What's new

Petition For Redress Of Grievance Revisited

Thanks for posting your notice to the local Sheriff.
 
Looks as though this information earlier on this year was overlooked being posted to this thread:

It has come to the attention of prospectors/miners in Oregon the main Forests Service character ("LEO") alleged of crimes in the 'Petition For Redress Of Grievance' has transferred to the Colorado area.
 
Looks as though this information earlier on this year was overlooked being posted to this thread:

It has come to the attention of prospectors/miners in Oregon the main Forests Service character ("LEO") alleged of crimes in the 'Petition For Redress Of Grievance' has transferred to the Colorado area.
My guess is you are pointing out a particular former Forest Service officer that has transferred to Colorado area and not a "wilderness character"?


According to legal scholars, preserving wilderness character is the primary legal requirement from the 1964 Wilderness Act and all subsequent wilderness legislation to the agencies that administer wilderness. If wilderness character is not being preserved, then the agencies are not fulfilling their legal mandate in their administration of wilderness. “Wilderness character” occurs four times in the Wilderness Act (once in Section 2(a), twice in Section 4(b), and once in Section 4(d)(3)) and all four times the Wilderness Act states that wilderness character “shall” be preserved or protected. While the Wilderness Act clearly allows a variety of uses in wilderness, the administering agencies are still legally required to preserve the wilderness character of the area. In 1983, Congress reasserted the primacy of preserving wilderness character, stating “The overriding principle guiding management of all wilderness areas, regardless of which agency administers them, is the Wilderness Act (Section 4(b)) mandate to preserve their wilderness character.”

Resources on the legal requirement to preserve wilderness character (arranged chronologically):

The Wilderness Act of 1964: its background and meaning. 1966. McCloskey, M. Oregon Law Review 45:288–321.

House Report 98-40 from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March 18, page 43. 1983. United States Congress.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
34
Views
7K

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom