Public Lands Package moves forward in Congress
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Also a big difference between Federal protection and State protection, wouldn't you agree? Isn't that why you would argue against transfer of Federal lands to the states? There are different levels of protection, and I don't consider Federal lands to be "unprotected" if they are not managed as a NP, NM, DW, NCA, etc.
I'm not familiar with the land deals outside of MT, so I'll comment on those.
With the North Fork, you could have still drilled it. That would have caused irepperable harm to the wildlife and recreation economy to that stretch of the world. The withdrawl directly protects wildlife and wildlife habitat from actions that would cause severe degredation of the resource.
In terms of the RMFHA, it congressionally protects lands both as Wilderness and in the Conservation Management Area, establishing specific sideboards based on current land uses and practical land management. For example - the Front isn't timber country. So allowing for firewood gathering and forest health projects makes sense, as does protecting migration corridors, etc - which is why logging activities are limited to a 1/4 mile buffer on each side. This was close to the administrative management, but a congressional desingnation brings the full force and effect of law to the issue. Same with motorized use: What's there can remain so long as it does not adversely effect habitat. Once it does, the FS can shut it down and reroute a trail, but the act does not allow for more trail building and increased motorized use. That was a protection that did not exists except for travel planning, which is now 5 years old.
We see bills to eliminate the Roadless Rule all the time. We see bills to eliminate or severely weaken the ESA all the time. Putting land protections into statute is a much safer approach to protecting specific landscapes than administrative rule.
NEPA is a great thing, but it's not the be-all, end all. Look how NEPA was abused in WY for the Pinedale Anticline or Jonah Fields.
In order for something to get done, somebody's ox had to get gored. I'm glad it wasn't yours, Ben. Merry Christmas.
Happy Holidays Terry.
My ox has plenty of gores. Don't mistake my support of this as gleeful or accepting of the wrongs. It is what it is and we can still work to change the bad back to good.
if it passes. Ted Cruz and the Sierra Club are together on this, so enjoy those bedfellows.
I would have left it the way it was if I felt animosity.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
I can't wade through the thousands of pages in this bill, but I hope we win.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/public-land-issues-lumped-department-defense-bill
I can't wade through the thousands of pages in this bill, but I hope we win.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/public-land-issues-lumped-department-defense-bill
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Dealer asks for $40,000.
I offer $5,000.
Dealer counters with $38,000.
I accept, and am handed the keys to a 1991 Geo Metro with 250,000 miles.
"Look! I compromised!"
The sliver of land on the front entered into big W protection is nothing but a shiny object to distract from the fact that:
-We are losing the Otter Creek area Wilderness study areas in eastern MT - here comes O & G development.
-We will also likely lose 14,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas near the CMR.
-Grazing permits are proposed to be extended from 10 to up to 20 years and licenses can now be issued before the completion of environmental review under NEPA
There's a hell of a lot more, but I can't speak to places like Alaska and Arizona. Seems like eastern MT is footing the bill. To me, it seemed like FJRA is a much better land bill.
I remember when Tester ran on the idea that sneaking policy and pork wholly unrelated with the bill being passed was a bad thing. I still think he's a good representative, but don't ever tell me he's not full of $&!#.......
I offer $5,000.
Dealer counters with $38,000.
I accept, and am handed the keys to a 1991 Geo Metro with 250,000 miles.
"Look! I compromised!"
The sliver of land on the front entered into big W protection is nothing but a shiny object to distract from the fact that:
-We are losing the Otter Creek area Wilderness study areas in eastern MT - here comes O & G development.
-We will also likely lose 14,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas near the CMR.
-Grazing permits are proposed to be extended from 10 to up to 20 years and licenses can now be issued before the completion of environmental review under NEPA
There's a hell of a lot more, but I can't speak to places like Alaska and Arizona. Seems like eastern MT is footing the bill. To me, it seemed like FJRA is a much better land bill.
I remember when Tester ran on the idea that sneaking policy and pork wholly unrelated with the bill being passed was a bad thing. I still think he's a good representative, but don't ever tell me he's not full of $&!#.......
Last edited:
1.) It's 270,000 acres along the Front that recieve congressional protection. Yes, 67,000 acres is Big W wilderness, but the other 200,000 acres becomes a conservation management area whose main management purpose is to retain the roadless characteristics, wildlife habitat and multiple use that has served that piece of country well for a long, long time. The North Fork of the Flathead is another piece of legislation that permanently protects the watershed (over 400,000 acres) from oil and gas development, helping ensure that it remains the same forever. My understanding of the WSA's being released is that they were down-graded in the 1980's as not deserving of wilderness. That doesn't mean they're not worth protecting, but it does mean that quite possibly they should have been released from study a while back, no?
Grazing portion isn't 20 years, that was removed. It's still a bad provision, but it's part of the package.
Like I've said, across the board this is a positive for conservation of public lands. Yes there are bad parts of the bill, but if any of us think that with the new congress this deal would look any better, I've got a bridge in New York to sell you.
