Simply put, I believe we should not seek the lowest common denominator when it comes to wilderness and saddle a wilderness designation with exceptions, exclusions, and exemptions.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Wilderness designations should not be the result of a quid pro quo. They should rise or fall on their own merits.
Madam Speaker, I have spent more than half my life as a member of the Resources Committee. In that time I have supported numerous wilderness designations. In fact, I cannot recall ever opposing a wilderness bill.
Wilderness is not defined by the absence of certain activities, but rather by the presence of certain unique and invaluable characteristics.
There's been progress toward seeing that nature and culture are not opposing terms, and that wilderness is not the only kind of landscape for environmentalists to concern themselves with.
We all understand that compromise is part of the legislative process, yet at the same time, I would submit that wilderness is not for sale.
Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.
As one who has often felt this need, and who has found refreshment in wild places, I attest to the recreational value of wilderness.
All definitions of wilderness that exclude people seem to me to be false. African 'wilderness' areas are racist because indigenous people are being cleared out of them so white people can go on holiday there.
Wilderness, like the national park system, was an American idea.
I realize the answer is not to create wilderness and walk away.
No opposing quotes found.