In this case it sounds like the land was used for cattle grazing, so it wasn't really a preserve.

Really we should designate more areas as wilderness. i.e. no machinery. Humans can still enjoy the land without roaring across them in 4x4s.

> Humans can still enjoy the land without roaring across them in 4x4s.

To clarify: In your view, someone using a vehicle to access a remote area is not "enjoying the land"?

Perhaps you mean that the presence of a motorized vehicle reduces your own enjoyment.

(Personal bias: I am an avid mountain biker, occasional dirt bike rider, and feel the wilderness designation is harsh and used excessively).

	▲	legitster 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Under the Wilderness Act in the US, it breaks federal law to bring a motor into a designated wilderness. The idea is on protecting places where nature can actually be wild. Us humans getting to use them on foot ( or perhaps bike - though it's hard to maintain a bike trail without powered equipment) is a secondary benefit.