Elections Do Matter: An Example --> Two Million Additional Acres of Wilderness

[HuckleB]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

"9. Forests: Since taking office, the White House has put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks. The conservation effort - the largest in the last 15 years - came with the stroke of a pen when Obama signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 in late March."

-------------------------------------


And that's just number 9 on a list from the first hundred days. I have many complaints about the Obama administration, and about many in Congress. However, elections do matter.

[RedEarth]

1. KR

[tandot]

2. K & R

[amborin]

3. k & r

[anonymous171]

4. Trees are more important than American soldiers apparently

[HuckleB]

6. It's not an either/or, nor is it a more/less equation.

[FSogol]

5. Another reason why voting for the person with the (D) after their name is important.

Not matter what your level of liberal purity is, the (D) will always be closer than the Repubs.

[HuckleB]

7. Yup.

[NJmaverick]

8. Thanks for a link to this informative article

[HuckleB]

17. You're welcome.

[joeybee12]

9. Under federal protection can mean many things...national parks have great protection...

...simply being federal land still opens it up to logging, mining and devleopment...this blurb of a paragraph really tells us nothing.

[HuckleB]

10. Wilderness, meaning Wilderness Act protections...

Obama Signs Wilderness Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-signs-wilderness-bi_n_180828.html

For more on the Wilderness Act...
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct

[joeybee12]

11. Oh, I went to the link at HP...there really wasn't much there....

Click on section 4 of the wilderness act link...

And on edit, designating land is good...however, for future generations simply designating land as wilderness doesn't protect it in the long term...the next Repukle Prez can un-do this...public lands need greater oevrsight and more stronger protection...we'll see how Salazar manages this land.

[HuckleB]

12. I don't think a president can simply undo the Wilderness Act.

It's an act of Congress. National Monuments are another thing altogether.

Oh, if you want to read more on the bill from last Winter/Spring... Take your pick.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Wilderness+Bill&btnG=Google+Search

And a wee bit more, in regard to history of the Wilderness Act:

http://wilderness.org/content/wilderness-act-1964/

Cheers...

[joeybee12]

13. You can't undo the act...but he can designate what is wilderness...

...and the "specific exemptions" in the previous laws noted do open up public or wild land to use...usually by those out for a profit...it's Congress' job to change this, they never have...and if the history of the 1872 Mining Act is any indication, they never will.

[HuckleB]

14. How can the president designate what is wilderness?

If that were true, why would so many of us have had to put so much time and energy into the legislative side of this bill?

[joeybee12]

15. I should have said he can decided what wilderness areas should

be protected....

[HuckleB]

16. I'm still not following how that can happen without Congress involved.