Congress Omnibus Land Grab

[modelbuilder]

Here is the text of the section that deals with California. Overall the bill takes 1 million acres of land across 9 states.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...JN4gO:e199030:

This link will only work for a time so if it is dead do a google search for

"s.22 land" and click on the third link down....www.thomas.loc.gov......

From the AMA:

Sign the petition here...

http://capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/alert/?alertid=12408986


U.S. Senate poised to shut Off-Highway Vehicles out of more than 1 million acres of public land

Vote "No" on S. 22

The U.S. Senate is poised to act as early as Sunday on a massive package of public lands bills that would shut motorcyclists out of more than 1 million acres without adequate public comment, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.

The last-minute move just as the newly elected Congress takes over has raised the ire of the AMA and at least one congressman, who believe the proposal and process deserve more public participation.

"Those who say things get better with time obviously never encountered the public lands omnibus bill," said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). "This bill was a bad idea last Congress and it's only gotten worse over the past month."

Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations, agreed.

"It makes little sense to lump together more than 160 very important public lands bills into once package and expect the public to digest it all, and to rush a vote through the Senate on a weekend." Moreland said.

More than 160 public lands bills have been grouped together by Senate majority leader Harry Reid. The package would create more than 1 million acres of designated Wilderness land, which would shut out all motorized vehicles.

The last-minute congressional maneuver would also make the National Landscape Conservation System permanent. This system creates an additional level of bureaucracy for the National System of Public Lands and would remove much of the authority of the existing agency in managing those lands.

"Congress should put together a new package and pass it through committee rather than debate legislation carried over from the previous Congress," Rep. Bishop said. "Poor process produces poor product, and this is an example of congressional process at its worst. Parts of this bill are good, and parts are very bad. Each part deserves to be discussed and voted on its own merits."

"Continued responsible access to public lands is a vitally important right for current and future generations," added Moreland. "This measure deserves to be fully analyzed and thoughtfully debated in the 111th Congress prior to a final vote."

All AMA members and anyone else who enjoys outdoor recreation is urged to contact their U.S. Senators and ask them to oppose the omnibus public lands bill.

 

[vengeful]

I hate things like this!

Sent some letters!

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

So have I - in support of the bill.

 

[modelbuilder]

Hey There,

In an effort to keep the flow of information alive here may I ask why you support this bill?

Joe

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Certainly, although you can also look at the other thread here for more discourse.

My stance is simple. Less than five percent of all the land in the U.S. is set aside as wilderness - that is, less than one out of 20 acres in the country remains in anything like its natural state. I - and a majority of the American public, as proved by vote after vote, think it's important to protect what's left.

I also resent the rhetoric from the antis, as you'll see in this very thread: "Land grab." "Take." It's nothing of the sort. Wilderness is by and large still open to any citizen (and as someone with an artificial knee, please don't pull the fake "what about handicapped people" argument on me, okay?). You don't have to backpack 20 miles in to appreciate a wilderness. Park your car on the edge, walk in 20 feet, and enjoy the view.

I know guys who claim wilderness is "elitist." These are guys who boast about conquering 4+ trails only possible in a vehicle with thousands of dollars in modifications. All you need to enjoy a wilderness is a pair of walking shoes. So who's elitist?

There's a better reason as well. All the arguments against wilderness essentially boil down to selfish motives. Those who argue may scream, but it's the truth. In wilderness designation there is a higher purpose - the welfare of the habitat and the wildlife is put ahead of our own recreational desires. I think that speaks highly of us as a nation. Study after study has proven that wilderness makes the best wildlife habitat, and the effects spill over into non-wilderness areas.

I hope that helps illuminate my own stance.

 

[modelbuilder]

I understand the need to protect the wild, but what does it need protecting from?

Isn't there a better way to go about this. Perhaps a law that would ban any sort of commercial Enterprise to buy and develop the land.

Does this bill ban OHVs...yes it does...at least in my neck of the woods.

