Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Montana's public lands

    Montana Public lands; Please take a minute and share this with every hunter you know, no matter if you live in Montana or not, you may very well want to come here and hunt. Folks this is not about being a Republican or Democrat these are our public lands that we hunt fish and recreate on, should not to be used for this. Oil & gas exploration and hard rock mining.
    These public lands are some of the must import elk and deer habitat in Montana. Please take a minute and call Greg R Gianforte and ask him to withdraw his bills which would open up the Big Snowies, the Middle Fork Judith, West Pioneers, Sapphire, and Blue Joint wilderness study areas ? a half-million acres in all ? to hard-rock mining, oil and gas development, and expanded motorized use. H.R. 5148 and 5149.
    1-855-935-3634


    Thanks; Terry L. Zink

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bowhunter65 For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Central WI
    Posts
    114
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Id go there if their tag prices weren't THRU THE ROOF! $600 plus for a stupid deer combo tag is un real.

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    173
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 72 Times in 47 Posts
    Congratulations
    4
    Congratulated 5 Times in 3 Posts
    Through my research there is no part of the bill that suggest they want to develop oil, gas or any hard rock mines in these study areas. Heck they haven't even been surveyed for that yet so lets not jump to conclusions. Both Gianforte and Daines want to open the land up for multiple use. They've been in limbo by Washington for 40 years. Is this a bad thing???! On the contrary, they introduced the bills without public opinions or town halls, which I don't agree with.

  5. The Following User Says Congratulations to DanPickar For This Post:


  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    566
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 173 Times in 31 Posts
    Representative Cheney is pushing a similar bill for Wyoming Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). She is not seeking public input...just wants to open them up to multiple use. These areas have been Wilderness Study Areas for decades. If we want to reconsider that status, it should be done with LOTS of public input and deliberation.

    In Wyoming, the County Commissioner's Association started a public review process several years ago. It is called the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI). Committees have been established in most counties (the ones that wanted to participate) consisting of folks with a variety of interests. The idea is to examine the WSAs and make a recommendation to Congress by the end of 2018. Perhaps some will be released to multiple use and others will become permanent wilderness areas. Rather than waiting for that contemplative process to unfold, Cheney is recommending most be released to multiple use. She should wait for the WPLI recommendations.

    Sportsmen should pay attention. If some of these areas are released to multiple use, and IF some of them have minerals under them, you can bet minerals development will take place at the detriment of wildlife. The Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area in NE Wyoming is a case in point. It includes a popular elk herd that could be substantially impacted by the oil and gas development that surrounds the WSA and is pounding at its doors.

    We need to carefully examine each and everyone of the Wilderness Study Areas before releasing them to multiple use!
    Don't fence me in!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to highplainsdrifter For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    407
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 390 Times in 137 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 73 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DanPickar View Post
    Through my research there is no part of the bill that suggest they want to develop oil, gas or any hard rock mines in these study areas. Heck they haven't even been surveyed for that yet so lets not jump to conclusions. Both Gianforte and Daines want to open the land up for multiple use. They've been in limbo by Washington for 40 years. Is this a bad thing???! On the contrary, they introduced the bills without public opinions or town halls, which I don't agree with.
    Likewise, there's nothing in any part of the bill that says they WONT develop oil, gas, or any hard rock mines either. Which, by default, means the potential is not only there, but damned likely.

    I will agree with you that keeping these areas in limbo has been poor policy and you rightfully are placing the blame on Congress kicking the can down the road for a long time.

    Its my contention that there is perhaps a reasonable solution via a designation somewhere between full on "multiple (ab)use" and designated wilderness. I feel a conservation area designation, with lots of public input, that affords and considers recreational, wildlife, habitat, migration corridors, hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, etc. rather than simply how much money can be extracted from those lands is worth a thunk...

    I'm pretty well over waiting for congress to act, but I'm also pretty well over people like Gianforte, Daines, and Cheney claiming that they want "local input", then squashing just that by pushing their agenda in D.C. via bills that do just the opposite.

    It just proves to me that they are driven by their big money donors and special interests, way more than their desire to collaborate with anyone of the 326 million public land owners that have a voice, local or otherwise.

    We should demand better from those that claim to represent us...and I do.

