Wilderness Administration and Resource Stewardship; Request for Information

Great Old Broads for Wilderness opposes any revisions to Part 610 that would weaken protections for Wilderness Study Areas and existing Wilderness. They argue that the current guidance provides a necessary, stable framework for conservation and recreation that should be maintained to preserve public trust and land values.

Jim Pattiz, representing More Than Just Parks, opposes any revisions to Part 610 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual that would weaken wilderness stewardship. He argues that the current review lacks a stated basis for change and demands that the Service disclose specific proposed revisions and preserve the existing policy to protect wildlife and wilderness character.

The commenter opposes any revisions to FWS Part 610 that would weaken protections for wilderness areas or land eligible for designation. They argue that current policies are necessary to preserve wilderness character and that the agency has not provided a satisfactory justification for changing these established protections.

An individual commenter opposes any revisions to the wilderness review that would weaken protections for Wilderness Study Areas and existing Wilderness. They argue that current standards should be preserved to protect these lands as a legacy for future generations.

The commenter opposes any revisions to FWS Part 610 that would weaken protections for wilderness areas or land with wilderness characteristics. They argue that current policies are sufficient and that the agency has not provided a valid justification for changing established standards.

An individual commenter opposes the proposed actions, arguing that they would weaken wilderness and wild lands management. The commenter urges the agencies to prioritize long-term preservation over short-term exploitation to protect ecological integrity and natural heritage.

The commenter, a private individual, opposes any revisions to FWS Part 610 that would weaken protections for wilderness areas. They argue that current policies are necessary to preserve wilderness character and that the agency has not provided a sufficient justification for changing established standards.

The commenter opposes any revisions to FWS Part 610 that would weaken protections for wilderness areas. They argue that current policies are sufficient and that introducing roads or logging would permanently destroy wilderness character.

The commenter opposes any revisions to FWS Part 610 that would weaken protections for wilderness areas. They argue that current policies are necessary to preserve fragile ecosystems and that opening these lands to industry would cause irreversible environmental destruction.

The commenter opposes any revisions to FWS Part 610 that would weaken protections for wilderness areas. They argue that current policies are sufficient and that introducing roads or logging would permanently destroy the wilderness character of these lands.