NPS doesn't have the mony now to support the parks they now regulate, how are they going to regulate this new one?

If this is such an all fired good idea why is a New Yorker coming up with it, instead of local legislators? Smells to high heaven to me.

Maybe we should read the bill before we judge it?

No matter the merits of this ambitious and necessary bill, one has to question the logic of having a New York congress person introduce it. Its success depends on the full backing and sponsorship of several western politicians, from both parties. Look at the list of co-sponsors, none are from Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. It is sad that AWR doesn't clue into this.

Bill,

I am sorry if I was unclear but the Teamsters and Operating Engineers Union endorsed the Conservation Biology Alternative for grizzly bear reintroduction into the Salmon-Selway and Bitteroot ecosystems. This was version of NREPA for Idaho and Western Montana in that it would have administratively protected all roadless areas in western Montana and Idaho and removed the roads NREPA slated for removal in the same area, about 3400 miles.

I did not ask them to endorse NREPA.

My biggest concern with this proposal is the meaning of "protect."
With all of the activities that will be prohibited, how will addressing issues such as wildfire, insect and disease epidemics, invasive species and the still unclear impacts of global warming be handled? There is also the impact of these major impacts spilling beyond the boundaries and casuing grief for other lands. Also, given the severe budget restraints faced by the agencies where will the money come from?

NREPA will result in a net savings to taxpayers of $245 million over the next ten years by prohibitting subsidized logging in roadless areas. Wilderness has been proven to be the most cost effective way of dealing with wildfire, insects, invasive species and global warming.

Micheal, we keep hearing about subsidized logging and ranching. Logging has been pretty well eliminated from forests, and how has it saved money? Well now we pay for using forests because the FS has less money coming in without logging. If we keep saving money by getting rid of those who have always paid to use the land.
Be very sceptical about any savings, much less millions. Are there any details on any logging that is planned?

Well, if this is the New West, I want none of it. NREPA is a total loser. What do all those union guys get when all the roads are ripped out? No work! What a deal! Never mind the strange fact that all this talk about "subsidy" fails to acknowledge that a lot of state and private lands -- and tribal -- manage at a profit and return funds to their respective treasuries.
Never mind that Moloney is upper east side Manhattan. I have relatives in Manhattan myself, and they are, without exception, completely without comprehension when it comes to the realities of the landscape where I live. It never enters their realm in even the most abstract way.
NREPA is nothing more than ensuring that there be absolutely no commercial, and darn little intrinsic value, derived from these lands. And I say intrinsic because 1.) for the last 12,000 years these lands evolved under anthropogenic, anthrocentric influence using available technology and human-chosen practices; and 2.) an uncharacteristically toasted landscape, inevitable under this crackpot scheme, has little to offer anyone, or any animal for that matter. Coconuts.

The President and Congress cannot keep a promise to timber counties right now. Many counties with large public land bases are soon to be broke and not able to furnish even mandated public services. No PILT, and now further reductions in their pipeline proposed by Maloney? If the reasoning behind this legislation is to further disinterest locals in their surrounding publicly owned lands, they might have that part right. If the locals can't defend the local landscape, how will the swells 3000 miles away get the job done? If there is no money to keep government alive locally, where will the local support for this come from? Even Democrats with large Federal land holdings in their state will not hold office if they let the local district go broke because his/her party would not help the local representative or senator make the US keep its promise.

Starving National Parks, a source of whining if they are used, and a source of whining if they are not used, certainly need to have their numbers and land base increased to further dilute their importance and financial base. When you can't afford to keep up what you got, why do you add more? A Democrat majority can spend a lot of time and effort but it still can't over ride a veto. Now, if there is a Democrat President in two years, and the Congress is Democrat, there will be changes. But they will still have to be paid for. Good luck. Having Eastern urban Democrats ramming stuff down Western throats is a great way to rebuild support for Republicans or Libertarians. So great you have to wonder if they are actually behind the deal. A stratergistic idea in Texas vernacular.

