If the challenge here is on conceptual framing of wild lands, if there were to be any movement from the word and concepts tied to "wilderness", why not something like "stewarded"? This recognizes, for example, historical Indigenous practices of managing land without allowing for plunder or party. Instead, it elevates wilderness as something to be protected, cherished, and looked after - also in opposition to the neglect of "wilderness".

I used to love the word "stewardship" because I thought it would resonate with Christians. Over time I learned that it does resonate with Christians, but in a bad way: too many of them see stewardship as extremely temporary, and they feel like there's a deadline to make the most use of land before God blows the whistle and brings this realm of existence to an end. I no longer think that environmentalism can constructively engage with Christianity. It's always going to be a fight.

Unfortunately you're right about that, as much as I like the word disconnected from those views, preconceptions about earth's apocalyptic doomsday may instead lend to "careful plunder", in a "stewardly manner". Okay, how about "Natural Sanctuaries" and the "Bureau of Land Kinship"? That may emphasize the sacredness of the land itself rather than the tending of it, which is more open to interpretation.

Making anything sacred outside of Christianity (and other established religions) offends more people and makes the fight harder. I think we should concentrate on practical, inclusive arguments about the environmental, ecological, educational, and experiential benefits of keeping large areas of land free from development and industrial exploitation, and create a hierarchy of management from maximally protected / minimally exploited areas down to fully exploited areas that have little ecological value but provide a different value such as timber production or recreation.

I always liked the name of the Bureau of Land Management

If you have been to any national parks recently I think you would understand the "recreation area" designation. The most accessible parks are now so crowded it no longer feels like a wilderness. Just streams of people trying to experience rare places. A place like Zion gets 9.5 million visitors a year.

Even "leave no trace" outdoor practices leave some trace. Multiply that by the number of visitors and the impact is obvious.

Accessibility is probably far and away the strongest effect on human impact to areas rather than any legal designations.

Which Park Services improves as traffic increases with the mission of reducing impact.

I was in Sequoia National Park last week. All parking was absolutely full, people were parking illegally all over the place, traffic was slowed to a crawl because people were walking on the park roads trying to get to where they wanted to go, and there was a 45 minute wait for park buses because of a traffic accident.

We need more places like that, especially since we're becoming more urbanized, and kids are growing up without access to less-developed areas. Granted, there are a lot of unique places like Sequoia and Zion that can't be replicated, but every landscape has its own charms.

We do have that. A designated "Wilderness Area" is the most strict classification. Restrictions in these areas (which cover large majorities of our national parks) are:

- No motorized vehicles

- No permanent buildings - this even means bathrooms and bear boxes many places. Stephen Mather Wilderness (North Cascades National Park) is currently doing surveys asking about if they should install more of them or add more bathrooms.

- Limited trail signage

- No "trammeling" which essentially means: don't mess with natural processes.

These Wilderness Areas are very different from Federal Recreation Areas, yet you can still "recreate" in a Wilderness area seeking solitude and nature.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb52701...

I would like someone who understands both backcountry hiking and Ultima Online to discuss the term trammeling, please.

>possibly carrying firearms regardless of any rules

Carrying long guns is legal on all BLM land. Discharging them may be restricted in some areas, though.