dcopas78
Well-known member
Really enjoying this thread. Too bad I'm stuck in Ohio at the moment. Come on October!
ALT-Facts on Public Lands
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
My understanding there is no need for a new bill or another action, it has been reviewed/completed. It needs Congress to act. That correct? https://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-93-151
I've heard some speak of having a "new" review though do not quite follow this train of thought... gain one, lose another... or a few considering the foot/hoof vs rest of outdoor Americans and the political climate - less that changes come close of 2018.
AWESOME thread - btw...
Incorrect. Stupidity does not know partisan boundaries.
Now, let's not derail a good thread.
My understanding there is no need for a new bill or another action, it has been reviewed/completed. It needs Congress to act. That correct? https://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-93-151
I've heard some speak of having a "new" review though do not quite follow this train of thought... gain one, lose another... or a few considering the foot/hoof vs rest of outdoor Americans and the political climate - less that changes come close of 2018.
AWESOME thread - btw...
Correct. The ball is in Congress' court. Someone needs to grab the bull by the horns. Unfortunately, Daines seems to want to stick his head up the bull's ass.
This ain't rocket science.
BrentD
Well-known member
Nice buck, first, second, or last.
BuzzH
Well-known member
A few mule deer from designated wilderness in Wyoming.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Goat from a Montana wilderness:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Couple Wyoming wilderness bears:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, HOWEVER, review was decades ago, with no action. Many facets of the recommendation(s) and rationale have changed. So, IMO, another review is appropriate, although even following the original recommendations is better than Daines' and Gianforte's bills, Their legislation proposed does not include another review, nor does it include following the original recommendations. It merely proposes to shitcan the study (analysis and recommendations) relative to the Wilderness Study Areas and open them to roads, motors, and mines ... ostensibly at the bequest of extractive industries and those such as Montana legislative Rep Kerry White's Citizens of Balanced Use (Abuse), who wish to motorize their lazy derriers into any and all of this nation' s special pristine wild places.
mdunc8
Well-known member
I dedicate this bull to Kerry White...
mdunc8
Well-known member
I know, I know. What kind of redneck takes a tailgate picture of their first Montana critter? I was barely in the wilderness area and it was all downhill and Virginia wouldn't let us quarter animals, so I didn't know what else to do...
mdunc8
Well-known member
Sorry guys. I'm with Daines on this one. All you can do in wilderness areas is pick flowers and catch cutthroat.
It's even worse in the WSAs. All you can do is catch stupid graying...
It's even worse in the WSAs. All you can do is catch stupid graying...
Last edited:
mdunc8
Well-known member
Is Daines gonna tell my kids we can't celebrate Christmas with our WSA Christmas trees?
Note: I'm sure some regulation Nazi is gonna question the tagging of my tree. As with hunting, I don't tag my critters/trees until after pictures...
Note: I'm sure some regulation Nazi is gonna question the tagging of my tree. As with hunting, I don't tag my critters/trees until after pictures...
mdunc8
Well-known member
Not only do the Gallatin WSA and Lee Metcalf provide our family with food to make it through the tough Montana winters, they get me drunk!
On a related note, do I need water rights for the water I used from Little Bear?
On a related note, do I need water rights for the water I used from Little Bear?
Last edited:
mdunc8
Well-known member
Mr. Daines, who needs snowmobiles when you can hike your snowboard to the top of the mountains in the Lee Metcalf
or Spanish Peaks
Don't worry, I'm a legitimate Montanan. I occasionally use a horse to pack my snowboard.
or Spanish Peaks
Don't worry, I'm a legitimate Montanan. I occasionally use a horse to pack my snowboard.
Last edited:
mdunc8
Well-known member
Finally, my mountain goat from the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness.
Yeah, f!$% wilderness areas...
Yeah, f!$% wilderness areas...
Last edited:
Daines states the following:
Some believe he is trying to release ALL MT WSA's. However, it appears he is listening to his constituents and stepped away from the original push to do just that with the big 'G'.
