Barrasso Wilderness bill

[wytex]

Thought from non residents on this. I'm wondering of it takes your hunting access away like our other wilderness areas ? Not a big fan here but we'll see.

Draft Barrasso bill eyes new BLM wilderness areas, motor park - WyoFile

Critics, who asked the senator not to introduce the measure, say the draft bill was forged without balanced input, including from Native Americans. But some like it.

www.wyofile.com

 

[appaloosa]

This was a grassroots effort to decide the fate of wilderness study areas throughout the state. This was specifically developed to give local stakeholder groups the ultimate decision of what to do with the WSAs. This is the outcome of consensus building, not everyone gets exactly what they want, but there is pretty broad representation of all interests. IMO, this should be the model for how land management decisions are made.

 

[wytex]

Not sure I agree , non residents will be shut out for hunting I fear.
Some are not true wilderness areas, untrammeled by man etc..
Not all want more wilderness in our state.

 

[Bluffgruff]

The wilderness guide statute has previously only applied to forest service wilderness areas. If they did decide it would apply to these new blm wilderness areas, I think that would be the beginning of the end of most non-resident participation in Wyoming. Why bother hunting if we're being restricted from the most remote areas that offer the most solitude, etc.

 

[rwc101]

Seems like a win for those not wanting much more wilderness.

 

[appaloosa]

Not sure I agree , non residents will be shut out for hunting I fear.
Some are not true wilderness areas, untrammeled by man etc..
Not all want more wilderness in our state.

Yes, and that is why not all of them will be up for wilderness designation. Some will, some won't.
That is the preferred outcome of these types of efforts, there isn't one singular outcome that represents one point of view.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yes, and that is why not all of them will be up for wilderness designation. Some will, some won't.
That is the preferred outcome of these types of efforts, there isn't one singular outcome that represents one point of view.

So true. However, the multi-faceted outcomes typically result in loss of wildlife habitat, disruption of migration corridors, and consequences adverse to the conservation and protection of wild lands. These changes result from today's attitudes and ideologies, but unfortunately alter the landscape forever, with little forward thinking ... and with no possibility to revert to wild lands and areas conducive to good wildlife management and to places for people to escape the hoards and the stresses of urban life which continue to escalate.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm waiting to hear from Wyoming folks about this. I know there was a lot of work done to get here, but whether or not that works reflects the thoughts of the conservation community to a degree worth supporting remains to be seen.

In general, I think new wilderness is a good thing. Even as a non-resident. Protecting land and habitat should be the primary goal as conservationists, not putting our own interests ahead of the land. Laws change, and the wilderness outfitter law is likely to change at some point as it becomes less defensible.

 

[BuzzH]

This was a grassroots effort to decide the fate of wilderness study areas throughout the state. This was specifically developed to give local stakeholder groups the ultimate decision of what to do with the WSAs. This is the outcome of consensus building, not everyone gets exactly what they want, but there is pretty broad representation of all interests. IMO, this should be the model for how land management decisions are made.

Yeah, not so much in reality.

This idea was pretty flawed from the beginning for all kinds of reasons.

I was on the very first call when this idea was rolled out. I voiced my concerns with the proposal from the get go and there were some really big dead elephants in the room.

The first one was how the selection process for those on the county boards. It wasn't about who was the best qualified, it was about the good old boys club hand picking who they wanted. I cant say all the picks were bad, they had some good people, they also had some that weren't the best representatives for the average constituents they supposedly represented.

There were absolutely no side-boards given for the entire process, at all. I understand that you want each county to decide what to do, but literally anything about these public lands was "on the table". Some were talking about land swaps, selling some public lands, it ran wayyyyy beyond the scope of just dealing with the issue of what to do with the WSA's. In other words, each board made its own rules. IMO/E I don't think that will ever work on something as complex as dealing with large acreages of Federal Public lands into the future. There has to be some guidelines, sideboards, and consistency within the entire process.

Also, as stated in the article, there was not consensus within the groups, that was actually one of the very few things that was supposed to happen. Without consensus, it was supposed to be DOA.

I also question how much "grass roots" efforts there were. Pretty tough to hand pick a few people per county and have just those few people represent all the varied user groups, interests in, etc. all the WSA's in the state.

I can also say, in general terms, letting strictly Wyoming people serve on these boards, is really putting a lot of bias in the outcomes. I fully understand that the decisions on the WSA's will directly impact locals the most, but, that still doesn't mean that the 329,400,000 others that are also "stake holders" in Federal Public lands should have their voices excluded.

IMO/E with this entire process I've felt it was off the rails from the beginning, it was lacking in general guidelines, transparency in process, selection criteria, etc. etc.

The basic idea was good, but the process was really lacking.

Barrasso's bill is going nowhere, and frankly, it shouldn't.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Barasso, Cheney and Enzi gave us their thoughts on public land with their votes on the GAOA last week. Its a VERY long shot for a Democrat to upset one of their seats in November.

 

[1_pointer]

I can also say, in general terms, letting strictly Wyoming people serve on these boards, is really putting a lot of bias in the outcomes. I fully understand that the decisions on the WSA's will directly impact locals the most, but, that still doesn't mean that the 329,400,000 others that are also "stake holders" in Federal Public lands should have their voices excluded.