What forests are you speaking of that have eliminated logging? I work in the natural resource industry in Montana and I'm not aware of this shut down of the logging industry here. There is still logging going on all over on USFS and State lands.

"Not aware of this shut down?" What part of "natural resource industry" are we talking here, Tim? Organic goats?
Offer (not necessarily sold) on the Flathead has bombed from around 150 million feet a year (which was considerably less than net growth and certainly sustainable over time) into the 10-25 million foot range. And the Stanislaus and Siskiyou forests have had even deeper drops in harvest.
If you happened to work at a mill or log, and you're left out...I'd say that's a shut down, you betcha. Let's see, Stillwater, Owens and Hurst, Stimson, FPI, American, blah blah.
And if you had to cut back 80 percent in your "natural resource industry" -- whatever it is -- you'd feel sorta shut down.
Overall, the USFS harvests about a fourth of what it used to, and burns the rest...and oodles more.
So, Tim, if you're just hoping to throw some fog into the debate, sorry, ain't gonna work. NREPA is a scientific and ethical nonstarter.

All 44 of the national forests in the eight Rocky Mountain States have a history of losing money logging. This was true in the Clinton administration and got worse in the Bush administration.

The Bush record shows timber sale losses for these 44 forests for 2000-2004 at $1064 per acre, 50 percent higher than losses during the Clinton years.

Having a former timber industry lobbiest as the undersecretary in charge of tghe Forest Service has proved that widespread logging isn't good for the public's money or their forests.

The most cost effective way to manage our forests continues to be wilderness and restoration, The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act will save taxpayers $245 million over the next ten years by shifting some of the subsidy from logging to restoration and employ more people than logging these roadless lands would. Taxpayers, workers and the forests would all benefit.

Michael, let's be honest here. The real reason for all that expense is because of the litigation-driven administrative overhead that forum-shopping enviro lawyers have forced upon federal land agencies, helped not in a little bit by certain employees within Civil Service safety that honestly don't want to provide anything of value to those evil taxpayers.
If you don't acknowledge that, well, I'll continue to point it out for you.
And evil lobbyist or not, Mark Rey proved himself incapable of stirring Congress into making the sort of needed reforms to the legal environment. The fact is, states and tribes AND private foresters are able to pay the bills. AND do a darn good job of causing forests in the meantime. I was extra-impressed with several tribal forestry tours I got a couple years ago, you would be amazed at the vigor and vitality of the landscape and its critters, as well as the pragmatism exhibited by tribal managers. Good stuff...and it makes money and provides tribal benefits.
As for saving 245 million....you people are demanding the set-aside of 20 plus million acres from use AND access by the vast, vast majority of the people who own this ground. That's at LEAST twenty BILLION dollars worth of dirt. Throw away twenty bil to "save" 245 million? The scary part is, you and your cronies might just be able to "rationalize" something so foolish.

Dave,
The General Accounting Office found that about 1% of the cost of the Forest Service's Timber program. Most of the cost is just due to blotted big government.

The bottom line is logging on public land is socialism for corporations. Let's be honest, that is what you are advocating.

Dave,
Sorry, The GAO found that litigation adds about 1% to the cost of the Forest Service's Timber program.

Litigation...what about the other 99 percent that gets spent preparing the paperwork that is supposedly bombproofed against litigation?
Socialism for corporations? Okay, I oppose that too. Sell it off. Give every citizen one share each and they can do what they want. I should be able to get plenty of good deals in Moloney's district.

Michael,
The byzantine accountings of USFS or GAO have nothing to do with the real world of working capitalism. You compare the socialist red apple with the capitalist green pear. Not a logical or real argument about true worth in the market place.

Not once did the Clinton Forest Plan provide its own minimum offerings of timber for sale. Post and rail sales in those 44 intermountain NFs are meaningless in the lumber market. The West Coast National Forests are not selling even 5% of the growth on their previously clearcut acres now reforested, nor do they sell even 1% of the fire killed timber which increases yearly. A couple of years ago, I computed the annual amount of timber offered on the Umpqua National Forest, and it amounted to one piece of lumber 1" x 4" x 36"...(one slat on a small pallet), per acre of timber per year. One board foot per acre of forest per year. That forest grows 400 times that each year. Harvesting one quarter of one percent of annual growth cannot, in any way, be considered a threat to the forest nor can it be called a timber selling program. I don't think they can sell that little timber and justify even trying. Their costs to sell SO LITTLE timber have to be astronomical, and I would assume their accounting shows that. No economy of scale is available for selling so little timber with all the hoops and hurdles that have to be addressed.

Your kid goes to public school and I send mine to parochial (private) school. Public schools spend $12,000 per year to educate a kid. Parochial school costs less than $6000 per year to educate a kid. Both parents pay income, sales and property taxes. Both kids are meeting the national goal of getting an education. However, I am paying those taxes plus the $6000 to send my kid to parochial school. My kid costs the state and school district nothing. No teacher, building or supplies does he use. Am I subsidizing your kid? You bet I am. Will my kid's classmates do better as a group in college? Probably. Is the public system worth the $6000 per kid subsidy beyond free market costs? Maybe. So, your kid gets a lesser education for twice the money. No mandates for ADA kids in private school, no mandatory mainstreaming for young Helen Kellers, no autistic kids, no severely handicapped kids in the mainstream classroom. Maybe there is no meaningful way to compare public and private education by cost alone. And when you discuss the USFS selling timber, and how they account for their costs, in comparison to the costs of growing and sellng private timber, you are not comparing equals on an equal playing field. I know that, you know that, but you will continue to tell your lie to a gullible and unknowing public, because that is who you are: The scorpion riding the frog across the creek. It's your nature. My nature is to tell the other side of the story.

Bearbat, I haven't heard that figure before, only five percent of the growth on clearcuts being harvested. If that's true, or even close, it sure brings up a big issue. If we aren't harvesting most of the timber on already clearcut areas in our national forests, where in most cases, roads are already in place, why are we even interested in cutting timber in roadless areas? The trees would be bigger in some cases, I pressume, but the expense and hassle, not to mention the environmental consequences, would be much higher.....Bill

Bearbait,
I didn't compare logging on public lands to logging on private lands, all I said was logging on public lands is a money loser. If you are supporting money losing timber sales, you are supporting corporate welfare.

The National Forest Management Act requires that before Forest Service can log they have to insure the viability of wildlife species. Federal Judges have repeatedly found that the Forest Service is not doing this. Conservation Biologists tell us we are on the verge of the world's sixth great period of extinction. The American people have clearly shown that they want to protect all roadless lands, keep species from going extinct, create more good jobs and stop money losing timber sales. The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act does this.

If you're going to log, do it on your own land. The trees will eventually die or be cut down. But if you protect the land, then the tourists will come. Once they do, you have a never-ending income. Tourists don't go away. Logging, mining, and other companies do.

At the risk of some shameless self-promotion, read more of my views at http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com

Bill, you missed Bait's point entirely about growth, and you need to do more research. Harvest is one quarter of one percent of growth on the Umpqua and only five percent of what growth is on the land base already harvested in all the past. The real number is the 400. In other words, the Umpqua is now on a 400 year rotation level, meaning everything will burn flat at least one to eight times before a saw ever sees it.
Growth is grossly exceeding removal, to the point where the wood has begun to spectacularly remove itself.
And those fires will, believe it or not, have environmental consequences and be a hassle. THAT's the big issue. I did some calculations of Oregon east of the Cascades and the pile of wood built up since the owl and the Screens came in would cover the Sears Tower and much of the Chicago loop. Or better, AWR's office clear up to the M in Missoula.
Ever heard of helilogging? Ever been on a heli site both live and finished?
And you talk about "interested..." Well, there is no point whatsoever in business being "interested" when every friggin' sale gets hit by Siskiyou Project or Umpqua Watersheds or whomever.
I repeat: The Western landscape is an anthro artifact, managed by humans for human purposes for 12,000 years. The Indians did a good job for themselves until we smallpoxed them. There is no such thing as the pristine Ecopleistocene that NREPA calls for. If this crackpot travesty is passed by Congress, a lot of the landscape will be toast. Literally.

