3 ms·
In this case it sounds like the land was used for cattle grazing, so it wasn't really a preserve. Really we should designate more areas as wilderness. i.e. no
by legitster 1y ago
In this case it sounds like the land was used for cattle grazing, so it wasn't really a preserve.
Really we should designate more areas as wilderness. i.e. no machinery. Humans can still enjoy the land without roaring across them in 4x4s.
- anthomtb 1y ago> Humans can still enjoy the land without roaring across them in 4x4s. To clarify: In your view, someone using a vehicle to access a remote area is not "enjoying the land"? Perhaps you mean that the presence of a motorized vehicle reduces your own enjoyment. (Personal bias: I am an avid mountain biker, occasional dirt bike rider, and feel the wilderness designation is harsh and used excessively).
- legitster 1y agoUnder the Wilderness Act in the US, it breaks federal law to bring a motor into a designated wilderness. The idea is on protecting places where nature can actually be wild. Us humans getting to use them on foot ( or perhaps bike - though it's hard to maintain a bike trail without powered equipment) is a secondary benefit.