I would argue that most OHVer's clean up after themselves and care for the land even more so than the leftist environmentalists. This bill is in effect limiting our ability to use our Expo Vehicles out in the wild. Overall our impact is small.

 

[awalter]

I would argue that most OHVer's clean up after themselves and care for the land even more so than the leftist environmentalists.

I would disagree that most ohver's pick up after themselves. I have no idea what the ratio is, put too much of our open areas are being trashed. Why is there a need to annually return to areas for voluntary cleanups on a major scale?

I am not a fan of closing areas without proper input.

JMO

Al

 

[teotwaki]

........There's a better reason as well. All the arguments against wilderness essentially boil down to selfish motives. Those who argue may scream, but it's the truth. In wilderness designation there is a higher purpose - the welfare of the habitat and the wildlife is put ahead of our own recreational desires. I think that speaks highly of us as a nation. Study after study has proven that wilderness makes the best wildlife habitat, and the effects spill over into non-wilderness areas.......

Let me change or add just a few words

All the arguments for wilderness essentially boil down to selfish motives. Those who argue may scream, but it's the truth. In oppostion to wilderness designation there is a higher purpose - the availability of the land to our children and their children is put ahead of elitist wilderness land grabbers. I think that speaks highly of us as a nation. Study after study has proven that mankinds' meddling with nature fails miserably, and the effects spills over into non-wilderness areas.

See below example of wilderness meddling:

January 13, 2009

By MICHAEL CASEY, AP Environmental Writer
BANGKOK, Thailand

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.

But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said Tuesday.

Removing the cats from Macquarie "caused environmental devastation" that will cost authorities 24 million Australian dollars ($16.2 million) to remedy, Dana Bergstrom of the Australian Antarctic Division and her colleagues wrote in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.

.
.
.

 

[ntsqd]

Two thoughts:

I have personally seen roads, that is designated two tracks and better (not just someone's tracks wandering across the desert), that are on published maps, closed by "Wilderness" signs. The presence of a road disqualifies an area from meeting the basic definition of a Wilderness area. That being "unchanged by human hands." Passing that sign is not legal, but then neither was the placing of that sign.

What about my friend Javier who is confined to a wheelchair? Where does his "deep in the middle of nowhere" experience come from when those roads are closed? When the roads exist to allow him to go there, why is he being discriminated against?

 

[teotwaki]

Two thoughts:

I have personally seen roads, that is designated two tracks and better (not just someone's tracks wandering across the desert), that are on published maps, closed by "Wilderness" signs. The presence of a road disqualifies an area from meeting the basic definition of a Wilderness area. That being "unchanged by human hands." Passing that sign is not legal, but then neither was the placing of that sign.

What about my friend Javier who is confined to a wheelchair? Where does his "deep in the middle of nowhere" experience come from when those roads are closed? When the roads exist to allow him to go there, why is he being discriminated against?

Tell Javier that Jonathon Hanson said that Javier is welcome to park at the edge of the wilderness areas:

"You don't have to backpack 20 miles in to appreciate a wilderness. Park your car on the edge, walk in 20 feet, and enjoy the view."

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

By MICHAEL CASEY, AP Environmental Writer
BANGKOK, Thailand

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.

But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said Tuesday.

Removing the cats from Macquarie "caused environmental devastation" that will cost authorities 24 million Australian dollars ($16.2 million) to remedy, Dana Bergstrom of the Australian Antarctic Division and her colleagues wrote in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.

Bad - really bad - example. The rabbits were introduced first, and created the problem that was poorly addressed by the cats. Thus the trouble was not caused by meddling environmentalists, was it? Environmentalists would have prevented the problem in the first place, by pointing out the frequent disasters that follow exotic species introductions.


And on the tiresome argument about the handicapped (didn't I say "please?") - okay. Handicapped people can't reach the top of Denali or hike down the Grand Canyon either. Should we build roads there?

I've worked with handicapped people who were active wilderness supporters. I've written about paraplegic and quadriplegic hunters who support wilderness. All of them were outraged when able-bodied people disingenuously use their situation to argue against wilderness. There may be wheelchair-bound people out there who think we should build roads everywhere for their convenience, but I haven't met one.

