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.

[300UltraMagShooter]

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

 It is Fed land within a states borders.  

Your right though, and many are waking up to find out just what a disaster it is to sell off their lands to the Federal gvt.  

Some states have sold off huge amounts of their lands to the fed.    Translation:  Some states have sold off huge amounts of their freedoms to the fed.

 

[Elkaholic daWg]

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.

For ELF, ALF, HSUS, DOW, Wilderness Soc., Wolf Lover's to protect from all of US

 And WHO Cares what or how the "Locals" feel!

 While we're at it,should we talk about "budget deficits"

 Also....see thread below......

[logger]

I think it's total *censored*, the feds are the worst land managers in the united states, I have to deal with these people on a regular basis and I can assure you it has nothing to do with making it better for wildlife, it all comes down to people control. The old saying goes give them an inch, they take a mile. This time it's blm, next time it will be forest service.

[wolfbait]

The Wildlands Project
http://www.uhuh.com/1calfraud/stacks/judymusin.htm
 
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm
 
The problem as I see it, is hunters and outdoorsmen can NOT see past their likes and dislikes, in order to see the BIG picture. While everyone is arguing about how they don't like this or that your government is bending you over the swamp cooler.
 
 Bobcat thinks it will improve wildlife habitat! Are you forgetting the wolf introduction Bobcat and the management that has followed? Have you looked at the states that were first in line with the Candadian wolf introduction? How has that gone in your opinion?
 
"These ARE federal lands- so the federal government already has control." You haven't even seen control yet Bobcat but you are about to. When all is said and done you will see it has nothing to do with wildlife, that is just the hook to reel you in with.
 
Bigtex, this is just one step of many, the USFS and USFWS are by far worse than the BLM in land control. Through the conservancy, the USFS, and the USFWS has been buying up many private lands, the conservancey being the middle man for these trasactions. Special parcels that surround other lands.
 
While everyone is devided the wolves are moving in for the kill.

[bobcat]

Wolfbait,

I don't believe I said it would improve wildlife habitat. If I did, that is not what I meant. What a lack of roads WILL do is to allow deer and elk to survive, in good numbers. Look at the Colockum and how poorly deer and elk are doing in there. A large part of that is due to the poaching by indians and others because they are able to drive throughout the entire area. If the roads did not exist and motorized vehicles were not allowed, just think of what a great deer and elk area it COULD be.

But as I said, I am not familiar with any of the specific areas the original post in the thread was referring to, so I really cannot comment on whether it is good or bad. But just in general, less roads is ALWAYS a benefit for wildlife.

[ICEMAN]

I am not convinced less roads is always a benefit for wildlife. Roads= logging = increased food/carrying capacity for game. I seldom find game living exclusively in black timber. Aren't road systems  and clearings often the food cooridor that many large game species rely on? Roads and logging equal sunlight to the earth and resluting browse...

[logger]

Amen iceman, you hit perfectly, the forest service ground is proof of that, I have some blm ground pretty close to where I have a house in tonasket and it's about 3 sections surrounded by private ground, pretty much sage brush country, It gets hunted pretty hard and there is no roads in it at all. Which I agree is good for the wildlife in this instance.

[bobcat]

In wilderness you have fires which does the same for deer/elk habitat as logging, except better.

[JimmyHoffa]

I sort of agree with something in between of what bobcat and iceman are saying.  Yes, the roads can act as food corridors and help provide browse for animals in areas lacking clearings.  But roads increase the presence of man.  Man can remove animals faster than the land can grow them.  Kind of why closing gates seems to be effective for helping the herds.  Similarly, there are elk habitat projects in a few places on the westside.  The builders thinned out parts of the forest to allow more undergrowth to get light, thereby increasing the food available.  A lot like what would be done for roads.  These elk spots are a ways from the road though, to keep people away from them so the elk have little in the way of human predation.

[logger]

In wilderness you have fires which does the same for deer/elk habitat as logging, except better.

This is true except for when was the last wildfire of any signifinance in say the gifford pinchot, fires occur quite regulary on the eastside but not always where it would be the most beneficial. Sometimes a fire burns to hot and takes years and years to recover. I like the idea of fires but your relying on mother nature to light one where you need it most.

[Humptulips]

I don't think some of you get it. Wilderness designation is not about habitat. It is about keeping you out. The roads don't just close. They get made impassable to even walking and trails, well no money for trail maintenence. Roadless designation hasn't helped here and widerness will make it worse. ONP tries to tell you no camping in any but designated camping areas since they got Wilderness desination. They can do that anywhere. Make it tough to get in and out, no camping and you can't use your land even if there is game there. But with predators protected and running rampant there won't be any game anyway so you can stay home and play video games.

[Houndhunter]

In wilderness you have fires which does the same for deer/elk habitat as logging, except better.

if they would let them burn maybe, when was the last time we had a substantial forest fire on the west side?

i wish they were still burning the clear cuts, but that prob wont happen. i hunt alot of old growth forest's and when i am in a spot where its all trees for miles, theres no big game period. logging is the only reason we have the amount of game we do today, on the west side atleast. the areas i hunt have severly suffered because logging being shut down(and higher number of predators), i would hate to see anymore land turned into a wilderness that will never be able to be used for anything

[bobcat]

None of these proposed wilderness areas are in western Washington.

[Houndhunter]

for now

[logger]

I get it just fine, I don't care if it's on the east or westside or this state for that matter, I don't believe it to be a good idea.

[bigtex]

for now

BLM doesn't really have any land in Western Washington. They only own a couple small islands in the San Juans and a couple small parcels in the Lummi area and in Whatcom County.

[wolfbait]

What happened to the logging? Spotted Owl joke. What now is happening to hunting? The Illegal Canadian wolf introduction. Who is behind all of this? The environmentalists. Who does congress listen to? Special interest groups. Who would like nothing better than to turn everything into Wilderness or Parks? The environmentalists. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

None of these proposed wilderness areas are in western Washington

 And WHO Cares what or how the "Locals" feel!