The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act will not stop logging; it will just limit it to already roaded lands. Approximately 95% of the Forest Service proposed logging will continue. Since the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act will help ensure the viability of wildlife species by designating all roadless lands wilderness, loggers will be able to count on a more reliable timber supply.

Michael,
"Profit" and "lose money" are capitalist terms.. In a socialist timber regime, everything is subsidized. You can't have a public forest, and sell timber, no matter how little, based on government costs because the government has costs if it does nothing but provide the police force and legal system to prosecute and punish trespassers and illegal takings of forest products. Private forest lands pay taxes to have those services.

The "National Forest Reserves" were intended to provide a long term source of fiber. Long term as in forever. Long, long rotation ages, salvage logging, thinning, fire supression, and managed recreation. Watershed protection was to be accomplished by intelligent engineering, silvacultural practices and legal oversight. The reserves were also supposed to enhance and grow the local economies, and provide living wages for people around the forests, while providing income for county roads, schools, and government infrastructure. A grand socialist experiment with a free market distribution of value added products. It worked for 75 years, was not perfect, but now is functionally bankrupt and an economic non-entity. The forest reserves are still costing the people through taxes billions of dollars each year, and the tangible, accountable results and benefits seem to diminish with each passing day.

"Cost" to government, "corporate subsidy", are red herrings. Corporate is a business structure term used derisively to add pizzazz to the mis-use of the concept of subsidy. All Federal Forest Reserve uses are subsidized. There is no way to charge actual cost for forest use by individuals or business entities. No way. The costs would be enormous. Hiking is subsidized as is fishing or hunting or mushroom gathering or birding. Just look at the local loss because the land is not taxable for purposes of providing local government and schools. The USFS is a hole into which billions of dollars are dropped for a very non cost effective benefit until you can put a value on all the ethereal amenities and subjective impacts on the nation as a whole. And then charge for them. You will find few who will be able to afford to avail themselves to the resource, except the rich people who will gain another exclusive benefit at government expense. The Recreation Barons will emerge. And the strife begins anew.

Good job, Bait.
I really have to laugh at the groups now screaming about trail fees and campground closures. Most of that stuff was subsidized....yes, subsidized, by selling trees from NFS holdings. Is that an "anticorporate" subsidy?
As for societal benefits, I'd say value-added wood products are one benefit. A recreation infrastructure funded by that added value is certainly another...and it turns out that the recreation amenity used the most, by far, by the society wanting the benefits, are those darn roads and motorized trails and icky campgrounds and boat launches cross funded through the timber program of yore.
And Michael, don't tell me that there will be harvest from already roaded areas when the bulk of "societal benefit" you claim is from road obliteration, SUBSIDIZED road destruction, in already-roaded areas, you know, the same ground you say the loggers will get their future wood off of.
Well, this has been fun. Now I need to go and add some value to some really groovy blue-stain Canuck pine I fell across. I sure wish it was American bluestain, harvested by Americans from my national forests, but life isn't perfect.

Bearbait and Dave Skinner, you both did an excellent job of explaining the plain unvarnished facts. I have seen so many of those who complain so bitterly about grazing and timbering not paying ENOUGH, also feeling that their playtime on public land was supposed to be free, and it was unnecessary to pay anything at all.
Wait until the get all grazing stopped, not only will the price of beef double, the hikers are going to have to pay even more for their recreation.

Bearbait and Dave,

A mult-million dollar money losing timber program has never subsidized hiking. Losing money doesn't pay for anything.

The goverment timber program costs real money. If you can't understand that look at the taxes you pay and the government's budget deficit. This is real money that the Forest Service is spending. I agree that the Department of Agriculture is a black hole that needs more accountability.

Finally, NREPA would not stop grazing. Grazing is allowed under the Wilderness Act.

Well Micheal, it's pretty simple, when you hike, do you pay more, less or the same as you did when there was a lot of timbering going on?