  9. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    thank you guys, my fear is what is their version of multiple use, is it logging, which we need, opening roads to recreation and ect.. The oil and mining aspect of multiple use (money is all its about) in which I don't agree with, look at the west pioneers (Montana HD 332 Bowhunting heaven to a lot of bowhunters) in Montana and the Big Hole river, it won't fly, look at Butte and that mess. The Snowies south of Lewistown, look at the Giltedge Mine North of Lewistown and the mess there. Then the middle fork of the Judith and Little Belts, the elk hunting in the was ruin with Multiple of motor cycles on ever trail. if the wilderness study areas are removed I believe it is ploy for gaining multiple use, so ok, but not mining. I do agree we do not need more wilderness areas We could still add a law and amend the study areas to include logging. This is just my opinion. I am as conservative as you get but I am to the point where I don't trust any politicians.
    Last edited by Bowhunter65; 03-09-2018 at 06:50 AM.

  10. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    566
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 173 Times in 31 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzH View Post
    Its my contention that there is perhaps a reasonable solution via a designation somewhere between full on "multiple (ab)use" and designated wilderness.
    I agree with you...this is the answer. Unfortunately some of the WPLI committees are recommending this "middle ground" be achieved via an administrative designation. For example, BLM would simply agree to call a released WSA something else that would prohibit certain uses such as minerals development. The problem with an administrative designation is that is could easily be changed by a new administration. If Karen Budd-Falen is appointed head of BLM, I wouldn't trust her to honor an administrative designation.

    So, I think that the recommendation to Congress on which WSAs should be released should also ask Congress to officially declare a new "middle ground" designation. That designation could be called something like National Limited Use Recreation Area. Such a designation would restrict all use in a newly released WSA to recreation only. Then I would give the BLM authority to determine what types of recreation to be allowed on each newly released WSA on a case by case basis with local input.

    This would address sportsmen's desire to get more recreational access without opening the WSAs up to development.

    I would not release any WSAs without some Congressional protection for them such as what I mentioned above.
    Don't fence me in!

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to highplainsdrifter For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    north idaho
    Posts
    1,370
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 427 Times in 298 Posts
    Congratulations
    104
    Congratulated 310 Times in 51 Posts
    no more wilderness,these bills are awesome, the land gets to be enjoyed by recreationalist and is still protected. it is not going back to the state, just dropping the rwa. all good.

  13. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    566
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 460 Times in 219 Posts
    Congratulations
    147
    Congratulated 173 Times in 31 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tim View Post
    no more wilderness,these bills are awesome, the land gets to be enjoyed by recreationalist and is still protected. it is not going back to the state, just dropping the rwa. all good.
    It is not all good. What good would it do to get recreational access, if the oil companies are also going to get access? Take a look at the map on the fifth page of the report below. See all the oil wells surrounding the Fortification Creek WSA? Any doubt what the WSA would look like in 10 years?

    https://www.wyo-wcca.org/files/2914/..._Creek_WSA.pdf
    Don't fence me in!

  14. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    407
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 390 Times in 137 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 73 Times in 24 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    I agree with you...this is the answer. Unfortunately some of the WPLI committees are recommending this "middle ground" be achieved via an administrative designation. For example, BLM would simply agree to call a released WSA something else that would prohibit certain uses such as minerals development. The problem with an administrative designation is that is could easily be changed by a new administration. If Karen Budd-Falen is appointed head of BLM, I wouldn't trust her to honor an administrative designation.

    So, I think that the recommendation to Congress on which WSAs should be released should also ask Congress to officially declare a new "middle ground" designation. That designation could be called something like National Limited Use Recreation Area. Such a designation would restrict all use in a newly released WSA to recreation only. Then I would give the BLM authority to determine what types of recreation to be allowed on each newly released WSA on a case by case basis with local input.

    This would address sportsmen's desire to get more recreational access without opening the WSAs up to development.

    I would not release any WSAs without some Congressional protection for them such as what I mentioned above.
    Agree, and don't worry about KBF, she isn't going to be appointed to lead the BLM. But your point is still well taken that you cant trust a politically appointed person to honor much of anything, other than who appointed them.

    I also think, that if we look for middle ground on some sort of designation there needs to be side-boards on what "more recreational access" looks like. There is a range of what people view as far as access goes.

    I also believe that some of the WSA's should be designated, some should likely be released, and some should also have a "National Limited Use Recreation Area" designation as well.

    I tend to think that the reason nothing has been done for so long is the "all or nothing" approach from both sides, and a genuine lack of collaboration. That, combined with the fact that these type of collaborations and compromises are NOT easy, makes it really easy to just do nothing.

    The way the WPLI process is shaping up, illustrates just that...no easy answers.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to BuzzH For This Useful Post:


 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •