Many people often ask why I am opposed to creating and expanding wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are those areas that all motor vehicles are banned along with bicycles, and all productive uses of land for man, such as mining, agriculture, and timber production.

Wilderness is supposed to be a pure place, basically untrammeled by the hand of man. Not that many true wilderness lands exist in the Eastern United States — they’re is few old growth forests left or other areas that look essentially like they were before mankind came and changed the landed for his purposes.

Indeed, such few limited areas deserve wilderness levels of protection. However, there are many other lands that have been legislatively designated as wilderness, but don’t really have a wilderness character to them — or a need for such an extreme level of protection. They’re is some land that also should get wilderness protection retroactively, but that should be reserved for the most sensitive of parcels.

In contrast is the case for public lands, wild spaces, and rural lands that are lightly regulated by the hand of man. Even a rural farm field that is actively being farmed for crops or pasture is relatively wild place compared to an urban city block or suburban subdivision.

Indeed, what makes the “wild spaces” such a delightful places is the general lack of people using it, and their light use. They are not aggressively patrolled by law enforcement, and give man a chance to be alone and explore without a guided tour. They also provide a place for nature to be in it’s wild nature.

Our country needs more public lands. We need habitat for the wild things. We need to protect our working forest and farms from development. Special ecosystems need special protections — including wilderness protection in some cases. But the important thing is to keep our wild spaces wild, and without too much government regulation.