As for attaching things to riders, there simply isn't another way to get this done in a purposely broken congress. I have 0 problem with a rider if it is the only way to move legislation forward. You have to use the tools you have in order to make the sausage.
Ben Long
Well-known member
I agree that some of the compromises in this bill are hard to swallow, but the North Fork Protection Act is a very big win for native trout and some great hunting habitat for mulies, moose, elk and bear. Needs to happen if we want to convince the Canadians not to turn the mountains inside out upstream from Glacier Park. Also it's my understanding that the grazing lease extension is not in the bill anymore.
katqanna
Well-known member
I have been watching a number of public lands issues across western states for awhile, seeing what pops up on news feeds. A number of public lands issues being thrown under the bus on this package are items that were refused before, but like Sen. Fielder not giving up on a bad idea of transferring federal public lands to the states, these special interest groups keep pushing their agenda hoping for an opening they can take advantage of, regardless of the publics comments and participation to the contrary, sometimes for years.
Here is an example. I wrote in my newsletter back at the end of August (just below the middle under the Public Lands sections, the 3rd link) that this was how they were going to get our federal public lands, piece by piece. I linked the articles that I had researched about the BLM lands transfer, including water rights and Nevada Copper putting up money for Yerington to buy the land from the Fed (Anaconda Copper Mine). Guess what is on page 1144 of this bill - Selling our BLM land to the city of Yerington, Carlin is on 1147, Fernley on 1150, counties of Storey on 1152 and Elko on 1162, just as they were written up and rejected before.
Conveyance of 2,400 acres of Tonto Nation Forest in AZ to a foreign copper mining company for open pit mining. I wouldnt wish western Anacondas Copper Mine, Montana's Berkley Pit copper mining superfund sh*t on anyone.
Other examples:
Eastern MT - What they didn't tell you about Congress' public lands package
Categorical Exclusions that benefit grazing occur, such as existing grazing allotments and trailings.
I dont even have time to read articles written up on most of the objections to this package. But I will say, I am not the type of conservation advocate that will try to gain something by throwing another under the bus. I have never tried to advocate for bison by throwing elk under the bus. I dont advocate for wolves by throwing mountain lions under the bus. Or advocate for sagegrouse by throwing ravens under the bus.
Most of all I think it is bs to tack all this on to an unrelated defense bill.
Here is an example. I wrote in my newsletter back at the end of August (just below the middle under the Public Lands sections, the 3rd link) that this was how they were going to get our federal public lands, piece by piece. I linked the articles that I had researched about the BLM lands transfer, including water rights and Nevada Copper putting up money for Yerington to buy the land from the Fed (Anaconda Copper Mine). Guess what is on page 1144 of this bill - Selling our BLM land to the city of Yerington, Carlin is on 1147, Fernley on 1150, counties of Storey on 1152 and Elko on 1162, just as they were written up and rejected before.
Conveyance of 2,400 acres of Tonto Nation Forest in AZ to a foreign copper mining company for open pit mining. I wouldnt wish western Anacondas Copper Mine, Montana's Berkley Pit copper mining superfund sh*t on anyone.
Other examples:
Eastern MT - What they didn't tell you about Congress' public lands package
Categorical Exclusions that benefit grazing occur, such as existing grazing allotments and trailings.
I dont even have time to read articles written up on most of the objections to this package. But I will say, I am not the type of conservation advocate that will try to gain something by throwing another under the bus. I have never tried to advocate for bison by throwing elk under the bus. I dont advocate for wolves by throwing mountain lions under the bus. Or advocate for sagegrouse by throwing ravens under the bus.
Most of all I think it is bs to tack all this on to an unrelated defense bill.
http://www.abqjournal.com/506419/no...les-caldera-under-national-parks-service.html
Not Montana but I hope this move doesn't kill one of the most unique hunting experiences in New Mexico
Not Montana but I hope this move doesn't kill one of the most unique hunting experiences in New Mexico
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Thanks for the clarifications Ben and for the links Kat. Handouts galore.
I agree the North Fork should be protected.
Here is a link to the report that recommended the Zook and Buffalo WSAs be released from that designation.
http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/rmp/PR.rmp/PdrRivRMPfeis.pdf
Basically, their existence conflicts with coal development.
I agree the North Fork should be protected.
Here is a link to the report that recommended the Zook and Buffalo WSAs be released from that designation.
http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/rmp/PR.rmp/PdrRivRMPfeis.pdf
Basically, their existence conflicts with coal development.
There were a lot of gifts to the mining & O&G industries in the bill. Looking at what we're facing in the CR, it's only going to get worse for wildlife and public lands over the next 2 years. The two WSA's might just stay the way they are given the market for coal and for oil.
Like I said, it's a bitter pill, but the cost of doing nothing given what we're facing for the next congress makes this look a lot better to me.
As for Valles Caldera, hunting is in it's organic act. It will always have a place there, IIRC.
Similar threads
