Pros And Cons Of Wilderness Designation

There’s rather a lot of controversy today about how we should use lands that have the government designated as wilderness. For some, these wilderness can be the best treatment to unwind after a day of hard work. For others, we can use the wilderness to relieve the stress placed on our government. Despite this debate, there are certain events that could have been avoided had the government addressed some key issues when designating a wilderness. In order to target land for wilderness designation, key issues must first be considered, such as the effect on the nation, the effect on the people, and who will get the final say about the use of the wilderness. As of 2009, “the United States imports sixty two percent of its oil from other nations” (Source C). The key issue here, consequently, is wilderness designation has affected the nation’s dependence on natural resources. “In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming hold the equivalent of as little as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil…” (Source C). Such dependence on foreign countries has caused the government to
increase taxes on oil, thus creating a higher price for gas. The nation could have had smaller tax rates, had the government took into account the effect of designating land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as wilderness. Failure to do so had caused the government to increase taxes in order to purchase oil from foreign places. The single most important item that makes up a nation is the people that reside within it.
Although a wilderness designation can be beneficial to the people, nevertheless there are still adverse effects that may occur. “... I cannot support the overall package (Omnibus Public Lands Act) and urge my colleagues to vote against this rule that did not allow a vote to save eighty thousand jobs and over two million dollars in income in California…” (Source B). During an intense drought, land that we could have used to relieve the people of California was inaccessible as it was deemed a wilderness. However, due to the inability to relieve California from the drought, eighty thousand people lost their jobs. Imagine how little that number would have been if only there was land California could touch. When the time comes, take into account the possible negative effects that will manifest when labeling a piece of land as
wilderness. Now who will be in control of such wilderness, will it be the locals from the cities? The state or federal government? Will they listen to the concerned voices? Or will they just ignore those concerned? The third and final key issue is that whoever gets the final say about the use of the land, will they listen to those that feel the need to shed light on an issue? “Critics of state-level planning fear that state government will not give sufficient consideration to local interests when making land use decision.” (Source F). Locals especially, are afraid that whoever controls the wilderness will not hear their ideas. For example, Guam locals feel that the military will threaten their very culture if a new firing range is built for the Marines. This has caused thousands of Chamorros to resent the military and call for a decolonization. Had the citizens of Guam assumed responsibility of that land, possibly, this predicament might have never occurred. Therefore, whoever ends up with the final say, will they listen or will they disregard the concerns? Granted having land considered to be a wilderness is marvelous, as it helps us admire the beauty that technology cannot recreate. Without certain considerations taken into account, however, the wilderness can be become a roadblock to those that want only the best use for the land. The key issues to take into consideration is what will be the effect on the nation as a whole, the effect on the people in local cities, and who will control the land. Without these key issues being taken into account, generally speaking, the wilderness as we know and love will end up weighing us down as we try to change that status of the land for the better.