Post by: KillzElk on April 23, 2009, 07:11:33 PM
I found this article at the bottom of this page dated April 22, 2009 Legislation that Would Close Millions of Acres of Public Lands to Many Forms of Recreation Reintroduced..
Link: http://www.arra-access.com/arra/home.html
Speak Up now is your chance its easy ....
Direct Link:
Please click the Take Action button below to let your Member of Congress know what you feel:
http://www.arra-access.com/arra/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=40630611
Thank You..
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 28, 2009, 09:20:13 AM
Thanks Killzelk ....................NREPA sucks. Notice it was introduced by a NYC congresswoman. Maybe we should put Canadian greys in her backyard. These are the SAME people pushing this bill!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 28, 2009, 01:40:36 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Conny, MT
Posts: 1,002
Y2Y Yellowstone to Yukon Eco-Region SB5064
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anybody heard of this?? I just received this in an email this morning...
Why you must oppose SB 5064 (Yellowstone To Yukon -Y2Y):
>
> -----1. Anytime the government puts a circle around your home,
> property or
> business it means they are going to begin to close down, limit and
> heavily
> regulate activities within that circle.
>
> -----2. Y2Y is the Yellowstone to Yukon Wildlife Corridor. That means
> that
> everything within will be managed giving wildlife the highest
> priority.
> That means you and your activities will gradually lose.
>
> -----3. Private property will begin to be purchased by organizations
> like
> the Trust for Public Land and Nature Conservancy as well as the
> government.
> Gradually economic activity within the area strangles over time as
> private
> property and private businesses are eliminated.
>
> -----4. Ranchers, miners, forestry, farming and other such activities
> will
> be in the greatest danger. The managing agency (US Fish and Wildlife
> Service, Park Service, Forest Service, BLM or state land agencies) will
> look
> to control and buy as much land as possible.
>
> The largest undeveloped parcels will be in the most danger first unless
> they
> are a big business that has the money to fight back. They will be left
> for
> last after most of the other landowners are gone.
>
> -----5. Cities, towns and private property will have access reduced.
> Cities will largely be left alone until the project is almost done.
> But
> small towns and private property owners will be in immediate danger.
>
> -----6. Traditional uses like family recreation, hunting, fishing,
> off-highway vehicle use, rock hounding, and many others will be
> heavily
> restricted or eliminated.
>
> -----7. Small business will gradually strangle as more and more
> regulations
> are added and the population is reduced with more land going into
> government
> ownership.
>
> -----8. Large businesses will be left for last because they have the
> money
> to fight. Sometimes the managing agency will make a private deal with
> large
> businesses to get them out of the battle. The large businesses will
> think
> they are safe and will remain quiet and out of the battle. The
> managing
> agency will go after them later when many of the other people and
> businesses
> are gone.
>
> -----9. A vast series of new land use regulations will be imposed to
> control land use jeopardizing private property rights, access and
> economic
> growth.
>
> -----10. All of these actions happen gradually in different parts of
> the
> area so that the people living there are often not aware of the
> gradual
> shutdown and economic strangulation of their communities and living
> areas
> until it is too late.
Post by: EastWaViking on April 28, 2009, 02:13:17 PM
Info from the link: "Please click the Take Action button below to let your Member of Congress know that you oppose H.R. 980, the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act." H.R. 980 would designate 23 million acres of land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, as Wilderness. This means each of these 23 million acres would be made permanently off-limits to motorized and mechanized recreation, including off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, 4x4s, snowmobiles and mountain bikes."
Hells Yeah! Can't beat 23 million acres of wilderness! Any chance you can provide us with a link that will tell our Representatives we support this measure?
:yeah:
More wilderness, fewer walmarts and cluster housing is a good thing. I hate seeing homes pop up everywhere they shouldn't be. Snowmobiles and motorcycles should stay in the ORV parks anyways.
Post by: Ray on April 28, 2009, 03:17:06 PM
There has to be a good balance of wilderness and accessible forest lands or other lands. If it's all wildnerness I think it's wrong.
I remember at least a dozen times when it was difficult to access areas in the summer to hike here in the Cascades because the trails were blocked with windfall. Sure an able bodied person could manage but for older people it would have been enough to cut them off to some prime real estate. Another form of youth elitism (intentional or not). The reason why it was not cleared is because they could not use any motorized chainsaws to cut the wood away from the trails. Wilderness is good but not always the answer.
I think I would be wary to support measures for more wilderness just outright. Each case is unique. I have not read this particular web page yet. Maybe later tonight.
