RMEF retracts support of H.R. 1581

[WAcoyotehunter]

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2011/08/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-retracts-support-anti-roadless-bill 


GOOD NEWS for those of us who enjoy the backcountry!!!  Glad they came around!

[Elkaholic daWg]

 These folks are Happy about it too!

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/predator-hunting/articlecontent/8/2011/2722/groups-ask-court-to-halt-montana-and-idaho-wolf-hunts

[WAcoyotehunter]

I didn't see anything about the bill in your article...hopefully you weren't comparing RMEF to the anti's that filed the lawsuit!!   

[Elkaholic daWg]

 RMEF sleeping with the enemy. Thank God the Safari club and the NRA are into saving rights instead of stripping them.
 That bill is about lands that do NOT fit wilderness requirements that are still managed as wilderness  (Many already have roads) being restored to their previous management classification.   Wolf folks would love to keep us out also.

[WAcoyotehunter]

It doesn't have anything to do with wolves.  This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill.  RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support.  This bill is not good for wildlife.  Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap-  we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.

BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness.  They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen.  Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone.  There are enough roads already.

[Elkaholic daWg]

It doesn't have anything to do with wolves.  This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill.  RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support.  This bill is not good for wildlife.  Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap-  we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.

BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness.  They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen.  Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone.  There are enough roads already.

 Yes and many are already in these areas which is why they need to be re-classified. I am not advocating NEW roads, just give us back what already was ours once!


It doesn't have anything to do with wolves.

 Don't feel the water getting warm yet? These are the same people supporting both issues on the tree, and bunny (wolf) hugger side.

[turbo]

I didn't see anything about the bill in your article...hopefully you weren't comparing RMEF to the anti's that filed the lawsuit!!   

RMEF can suck it!! Once they paired up with the Wilderness society, the Sierra Club and other extremist left wing groups in a collaboration to restrict OUR rights on OUR land in the false name of "protection", you just became one of them. Welcome to the extremist club, you are now one of them by number and you are a member of their clubs via the RMEF. They are taking your money and using it against you. Do you think the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society likes hunters?

Fools... You are restricting your own rights.



If you support them then you support wilderness land closures and are supporting the Sierra club with your money! If you want to take away your rights to public land then continue to give them your money.

http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199610/huntfish.asp

Quote - Spurred by blatant congressional attacks on America's natural resources, environmentalists are setting aside past differences with hunters and anglers and working together to defend wild lands and habitat from timber and oil companies, mining conglomerates and irresponsible developers.

More than 100,000 Sierra Club members - better than one out of six - are active hunters and anglers dedicated to continuing the sporting tradition through public land conservation. Considering that more than 50 million Americans fish and 15 million hunt, such a coalition makes sense. Most recently, alliances such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, run by elk hunters, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, run by a former National Audubon Society lobbyist, have protected or restored 1.8 million acres north of Yellowstone National Park.

Trout Unlimited has been another powerful force in not only conserving public lands from the threats of grazing reform and irresponsible forestry practices, but preserving the Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. "What has made Trout Unlimited so successful is that it is run by people who are not just sportsmen or environmentalists, but both, " wrote Ted Williams in the September/October issue of Sierra magazine.

"Whenever sportsmen combine with environmentalists, you have 60 to 70 percent of the population, an absolutely irresistible coalition," Chris Potholm, professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin College in Maine, told the magazine.

 

[Elkaholic daWg]

I didn't see anything about the bill in your article...hopefully you weren't comparing RMEF to the anti's that filed the lawsuit!!   

 keep laughing.

(From sierra club)

" In August 1995, in Greensboro, N.C., a diverse group of hunting and angling organizations, environmental groups and federal wildlife management agencies sat down to rejuvenate the century-old alliance. Over a year later, the Sierra Club is a leading member of the new Natural Resource Summit of America, whose mission is "to inform Americans of the need to make our natural resources a priority and to hold elected leaders and candidates accountable for their positions on these issues."
__________________________________________________________________________



With a combined membership totaling 11 million, the alliance aims to educate the public about congressional attacks on the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and our public lands.



__________________________________________________________________________
"The foundation for this alliance has always existed," said Dan Smuts, of the Sierra Club's Land Protection Program. "Our partnership has flourished because of the effort put forth by all parties to maximize and highlight common ground, rather than to try to overcome differences.""

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 From ARRA August 2011

H.R. 1581

On July 26th, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a rather lengthy hearing on H. R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. Thirteen witnesses testified at the hearing. Among those testifying in favor were Dan Kleen, President of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Chris Horgan, Executive Director of the Stewards of the Sequoia and Melissa Simpson, Director of Governmental Affairs, Safari International. One of those testifying against the legislation was former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt.

The hearing focused sharp attention on the absurdity of locking up over 42 million acres of federal land classified as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) even though the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service long ago determined that these areas did not qualify for designation as Wilderness Areas. A group of environmentalists showed up at the hearing sporting badges with the message "Ban the Great American Giveaway." That may be a cute slogan but it is totally misleading because even if these areas are no longer considered WSAs and IRAs, other federal laws set limits on how management plans can be prepared for these lands.

Our hope, of course, is that many of these areas would be opened up to recreation. Even though that is not an absolute given, there would be an opportunity for local input to federal land managers on how these federal lands should be managed for the benefit of local communities, something that does not now exist.

