Cynic's viewpoint: If there are any profitable natural resources in these areas to be exploited, I don't think there would be any restriction of access for that.
G. K. Chesterton wrote - "The traveller sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he came to see."
< mod >
Careful... C A R E F U L . . .
Let's not get into politics here...
< /mod >
Lord knows we don't want to get into a discussion in a section called "off the beaten path" over a federal agency trying to keep us centered up on the beaten path.
Nothing to see here folks move along, this forest is closed.
We are not trying to prevent discussion about offroad policies, but we don't want politics flame wars. There's a large gray zone in there, and if posters can keep this in mind, we probably won't have to moderate the thread.
As soon as it gets into this party vs. that one and this political philosophy vs. that one, this thread will get closed and put away. If the discussion instead stays on topic about this specific policy, who to write to, etc., then it will remain open.
We've tried to have political discussion areas on this forum twice before, even "letting the inmates run the asylum" once, and it just didn't work out. Even the inmates threw in the towel. People cannot seem to remain respectful of other's viewpoints. We are just not going to go there again.