Legislation Designating Massive Wilderness Area

[FZRguy]

Legislation Designating a Massive Wilderness Area in Five States Reintroduced

Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) have once again introduced legislation (H.R. 1187, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act) that would designate a massive 23 million acre area across five states (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming) as wilderness. This means each of these 23 million acres would be made permanently off-limits to motorized and mechanized recreation, including off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, ROVs (side-by-sides), 4x4s, snowmobiles and mountain bikes. It is particularly important to note that the lead sponsor, Rep Maloney, represents Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn in New York City, yet has introduced legislation that would have an economic and social impact on millions of Americans who live, work and recreate on or near the lands in question. In a particularly ironic twist, Representative Maloney and the other cosponsors will not accept emails from anyone who does not live in their districts. So, these Members seek to force the most restrictive land management on millions of Americans, but will not listen to their concerns.

This sort of top-down legislation poisons the debate and makes meaningful collaboration at the local level more difficult. Who wants to participate in complicated and time consuming collaborative processes when Members of Congress from thousands of miles away, and who have little understanding of the areas in question, introduce and pursue enactment of sweeping legislation that would make all of that hard work moot?
Click Take Action link below to send an email to your Representative in opposition to this egregious bill that would forever lock OHV use out of 23 million acres of public lands.

TAKE ACTION! (http://www.arra-access.com/site/R?i=28WCihf9PyYGWK42lrkX0A)

[jcj81]

Such an over reach, what do the those states representatives that actually live in and represent have to say?

So I looked at the Cosponsors the last time it was brought up I think only 2 representatives that live in the proposed area were on it, all cosponsors 99-D 5-R. Most have likely never stepped foot in those areas ever, not sure how D.C. knows whats best for those areas, needs to be left up to those states and local areas.

[Clovis]

Reminds me of the liberal push for wind farms until they wanted to build a farm 20 miles out to sea from the Kennedy compound. Oh no, it would destroy their view! Can't have that! Let them build those farms next to someone else's house, NOT OURS!

[Wrider]

Or the fact that they can't build them out to sea because the vibrations interfere with whale/dolphin communication.
Or how about the inland ones they're trying to have taken down because the endangered California Condors are now flying into the blades.

[asp_125]

Response sent! Thanks for the heads up.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Once again the (D)umbasses are trying to take something away from us "for our own good".....

[puckstr]

Response sent

[puckstr]

There maybe other motives in play here.....



The Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States. Yet over the last 25 years, 68 percent of America's National Parks, Preserves and Monuments have been designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both by Executive Branch action with virtually no Congressional oversight or approval and out of the sight of the public scrutiny.
World Heritage Sites are natural sites or cultural monuments recognized by the "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization" (UNESCO) under "The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage."
U.S. Biosphere Reserves are part of the "Man and Biosphere Program," a worldwide program operated by UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves operate without legislative direction and are not authorized by Congress, nor is the program part of an international treaty.
What is a biosphere reserve? The model UN biosphere reserve is actually a federally zoned laboratory where social engineers have real life subjects to use in studies to testing their theories on biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development. The reserve consists of:

<LI class=style8>a core area, such as a national park, which has strict legislative protection and is used for scientific monitoring of minimally disturbed ecosystems;

<LI class=style8>a "managed use area," surrounding the core area, where allowable land uses and human activities are strictly regulated; and


an "area of cooperation" having an undefined boundary and managed for "Sustainable" production and uses in harmony with the biosphere reserve.



The "area of cooperation" is a sort of utopian neighborhood where, according to the State Department, "managing agencies, local governmental agencies, scientists, economic interests, nongovernmental organizations, cultural groups, local citizens and other biosphere reserve stakeholders educate one another in the process of linking conservation, economic development and cultural values." The "area of cooperation" includes non-federal property.
Dr. Jeremy Rabkin, professor of government at Cornell University, argues: "Lands of private owners, lands owned by state or municipal governments and U.S. government land seem to be thrown into this warm, bubbling stew of cooperating 'stakeholders' where actual owners seem to have no more status than advocacy organizations from outside, where 'local citizens' have no more status than 'cultural groups' from the other side of the country." Rabkin adds, "The whole point of that amorphous term 'stakeholder' is to blur distinctions between owner and spectator and between citizen and outsider."
Federal agencies use international land reserves to control and orchestrate local and state land use policy and steamroll the property rights of private land owners. This problem is illustrated by the "New World Mine" project located three miles beyond Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site. The boundary of the World Heritage Site coincides exactly with the national park boundary. The Department of Interior (DOT), which wanted to stop the mine, brought in the World Heritage Committee to "inspect" the project, parading the Committee around Montana and Wyoming as if they had an important say in the development of the mine.
Ninety percent of the New World Project is located on private land and the remainder is in a National Forest. Under U.S. law, private land cannot be included in a World Heritage Site without the consent of the owner, and the owner of the mining project never consented to be included in the World Heritage Site. DOI's action also trampled on the decision made by Congress to manage Federal lands included in the project as part of the multiple-use National Forest System -- not as protected land in Yellowstone National Park.
DOI had no authority to invite a foreign entity to interfere with a domestic land use decision. D0I bureaucrats ignored U.S. law and infringed on personal private property rights by involving the World Heritage Comniittee in a project located on private land. They exhibited no concern or interest about protecting rights of U.S. citizens or respecting the decisions of Congress. These bureaucrats were incapable of seeing how these actions compromised U.S. sovereignty.
Why should we even think about involving an international body in making land policy decisions for lands within the United States? Congress must act to keep international commitments from interfering with Constitutional constraints. Otherwise, the rights of our citizens and the boundary between public land managed by government and private property can be too easily ignored.

[asp_125]

There are ore sustainable ways to use public wilderness than closing it off to all activities.

