| sebastian_dangerfield |
01-19-2006 01:19 PM |
The bottom line on ANWAR
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think I'm fairly representing the statutory definition of wilderness.
- The statutory definition of Wilderness is found in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act:
"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
You may disagree, but many, many Americans think that "driving one road and a pipeline through the ANWR" -- which I take to be a sort of lazy euphemism for the sort of extensive industrial development described by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in my last post -- will fundamentally diminish its "wilderness" quality.
|
That stutuory definition doesn't preclude a road. A road is something people, say people who are "visitors" to someplace... drive on. Unless people start living in the pipeline or on the road, I see no statutory violation there.
I'm unable to find any authority regarding whether paving falls into the govt definition of trammeling. Probably because I didn't look all that hard. But you will... so why should I bother?
Re your second point, many Americans think a Big Mac is healthy. Many Americans think UFOs landed in Roswell. Many Americans believe the planet is 6000 years old. That 1 or 2 million horses asses breathing the air in our 50 states have a hyper-narrow definition of wilderness doesn't mean jack.
ETA: Here's a novel thought... Instead of furiously googling for statutory authority, or cribbing the Sierra Club's insane ramblings on the issue, why not try applying a common sense analysis to the question of whether driving one road ane one pipeline into ANWR removes its "wilderness" maidenhead for all times? |
