I keep hearing how "little" land is being protected in the US. Protected lands include, but are not limited to wilderness, national parks, perserves and many other designations. According to Wikipedia, a lot of lands is in fact in some kind of protected status. How much?

Lets look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_ ... ted_States

The protected areas of the United States are managed by an array of different federal, state, tribal and local level authorities and receive widely varying levels of protection. Some areas are managed as wilderness, while others are operated with acceptable commercial exploitation. As of 31 January 2008 (2008 -01-31), according to the United Nations Environment Programme, the U.S. had a total of 6,770 terrestrial nationally designated (federal) protected areas. These protected areas cover 2,607,131 km2 (1,006,619 sq mi), or 27.08 percent of the land area of the United States. This is also one-tenth of the protected land area of the world. The U.S. also had a total of 787 National Marine Protected Areas, covering an additional 627,830 km2 (242,410 sq mi), or 67 percent of the total marine area of the United States. In addition, the World Commission on Protected Areas' 2009 database has over 10,480 protected areas listed for the U.S., including the state level protected areas.


I think this is enough.

Mike

I'm with ya on this one mike. I think maybe the state and federal gov,s should be forced to sell off enough to pay off thier defecits.

Babymick1

It is enough, especially when the concept of "protected lands" is often used as a political tool to deny access to public lands by a majority of the public. Those of us who have frequented backcountry areas are well aware that there is actually very little "protection" going on. It's too often about control, not protection.

access is not denied only regulated. Because there are so many illegal incursions by motorized recreationists, the lands cannot be said to be protected.

When the method of access destroys the very thing that makes the land attractive to visitors (wildlife, scenery, silence, fresh air), it is right to limit access by that method.

Also all too often, environmental reasons are submitted as a pretext for closures to recreationists with motorized vehicles, when in reality, it's relatively recent desert and mountain residents attempting to lock up the open land surrounding their chosen abode, so no one can recreate, and they can keep potential neighbors at bay. This, when they often purchased the property with a full and complete understanding that recreationists frequent the area, other private citizens own surrounding land, and that legal routes are nearby. They act surprised and annoyed. That's not a valid reason for closure, so they use the enviro altruist schtick. We understand the tactic. Move to the area, buy 2 acres, plow it under, chase off the indigenous inhabitants, build a house, put up fences, then claim everyone else who subsequently attempts to use surrounding property owned by other people is damaging the environment. That way, it's like owning hundreds of acres without actually buying it, and using the power of overbearing government to enforce your personal agenda at taxpayer expense, and at your neighbor's expense. Very dishonest and manipulative, and it destroys liberty, which is supposed to be our most valuable principle.

As I have said many times the land is attractive to visit but because of the closures you have to walk ten to fifteen miles to see it rather then using a road that is already there. Something wrong here that restricts the older ones from seeing the back country of our deserts.

SAL

What you a commi

Babymick1

it's the young ones on the dirt bikes, quads and whcked out jeeps that ruin the land. Who loses? the older ones, the infirm, babies.

If things continue the way they are with uncontrolled access and unsustainable damage, the attraction of the outdoors will be ruined.

Then you can forget about ANY kind of access to those lands.

Not Really
I'd just buy it.

Babymick1