[FZRguy]

Dear John,

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 1187, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from you on such an important issue because it enables me to better represent the beliefs and values of our district.

As an avid outdoorsman, I believe in protecting our natural resources and environment. This is particularly true for Colorado, which is blessed to have some of the most spectacular natural beauty and resources in the world. I share your interest in enjoying the backcountry and national forests. The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) was founded in 1964 and protects 757 areas spanning 109.5 million acres throughout 44 states and Puerto Rico. H.R. 1187 would expand the land protected by the NWPS, potentially affecting the use of motorized vehicles in these areas. This matter requires a balanced approach to provide the public some access while also preserving pristine wild land and protecting wildlife. This bill is currently referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, of which I am not a member. Rest assured should this legislation reach the House floor for a vote, I will keep your views in mind.

I encourage you to continue to contact me about the issues important to you. Please visit our website www.perlmutter.house.gov where you can also sign up for my electronic newsletter, and receive periodic updates on my activities as your Representative in Washington.


Sincerely,

Ed Perlmutter
Member of Congress

[Nick_Ninja]

House Natural Resources Committee (http://naturalresources.house.gov/about/members.htm)

Bill Summary & Status 113th Congress (2013 - 2014)
H.R.1187 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.1187:)

[FZRguy]

My response:

Thank you for your response, Rep. Perlmutter. H.R. 1187 not only affects motorized travel but would ban any form of mechanized travel, namely mountain bikes. Do you realize this bill covers 23 million acres in five western states? Do these 23 million acres meet the guidelines and intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964? Are these 23 million acres untouched by man as described in the Act, meaning no man-made improvements such as roads, power lines, outbuildings, camping grounds, etc.? Have you considered the economic and social impact on the residents who live, work and recreate on or near the lands in question? I find it somewhat ironic that the sponsors of H.R. 1187 do not live in the states the bill affects.

Do you understand that designating land as Wilderness is the strictest form of land management and that there are better methods to manage public land for the benefit of all, while not locking out specific users? Once an area is designated Wilderness, it may only be accessed by foot or horse. There is currently 109,478,939 acres of public land designated as Wilderness in the USA. We all want to protect public lands for future generations, however, declaring huge areas as Wilderness that do not meet the definition of Wilderness is not land management, it is a land grab by the anti-access forces. Why do the anti-access folks want most (if not all) public lands in this country designated as Wilderness? There is enough public land in this country for all users. Proper land management via the BLM, Forest Service and local land managers is key for all users to enjoy the public land this country has to offer, not shotgun legislation by anti-access groups.

[Nick_Ninja]

:up:

[bluedogok]

Horses can do a bunch of damage, an area that I rode motorcycles in growing up in OKC was changed to "wildlife refuge". Having ridden mountain bikes on the same trails that I rode motorcycles 10-15 years earlier I can attest that horses can chew up some land. Why these people think that is low impact is beyond me.

I would also think that all bills like this should have to have a "local sponsor" to even be considered.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Horses can do a bunch of damage, an area that I rode motorcycles in growing up in OKC was changed to "wildlife refuge". Having ridden mountain bikes on the same trails that I rode motorcycles 10-15 years earlier I can attest that horses can chew up some land. Why these people think that is low impact is beyond me.

I would also think that all bills like this should have to have a "local sponsor" to even be considered.
I think they tear up trails as bad or worse than motorcycles, with their massive weight and iron shoes, plus all the horseshit they leave behind.....

[FZRguy]

I've seen horses do severe damage to trails as well. Below are some new items.


GOOD NEWS FROM THE LEGAL TEAM
A decision has been made on the Rico/Dolores Lawsuit. Read the news (http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=rZRylw%2fxylT1uSQ54GPc7sp9nGbJL CmrQ4YionzOXCI7MEmv1BM9hvWYxUpwMQ6OGkGHAsvHt0gFn4k lq0qjHQlhZiaD5P5F) here.



SCOTT JONES SPEAKS AT CLUB 20 MEETING IN GRAND JUNCTION
COHVCO Co-Chairman Scott Jones made a presentation at theClub 20 Meeting on Saturday, March 23. He spoke to the three BLM Resource Management Plans that COHVCO has worked on and submitted comments on. He detailed the faulty reasoning behind the economic data in all three plans. An article (http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=sNjft1LvIQ4o6OFydDbG%2bY6wEDFRf IZ4WHVBgo6uwP%2bPeg6yJotTZQ%3d%3d) in the Sunday Daily Sentinel recaps Scott's presentation.



BLM Meesory Council has completed a draft management plan for the Dominguez Escalante National Conservation Area

The Hunting Grounds Advisory Group are asking for your attendance and participation in a series of upcoming meetings on the Western Slope. All of the information is in this Alert (http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=hjbjqrEKIzntD9C8ShkFFKtcbM9YNtd KFbSAKXmzQwU%3d).



AMA objects to unilateral action by the Administration for National Monument designation without public debate!

The AMA has issued an Alert (http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=4rQVA3D0Ojs8NPr%2fBma4hu%2bjUhH euW9%2brEgSXR0cKaqvyZigWJNw%2f%2f5rfgxDCa0WYoeD1Z7 d0ugdZObamerGelhPdtKUQ1szVpERMmc65bCRnsilBgq98aa%2 b2O8BmdDWDXIgtuNCzM3DTRhXI5b9T7%2b59VRPDmEpzpqQd53 3GoY%3d) asking for action regarding the President's announcement regarding National Monuments. Please read the alert and follow the direction in the alert to contact your Senators.

[GMR]

Why don't we just utilize population control since human growth is interfering with the natural balance of the ecosystem... I can't believe I called myself a Democrat once. It all sounds good under a veil, but when you actually see the full spectrum of it...