Post by: Ray on April 28, 2009, 03:51:12 PM
I have visited other forums where hikers and other wilderness user groups dwell. Including people who like to mountain bike in the wilderness. I have noticed large proportions of hikers prefer to keep horses out of wildnerness areas (for whatever political and or personal motivations). Many open claims are because they are bringing in the nasty hunters who kill the wildlife and because they damage the meadows and plant life with their campsites and with the horses walking around.
I love to mountain bike in the wilderness. One of my favorite places is in the Teanaway up high. They have restrictions on when and where the bikes are allowed. These are human powered bikes not motorized. Clubs, organizations and groups in the hiking community have basically convinced the powers that be that the bikes are destroying and eroding the trails and are a general menace. Some fact much fiction and speculation or otherwise inconclusive and incorrect. I have lots of strong feelings against this sort of point of view but that's just one sample of many. They have even had the ability to close some state forests and wilderness areas seasonally directly in regards to this claim. One particular spot was a trail which was only maintained by mountain bikers for the last 5 or more years. Thousands of hours and dollars comitted by grass roots effort at no charge to the state and for their self interest. Yet they were able to shut out in a seasonal nature based upon the claims.
Hikers do not all feel this way but these are some observations I have made over the years. I am careful about which bills I support where it is being proposed, why, and who is behind them when it comes to wilderness. I would consider myself a hiker as well but I don't align myself with some of the groups, clubs and such which lobby for these bills to alienate other user groups.
Be careful what you ask for. :twocents:
Post by: KillzElk on April 29, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
Speak Up now is your chance its easy ....
Direct Link:
Please click the Take Action button below to let your Member of Congress know what you feel:
http://www.arra-access.com/arra/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=40630611
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 30, 2009, 09:25:20 AM
Divide and conquer?
Interesting to see that it was the Reagan administration that proclaimed that mountain bikes (and wildlife carts) are a man made machines and were forbidden after 1986........I would venture to guess that would include wheelchairs also?
President Lyndon Johnson signs the Wilderness Act of 1964 in the White House Rose Garden. Also pictured are Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, Senator Frank Church, Mardy Murie, Alice Zahniser, and Representative Wayne Aspinall, among others.The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-577) was written by Howard Zahniser of The Wilderness Society. It created the legal definition of wilderness in the United States, and protected some 9 million acres (36,000 km²) of federal land. The result of a long effort to protect federal wilderness, the Wilderness Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 3, 1964.
The Wilderness Act is well known for its succinct and poetic definition of wilderness:
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
[edit] Legal framework
The most important thing about the Wilderness Act is that when Congress designates each wilderness area, it includes a very specific boundary line—in statutory law. Once a wilderness area has been added to the System, its protection and boundary can only be altered by another act of Congress. That places a heavy burden on anyone who, all through the future, may propose some change.
The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on April 30, 2009, 09:56:14 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 30, 2009, 11:29:45 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on May 01, 2009, 08:30:22 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 06, 2009, 10:47:33 AM
Rehberg 1
Testimony of Congressman Denny Rehberg (MT-At Large)
Opposing the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, thanks for allowing me to return to
the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands to testify again on behalf
of the people of Montana.
I’m here representing county commissioners, state representatives, ranchers,
timber workers, sportsmen and women and recreationalists who have expressed their
opposition to the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act in letters, faxes, emails,
survey responses and even a rapidly growing Facebook group. All told, I’ve heard from
almost 10,000 folks who live in the Northern Rockies – who consider the land at issue in
the legislation we are discussing today to be their home. It’s where they live, work and
raise a family.
I’m here to report that more than 96% of us who live in these areas oppose this
bill. In my years of public service – beginning in the state legislature, then as Montana’s
Lieutenant Governor and now as the sole Representative in the House, I can think of few
subjects that have evoked such a unified opposition.
If Congress wants to, it can ignore these concerns and pass NREPA without their
consent and without a single vote from any of their Congressional Representatives. The
land NREPA federalizes is represented by only 7 Members of Congress including myself;
far fewer than the 72 current cosponsors of the bill. Congress can just say it’s
inconvenient that none of those 72 cosponsors are from the districts that NREPA impacts.
Recently, Congress passed the Omnibus Lands Act, which created over 2 million
acres of new wilderness, this bill carves out more than 24 million acres of new
wilderness. That area is larger than any of the districts represented by the 72 cosponsors
of the bill. In fact, out of 435 Congressional Districts, only 18 are larger. Representative
Carolyn Maloney – who is the lead sponsor of this bill – could fit her New York district
into the new wilderness created by NREPA almost 3,000 times.
