Comments on: Delegation Divided on Roadless Area Act
Newest First
By RussCrowder on 09-29-11 @ 6:46 am
It is amazing…Now going back to actual “management” of our public lands is “removing protection.” WHAT A CROCK. If sportsman belong to any of these groups that have gotten together to oppose opening these public lands to public use, they need to tale a close hard look at their leadership. Has your sportsman group been infiltrated and taken over by green radicals as have so many others in the past like the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, etc.?
By Matthew Koehler on 09-29-11 @ 6:53 am
Connoisseurs of great political rhetoric have to love this statement from Senator Tester, given the fact that the mandated logging bill he’s intent on passing as a legislative rider would open the doors to DC politicians simply mandating logging, drilling, mining, etc on federal public lands in their own states.
“Tester, chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, told the Beacon the bill is a ‘top-down approach that lets Washington politicians decide what they think is best for our public lands’ and ‘was written without any input from Montanans.”
Also, the fact of that matter is that Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, also would release Wilderness Study Areas for development. Some of these WSA’s were protected in the late 1970s by our own Senator Lee Metcalf.
I hate to say it, but it is very clear to me that some folks in the environmental movement are just opposed to the GOP’s releasing of Wilderness Study Areas, but not if it’s done by someone with a “D” following their name, especially if the Democrat is facing a re-election campaign. Hell, Montana Wildlife Federation supports the mandated logging in Tester’s FJRA and the release of Wilderness Study Areas in Testse’s FJRA, but when it comes to Rehberg’s bill, their ears are pinned back.
How do we, as a movement, explain such an apparent policy contradiction to the public? Would it not be better for the environmental movement to just support the complete protection of roadless wildlands and Wilderness Study Areas?
Below is the exact language from Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act regarding the release of Wilderness Study Areas in Montana. It’s my hope that those folks who are upset with Rep Rehberg’s support of HR 1581 will also contact Senator Tester to oppose the release of WSA’s for development and permanent motorized playgrounds in his FJRA. Thank you.
By Matthew Koehler on 09-29-11 @ 6:54 am
From Tester’s FRJA:
SEC. 205. RELEASE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY AREAS.
(a) FINDING.—Congress finds that, for purposes of section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782), any portion of a wilderness study area described in subsection (b) that is not designated as a wilderness area by section 203 or any other Act enacted before the date of enactment of this Act has been adequately studied for wilderness.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS.—The study areas referred to in subsection (a) are—
(1) the Axolotl Lakes Wilderness Study Area;
(2) the Bell and Limekiln Canyons Wilderness Study Area;
(3) the Blacktail Mountains Wilderness Study Area;
(4) the Centennial Mountains Wilderness Study Area;
(5) the Farlin Creek Wilderness Study Area;
(6) the Henneberry Ridge Wilderness Study Area;
(7) the Hidden Pasture Wilderness Study Area;
(8) the Humbug Spires Wilderness Study Area;
(9) the Ruby Mountains Wilderness Study Area.
(c) RELEASE.—Any study area described in subsection (b) that is not designated as a wilderness area by
section 203—
(1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); and
(2) shall be managed in accordance with the applicable land management plans adopted under section 202 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1712).
SEC. 206. RELEASE OF SAPPHIRE AND WEST PIONEER WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) the studies conducted under section 2 of the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 (Public Law 95–150; 91 Stat. 1243) regarding each study area described in subsection (b) are adequate for the consideration of the suitability of each study area for inclusion as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and (2) the Secretary of Agriculture is not required—
(A) to review the wilderness option for each study area described in subsection (b) prior to the revision of the forest plan required for each land that comprises each study area in accordance with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.); and
(B) to manage the portion of each study area described in subsection (b) that is not designated as wilderness by section 203 to ensure the suitability of the area for designation as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System pending revision of the applicable forest plan.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS.—The study areas referred to in subsection (a) are those portions of the following wilderness study areas which are not designated as wilderness by section 203:
(1) The portion of the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area that is located on the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest, as described in section 2(4) of the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977
(2) The West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area, as described in section 2(1) of the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977
By Ben Long on 09-29-11 @ 8:00 am
Mr. Rehberg says he knows more about “common sense” elk hunting than the Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, elk biologists and just about every rod and gun club in the state. Someone has been breathing too many fumes from the Beltway traffic.
By fourweight on 09-29-11 @ 10:59 am
Dear Denny,Hunters and fishermen from 2 dozen groups across the state oppose this bill. (you co-sponsor and argue for it)
Big oil and other industrial corps are in favor (oh, yeh….and co-opted tools of the big corps like Crowder are too).
Thanks for going on record - you are against the hunters and fishermen of the state, and you are for big out of state corps like BP and Exxon.
Glad we have your endorsement of REHBERG IS AGAINST HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN bumper sticker….will your campaign pay to print them?
When all of our public land is sold off by folks like you, can we hunt on your big private ranch?....NOPE….its posted!
By Matthew Koehler on 09-29-11 @ 11:07 am
Nice anonymous post there “fourweight.” One can only guess who you work for.
