so I keep wondering where my vote is. The President (since W. Wilson) says we live in a democracy, yet the pledge to the flag says we live in a republic. I’m confused. Neither is fair in my book!

@ubersiren it’s a republic. “Democracy” is just a word we like to throw around a lot.

I know, I was just being a smart ass. I think it’s hilarious that Bush was all about spreading democracy in the Middle East. Why didn’t he want to spread it here?

It’s a republic, but it’s also a democracy in that we vote. Democracy has two meanings, really; one for the system of voting itself, and one for a system that has no supreme court or constitution; where majority rules completely. We live in a representative democratic republic.

@ubersiren So you’re not in support of a state at all? Not in favor of federally protecting land?

So, it’s a democratic republic, not a democracy. You can call it what you want, but it’s not a democracy. We don’t truly get to chose how to live by voting on it. How is that fair? Not that voting is completely fair either, but we are being dictated by a select few. Oh, but we get to “chose” who is dictating us. Great.

The Federal government has a department of land management. It has recently proposed mass slaughter of wild horses because they are interfering with businesses that want to expand in the horses’ territory. They’re using my tax money to slaughter animals in their natural habitats. I don’t trust the government to conserve our wildlife or manage land with our tax money.

But democracy is a method—that’s what I’m saying. So it is a democratic country since ‘republic’ is not a method of deciding anything. So it is and it isn’t. It’s stupid and confusing. Our language is all jacked up.

I don’t trust our [current] government to “conserve our wildlife or manage land with our tax money” either, but I like it better to see this kind of headline rather than a headline saying they’re opening the land up for private use; I [currently] trust the private sector even less than I trust the public sector. Who do you think would do a better job of conserving our wildlife or managing the land? Another government? No government? Private owners?

Definitely protect much more wildlife and wilderness. It’s the right thing to do. Once all of it is gone, killed off, or developed over, you’re not getting any of it back.

More, more, more, more, more, more, MORE!

I’m for the protection of wilderness. I’m not for the government doing it.