If you have four hours of extra time, go to this link and enjoy watching this remarkable hearing. It is gratifying that finally some members of Congress are asking tough questions about how our federal lands are being managed, both now and in the future.


http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=252577

[WAcoyotehunter]

So what you're saying is that RMEF sided with Sierra Club and took issue with what the Safari Club, NRA, and a National ORV group wanted to do to OUR public lands.  That's great!  I'm actually glad that a habitat centric group like RMEF took a position against a bill that could potentially lead to millions of acres of development on OUR public lands.

Why should we want to support a bunch of development of IRA's?  I'm not making the connection about how that could possibly be a good thing for hunting or for wildlife.   

[bearpaw]

I have not studied this particular issue but it would not surprise me if environmental groups are trying to sucker any hunting groups to support their agenda which likely has other hidden agendas not known to sporting groups. Watch closely for the knife to be inserted into the back of hunters.

One of the enviro's goals is to eventually turn wilderness areas essentually into parks where hunting, horseback riding, and other human use is not allowed. 

We have had this discussion about more wilderness many times here on the forum, there are a good many people who do not see the need for more wilderness than what we already have. I have to wonder how many more thousands of acres are needed to satisfy the wilderness advocates, will there ever be an end to what they want to take away from the majority of Americans?

[turbo]

I have not studied this particular issue but it would not surprise me if environmental groups are trying to sucker any hunting groups to support their agenda which likely has other hidden agendas not known to sporting groups. Watch closely for the knife to be inserted into the back of hunters.

One of the enviro's goals is to eventually turn wilderness areas essentually into parks where hunting, horseback riding, and other human use is not allowed. 

We have had this discussion about more wilderness many times here on the forum, there are a good many people who do not see the need for more wilderness than what we already have. I have to wonder how many more thousands of acres are needed to satisfy the wilderness advocates, will there ever be an end to what they want to take away from the majority of Americans?

Great post Bearpaw!!

It shows the true colors of people who think it's a good idea to get in bed with left wing extremist groups in the name of "conservation" and there are a lot of liberals among us with hidden agendas. It's a tactic, and people need to wake up and protect their rights!! If you think for one second that the Sierra club and the wilderness society have our hunting rights in mind when trying to designate more wilderness than YOU are OUR enemy. They want to end hunting completely and take away your rights and wilderness will be the first loss for hunters if they get their way. Stop and think for one second about the rules  for wilderness, no mechanical devices. What do you think a gun is? In Oregon last year the extremists filed a law suit about snow boarders using kites. They won and they are now banned, kites.......

We have 45 million acres of Wilderness West of the Mississippi, that is more than enough. The agenda is to gain as much land as possible, then file the suit against us and our use. Stand up and protect our rights on our land for the next generation! Don't fall for the hidden agendas and take a hard look at where you get your information and who from. Do your fricken homework!!

http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/?id=1112

[WAcoyotehunter]

It's OUR RIGHT to have a relaxing day in the woods without disruption from ATVs, vehicles, mines, oil exploration... I believe this bill is infringing on those RIGHTS and I am going to oppose it.  If you guys would rather hunt around a bunch of development, go hunt the suburbs.  I want to keep wild places wild.

[turbo]

It's OUR RIGHT to have a relaxing day in the woods without disruption from ATVs, vehicles, mines, oil exploration... I believe this bill is infringing on those RIGHTS and I am going to oppose it.  If you guys would rather hunt around a bunch of development, go hunt the suburbs.  I want to keep wild places wild.

Are you just glazing over the fact that there is already 45 million Acres of Wilderness? GO THERE!!!! It's your right... We don't need any more regulations on our land. Feel free to use your designated area and we will use our ever shrinking designated areas.

You elitists, liberals amaze me. You don't like something so you want a law. Selfish, narcissistic, extremists..

[bearpaw]

I do agree WAcoyote, everyone should be able to enjoy a relaxing day in the woods without disruption from ATVs, vehicles, mines, and oil exploration, but I think that is readily available. 

Are there not many large areas with many square miles of unroaded National Forest in northeast Washington? Plus there are gated areas in Pend Orielle and Stevens counties that are close to where we live.

In minutes we can be at the Salmo Wilderness (roughly 70 square miles of wilderness), the Abercrombie area (roughly 45 square miles of unroaded National Forest), or the Kettle Crest limited-use area. A 4 hour drive west puts you on the edge of the massive Paysayten Wilderness or a 4 hour drive south puts you at the Wenaha Wilderness. If you drive 2 hours east you can visit the remote Cabinet Wilderness in northern Idaho or less than a day drive southeast puts you at the Selway Bitterroot wilderness or the Frank Church Wilderness. You can do a wilderness type hunt in any of these areas.

Honestly, I would say our wilderness type hunting opportunities are quite numerous and extensive here in the inland northwest.

I didn't read the bill and I didn't read all the posts in this topic, so maybe there is something I don't know about. Was there anything in the bill that said current wilderness areas would be developed or removed from wilderness designation?

[WAcoyotehunter]

It did not say that current wilderness areas would be developed.  It said that inventoried roadless areas could be...meaning more roads and development in areas that are currently be logged, hunted, and used responsibly.  That's why RMEF pulled support for the bill.  We don't need more roads.  We need responsible managment on the roads we have.

How many people put in for the watershed unit in the blues?  It's a premier hunt and one that is truely special for the tagholder. I've helped two guys get elk there and the thing that always amazes more then any other is the absolute lack of human use.  There are no stumps, no roads, no blazed trees or ribbon...it's awesome.  We have enough land to add some acreage to that category.  It's possible to have increased logging and wilderness that can provide a special hunting opportunity.