The "elitist wilderness land grabbers" fallacy has already been addressed. Another bad argument. We are saving land for your children - that's the whole point! Or do you think opening up public land to strip mining and drilling is saving it for your children?

Sigh . . .

 

[teotwaki]

Bad - really bad - example. The rabbits were introduced first, and created the problem that was poorly addressed by the cats. Thus the trouble was not caused by meddling environmentalists, was it? Environmentalists would have prevented the problem in the first place, by pointing out the frequent disasters that follow exotic species introductions.


And on the tiresome argument about the handicapped (didn't I say "please?") - okay. Handicapped people can't reach the top of Denali or hike down the Grand Canyon either. Should we build roads there?

I've worked with handicapped people who were active wilderness supporters. I've written about paraplegic and quadriplegic hunters who support wilderness. All of them were outraged when able-bodied people disingenuously use their situation to argue against wilderness. There may be wheelchair-bound people out there who think we should build roads everywhere for their convenience, but I haven't met one.

The "elitist wilderness land grabbers" fallacy has already been addressed. Another bad argument. We are saving land for your children - that's the whole point! Or do you think opening up public land to strip mining and drilling is saving it for your children?

Sigh . . .

That is funny.

1. Wilderness proponents insist on a totally incorrect solution of removing the cats.

2. Solution fails miserably causing even more damage.

3. Environmentalist quickly blames the rabbit proponents.

Sigh.

For someone who says so much about handicapped people your reference to mountain climbing is a really bad example. Mount Rainier has been climbed by sightless folks, epileptic folks, deaf folks, one legged folks and even a paralyzed guy (Peter Rieke) in a clever wheelchair-like contraption. (Denali will be next)

However, it tooks cars to get them anywhere near Mount Rainier. Let's just take that away from them and see what happens when they have to walk all the way to the Paradise Visitor Center without the benefit of a road.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

3. Environmentalist quickly blames the rabbit proponents.

Precisely.

I just spent ten days on an island that was colonized by rats from ships. Fishermen released cats to control the rats, and the cats, after controlling the rats, are now wiping out the indigenous lizards and snakes. The problem originated with the rats, not with environmentalists who want to control the downstream damage from cats. Keep the blame where it belongs - once you mess with Mother Nature the first time, all attempts at turning back the clock are fraught with risk.

 

[teotwaki]

Precisely.

I just spent ten days on an island that was colonized by rats from ships. Fishermen released cats to control the rats, and the cats, after controlling the rats, are now wiping out the indigenous lizards and snakes. The problem originated with the rats, not with environmentalists who want to control the downstream damage from cats. Keep the blame where it belongs - once you mess with Mother Nature the first time, all attempts at turning back the clock are fraught with risk.

..... but no admission of guilt for making things much worse regardless of who started it. Sounds like a schoolyard. "Well, he stuck his tougue out so it's his fault I hit him".

The envrionmentalists' smug assumption is that they must fix the downstream damage from the cats and that mother Nature cannot reach a new and appropriate equilibrium as it did at Macquarie Island.

 

[1leglance]

So far things have been fairly civil and I hope we keep it that way so we can keep these discussions alive.

It is really simple for me...if it does NOT have a road them keep it that way.
If it DOES have a road then keep those but NO new ones.

That works for everyone.
As a very able disabled person I can still access the backcountry by hiking, but many of those I work with can only travel roads or trails. We both win, I can take a road to a roadless area and they can take a road/trail as far as it goes but NEVER off trail.

Enforcement is easy...if you are on a road/trail then OK if you are off then FINE'em...more money in the system and folks will learn.

But we have to start with ourselves...talk to those going off trail, pick up trash, help the land managers and tell them you are a land user every monday when you return from your latest adventure.

This discussion is all and good but in the end it is worthless if it stays here on expo...tell your government officals, calls, emails, letters all matter.

Oh and remember to lead by example and please keep this thread civil and alive.