Wilderness rules restored for public lands

[wolfbait]

Wilderness rules restored for public lands
KRISTEN WYATT
From Associated Press
December 23, 2010 6:14 PM EST

DENVER (AP) — The Obama administration plans to reverse a Bush-era policy and make millions of undeveloped acres of land once again eligible for federal wilderness protection, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday.

The agency will replace the 2003 policy adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton. That policy — derided by some as the "No More Wilderness" policy — stated that new areas could not be recommended for wilderness protection by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and it opened millions of acres to potential commercial development.

That policy "frankly never should have happened and was wrong in the first place," Salazar said Thursday.

Environmental activists have been pushing for the Obama administration to restore protections for potential wilderness areas.

Salazar said the agency will review some 220 million acres of BLM land that's not currently under wilderness protection to see which should be given a new "Wild Lands" designation — a new first step for land awaiting a wilderness decision. Congress would decide whether those lands should be permanently protected, Salazar said.

Congressional Republicans pounced on the "Wild Lands" announcement as an attempt by the Obama administration to close land to development without congressional approval.

"This backdoor approach is intended to circumvent both the people who will be directly affected and Congress," said Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican tapped to lead the House Natural Resources Committee when the GOP takes control of the House in January.

The Congressional Western Caucus, an all-Republican group, also blasted the decision. "This is little more than an early Christmas present to the far left extremists who oppose the multiple use of our nation's public lands," Utah Rep. Rob Bishop said in a statement.

BLM Director Bob Abbey said it hasn't been decided how many acres are expected to be designated as "Wild Lands" and whether those acres will be off-limits to motorized recreation or commercial development while under congressional review. It's also unclear whether there will be a time limit on how long acres can be managed as "Wild Lands" before a decision is made on their future.

The BLM has six months to submit a plan for those new wilderness evaluations.

These "Wild Lands" would be separate from Wilderness Study Areas that must be authorized by Congress. Wild Lands can be designated by the BLM after a public planning process and would be managed with protective measures detailed in a land use plan.

Ranchers, oil men and others have been suspicious of federal plans to lock up land in the West, worrying that taking the BLM land out of production would kill rural economies that rely on ranchers and the oil and gas business.

Their suspicions have been heightened since memos leaked in February revealed the Obama administration was considering 14 sites in nine states for possible presidential monument declarations.

That included 2.5 million acres of northeastern Montana prairie land proposed as a possible bison range, along with sites in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon and Washington.

The 2003 policy was an out-of-court deal struck between Norton and then-Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to remove protections for some 2.6 million acres of public land in that state.

The policy allowed drilling, mining and other commercial uses on land under consideration as wilderness areas.

Salazar's reversal doesn't affect about 8.7 million acres already designated as wilderness areas.

Conservationists praised the reversal, though there has been grumbling that it took the Obama administration nearly two years to overturn the Bush-era policy.

"Washington D.C. always takes longer than you want, but we're glad we've gotten here," said Suzanne Jones, regional director for The Wilderness Society.

___

Associated Press Writer Matt Volz in Helena, Mont., contributed to this report.

___

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20101223/ef348800-f630-459b-866e-0a0f37657899

[ICEMAN]

 

[bigtex]

Well for those who only hunt Washington this really has no impact. BLM is the smallest federal landowner in WA, in fact out of all the states that BLM has land in WA is the state with the least amount of BLM land. There is one BLM Wilderness Area, the Juniper Dunes in Franklin County, and one BLM Wilderness Study Area, the Chopaka Mountain Wilderness Study Area in Okanogan County. Much of BLM's land in WA is scattered and is so small that creating a wilderness area isn't feasible.

[Skyvalhunter]

Well this bites. You can bet that the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie will try to be incorporated into ALW now.

[bigtex]

Well this bites. You can bet that the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie will try to be incorporated into ALW now.

This has nothing to do with the US Forest Service, only the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM). USFS and BLM report to different secretaries. USFS is under the Sec of Agriculture while BLM is under the Sec of Interior.

[Skyvalhunter]

May not affect it directly but just another step in expansion of all wilderness areas. This bill also prohibits motorized vehicles-motorcycles and ATV on 2 million acres of PUBLIC land that should be multi-use. Yes that also means oil, gas and mineral production, also. It is now the private domain of the environmental left. Like they would ever want to be outdoors! It is everyone’s land; to be shared

[ICEMAN]

It is everyone’s land; to be shared   

Not with this regime in power...

Anymore, I am against any changes to any fraction of land which will restrict it's use, even in other states. It seems that any change to public land use policy seems to work against hunters.

[Elkaholic daWg]

It is everyone’s land; to be shared   

Not with this regime in power...

Anymore, I am against any changes to any fraction of land which will restrict it's use, even in other states. It seems that any change to public land use policy seems to work against hunters.

 But many hunters applaud this kind of thing. The ONLY people that think this kind of thing is good for are the sierra clubs, wilderness society's, wolf lovers,, ELF's, ALF's ,DOW's and other elete enviro groups that the blue party caters to........yet still some hunters like this kind of thing so they can sit in total silence,alone in their areas. Read my signature and you'll see how I feel. Waiting on response from RMEF regarding these issues. they may disappear from it.

[bobcat]

It seems that this could very likely be a good thing for wildlife, and if it's good for wildlife it's good for hunters, right? I'd have to see which specific areas they're talking about but I just don't see how it could be bad to keep roadless areas roadless. There are already too many roads as it is on our public lands, both BLM and USFS, why would we want more?

[halflife65]

Well, as long as they let fires burn.  Without some logging (assuming not too many herbicides after logging) the quality of deer/elk habitat is reduced.  If they let fires burn and forest regeneration to occur leaving different types of habitat (feeding, bedding/shelter), etc. it will be helpful, probably.

I just separated out habitat and multi-use as two different arguments and, obviously, only addressed one of them.

[Bigshooter]

I think multi-use is the biggest problem people have with this.

[300UltraMagShooter]

Everyone always seems to miss the point.

This gives the Federal Government control instead of the states.  With these leftists, it is always about control/power.  Whereas with the right, it is about giving back freedom whether it is to the state or it is to the people.

Give these leftist this much power, and you'll be lucky to be able to look at the land from a distance or on a postcard without a permit.

They are perservationist (anti-human), not conservationist.

 

[bobcat]

These ARE federal lands- so the federal government already has control.   

[Elkaholic daWg]

 Check and see how many of these "roadless" areas already have roads. how many millions were the taxpayers left on the hook for to remove roads, culverts, and bridges (some substantial) from the wild sky area??

[bobcat]

OK, so if they already have some old logging/mining roads, get rid of the roads! Simple. Less roads means less hunting pressure and less poaching, and more animals.