His, (Daines) intentions fit with only five of the WSA's already identified by the study as WSA's to be restored back to National Forests.
I've not verified the five selected by Daines ARE, in fact, five of the WSA's shared as recommended to return to National Forest status vs added to the Wilderness Protection Act. If he is being an honest politician (oxymoron, I know)... This is a fair move.
*Edit added link to actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/12/07/senate-section/article/S7930-2
Yes, his political misleading attempt to paint as inaccessible is horse shnitz, no doubt. Almost looks as though the speech writer or Daines himself was focused on the point it is inaccessible to all in the sense it hinders *all the ability to enjoy it via the means other than the foot/hoof crowd are able to access.. Not excusing a politician's sly tongue, it does reduce the bile throat sensation a slight bit from my initial read.
Oveeall, it's a good bill if understood as they (the five) match WSA's by original study recommended to be dropped from Wilderness protection status.
I originally got stuck on his poor choice of wording and thought this was additional rhetoric for the removal of all WSA's. *Post edited for that purpose.
***
Straight Arrow, GAO based their evaluations with environmental groups as well as other entities. I believe there was more integrity with organizations back then than now.
I believe, aside from the extremes, there was a more reasonable give and take then. Now, while I am a member of a couple avid anti-PLT organizations, they are more of a fight at all and any cost type mentality...
As mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not interested in chancing an opportunity to gain one more foot/hoof only - large spread of forest vs the potential loss of additional areas that were earlier recommended for Wilderness protection. Everything has to be assessed for the risk v reward...
I'll stick with what I believe was a more reasonable all around assessment, especially considering today's PLT climate. The cards are less stacked in wilderness favor than earlier.
Also I'm not a fan of further fracturing one group, the foot/hoof catagory from the rest of the many outdoor industry supporters in an age where we need to join "public land" forces. We need to move on from this and stop fighting our own allies.
Some believe he is trying to release ALL MT WSA's. However, it appears he is listening to his constituents and stepped away from the original push to do just that with the big 'G'.
His, (Daines) intentions fit with only five of the WSA's already identified by the study as WSA's to be restored back to National Forests.
I've not verified the five selected by Daines ARE, in fact, five of the WSA's shared as recommended to return to National Forest status vs added to the Wilderness Protection Act. If he is being an honest politician (oxymoron, I know)... This is a fair move.
*Edit added link to actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/12/07/senate-section/article/S7930-2
Yes, his political misleading attempt to paint as inaccessible is horse shnitz, no doubt. Almost looks as though the speech writer or Daines himself was focused on the point it is inaccessible to all in the sense it hinders *all the ability to enjoy it via the means other than the foot/hoof crowd are able to access.. Not excusing a politician's sly tongue, it does reduce the bile throat sensation a slight bit from my initial read.
Oveeall, it's a good bill if understood as they (the five) match WSA's by original study recommended to be dropped from Wilderness protection status.
I originally got stuck on his poor choice of wording and thought this was additional rhetoric for the removal of all WSA's. *Post edited for that purpose.
***
Straight Arrow, GAO based their evaluations with environmental groups as well as other entities. I believe there was more integrity with organizations back then than now.
I believe, aside from the extremes, there was a more reasonable give and take then. Now, while I am a member of a couple avid anti-PLT organizations, they are more of a fight at all and any cost type mentality...
As mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not interested in chancing an opportunity to gain one more foot/hoof only - large spread of forest vs the potential loss of additional areas that were earlier recommended for Wilderness protection. Everything has to be assessed for the risk v reward...
I'll stick with what I believe was a more reasonable all around assessment, especially considering today's PLT climate. The cards are less stacked in wilderness favor than earlier.
Also I'm not a fan of further fracturing one group, the foot/hoof catagory from the rest of the many outdoor industry supporters in an age where we need to join "public land" forces. We need to move on from this and stop fighting our own allies.
Last edited:
Similar threads
