I believe the new federal wilderness protection laws are constitutional. They may not be liked by all, but they are making it possible to protect the lands that were designated to protect. If there is a problem with the constitutionality of these laws, then that will be decided upon by the Supreme Court.
There is nothing at all that I can find in the new federal wilderness protection laws that could be deemed as unconstitutional. Of course, major corporations do not like them very much, because they restrict their ability to exploit and destroy our wildnerness. But I think we can all live just fine, even if the corporations don't get what they want just this once.
I believe that the federal wilderness protection laws are indeed constitutional. We need to protect and preserve our wildlife and our parks so that they are there for future generations to enjoy them the way that we have. I fail to see how keeping wildlife from harm and creating safe zones is unconstitutional.
The new federal wilderness protection laws are not constitutional. They over step the laws that should be in place and hopefully a federal judge will strike the law down. The federal authorities have lately been trying to create new laws that take the rights away from private citizens and give them to the state.
The limitations placed on the use and access of federal lands designated as wilderness helps to ensure that the land remains for future generations to use. This not only applies to people, but the animals that call the wilderness their home. The constitutionality of access restrictions and firearm usage within these areas is not unconstitutional. People still have the same rights they always had, but are restricted in certain areas. It is no different than dictating conduct on the white house lawn or on school grounds.