From my perspective (which is admittedly limited) it is wilderness that is in short supply, not other sorts of land and once wilderness is tossed it is typically left that way.
Maybe you can point me to where Wilderness was "tossed", because I work in this arena and I'm not aware of a Wilderness designation being undone...ever.
Wilderness is the new currency of environmental groups, and it damn sure isn't in short supply. There is more designated Wilderness today than at any point in history...and that's a fact.
I've enjoyed Wilderness both professionally and personally for over 20 years in my home-state of Idaho, but people that think it's necessary for the "protection" of public lands are kidding themselves. There are a myriad of management prescriptions available, most of which allow for far "better" management of lands imho...acknowledging that "better" is subjective in nature.
Wilderness designation is favored by land-managers in my experience, simply because it allows them to walk away and essentially "do" nothing...if for no other reason that it is the least utilized public land in America. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have some inherent value for the record, just that it has very, very low utilization as compared to other federal lands.
I don't favor another acre in Idaho being designated as Wilderness. Some is fine, but we long ago reached what I believe to be "balanced" in Idaho.
As to the matter of BHA,...they are an extremely "green" group in Idaho. If you believe otherwise you're either a member yourself or you've never researched the issues they weigh in on in Idaho.
