How People Voted
25% For, 75% Against
60 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 860, The California Wild Heritage Act of 2007
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
No revisions found.
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
William Becker
May 6, 2007, 9:26pm (report abuse)This is an outrageous land grab from Politicians who NEVER enjoy the outdoors.
I ride Mountain
bikes and Motorcycles in desolete wilderness areas and you NEVER see hikers out there.
This is pure disenfranchisement of Moutain Bikers and OHV people that actually go into remote areas.
Virginia Crom
May 19, 2007, 3:50pm (report abuse)There are many others who will eventually be shut out of the wilderness through this type of arrogant legislation by arm chair protectors of the wild. Rock climbers, skiers, and more will be left out in the cold as their "mechanical" devices are banned. Common sense isn't very common!
Chris Bellows
July 19, 2007, 7:51pm (report abuse)And yet another land grab by the government, supported by so called environmentalists. What is needed is intelligent caretaking of PUBLIC lands. Not the closure of PUBLIC lands based on weak science performed by half-educated pot smoking ecologists. I enjoy mountain biking some of the areas at risk by this HR 860 bill. If this passes my pictures of past rides will be the closest I will ever get to these wonderful places. Let’s manage our lands in a responsible way that does not lock them up by declaring them "Wilderness Areas" in a false hope that our children will be able to enjoy what they can not visit because it is well a “Wilderness area”.
John Brownstone
January 11, 2008, 8:47pm (report abuse)I enjoy taking my mountain bike into our nearby National Forest - nothing is more disturbing to me or any other user than having to deal with a dirt bike or ATV recklessly zooming by with no consideration for anyone.
Don't equate Mountain Biking with Off Road Vehicles - they are not in the same class, even though the motorized community wants you to believe so.
Off-road vehicles are the most destructive forces in our public lands today - they need to controlled, not encouraged.
I would gladly give up my "ride" in order to protect this beautiful land.
p.s. attacking anyone with a different point of view as being a "half-educated pot smoking ecologist" betrays your total ignorance.
leslie barnard
January 11, 2008, 8:53pm (report abuse)We are losing too much land, particularly here in the west to Off-Road Vehicles which are crowding out quiet recreation, causing severe erosion, sedimentation in surface water, ruining valuable watersheds, ruining wildlife habitat, cutting fences and trespassing on private land and intimidating permit holders of the forest and adjacent landowners. I understand this is probably not the majority of the Off-road vehicle riders but it is enough to be causing obvious devastation nation-wide on public lands.
If people can ride a bike across the country, surely one can ride a bicycle or a horse or hike a couple of miles into the woods or wilderness. Then again, I see nothing wrong with having some areas (as use to exist) where people don't have to go at all.
It is lazy and pompous to think that just because you can't take your loud, smelly, mechanized vehicle into wilderness that there is no use for wilderness at all.
F.M. Patorni
January 11, 2008, 9:57pm (report abuse)I support the Act. Unless this or similar legislation is taken, the ecosystem will continue to be damaged beyond recovery; wildlife and wildlife habitat will be seriously disturbed; local communities will be impacted; and that quiet recreation will be excluded, especially people who enjoy the forest for hiking, horse riding, bird watching, and people seeking a calm environment. According to official surveys, motorized users of public lands represent less than 6% of users, they are a minority. Check the Wildlands CPR website if you are not convinced!
Emelia Berol
January 23, 2008, 5:57pm (report abuse)I support the passage of this Act, and am grateful to Senator Boxer for introducing the Bill. I agree with F.M. Patorni's comments, there are fewer and fewer places left where people who like quiet natural places can go and be free of the noise of motorized vehicles.
The coalition of wilderness advocates from across the state who worked on this bill found that there are 7 million acres of still unprotected lands that qualify for wilderness designation, but due to the political process, which must compromise to please the wide variety of residents in California and their desired land use, only about 2.5 million acres actually remain in the Bill. There will be plenty of wild places left for those whose idea of enjoying Nature is to engage in activities that destroy the very places they say they like to go to.
Reagan Slee
June 28, 2008, 5:45pm (report abuse)When will people stop believing everything see on TV or in a Book? These lands are already protected and governed by the federal government. This is bill is written because Boxer’s ego wants to one up Feinstein’s. I was born and raised where this proposed wilderness is taking place and I have seen the land improve in the last 10 years but I have seen places that are labeled wilderness decrease too. People are such sheep and have ruined places because the labeled it. Listen to people they don’t want to go on a hike to someplace nobodies herd of they want to be an elitist and boost their egos with bragging to friends that they went to the blab blab wilderness over the summer. If you want to keep the land the way it is the government needs to have drastic enforcement. If somebody drives where they are not supposed to give them a $25,000 fine and take their vehicle.
Reagan Slee
June 30, 2008, 2:05pm (report abuse)Listen to the people who are for this bill. They sound as if they are better, than the quote “lazy” people with ATV’s. These quote “lazy” people have fought for the freedom of this country and lost the ability to hike or ride bikes into these places. Some of these “lazy” people have never been able to ride a bike or climb a mountain they need road access to reach your quite little places. I ask the snobbish people what you think these roads were made for. Do you think they were made for hiking, bike riding, for horses, next you will tell me they were made for planes. They were made to drive on! If you don’t like the noise get off the road. I will challenge anyone that thinks they CAN’T find solitude in this designated wilderness as it is now “ANYBODY” I will also challenge anybody that says wilderness is quieter than the proposed wilderness, again “ANYBODY” Don’t try to educate me on wilderness and I wont try to educate you on the city OK.