Obama administration reverses Bush wilderness policy

Related Topics

DENVER | Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:31pm EST

DENVER (Reuters) - The Obama administration has restored U.S. land managers' powers to curb development on vast tracts of America's back country, undoing what conservation groups called a "no more wilderness" policy put in place under President George W. Bush.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced on Thursday that the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will again have the authority to set aside large areas of federally owned territory in the West that it deems deserving of wilderness protection.

It would still be up to Congress to decide whether to grant those areas formal wilderness status, putting them permanently off-limits to energy development and other commercial uses.

An official wilderness designation by law prohibits the building of roads or other structures, or any human activities that would alter the natural landscape, such as farming, logging, mining, or oil and gas drilling.

In years past, lands classified by BLM as eligible for such protection were to be protected as de facto wilderness until or unless Congress acted.

But Salazar's new "wild lands" policy gives BLM latitude to allow limited energy development or other activities in such areas, even if they "may impair wilderness characteristics."

"For the last seven years, the BLM -- which manages more land than any other federal agency -- has not had a comprehensive national wilderness policy," Salazar said.

"Americans love the wild places where they hunt, fish, hike and get away from it all, and they expect these lands to be protected wisely on their behalf."

The new policy reverses a 2003 out-of-court settlement by then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton with former Utah Governor Michael Levitt that effectively put millions of acres of public land outside BLM's land management purview.

The deal outraged environmental and conservation activists who feared the decision would open up 2.6 million acres in the American West to unfettered mining and oil and gas development.

"That should never have happened," Salazar said of the agreement.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch denounced Thursday's policy shift as a "brazen" attempt by the Obama administration to usurp congressional control of wilderness designations.

"It is time for this administration to put the needs of Utahans and other Americans above those of a few radical special interest groups who want to make the nation's public lands their own personal playgrounds," Hatch said in a statement.

"I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that it does and that the authority to designate wilderness stays where it belongs -- with Congress."

The BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands, mostly in 11 Western states.

Salazar said the new policy is in line with the BLM's multiuse mission of balancing recreational activities, livestock grazing and energy production with wild land conservation and preservation. Thousands of Americans make their livings from those public land uses, he noted.

"Wise stewardship isn't just the right thing to do, it's good for business and it's good for jobs," Salazar said.

(Editing by Steve Gorman)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
TwoDog wrote:
How can you call what you write journalism Keith? This is at best – agenda driven advocacy journalism. This is about excessive overreach of Federal authority, a hallmark of this administration. You bunch of backseat drivers want to force the nation to accept top down government and ignore your elected officials. Descisions that matter most should be kept close to home, and you had better pray the full extent of your willingness to give all power to the President never come to fruition. You have no idea the slippery slope your support is leading us down. Your Bush-bashing may be cool with your little microbrewery turtleneck pals, but Bush didn’t come up with this policy, the PEOPLE did. And now you want to give the rights of the PEOPLE to decide over to the President. Treason.

Dec 24, 2010 12:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
anomie088 wrote:
Hey TwoDog: why don’t you take your taxbreak and go on a vacation to some these federal wildness areas and get out of your trailer park. But, please leave your tea bags and rebel flags at home. The federal government should designate these wilderness areas as such: wild areas, not areas of deforestation, or oil drilling or strip mining or landfilling. Since I have to pay taxes in this country, then I own part of those lands just like you. If the government wants to exploit those lands and give it to their lobbying partners then they need to put it to vote during election times: not to congress! Let us vote yes or no to each issue. You are fooling yourself if you think anyone in congress was elected because of you and that they care about you. Well of course, if you own an oil, or insurance or banking company, then they may.

Dec 24, 2010 7:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
TwoDog wrote:
Hmmm….trailer park, rebel flags, from a man who believes the electoral process is so corrupt that our elected officials actually have no interest in serving the citizens and who apparently does not understand the concept of a representative government. I’m not sure which of your contradictions or conflicted views you want me to address anomie088. You sound like an anarchist who is blindly devoted to the President. Which is an oxymoronic position. Maybe you should get the real facts on the claims you make about the state of wild lands and whose authority it is to oversee them before you put yourself in such a blindly precarious position. You suggest some sort of a national referendum on these issues. OK then, how about making every budget item and appropriations bill subject to the same caveat. Our GDP is $14 trillion, and we just spent $13trillion on Federal programs alone. Look at deficit spending and the interest on the National debt. Any fool, be they a liberal fool or a conservative fool, can see that this is not sustainable. Why should the President be allowed to spend my tax dollars to lobby for a Healthcare reform bill (written by the congress that YOU don’t trust) that does nothing to address the reforms that I want? When did the President become a lobbyist? Who gave him authority to use tax dollars to travel the country and lobby for a partisan bill that all the data show that a majority of Americans did not agree with? Do some research on what powers were guaranteed to be enumerated to the states when they joined the union. Read the constitution and see what powers the administration is actually suppoased to have and think about how far they have exceeded that authority, particularly under the present and just previous administrations. Be advised, your willingness to trade the freedom to choose based on politically biased reports will never be without opposition. Too many of our ancestors and current soldiers fought for that freedom.

Dec 24, 2010 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.