John Hall: “tonight, as part of consideration of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, the minority offered a motion to…”

“tonight, as part of consideration of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, the minority offered a motion to recommit forthwith with the proclaimed intent of clarifying the circumstances under which motorized vehicles can enter wilderness areas. However, I am concerned that the language of the motion may actually work at cross purposes with that goal. The MTR stated that: ``The designation of lands as wilderness or a wilderness study area by an amendment made by this section does not prohibit the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats or the landing of aircraft or other forms of mechanical transport, on the designated lands when required in connection with an emergency involving the health and safety of persons, including search and rescue efforts or the response to an Amber Alert.'' I don't know anyone who believes that we shouldn't be able to use motorized equipment in a wilderness to react to an emergency. It's common sense, and that's why it's already included in the underlying statute. In fact, the underlying law makes the allowance for motorized equipment in a health or safety emergency without enumerating specific types of equipment or circumstances, giving the widest possible scope of interpretation. I am concerned that by listing specific pieces of equipment and circumstances, the motion offered tonight could have caused more confusion and possibly limited the ability to respond to emergencies, despite any good intentions.”