ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND USE GROK
Massive Wilderness Bill Inches Forward—13 Years Later
By David Frey, 10-11-07
A vast wilderness plan stretching across the mountains in five states is inching forward in Congress, after languishing for more than a decade. The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act spans 23 million acres in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. It’s been controversial since its inception, and, writes the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, its hearing before a House subcommittee next week, is the farthest it’s gotten in 13 years.
But those were years of Republican domination in the House. Now that the Democrats are in control, supporters are hopeful it will stand a better shot.
“NREPA’s time has come,” says Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, who along with Christopher Shays, R-Conn., are sponsoring the bill.
Among the highlights of NREPA a 3 million acres of wilderness protection in Yellowstone, Glacier and Grand Teton national parks, plus a “wildland recovery project” that would do away with 6,000 miles of road.
The problem, though, is that the bills sponsors tend to come from the other side, not of the aisle, but of the country. That’s enough to get Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to oppose it.
“Max doesn’t favor the top-down approach to resource management, let alone someone from New York telling Montana how to manage public lands,” spokesman Barrett Kaiser tells the Chronicle.
It’s scheduled to hit the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 18.
Colorado had a strong year in protecting private lands from development last year, reports the Aspen Times, but a report by the Colorado Conservation Trust shows land trust and governments are still falling short of the group’s conservation goal.
With some 167,500 acres preserved last year, Colorado ranked third in the nation in land preservation, the group found, and was one of only two Western states where more land is protected than is lost to development. Still, the group found, Colorado’s development rate is one of hte highest in the nation. As much as 90,000 acres of rural and natural lands may be disappearing each year.
“Despite our substantial accomplishments, Colorado’s conservation community is falling behind in protecting our most special places,” writes Will Shafroth, executive director of Colorado Conservation Trust. “We need to pick up the pace if we are to meet our 2 million-acre goal by 2015.”
Among the threats facing conservation in Colorado is a boom in natural gas drilling. Don’t expect it to let up any time soon.
Jim Caswell, the new director of the Bureau of Land Management, told the Associated Press that despite growing public opposition, the press for oil and gas in the West is on.
“There’s absolutely no doubt that the interest in oil and gas is going to continue. I mean, it is where it is,” Caswell says.
Voter backlash is “to some degree overblown,” he told the AP. Still, some environmental concerns are on his platter, including protections for sage grouse and other wildlife across the West.
“The key, though, to me is how do we develop that resource in the most environmentally sensitive way?” Caswell says. “I mean, how can we be as compatible as possible long-term? This is not some short-term thing; this is long-term. I mean, we’re talking 20, 30 years.”
Plans for a nuclear waste storage facility at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain were unpopular enough. Now, writes the Las Vegas Review-Journal, critics may have twice the worries. The Department of energy is roughly doubling the projected size in new studies for the facility, with up to 135,000 metric tons of radioactive material slated for the site. And officials are looking at the possibility that it could be expanded further.
“Doubling the size of Yucca Mountain will only double the danger,” says Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. “This is not a bad dream; it’s a nightmare.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
Mike, I find it hard to believe that you use those resources the way you say you do unless you graze on the grass while you are out cutting wood for your wilderness campfire.
Carolyn probably plans to rename Yellowstone to Maloney National Monument, and tear out the Roosevelt Gate to close the road. Who needs to enjoy geysers, grizzlies, and buffalo?
Your last post is nothing but hyperbole. But your opening sentence is such an extraordinary exaggeration, you have removed any possibility of credibility with anyone other than Marion. What a load. It's a prime example of why I have given up posting on this site. Why bother.
From "hiking is banned in wilderness areas" to Osama "Ben" Laden.
hahhahaha thanks for the laughs.
I understand and sympathize with your irritation with this site and can easily see how you could be driven to stop posting on this site; but, with the greatest of respect, I ask you to remember that sickening others to the point that we stop posting on this site is exactly what people like Marion and Sweed and their masters are trying to accomplish. Once they drive the rest of us away, the site is secured for their use as a propagandistic forum for their sick and twisted viewpoint. Yes, the rest of us argue amongst ourselves and get frustrated with each other on occasion; but, that is part of the communication/wrangling process. It's very different with Craig, Marion, Sweed, and those kinds of folks and their willingness to engage in spam barrage attacks. They are playing a much different game and I don't think we can leave the field to them. Just my opinion...