And while you may have the votes to force your will on the people who live in the
Northern Rockies, I’m here to tell you that doing so isn’t in anyone’s best interest. Not
the folks who live on this land, and not the people you were elected to represent. It’s not
even in the best interest of the ecosystems we all want to protect.
Let me be absolutely clear about something. The folks I represent support
responsible land conservation. Currently, there are more than 30 million acres of state
and federal land in Montana alone - that’s nearly one acre in every three. As a state
where lifestyles and livelihoods depend on the land we live upon, it’s one of our top
priorities. And we do an outstanding job.
To manage these lands, stake-holders come to the table and formulate consensusdriven
solutions at the local level. The federal government could learn a lot from
examples in my state that center around three words: cooperation, trust and consensus.
For example, the Undaunted Stewardship approach demonstrates the ability of farm and
ranch families to contribute to the preservation of open space and scenic beauty while
continuing to use the land for productive purposes.
Rehberg 2
For the Montanans who work, till, graze, hunt, fish, hike, camp and enjoy this
land, conservation is not only a daily personal choice; it’s our way of life. Real
conservation isn’t about making tough decisions for someone else who lives thousands of
miles away, yet that’s exactly what NREPA does.
The workable solutions we need won’t come from Washington, D.C.; we need to
reach a balance that truly reflects Montana not the ideals of powerful special interests.
From Washington, D.C., it’s impossible to smell the toxic smoke from hundreds
of raging wildfires that will be harder to fight if NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., it’s impossible to see the 1.6 million-plus acres of dead
and dying trees that result from pine beetle infestations that will be more difficult to
manage if NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., you can’t watch a hillside change colors as indigenous
plants are slowly strangled out of existence by toxic weeds that are impossible to fight
once NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., you can’t hear the frustration in the voice of a hunter or
angler who can no longer get to the secluded mountain ridge where his family has gone
for generations once NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., you can’t walk on the overgrazed lands once managed
by ranchers who can no longer take their open range livestock to new pastures once
NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., Congress pushes for alternative energy from wind and
the sun. But how can we get that power, and create green jobs in the process, if we can’t
build transmission grids across our lands once NREPA passes?
And there’s a new concern looming in the minds of the folks around Montana and
the country. There aren’t many things folks in the Northern Rockies care more about
than their Second Amendment rights. Bills like NREPA create more federally controlled
land, but they don’t guarantee Second Amendment rights on that land. The recent
decision to eliminate Second Amendment Rights on some federal lands is nothing more
than back-door gun control, and it’s not hard to imagine wilderness as the next target for
restricted gun access. I’m concerned that NREPA has no guarantees that the federal
government won’t someday ban guns on other federal lands the way it just did in
National Parks.
At the end of the day, this is about Washington, D.C. thinking it knows how to
manage the Northern Rockies better than the people who live there. I’m here to say this
isn’t the case.
Many of Representative Maloney’s constituents in New York’s 14th District
undoubtedly find Central Park a welcome refuge from the urban surroundings of
America’s most crowded city. A Montanan who visited Central Park recently shared an
observation with me: Although Central Park was free of buildings and streets, many of
the open spaces were cordoned off by fences. Visitors could walk or run on centrally
planned pathways, but the fields of grass around them were off limits. NREPA models
its philosophy for 24 million acres of land after the approach taken in the 843 acres of
Central Park. Look, but don’t touch.
This approach may work in Manhattan, New York, but it doesn’t work in
Manhattan, Montana. I can’t stress how crucial that distinction is, and that’s why I
oppose this bill.
For more on yesterdays hearing....go here.................
If you click on the panel members name in this link you can read their testimony.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...view&extid=250
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2009, 11:23:46 AM
Most of you do not know me, but i am also a licensed MT outfitter and have hunted all over MT. I do all my MT hunts on privately owned ranch lands in eastern MT because the hunting is about 3 times as good as any wilderness or National forest in western MT. I am talking 100% shooting opportunity over many years for whitetail, Mule Deer, and Antelope.
I challenge anyone to show me any wilderness or national forest in Montana, Idaho, or Washington that will match the game numbers and hunting quality of eastern MT.
I also would also suggest you check the annual Washington harvest numbers for deer, bear, moose, grouse, turkey, upland birds, and cougar in Region One of eastern Washington. For a region that is heavy on ranching, farming, and multiple-use forests, it is number one or two most of the time for most of these game species and it also has some of the best elk hunting in the state.
Now please check the harvest levels for all these species in all the wilderness areas of Washington. I rest my case, and I totally agree with the MT legislator. More wilderness is not a good answer.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 07, 2009, 11:09:05 AM
www.resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&itemId=32&extmode=day&date=2009-05-05
One there back up to hearings on May 5th