New proposed wilderness Part 1

[Chukar Hunter]

This came to me too late to attend the meetings but not too late to contact your representitives and let them know how you feel

Land Rights Network
American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400 – Battle Ground, WA 98604
Phone: 360-687-3087 – Fax: 360-687-2973
Web Address: http://www.landrights.org

Inyo County Holds McKeon Wilderness Meetings, You Must Attend

This proposed Wilderness Area really affects all Nevada users, especially grazing, water and recreation.

HR 6156 affects both the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the White Mountains plus water in California and Nevada.

The meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, June 24, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., at the American Legion Hall, in Independence and;

Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., at the Charles Brown Auditorium at the Tri County Fairgrounds, in Bishop.

Urgent Action Wilderness Meetings regarding HR 6156 (McKeon Wilderness Bill). It is sponsored in the Senate by Senator Barbara Boxer. The Senate bill number is S 3069.

The official bill name is “Eastern Sierra and San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act.”

Maps are on front page of McKeon’s website under ‘Eastern Sierra Maps’

To see the maps of proposed wilderness areas visit www.mckeon.house.gov/eastern_sierra_maps.aspx


Action Items Below:

News articles, public response and background below:

You are being divided and conquered. The Wilderness Society and its allies are going after new giant Wilderness Areas in several Congressional Districts in California. But they affect Nevada also. They already have a bill in Rep. Mary Bono’s district in California going through Congress. Now Rep. Buck McKeon is caving in.

They are targeting Republicans who are afraid of their reelection chances this fall.

Don’t let more Wilderness damage use and access for Nevada residents.

How you can fight back:

The way to fight back is to look at these bills as one giant bill that all Federal land use and access advocates, ranchers, miners, recreation advocates, off-highway vehicle users and private property owners must join together to fight as one.

If you fail to fight back as one, the Wilderness Society will carve you up one Congressional district at a time and you’ll wake up will huge amounts of access to Federal lands lost. Nevada can expect to be targeted next.

To defeat this attack by the Wilderness Society you must view each proposed Wilderness area as an attack on all users. You can win if you stand together. That means ranchers, miners, loggers, recreation advocates, off-highway vehicle users, cabin owners, hunters, fishermen and lots of others.

Below is a press release by the Inyo County Supervisors about two meetings they are holding this coming week. No matter where you live in California, you need to make plans to invade (peacefully of course) Inyo County to send the message that these new Wilderness areas threaten us all.

Action Items:

-----1. Forward this message to everyone on your e-mail list.

-----2. Call your friends, neighbors and business associates to make sure they know about the meetings and make plans to attend. By deluging these meetings, we’ll send a message to other Congressmen who are close to caving in on more Wilderness.

-----3. Forward this message to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations.

-----4. Call, fax and e-mail Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA). His personal office
number is (202) 225-1956. His fax is: (202) 226-0683. If his line is
busy, you may call any Congressman at the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 225-3121. Ask for the person who handles this proposed Wilderness Area. You may e-mail McKeon by sending e-mail to the following staff people in his office.

Jaime.Cheshire@mail.house.gov; hanz.heinrich@mail.house.gov; bob.hauter@mail.house.gov; lew.stults@mail.house.gov

-----5. Call, fax and e-mail Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV). Her personal office number is (202) 225-5965. Fax: (202) 225-3119. Send e-mail to the following staff persons: Richard.urey@mail.house.gov; marcie.evans@mail.house.gov; bryan.george@mail.house.gov; matt.coffron@mail.house.gov

-----6. Call, fax and e-mail Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV). Phone: (202) 225-6155 – Fax: (202) 225-5679. E-mail staff: mac.Abrams@mail.house.gov; greg_facciano@mail.house.gov; leeann.walker@mail.house.gov; scott_riplinger@mail.house.gov; verita.prothro@mail.house.gov; tiffany.kahler@mail.house.gov.

-----7. Call, fax and e-mail Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) Phone: (202) 225-3252 – Fax: (202) 225-2185. E-mail the following staff: phillip.speight@mail.house.gov; ryan.temme@mail.house.gov; alanna.miller@mail.house.gov; paul.moradkhan@mail.house.gov.

