Quote Originally Posted by bikehikeskifish View Post
Versus "Wilderness":

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

Thus the crux of the matter is the definition of "untrammeled". Arguably, "in contrast with ... dominate", means that as long as man's own works don't dominate qualifies untrammeled in favor of having select bridges and select maintenance. Without the qualifying statement, one could go to the other extreme ... fully unrestrained.

Untrammeled is a weird word to use in the definition for sure. Originally it sounds like man is free to do whatever they want in the wilderness area, but they mean that wilderness is completely free from man.

But even with untrammeled, I do read that as an area with no people visiting...I'm pretty sure that is the bottom line, and an idea of what the Wilderness Act people were trying to accomplish. While in theory it is a wonderful idea, there are too many people in the world to have it completely......primeval. Is that word in there somewhere?

I still think that the wording of the Wilderness Act has helped to limit things as much as possible, but I'm sure the writers of that knew the rule couldn't be followed to a "T" since there is always an exception.

side note: Prob gonna get a little too far off topic
Its obvious that every single person has a different take on wilderness, and like everything else in life there is always opposition to what is decided. I'm not sure how much change can occur with healthy debate, with the way it seems things are run in America. Since poli-tricks can't be discussed on this site, I'll quit while I'm slightly behind.