Montana's public lands

[Bowhunter65]

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

 

[mustang8]

Id go there if their tag prices weren't THRU THE ROOF! $600 plus for a stupid deer combo tag is un real.

 

[DanPickar]

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.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

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!

 

[BuzzH]

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.

 

[Bowhunter65]

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.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

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.

 

[tim]

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.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

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/2914/6376/2794/Report_Appendix_II-14_Fortification_Creek_WSA.pdf

 

[BuzzH]

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.

 

[HighPlainsHunter]

Id go there if their tag prices weren't THRU THE ROOF! $600 plus for a stupid deer combo tag is un real.

Its' bad but there are some other doozys out there, KS comes to mind. I think that it might actually be more in Kansas to hunt mule deer, and that is if you are lucky enough to be drawn. I believe the hunting license is around $100, $450 for the deer tag, plus another $150 for the mule deer.

I saw first hand last year how bad Oil and Gas development can be on public land in Western Oklahoma, hate to see more of that being likely in Montana.

 

[rammont]

Not political? BS. Requesting people from out of state to get involved in influencing our representatives is purely political. The voices of Montanans should be the only voices that determine what happens to Montana lands. What does someone from New York City or Los Angeles know about living in Montana, they have no right to force their land use opinions on us. Bringing in people from outside the state is purely political and tells me that it's not about land use, it's about winning politically.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Not political? BS. Requesting people from out of state to get involved in influencing our representatives is purely political. The voices of Montanans should be the only voices that determine what happens to Montana lands. What does someone from New York City or Los Angeles know about living in Montana, they have no right to force their land use opinions on us. Bringing in people from outside the state is purely political and tells me that it's not about land use, it's about winning politically.

I strongly disagree. Our federal lands belong to all 330 million Americans. All of them should have an opportunity to weigh in on federal land management decisions. It is inappropriate for locals to make decisions that ignore the wishes of millions of public land owners in other states. Just because you live closer to a piece of federal land than someone from Kentucky, doesn't mean your opinion should automatically override the opinion of the person from Kentucky.

 

[DanPickar]

I strongly disagree. Our federal lands belong to all 330 million Americans. All of them should have an opportunity to weigh in on federal land management decisions. It is inappropriate for locals to make decisions that ignore the wishes of millions of public land owners in other states. Just because you live closer to a piece of federal land than someone from Kentucky, doesn't mean your opinion should automatically override the opinion of the person from Kentucky.

I agree with rammont on this one. What Highplainsdrifter has to say is true to a point. But we all have seen what happens when the Federal appeals court in San Francisco rules that wolves should be put back on the endangered species list in the state of Montana. The wildlife on public lands in Montana belongs to the whole country right, so they should have a say? No! Quite simply I think it is catastrophically absurd a court in California can even have a say about the rule hunting wolves in Montana or any other state.

The difference is Montana's have to live with the wildlife, and have to abide by the laws of the land in THEIR back yard. They are the ones that pay the state taxes and live there. Quite a sticky situation!

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I agree with rammont on this one. What Highplainsdrifter has to say is true to a point. But we all have seen what happens when the Federal appeals court in San Francisco rules that wolves should be put back on the endangered species list in the state of Montana. The wildlife on public lands in Montana belongs to the whole country right, so they should have a say? No! Quite simply I think it is catastrophically absurd a court in California can even have a say about the rule hunting wolves in Montana or any other state.

The difference is Montana's have to live with the wildlife, and have to abide by the laws of the land in THEIR back yard. They are the ones that pay the state taxes and live there. Quite a sticky situation!

Wildlife management and federal land management are two different things. It has been longstanding practice, defined by law, for the states to own/manage wildlife (except for migratory birds and endangered species). I strongly support the authority of the states to manage wildlife.

On the other hand, federal lands are owned by the federal government. That means 330 million Americans pay taxes to support the management of those lands. Because they pay taxes, and because they actually own the land, they should have a say on how that land is managed. I am convinced that is actually a very good thing. Historically, local efforts to control management of federal lands have repeatedly led to exploitation of those lands at the expense of wildlife.

 

[nv-hunter]

When talking about wilderness study areas please remember the reason most are still "study areas" is that they don't truly meet the wilderness requirements and were locked up by Clinton to stop logging, grazing and use by the people. Do your research wilderness areas are a dying eco-system and need to be managed and used for the betterment of all. While some areas have and are productive try finding a deer or elk in the wilderness in the Cascade Mts areas.
Yes everyone owns this land but the voices that live there should carry greater weight when deciding how they are managed. I'll agree to equal say on management when EACH state holds the same % of public lands as all the others so I can enjoy public land in Texas for example. Why should western states be punished for having more open space and told how to live then folks back east?

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Why should western states be punished for having more open space and told how to live then folks back east?

That is an interesting perspective. I don't believe western states are being punished by the folks back east. Since they are equal partners in owning the land, and since they pay the same federal taxes as we do, they should have equal say in how the lands are managed.

When it comes to deciding the fate of Wyoming's Wilderness Study Areas, it is quite clear that the average American is left out of the discussion. The committees that have been formed by the county commissions are dominated by local people. Those that live far away probably don't even know the discussion is taking place. Is that fair?

 

[nv-hunter]

That is an interesting perspective. I don't believe western states are being punished by the folks back east. Since they are equal partners in owning the land, and since they pay the same federal taxes as we do, they should have equal say in how the lands are managed.

When it comes to deciding the fate of Wyoming's Wilderness Study Areas, it is quite clear that the average American is left out of the discussion. The committees that have been formed by the county commissions are dominated by local people. Those that live far away probably don't even know the discussion is taking place. Is that fair?

I totally think its fair they can show up in person if they have an interest. As for punished for me its about making a living and what it does to local economy by having large amounts of federal land then not having a say.
I personally think that if its going to be wilderness or wilderness study then zero fire suppression or any for profit activites.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I totally think its fair they can show up in person if they have an interest.

So you think they should have to show up in person to have a say? It would be costly for someone from Florida to attend a meeting in Montana or Wyoming to make a statement. IMHO they should be allowed to comment via email or phone, and the comments provided should count as much as the one provided by the guy employed at the local filling station.

 

[BuzzH]

highplainsdrifter has it correct.

I think the way the Federal public lands are dealt with is totally appropriate. The locals definitely have a bigger voice via their own comments as well as through their county commissioners, legislature, and other elected officials.

However, the "checks and balance" is provided by the oversight of all 330 million Americans that are equal owners of our public lands. That keeps the "locals" from operating on the fringe thinking their voice is the only one that should matter when it comes to public lands and that they "know better"

I can say, without a doubt, that many times the locals DO NOT have it right with their views on how to manage public lands. They often only look through the "maximize profit" lens, regarding Federal Lands when they form their opinions and state their positions. This is often times in direct conflict with the most judicious use of these lands and also in conflict of other considerations like wildlife, wildlife habitat, recreation, hunting, fishing, etc. etc.

The way its supposed to work is that all uses of Federal lands should be given equal consideration under the law, law created by OUR Congressional delegation to ensure that happens. This is nothing new, NFMA, RPA, ESA, FLPMA, WA, etc. etc. have been around a long time.

Its how it works when a Federal asset is held in trust for all US Citizens, and frankly, I don't want it to work any other way. I want, and fully expect as a public land owner, to be able to voice my positions on public lands in Wyoming as well as those found in NV, UT, MT, WA, OR, MA, FL, or any other place where federal lands exist.

I want, and fully expect people from all over the US to have a voice here in Wyoming as well. As responsible and concerned citizens, not only is it our right, but its our duty to comment on issues surrounding Federal lands no matter ones zip code.