Anyway, considering the fact that Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill would also release Montana Wilderness Study areas for development and motorized playgrounds, will you also be pumping out “TESTER IS AGAINST HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN” bumper sticker?
Sure would be nice if the “environmental” movement was more consistent in its policy believes, instead of so wrapped around the axle of democratic party politics.
By fourweight on 09-29-11 @ 11:25 am
Oh Matt….if you only knew
I work for myself and have never been affiliated with the Dem party in any way shape or manner. As you rightly note, it would be nice if the environmental movement was non partisan, but fact is that the Repub party is horribly worse and has completely deserted the ideas of egalitarianism and conservation.
Glad you were not around in WWII - You would have labled the allies and axis as the same because they both killed people.
Your principles are admirable, but they are completely unworkable.
To suggest Tester and Rehberg are in the same ballpark on this stuff is a joke so laughable that I should not have wasted the time to write this.
You can either get much of what you want, or none. Might want to smell some coffee and wake up. In your current sleep you are helping insure we get a senator Denny. Guess you work for his campaign. I am sure native cutthroat will be forever in your debt.
By Matthew Koehler on 09-29-11 @ 11:34 am
I’m sorry that you view the posting of information regarding the release of Wilderness Study Areas within Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill as the equivalent of working for Rehberg’s campaign. This article is about a bill in Washington DC that would release WSA’s, so pointing out facts about Tester’s bill seem appropriate. I will also point out that given the current political situation in DC, the bill Rehberg is co-sponsoring has zero chance of becoming law, meanwhile, Tester has been actively attempting to attach his mandated logging bill as a rider to just about any piece of unrelated legislation.
All I’m asking for is some policy consistency within the “environmental movement,” not just party politics. Oh well….We’ll see what happens down the road 5, 25, 50 years.
By RussCrowder on 09-29-11 @ 3:38 pm
Sorry Mathethew…It’s going to be hard to see down the road for these “protected” areas because:1)...The roads will all be gone.
2)...The smoke will be too thick.
You might be able to tell you are in a “protected” area by the smell however…Burning bark beetles and crispy critters !
By Ben Long on 09-29-11 @ 3:43 pm
Yup. Russ Crowder says anyone who values clean water and a 5-week elk season is a environmental extremist. Russ, tell me true. You would give our national forests over to Plum Creek or Weyerhauser, wouldn’t you? I mean, just on philosophy alone.
By RussCrowder on 09-30-11 @ 6:43 am
Ben…Thanks for reminding me of #3, clean water: Smell the brown mirky run off water after the fires are out for the distinctive odor of high nitrates…..Thanks again for the reminder Ben.
By Ben Long on 09-30-11 @ 6:50 am
You dodged the question, Russ.
By T-Bone on 09-30-11 @ 7:59 am
Of course he did, Russ is a lapdog for corporations. What else would you expect?
One of my favorite things is to ask these blowmouths specific questions, they never have a direct response.
Let’s try this one;
Russ, do you support Rehberg’s H.B. 1505?
By hotfishmt on 09-30-11 @ 8:14 am
Lots of comments on Logging…but, from what I see & read….the Bark Beetle will solve all logging problems….no trees left alive is not good. One has to look not far to see whole areas of dead, rust colored trees….and all that is left if campfire wood at best.
The US is spending 300 million a year…helping Yemen with security problems….and yet the Forest Service has only 1 million for any work on the control or killing of the Bark Beetles.
All the problems with Bark Beetles is not going to stop…unless a biological remedy is found….and logging is one small answer to a massive problem with dead trees & whole mountain sides of DEAD RUST COLOR…..skeletons.
By fourweight on 09-30-11 @ 8:52 am
Lots of comments but the story is the story….......
Denny is against hunters and fishermen. He makes no bones about it and is so bold as to sponsor a bill that 25 of top orgs are adamantly against. Nothing more needs to be said! HE IS ANTI HUNTER and ANTI HABITAT!!
Folks who do not understand that Denny’s support of his bill is a direct shot at the common man’s ability to enjoy hunting and fishing are tools of big corps who care about nothing except the next $.
Denny and Crowder can assert otherwise but its silly to give them a second - 25 orgs oppose, Denny co-sponsors the bill….....these facts are not in debate. Denny has always attacked public lands and the conservation of same. The facts are not in debate.
Folks like Russ sit in a dark room and claim the sun isn’t shining. Only fools would jump into that dark room with him.
By JW Westman on 10-27-11 @ 12:49 pm
Fish, wildlife and conservation aren’t partisan, or they shouldn’t be. Montanans are big hunters and anglers, always have been. If anybody wants to throw the Democrat or Republican or Conservative or Liberal label around perhaps they need to touch up on our history. A Republican, Teddy Roosevelt is one of the main people that put conservation and a conservation ethic as well on the map. Plain and simple, if Rep. Rehberg was aligned with the Montana hunter/angler as he says he is he wouldn’t come up with or back such legislation.Either he is or isn’t a friend of the Montana (American) hunter/angler. A leopard cannot change it’s spots. Denny, either put up or shut up, you have shown your true colors (spots) JW Westman
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.