-----8. Call, fax and e-mail Senator John Ensign. Her personal number is
(202) 224-6244. Fax: (202) 228-2193. E-mail the following staff: john_lopes@ensign.senate.gov; pam_thiessen@ensign.senate.gov; brook_allmon@ensign.senate.gov

-----9. Call, fax and e-mail Senator Diane Feinstein. Her personal number is (202) 224-3841. Fax: (202) 228-3954. E-mail the following staff: peter_Cleveland@feinstein.senate.gov; david_Glasgow@feinstein.senate.gov;
chris_Thompson@feinstein.senate.gov

----10. Call, fax and e-mail Senator Harry Reid. His personal office number is (202) 224-3542. Fax: (202) 224-7327. E-mail the following
staff: gary_myrick@reid.senate.gov; david_mccallum@reid.senate.gov; Janice_Shelton@reid.senate.gov;


Inyo Co Press Release – Independence, California – JUNE 18, 2008

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS is pleased to announce that Special Meetings of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors have been scheduled to discuss and take comment on the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act.

The meetings are scheduled for June 24, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., at the American Legion Hall, in Independence and June 25, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., at the Charles Brown Auditorium at the Tri County Fairgrounds, in Bishop.

The Board expects a large number of people will wish to provide comment on the legislation and will continue to take comments into the evening in order
to ensure everyone wanting to provide comment has the opportunity. Members
of the public, who can attend the meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m., are encouraged to make their comments earlier in order to allow those with work or other obligations the opportunity to speak later in the evening.

Copies of the maps of the Act are on display on the exterior windows at the County Administrative Offices in the Cottonwood Plaza (next to the Imperial
Gourmet) in Bishop and at the Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce Office in Lone Pine.

The Board encourages all members of the public who are interested in the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act to come and share their comments and thoughts with the Board.

New Bill Would Protect Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers in the Eastern Sierra and San Gabriel Mountains

Immediate, angry response to McKeon's wilderness bill.

 

[Chukar Hunter]

New proposed wilderness Part 2

Here is the article from the Mammoth Times/Inyo Register Staff:

Advocates for Access to Public Lands feel betrayed

In the wake of Congressman Buck McKeon’s announcement last week that he has introduced legislation in the House of Representatives to designate 400,000 plus acres of Eastern Sierra lands as wilderness, it’s been a case of sour grapes on the part of the group known as Advocates for Access to Public Lands (AAPL), whose response was immediate.

“…This (the current bill’s provisions) is ‘back-door stuff’ that the public doesn’t know anything about – this is a 180-degree shift on the part of Buck McKeon in terms of what he assured us he wanted to achieve and would support,” said Dick Noles, AAPL co-founder.

McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) is the sponsor of House Resolution No. 6156, with a companion wilderness bill in the U.S. Senate being introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California).

The two legislators had been working on their respective bills in unison of late, in an effort to gain bipartisan support for their passage in both Houses of Congress. They say their bills have resulted from a unique collaborative effort based upon input from local community leaders, leading conservation groups, sportsmen, public lands access advocates and business owners.

The two bills seek permanent wilderness status for tracts identified as the White Mountain Wilderness, Hoover Wilderness Additions, the Granite Mountain Wilderness, John Muir Wilderness Additions, the Owens River Headwaters Wilderness, the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness, the Magic Mountain Wilderness, as well as Wild and Scenic River protection status for the Amargosa, the Owens River headwaters and the Piru Creek.

According to a statement from his press secretary Lindsey Mask, McKeon has been working to preserve and enhance recreational opportunities in the Eastern Sierra with these stakeholders since his election to office. “Since McKeon’s election to represent Mono and Inyo counties in 2002 he has received thousands of letters, phone calls and e-mails expressing support for an Eastern Sierra Wilderness designation.”

AAPL said, “Now (Buck) turns around and puts his support into essentially backing Senator Boxer’s Wild Heritage Act which was unanimously opposed by every member of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors less than a year ago.”

According to McKeon, the two bills are not one and the same. His legislation “contains 472,804 acres through the 25th District of California. Boxer’s statewide bill, S. No. 493, contains almost twice as much wilderness in the 25th District – more than 840,000 acres.” McKeon’s statement goes on to note that “essential components of his new legislation include important protection for snowmobile use near Bridgeport, Calif., more than 50,000 acres of Wilderness Study Area release and unrestricted access to areas such as Dumont Dunes, Sperry Wash and Laurel Lakes. Boxer’s statewide Wild Heritage Act includes none of these provisions.”

AAPL: “We developed a plan that provided for 50,000 acres and called for 170,000 acres of land to be managed as a national recreation area. This alternative to a ‘pure wilderness designation’ was most actively championed by Mono County Supervisor Hap Hazard and agreed to by all those with whom we were interacting as a totally reasonable and workable management plan for the Whites.”

