elkduds
Well-known member
He wrote:
Dear Mr. elkduds,
Thank you for contacting me regarding public lands. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.
On January 30, 2017, Congressman Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced H.J. Res. 44, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the final rule submitted to the Department of the Interior relating to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule. This resolution would use powers provided to Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify the BLM 2.0 planning rule. This legislation passed both the House and the Senate, and is expected to be passed by the President.
As a fifth generation Coloradan, I have grown up with a profound appreciation for our public lands. When it comes to management and planning on public lands, I believe policy makers are best served by robust input from local stakeholders and away from a ‘Washington knows best’ mentality, and that’s exactly what the BLM Planning 2.0 CRA would do. Our public lands should be managed under the multiple use philosophy, which promotes recreation, grazing, and energy development with a balanced approach. I’m open to working with colleagues to improve management of our federal lands, but allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions is not something I support. A county commissioner in western Colorado should have more say in decisions impacting their backyard than someone sitting behind a desk in New York City. Rest assured, I will keep you thoughts in mind should this legislation come to the Senate floor for a vote.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you.
Sincerely,
Cory Gardner
United States Senator
My reply:
Wrong. Your statement, "allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions" above is a disingenuous sound byte. You will find out that CO voters won't stand for the eastern Republican propaganda. 2.0 was the most collaborative, most empowering-to-CO-citizens federal land use management plan to date.
Don't believe me? Ask the Republican Park County, CO commissioners:
(Denver Post) Park County’s commissioners, all Republicans, strongly supported the planning rule, calling it essential for taking better care of sensitive wildlife-rich areas such as South Park, the main watershed for metro Denver.
They wrote last year to BLM director Neil Kornze saying they wanted “additional opportunities for public involvement earlier in the planning process, including the chance to review preliminary resources management alternatives and preliminary rationales for those alternatives.”
“The current BLM planning methodology lacks adequate opportunities for public involvement, particularly early in the process,” they wrote. “It also lacks transparency. It often results in a range of alternatives that fails to address the concerns of all stakeholders.”
Dear Mr. elkduds,
Thank you for contacting me regarding public lands. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.
On January 30, 2017, Congressman Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced H.J. Res. 44, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the final rule submitted to the Department of the Interior relating to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule. This resolution would use powers provided to Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify the BLM 2.0 planning rule. This legislation passed both the House and the Senate, and is expected to be passed by the President.
As a fifth generation Coloradan, I have grown up with a profound appreciation for our public lands. When it comes to management and planning on public lands, I believe policy makers are best served by robust input from local stakeholders and away from a ‘Washington knows best’ mentality, and that’s exactly what the BLM Planning 2.0 CRA would do. Our public lands should be managed under the multiple use philosophy, which promotes recreation, grazing, and energy development with a balanced approach. I’m open to working with colleagues to improve management of our federal lands, but allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions is not something I support. A county commissioner in western Colorado should have more say in decisions impacting their backyard than someone sitting behind a desk in New York City. Rest assured, I will keep you thoughts in mind should this legislation come to the Senate floor for a vote.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you.
Sincerely,
Cory Gardner
United States Senator
My reply:
Wrong. Your statement, "allowing Planning 2.0 to move forward as is, which puts more authority in Washington, DC and provides less of a voice to our state and local leaders, and local users on land management decisions" above is a disingenuous sound byte. You will find out that CO voters won't stand for the eastern Republican propaganda. 2.0 was the most collaborative, most empowering-to-CO-citizens federal land use management plan to date.
Don't believe me? Ask the Republican Park County, CO commissioners:
(Denver Post) Park County’s commissioners, all Republicans, strongly supported the planning rule, calling it essential for taking better care of sensitive wildlife-rich areas such as South Park, the main watershed for metro Denver.
They wrote last year to BLM director Neil Kornze saying they wanted “additional opportunities for public involvement earlier in the planning process, including the chance to review preliminary resources management alternatives and preliminary rationales for those alternatives.”
“The current BLM planning methodology lacks adequate opportunities for public involvement, particularly early in the process,” they wrote. “It also lacks transparency. It often results in a range of alternatives that fails to address the concerns of all stakeholders.”