I know some of you cannot stand to have anyone differ with what you think, and you want to believe that there is some conspiracy if we do, but let me assure you the difference in opinion is the fact we actually live here, camp in the forests and the NPs. Those of us who live here think we know more about what it takes to live in the area than city folk who don't know a squirrel from a coyote.
Wilderness set asides were not supposed to be for the purpose of making exclusive clubs for those with lots of time to play, and support them by taxes.
Rather than more areas for the hikers and skiers who obviously feel they are so superior to the common man that they should not have to put up with sharing.
I propose rather than more wilderness areas, we need to make some of the present wilderness areas off limits to EVERYONE, take out the trails, and keep people out. It is time for everyone to learn to share, or stay home.
Wendell Berry, a Kentucky farmer and writer, in a lecture before a group of southern baptists ministers said the following: "It is clearly impossible to assign holiness exclusive to the built church without denying holiness to the rest of Creation, which is then said to be "secular". The world, which God looked at and found entirely good, we find none to good to pollute entirely and destroy piecemeal. The church, then, becomes a kind of preserve of "holiness" from which cerified lovers of God assult and plunder the "secular" earth".
Have any of you people actually been out west, and into the mountains? Bears, and wolves, don't care much about forest roads. Wilderness looks exactly like the National Forest butted up against it. You don't even know it's a wilderness area, unless you happen to see the sparsely places signs. That's how you know it's a wilderness area, by the metal signs nailed into the trees. Or, by the lack of wildfire control. Or, the lack of recreation.
You do realize that trees grow back. And, that the replanted areas give much needed habitat to the animals. That's were the food is. Grass doesn't grow under a thick canopy. It grows in the open meadows, or fire damaged areas, or clear cut areas.
I will admit, the current problem with forest fires has been caused by mismanagement. But, wilderness only serves to remove any possible meaningful management. If we can't cut the forest, and manage it, we'll breath it during the summer, that you can count on.
The Grizzlies have recovered, the wolves have recovered, they still hunt most of the other animals your worried about, but your gonna save them to death, anyways.
Wilderness doesn't save the land for the public, it saves the land from the public, by excluding a majority of the public. It does nothing to help the environment. It doesn't help the animals. It's a idealistic fancy land, created to help you mentally atone for your gluttonies. But, conveniently at someone else's expense. You have no idea, how much exercise and happiness and release, multi-use public lands brings to the average westerner's life. And, how nothing will kill that quicker than wilderness.
Here's a great article on exclusivity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/us/13timber.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Extra credit: Is the guy in the photo a C or D cup?
A couple of examples:
http://www.sierraclub.org/ico/
http://www.nols.edu/
Would you support wilderness designations if it meant everyone was kept out except for official business? Or should it just mean everyone else will be kept out?
With that in mind, if you take a look at the Forest Service's website on the Flathead Wilderness system, you will see all of the types of activities that you most likely enjoyed while growing up as well as when you we're spending time with your children.
If you then take a closer look at the site you will see that the Wilderness areas within the Flathead National Forest comprise 46% of the total area. Of this area, no one is excluded from entering the Wilderness area. What IS excluded is the propulsion or means by which people can enter these areas as well as the EXTRACTIVE activities that generally occur within National Forests and not Designated Wilderness Areas. So if time is not of your side, the National Forests have tons of roads and activity areas for you to enjoy with your ATV, Motorcycles, Snowmobiles, chainsaws, etc...
So to answer your questions. Wilderness Designation is merely a backlash or a result of the mismanagement of National Forests in US History. If you are truly Anti-Wilderness and really want to know your enemy then you should read, Paul Hirt's "A Conspiracy of Optimism: Mismanagement of the National Forests since World War II" or Roderick Nash's, "Wilderness and the American Mind".
I would support Wilderness designation if certain areas were protected for "Scientific Purposes" only and whereby "non" scientists were not allowed.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/flathead/wilderness/Wilderness.htm