Michael,

The USFS can't make a profit because of hoops and hurdles, all which have to be addressed, ad nauseum, and that is what costs money. The USFS has no capital payments to make, nor do they pay taxes on land, inventory or at severance: private timber has all those expenses, and has to meet all the labor, wage, environmental, safety rules imposed (and necessary) by government, just as the USFS sale designers, vetters, administrators and ancillary personnel have to meet employment rules. The difference is how the US Govt accounts for expenses and income. The US Govt takes money out of the receipts (25% of gross) and returns it to the local county. The remainder has to be split up between the Ranger, Forest, Region and Chief's Office for administrative expenses. There will be a Ranger, a Supervisor, a Regional Forester, and a Chief whether there is a timber sale or not. It is just an accounting procedure to divert money to the agency before it is allowed to fall into the maw of the General Fund, the blackhole of the US Treasury. It is to the USFS benefit to lose money on paper, because they don't have to send any of it to the General Fund. Turf Wars. Byzantine accounting devised by past Congresses to serve some obscure purpose of budget balancing. Again, in a business sense, and if you want to talk about profit and loss, you have to talk business, you and I will never know if, how or why the government makes or loses money on a venture. If govt profits are your raison d'etre, maybe you should spend your time following Defense Dept or Health and Human Services or Homeland Security spending trails. Find out how well that money is spent, or lost or thrown at perceived problems.

The USFS Timber Sale program did not have to "make" money, because it did when a log went through a mill. Air, water and soil exposed to sun have created matter useable to mankind, and by converting that log to a useful product, it enters the stream of commerce, creating more jobs, profits and taxes as it goes. In the end, if the USFS gave the stuff away, the tax ramifications and money flowing to Treasury would be well worth the time and expense. Take the time to think about it. Created Wealth. Not a service, not a non-renewable resource, but a real wealth creating product that is the underpinning of a boisterous economy, the raw material for the manufacturing and service economies. Even pharmaceuticals like taxol from yew wood, needles, or a yew wood fungus patented by MSU. The USFS land uses sun, atmospheric gases, water, and micro nutrients from the soil, creates vast volumes of wood fiber and you don't want it used, just looked at or burned. What kind of world view is that?

Thank you, Marion, and you too, BB. Nice not being alone sometimes. And Michael, if timber bucks didn't pay for the trails and stuff, then I guess the poor ol' Taxpayers did, wot? You know, Ole and Inga in Saint Paul, or Domingo at his bodega in New York, or old Rockyfeller from his manse in Palm Beach. So, I guess to you it's a perfectly logical leap to ask Ole and Domingo and John D. -- you know, BB's wealth creators --- to subsidize you again with twenty billion worth of dirt, another twenty to thirty billion worth of firewood, and however many million it takes to obliterate those roads.
Finally....I'd like to answer BB's question. What world view? The "ENVIRONMENTALIST" worldview.
Hey, Mike, you want to go on Berg in the Morning with me?

The bleating chant of "corporate welfare" rings so hollow when coming from the mouths of the greediest people on the planet. A handful of radical me-firsters want total control of the Western U.S. They wish for pan-ethnic cleansing, and they plot megafire holocausts to achieve their selfish ends.

The unmitigated eco-greedheads are, without fail, supported by handouts, since they do no productive work of any kind.

Their outcomes are always holocaust. Urban do-gooders wrapped up in their own distorted self-images never see the aftermath of their blind covetousness: the scorched earth wastelands of former heritage forests now sprouting tick brush, bankrupt family sawmills and logging businesses, homes foreclosed, schools shut down, families broken.

Smash the corporations! Come the revolution gonna be no more limousines! Burn, baby, burn!

Grow up, green-diaper kiddies. We need responsible adults bringing communities together, not self-absorbed Che wannabes fomenting at the mouth about socialism!

