I think you did a great job on reporting the motivations of conservative Congressman Dan Benishek but feel some things in this report should have been stressed differently.
It’s true that the previous park administration sought to “acquire all county roads within the Park and zone them as “wilderness” but that goal was based on a original premise to save this unique environment from development, even if people had been moving into that environment for decades. That goal, in itself problematic, is not automatically an example of big bad government.
And not everyone was “forced off their land through federal use of eminent domain”, many readily sold their property to the Park. Neither was the goal of the Park to eliminate all ” foot traffic from… cherished Lake Michigan beaches”. Rather it was to create as much of a pristine wilderness environment as possible. Probably that goal was already to late for the area.
Feeheley may be concerned that under a new Park administration a stricter wilderness protection stance might be imposed. But I’m also just as concerned that Benisheck’s bill will end up doing just the opposite, opening up the park to more development and threats of privatization.