Signed.
Question: Do you think the areas that are proposed to be added to the wilderness will have the same hunting regs as the current wilderness? If so, good or bad?
Also, what's the proposed price tag on the bill overall?
Randy's right: Hunting regs are unlikely to change. We crafted the bill with input from wildlife managers to ensure that we wouldn't reduce hunter opportunity or interfere with the work that goes on along the Front. In fact, if anything, this bill will preserve long seasons and liberal opportunity by maintaining the habitat as it is now: Roadless.
98% of the RMF is inventoried Roadless. While this bill does not close any roads, and in fact grandfathers in existing routes, it does help maintain habitat connectivity by placing reasonable sideboards on what the FS can and cannot do in relation to trail building, etc.
It also has a provision to expand the scope of the FS Noxious Weed program so that they continue the good work that's been started under District Ranger Mike Munoz to coordinate and tackle the weed issue with the help of local ranchers & farmers, County Commissions and Weed districts & Roundtables, ensuring both continued good grazing for livestock & habitat for wildlife.
The fiscal impact of this bill is negligent at best. There is no appropriation with the bill, so it technically doesn't cost the Gov't any money. There are some redirection of funding sources for things like weed management, but that is also being offset through grants through the NRCS, etc. PILT payments will increase slightly the first year of implementation, but will return to their current levels (IIRC) due to the increase of wilderness acreage.
There is no timber production on the front, the oil boom that everyone hoped for has fizzled yet again (I think this was the 4th or 5th promised boom) and Randy is correct, the Front hosts a hunting economy that rivals Ag for dominance. Over $11 million annually is spent by Bird hunters, Elk hunters, fisherman, and sheep hunters.