So far they blame all of teh bad outcomes on the President. Others, they simply ignore, or insist you misinterpret what you see. I have been howling about the rapid delicne in elk population in Yellowsotne itself for several years. I'm told the elk are hiding (never mind one big herd left hugs the buildings in Mammoth for protection), the weather is too hot or too cold, too wet or too dry, etc. One of the biologists is even studying to see if the weather (as in global warming) is causing the wolves to kill so many bull elk.
No one is willing to admit that there are waaaay too many wolves and the wolf advoacates insist it must stay that way.

What have we learned on this wide-ranging blog:
1) Private parochial school is available for $6000. I need the address so I can enroll my child. Where I live it is $18000.
2) We can’t afford anymore wilderness; we can’t afford what we have. Therefore, I suggest we sell Yellowstone to an energy producer. All of those thermal features should make electricity a lot cheaper (it’s done in Iceland and New Zealand) for those in Wyoming and we will be able to construct a trail or two with the money remaining.
3) The Umpqua Nat’l Forest is on a 400 year logging rotation. I look forward to visiting all of that old growth forest in the area in 200-300 years.
4) Sorry, the forest will have burned 1 to 8 times by then. Therefore, all of those 150-200 year old trees I used to see rolling down the N. Umpqua highway must have been cut just before they were going to be torched.
5) The only reason the federal government is loosing money on any logging sales is because of all those environmental regulation and environmentalists. Therefore, let us get rid of all of them—the regulations that is. The logging companies I’m sure will take care of things. After all look at their track record.

In all seriousness, the blog comments show that all minds are closed, no minds will ever change-even slightly, and attitudes will only harden—at least for those making comments. Articles written by Bill Scheider and the other excellent authors in the New West are only educating themselves and the few other readers who don’t comment on every article that appears there

Actually, Charles, the issue here is to call BS when it is, in fact, BS. And calling BS, or spewing it, is a function of the value system of the protagonists and observers. If yer an eco, ya think one way, an anthro, ya think the other.
Ecos hardly ever mention the social consequences of their policies, and they probably don't care.
It's a matter of reason. A long time ago, I felt that "reasonable" compromise in good faith was the way the game was being played. But after seeing "reasonable" gun control legislation passed, and more down the pipeline; and seeing "reasonable" restrictions on resource production become anything but reasonable, I realized that there is a fundamental gap in thinking and it turns out that certain people have no intention of ever being reasonable, just appearing so for political reasons.
Bottom line here is a cultural pogrom is under way. I think that's wrong. And it's also wrong to say there is no cultural driver underlying this "environmental" discussion.

In actual fact, Charles, I think the authors on this site hope to create controversy with their articles. The fact that they present issues that spark a difference of opinion is good. I for one am very happy to be educated on what someone in NYC is hoping to do with our public land out here. Further I am glad there is an opportunity to discuss it, and express my opinion. It really doesn't count whether I consider your opinion to be worthwhile or whether you consider mine to be, what matters is we both have an opportunity to express them.
Had the widespread use of the net been present 15-20 years ago, we might have at least had some safeguards built into the wolf plant if we couldn't stop it. Now we have a disaster in the making and no way to force a reevaluation or modification of any of it. All they are doing is doing a "study" to see if the weather is what is making the wolves kill many, many times the bull elk that they predicted. They have no mechanism to move some of the wolves to other parts of the country, or anything, just watch the Yellowstone elk herds melt away, or as they call it now days "let nature take it's course". What they don't say is they redirected nature in the course it is now taking.

Two minor points:
1. God is not making any new land. Tourists like to see wild lands. They like to fish where the land is wild. They like to hike where the land is wild. They like to hunt where the land is wild.
And while they are there doing these things, they spend money. And local economies benefit.
2. God did not invent the chain saw. But too many people apparently think that forests and chain saws go together. They do not.

"TREES ARE AMERICA'S RENEWABLE RESOURCE!"

God bless the lumberjack!

Sierra Club: KISS MY AX!

