Wilderness Bill

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,718
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Bill seeks to protect 24M acres
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian



After years of inattention, wilderness advocates hope a new federal bill will finally win national support.

On Wednesday, representatives Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., introduced the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, which would protect 24 million acres in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. Nearly a third of the total - about 7.5 million acres - is in Montana.

The 149-page bill encompasses all inventoried roadless areas, along with large chunks of Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. It would also add several hundred river miles to the nation's Wild and Scenic River program, create jobs to restore old clearcuts and remove logging roads, and halt logging plans pending in some roadless forests.


Areas affected in Montana include the Greater Glacier/Northern Continental Divide ecosystem, Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Greater Cabinet/Yaak/Selkirk ecosystem. It puts large additions into the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and Great Burn Wildlands Complex.

The Badger-Two Medicine area southeast of Glacier National Park would become a Blackfeet Wilderness area.

Those lands are now supervised by the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management. Acreages were chosen in part to create or maintain biological corridors between major habitat areas.

Parts of many rivers in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming would be added to the Wild and Scenic River program. They include reaches of the Smith, Yellowstone, Madison, Yaak, Kootenai and Sun rivers, as well as Rock Creek and many of its tributaries.

Other proposed wilderness areas in the legislation include the Greater Hells Canyon ecosystem, Greater Salmon/Selway ecosystem, and the Islands in the Sky Wilderness.

Maloney has introduced similar bills since she came to Congress in 1993, according to her spokesman, Jon Houston. The 2007 version got a subcommittee hearing in the House but progressed no further.

This bill has 41 co-sponsors in the House, but none from the five affected states. One name noticeably missing is Montana's sole congressman, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg.

In a statement Wednesday, Rehberg criticized the bill as a “top-down approach” that didn't account for local economies or protect access for hunting, fishing and other recreation activities.

“When similar legislation was introduced in 2007, I heard from thousands of Montanans over the course of just a few days, and they told me loud and clear that Montana doesn't need Washington, D.C., imposing its will and telling us how to take care of our public lands,” Rehberg said. “We're going to fight this. As a state that's almost one-third public lands, we have no choice.”

The Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies helped draft the bill. Executive Director Michael Garrity said Wednesday that former President George W. Bush's administration and past Republican congressional majorities made passage impossible. He predicted better fortune under the new Democratic majorities.

“We now have a president who was quoted when he came to Kalispell that he wanted to protect all remaining old-growth forests, so our chances are definitely looking better,” Garrity said. The bill has been roughly the same since President Ronald Reagan vetoed the last national wilderness bill in 1988.

“The only significant change was in the last Congress, we included all roadless lands in Yellowstone and Glacier national parks that the Park Service has recommended for wilderness,” Garrity said. “Under President Bush, there were a lot more threats to wilderness-quality lands in our parks.”

The bill would also create a “wildlands recovery corps” of workers who would remove 6,300 miles of old logging roads and rehabilitate about 1 million acres of clearcut logging areas. Garrity estimated the work would create about 2,300 jobs.

Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at [email protected].


View a PDF of the wilderness legislation
 
In a statement Wednesday, Rehberg criticized the bill as a “top-down approach” that didn't account for local economies or protect access for hunting, fishing and other recreation activities.

“When similar legislation was introduced in 2007, I heard from thousands of Montanans over the course of just a few days, and they told me loud and clear that Montana doesn't need Washington, D.C., imposing its will and telling us how to take care of our public lands,” Rehberg said. “We're going to fight this. As a state that's almost one-third public lands, we have no choice.”

I guess development of our public lands will protect hunting and fishing more than wilderness designation.

The part that states it's 1/3 of our public lands is very misleading. It's not, in addition to whats already protected it may be 1/3 but their intention isn't to add additional lands that encompass a 1/3 of what's out there.
 
Rehberg is a tool.

That guy doesnt even care about public land...unless he's closing off access to it somehow.
 
At the risk of sounding naive on the subject, what exactly would change with designating an area a wilderness rather than just a national forest roadless area?
Are 'roadless areas' still vulnerable to development?
 
Randy,

Some background in the wilderness act is probably in order...so heres the quick view.

The FS, BLM, etc. was asked to identify all areas of their holdings that were at least 5000 acres in size and were largely unroaded. This resulted in a couple documents those being RARE and RARE II.

These areas were identified as potential wilderness, not all were included and designated it was just an inventory of what was left that met the criteria for wilderness.

Now to answer your specific question.

The FS has management plans in place that designate all their lands into MA's (management areas). There is definitions of allowable uses in each MA and there is a bunch of criteria on how each land unit is placed under which MA.

One of the MA's is a roadless designation. Under the current Forest Plans, most all roadless areas are likely in very little trouble of being developed further and are largely off-limits to extractive uses. A majority were identified as potential wilderness under either one or both of the RARE documents.

There is no question that true Wilderness designation provides a higher level of protection from extractive uses than the current MA's under the various Forest Plans. But, I will say that for the most part, it would be pretty difficult for the FS to allow extractive uses in most of their identified roadless areas. Its not IMPOSSIBLE, but highly improbable.

There are, IMO, things about wilderness designation that I dont like. One is the use of mechanized things like chainsaws for clearing trails.

I know you're familiar with the Great Burn country. Currently, since its designated as a roadless area, FS trail crews can still clear trails in there with a chainsaw. When its designated wilderness it would have to be done by cross-cut or ax.

Heres my contention...which is the bigger intrusion into "wilderness" a crew clearing all the trail in the great burn area in 2-3 weeks with the use of a chainsaw? Or is having trail crews present in the wilderness for 2-3 months with cross-cuts and ax's?

Personally, I'd rather see the trail crews get in there, get the trails cleared and get out rather than have them in there for months doing things by hand. Also, and not that all decisions should be based strictly on money, it would be cheaper and more cost effective to allow chain saws to clear the trails.

Thats where I'm torn on areas like the great burn being designated. It would be good to have the extra level of protection, but its also going to create problems for those managing it as wilderness VS roadless.

I guess if I could look into my crystal ball and knew that areas like the great burn would never be subjected to further roading, and extractive uses...I'd be more inclined to leave them as roadless. But, from past history, I think its foolish to believe that areas like the great burn, unless designated as wilderness, will be left alone in the future.

So, to answer your question directly, YES roadless areas are vulnerable (to what extent, who knows) to development while wilderness is not.

Clear as mud...
 
Thanks for breaking it down Buzz, that's about what I assumed. It is really interesting to look at the trail clearing issue though.
I've been skimming through the bill for a while and there's a lot of areas in there I'm familiar with.
 
#1 !#)(*##+ in Arizona...Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.. Asshole doesn't give a shit about his cousins trashing southern AZ .. if fact he promotes it!
 
So, to answer your question directly, YES roadless areas are vulnerable (to what extent, who knows) to development while wilderness is not.

Clear as mud...
Another way of putting it (Buzz, correct me if I'm wrong)... roadless protection is merely by administrative decree and could theoretically change at any time whereas wilderness designation offers the highest possible protection -- that of statutory law requiring another act of Congress to overturn. Wilderness designation would effectively end a roadless area from continually having to be put on the defensive against one form of development or another.

#1 !#)(*##+ in Arizona...Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.. Asshole doesn't give a shit about his cousins trashing southern AZ .. if fact he promotes it!
CJ, if the border was secure, would you be opposed to Tumacacori designated as wilderness? "His cousins" aren't the only ones trashing southern AZ.

Btw, the Senate a couple weeks ago passed the Omnibus Lands Act, which among many other provisions includes wilderness designation of 517,000 acres in the Owyhees. It sounds as though this one would have been signed into law already if it weren't for the current economic distraction.

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-1
 
#1 !#)(*##+ in Arizona...Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.. Asshole doesn't give a shit about his cousins trashing southern AZ .. if fact he promotes it!

He's a horse hugger too CJ!

RENO, Nev. — Legislation was introduced Thursday in Congress that would prevent the U.S. Bureau of Land Management from killing otherwise healthy wild horses and burros that roam Western states.

"It is unacceptable for wild horses to be slaughtered without any regard for the general health, well-being, and conservation of these iconic animals that embody the spirit of our American West," Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.V., said in a statement.

Rahall, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has long been an advocate for wild horses on public lands.

"Our wild horses are being harmed by antiquated policies," said the measure's co-sponsor Raul M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands subcommittee. "These policies must be updated to reflect Americans' desire to see these horses protected."

Besides prohibiting the killing of healthy horses and burros that are removed from the range, the bill would allow BLM to revamp and expand public land areas for horses and assist in creating sanctuaries.

It also calls for strengthening the agency's adoption program and increasing public involvement in management decisions, the sponsors said.

"These critical, commonsense changes ... will help to sustain the current population of wild horses and burros, without having to resort to slaughter as a solution for management," Rahall's said.

The BLM is struggling to manage some 33,000 wild horses and burros that roam 10 Western states under the protection of a 1971 law passed by Congress. Nevada is home to half the wild horse herds in the nation.

The agency has said the wild herd should be restricted to about 27,000 horses to protect the animals, the range and other foraging animals. The BLM rounds up excess horses and offers them for adoption. Those too old or considered unadoptable are sent to long-term holding facilities, where they can live for decades.

But the agency says the cost of caring for the animals is ballooning, and there are now as many animals in holding facilities as there are running free.

A report issued last fall by the Government Accountability Office said the BLM "cannot afford to care for all the animals off the range, while at the same time manage wild horse and burro populations on the range."

It said the BLM this year will spend about $27 million - about three-fourths of its horse and burro budget - caring for the animals. Continuing current practices would require a budget of $58 million next year, escalating to $77 million in 2012, according to GAO estimates.

The GAO report also noted that the BLM has authority to kill or sell excess horses without restriction from slaughter, but has been loathe to do so.

The National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board in November recommended several options for dealing with the growing herd, including euthanasia.

BLM Deputy Director Henri Bisson has said the agency would put off killing horses this year while it worked with Congress, ranchers and wildlife advocates to find a solution.

Critics blame mismanagement by the BLM for the problem. They also say horses are given short shrift on public lands because they compete with livestock for forage.
 
Interesting, I know a few of the Idaho areas fairly well and they aren't what I think of when I think of wilderness. Numerous roads and trails in some of them, a map would definitely help.
 
There's a few area's in Montana that don't seem like much of a wilderness to me also. I noticed that there's a a couple areas in the highland mountains, not sure if anyone's very familiar with the highlands but it's really, really hard to get more than a couple miles from a driveable road. I'd love to see a map of some of these proposed areas.
 
Back
Top