Comments on: Release Inventoried Roadless Lands
By fourweight on 11-17-11
This bill is sponsored by hired hacks of the oil industry plain and simple - anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish or duped. RMEF was foreced (embarrassed) into reversing support for the bill by a very loud uproar from its membership. The top 25 hunting and fishing orgs in the state oppose it. Big oil, big mining, big timber support.
Just look at a graph of roadless areas - we have almost none left. As a percentage of the west they continue to decline every year. Either we put our foot down to protect habitat and our outdoor heritage or they will be gone for our kids. Any person with half a brain can see the graph and its direction.
Its a horrible idea to open up these lands - take them away from cutthroat and elk, and give them to Exxon and Connoco - Its a really horrible idea and Denny Rehberg needs to be held to account for it!
By Craig moore on 11-17-11
This bill does not remove any existing wilderness areas. All the personal pejoratives hurled by anonymous commenters don’t add one scintilla of substance to the issue.
Similar to what this bill fights against is the prevailing attitude by the Interior Department. It’s latest assault on history public use of public lands is contained in a proposed new regulation: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands
===quote===
Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.
Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.
“It’s not so much a safety issue. It’s a social conflict issue,” said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites “freak out” when they hear shooting on public lands.
If the draft policy is finally approved, some public access to Bureau lands to hunters would also be limited, potentially reducing areas deer, elk, and bear hunters can use in the West.
===end quote===
By fourweight on 11-17-11
Just to get all on record - You are against all the hunting and fishing orgs who are not supporting this including RMEF - you are stating they don’t know what they are talking about….correct?
The opinions (scientifically informed) of these orgs hold no water? Their membership voicing outrage at this bill is off base?
Just want to make sure we get it on record that the supporters of this bill stand in oppostion to RMEF and all the other orgs who oppose the bill.
By Craig moore on 11-17-11
fourweight, ever since the guides and outfitters began steering RMEF’s direction I have not been much of a fan. The G’s and O’s had been the single largest contributor to RMEF the last time I looked. Now ask yourself why the G’s and O’s would want to lock up access to these non-wilderness back country areas to their paying clients? As to the motivation of other groups, look to Tides Foundation money behind their efforts.
All of that chatter is really off topic and besides the point of the post and the point of the legislation. IT WAS NEVER intended that the status of these lands would remain in a nebulous limbo status as defacto wilderness. It is way past time to resolve the status one way or the other.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.