Kiss my ax? That's good, I have to remember that one.
Alan, you are wrong. When it comes to tourism, all the USFS studies show that the category of tourist you say wants "wild lands" actually makes up A.) about two percent of the total RVDs; B.) spends the least, and C.) is only about half from out of town....a tourist bringing in money.
Most recreational use of the forest is "modernity based" -- and in fact, all of it is considering that even the PC kind of tourism involves a Subaru, petro products, freeze-dry from REI, Kevlar, blah blah.
Half to 75 percent of RVDs are locals. 98 percent of recreation visitor days are non-wilderness directed, most are either camping or hunting with all the modern toys and comforts.
The bottom line is that time-constrained users use what is convenient. They would LIKE to hunt and hike where the "land is wild" but in practice, hike and hunt where it is most convenient or at least where the return is idealized within their constraints. That's not necessarily a wilderness.
I remember one study, done by someone who is now a Forest Service employee, claiming in essence that a wilderness trailhead would spur development of, say a gas station to service the hordes of hikers. Right....Subarus, remember. The hikers already bought their stuff at REI, and if they ever, EVER buy a drop of gas it will be only enough to get back to town where it costs less.

Aren't we supposed to be trying to cut down on the use of fuel? Wouldn't that mean manging the lands for the locals instead of those driving a few hundred miles to hike?

This looks like great idea to me! More wilderness for all of us; more trees to help our environment. Great bill. Let's support it!

Ann Tracey,

I like it NREPA too. I support it. It's a good idea.

Yes, let's support the bill. The sooner this country supports socialism the better. Then we can ratify the Kyoto treaty and be just like Europe! Google: Kyoto Sinks Europe.

I think that the New Yorker needs to smell his own hole first and clean up Manhatten before coming into my backyard.

My father started the garbage business in this small Montana town and the dump where he hauled the garbage was cleaner than Battery Park where I visited in 1980.

It sounds like Congress doesn't understand the Constitution, because Article 1, Section 8 violates states rights of consent to allow the federal gov't to purchase the land. This article limits the gov't from owning any land that is not for the "erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"

Since the govt likes to restrict competition in the private sector, then the private sector should restrict competition within the govt sector. Ie, clearcut the govt.

John

When a NY poly-tic and an enviro-"mental"-ist group get together and tell folks it for their own good you better watch yer backside! All they want is more control over the resources and folks lives, liberty stealing facists, thats all they are. "keep your eyes open and yer powder dry" thar sneaky varmits,they are!

This bill sounds like another line of fence posts being erected across the West to bring into being the Wilderness Project.

Time to e-mail our Western Reps and have them introduce legislation that would declare, say Central Park, a protected wilderness area for wolf reintroduction.

Maybe NYC should be designated a UN world heritage endangered place. That would reduce emmissions and reverse the climate change. It's urgent that we pretend we are to blame for any natural climate cycle so we can begin paying global warming taxes. Other countries want, er need, our money NOW! It's an emergency!

Just caught all the hype and am wondering what happened to Dave, Mike, Marion, etal from Feb....did something happen with the bill or did uall lose interest??? I love the exchange of thought and accept the closemindedness of both sides, but not understanding which side is the best for ME to choose, I'm wondering where are the thoughts of the reps from the NW states. I'm from Alaska and remember the nonacceptance of the Alaskans to the D2 land claims. Is there really a right side....EVER??

I can't speak for the others, but I have been asked to cut back on my remarks that are ususally pretty controversial. So now I try to pick and choose my fights.
I have not heard any update on this, so hopefully it has died for the time.

The only people that can harp on this full-time are either retired, crazy, or paid to harp. And there comes a point when you are wasting your breath or electrons. Besides, the bill hasn't been introduced yet in the current Congress, and until it does and the sponsors are known, again, why bother.
Besides, the effort is better put toward, say, getting HJ31 that gives a sense of the state on the Wildlands concept passed in the Montana legislature. Or at least getting it to a vote so people have some basis for how they will vote in the next election.
And Marion, who exactly asked you to STFU? There needs to be someone putting up commentary from the twelve Old Westerners left in the region.

I can't imagine being controversial as a reason to cutback on freespeaking, but thanks for the response. Does anyone else know what happened to this bill??? My family has vacationed in the Hell's Canyon area every year for almost 60 years and going strong. I wonder how this bill will affect that?