Agree totally! This is a huge hang up for me with "grassroots" decision making when it comes to federal lands. It's a slippery slope that will have sometime down the road have Karma upset...

 

[diamond hitch]

Kind of a sidenote here. I spent a large portion of my life inventorying resourses in so called WSAs. What started out as a study on wilderness turned into "with some work we can elimonate the evidence of man". Many so called WSAs had more than 5000 people living in them in the 1890s. For the Forest Service it was more like " it can't grow a merchantable tree, lets make it a wilderness and get it out of our budget!". Many of our study areas had main system roads through them and included a budget to remove them.

With the polarity of all wilderness to no wilderness maybe the answer is closer to 1) get a handle on the stupid managementof the agencies and the local egotists in charge, 2) sort out those areas with real wilderness values, 3) release those areas without real wilderness values to be managed under a reasonable and sustainable plan that serves the land and the people the best. This political crap sucks.

 

[JM77]

The wilderness guide statute has previously only applied to forest service wilderness areas. If they did decide it would apply to these new blm wilderness areas, I think that would be the beginning of the end of most non-resident participation in Wyoming. Why bother hunting if we're being restricted from the most remote areas that offer the most solitude, etc.

This is incorrect. The wilderness guide statute applies to any designated wilderness area, defined by state or federal law.

 

[JM77]

Yeah, not so much in reality.

This idea was pretty flawed from the beginning for all kinds of reasons.

I was on the very first call when this idea was rolled out. I voiced my concerns with the proposal from the get go and there were some really big dead elephants in the room.

The first one was how the selection process for those on the county boards. It wasn't about who was the best qualified, it was about the good old boys club hand picking who they wanted. I cant say all the picks were bad, they had some good people, they also had some that weren't the best representatives for the average constituents they supposedly represented.

There were absolutely no side-boards given for the entire process, at all. I understand that you want each county to decide what to do, but literally anything about these public lands was "on the table". Some were talking about land swaps, selling some public lands, it ran wayyyyy beyond the scope of just dealing with the issue of what to do with the WSA's. In other words, each board made its own rules. IMO/E I don't think that will ever work on something as complex as dealing with large acreages of Federal Public lands into the future. There has to be some guidelines, sideboards, and consistency within the entire process.

Also, as stated in the article, there was not consensus within the groups, that was actually one of the very few things that was supposed to happen. Without consensus, it was supposed to be DOA.

I also question how much "grass roots" efforts there were. Pretty tough to hand pick a few people per county and have just those few people represent all the varied user groups, interests in, etc. all the WSA's in the state.

I can also say, in general terms, letting strictly Wyoming people serve on these boards, is really putting a lot of bias in the outcomes. I fully understand that the decisions on the WSA's will directly impact locals the most, but, that still doesn't mean that the 329,400,000 others that are also "stake holders" in Federal Public lands should have their voices excluded.

IMO/E with this entire process I've felt it was off the rails from the beginning, it was lacking in general guidelines, transparency in process, selection criteria, etc. etc.

The basic idea was good, but the process was really lacking.

Barrasso's bill is going nowhere, and frankly, it shouldn't.

I agree with much that Buzz is saying here, knowing, like him, the WPLI was destined for failure from the start. Something is going to be done with these WSAs and we know with the failures of the WPLI, some of that failure caused by groups like the Wyoming Wilderness Assoc., that means the "something" would be done through legislation.

IMO, most Wyoming residents don't want to see more wilderness areas, however some of this ground needs more protection not afforded without WSA status.

 

[Wyohunt]

Not trying to sound like a dick but I’m not a big fan of nonresident hunters. Living in Wyoming is a b#&*@ sometimes and I would not rather share. Extreme weather, travel, poor paying jobs, the coal industry just took a dump etc. If they want to hunt private land here that is fine but I feel that our public land should go to the 33% of citizens that hunt in this state. Had 6 hunters from Virginia mow down one of my elk spots last year and I still have a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[MTLabrador]

Not trying to sound like a dick but I’m not a big fan of nonresident hunters. Living in Wyoming is a b#&*@ sometimes and I would not rather share. Extreme weather, travel, poor paying jobs, the coal industry just took a dump etc. If they want to hunt private land here that is fine but I feel that our public land should go to the 33% of citizens that hunt in this state. Had 6 hunters from Virginia mow down one of my elk spots last year and I still have a bad taste in my mouth.

Personally I’ve seen more poor behavior from residents than I ever have from nonresidents.

 

[Wyohunt]

Should probably mention that I live next to Colorado. Their mass exodus into this state every Friday is impressive.

 

[Wyohunt]

Personally I’ve seen more poor behavior from residents than I ever have from nonresidents.

Can’t argue with that. maybe a code of ethics post would be good here.

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

I gotta second Wyohunt's words here. He didn't even mention the "Utah Effect". It seems like a lot of these people tore up their own (i.e. - home state) resources and don't care because they can just come do the same in Wyoming.

 

[EWO]

I'll just say this....just because it is a wilderness doesn't mean the hunting is any better. I always hunt the fringes and do just fine. Not really a wilderness anymore when you have 30 horse trailers at the trailhead.