According to McKeon, National Recreation Areas are “typically created to encompass non-controversial water recreation sites such as Lake Mead, Nev.”


- - - - - - - - - -
(Editors note and addition to the article: “This is nonsense. Rep. McKeon has not studied National Recreation Areas very well,” said Chuck Cushman, American Land Rights Association)
- - - - - - - - - -

The congressman also noted that “the concept of a 170,000-acre NRA in the Inyo National Forest is neither reasonable nor workable for one of the largest unprotected roadless areas in the lower 48 states, containing the world’s oldest living trees, the ancient Bristlecone Pines.”

Still, says Stacy Corless of the Wilderness Society, McKeon's bill involves several areas of compromise and consensus.

— “The White Mountains wilderness boundary was cut off at the Inyo County line to accommodate Noles’ request.” Moreover, Corless said, no roads will be closed; OHV access to the White Mountains is maintained, including the road up to the 14,000 White Mountain Peak. Many protested the wilderness bill, claiming it would close existing roads and thereby eliminate access by those who are unable to walk.

— The ancient Bristlecone pines will get permanent, Federal protection (not as wilderness, but under the current forest management plan)

— A John Muir Wilderness boundary adjustment will secure continued access to Laurel Lakes. Due to a mapping error made 30 years ago, the Forest Service was considering closing the top of the road because it was within the wilderness boundary. This bill moves the boundary so as to keep the road open.

— This snowmobile area (mentioned above) is unprecedented and represents local individuals’ work.

— The 50,000 acres of wilderness study area release is a significant amount of release.

"Congressman McKeon understands what a highly charged and emotional issue wilderness designations, access, and land rights are, and he deeply appreciates that. The Congressman has worked tirelessly to visit with and include all key stakeholders as he worked towards drafting legislation and will continue to do so as the legislative process continues.

He respects the work of certain local activists who are and will continue to be important as this bill moves forward, but he is extremely disappointed by recent comments that were made, especially considering how hard he worked to accommodate their primary concerns," McKeon's statement concluded.

Why wilderness?

One might wonder what all the polarization is about, why some people insist on the need for preservation of the country's wilderness, and why others declare the need to explore and use the natural resources by motorized vehicle so vital.

The Wilderness Act, enacted in 1964, states: “In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.”

Wilderness proponents consider the environmental, social, scientific and spiritual benefits of wilderness to be myriad. Wild places help produce clean water by protecting watersheds; improve air quality by acting as a filter for pollutants; provide critical habitat for threatened or endangered species; maintain biological diversity; offer outdoor recreation opportunities; provide scenic beauty; and serve as a haven from pressures of modern day life. See www.easternsierrawild.org to read about benefits of wilderness.

Regardless of the benefits of wilderness, AAPL supporters such as Dave Mattovich strongly critiqued McKeon's proposed wilderness legislation, saying, after listening to him for an hour at last week's press conference, “...Congress promised that they would be examining all these wilderness study areas (WSA) to verify their suitability as lands with a true wilderness character – they made a promise to deal with the release of those lands that genuinely didn’t rise to the level of genuine wilderness – and they absolutely have not done that as they promised they would.”

“So, those WSAs have now become a foot-in-the-door for the well-oiled political machine that wants to keep a huge percentage of the public from using their own public lands as they should.”

Friday May 30

http://www.inyoregister.com/content/view/101237/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At the Mono County Meeting in June some of the “official” maps on the wall had the logos of Friends of the River, Greeninfo.org, and the California Wild Heritage Campaign.

The driving force behind the bill, the Wilderness Society, is portraying it as a grand “compromise.” This “compromise” designates more than 470,000 acres of public lands as wilderness, and releases only about 40,000 to 60,000 acres from wilderness study. For this to be a true compromise, many more acres need to be released.

At the Mono County meeting, Bob Haueter of McKeon’s office reportedly said “Congressman McKeon did not sell out” and that “this was not a back-room deal.”

Thankfully, Inyo County’s meetings are being held in times and places where working people can attend. The one Mono County meeting was held at 1 p.m. on a weekday, and wasn’t in the County seat of Bridgeport, but rather in Lee Vining, which is the Wilderness Society’s stronghold in the area.


Chuck Cushman
ccushman@pacifier.com
(360)687-3087



If you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this e-mail with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. If you know of others who would like to receive these alerts, reply with their e-mail addresses.



Urgent Action Reminder


It is incredibly important for you to forward this message as widely as
possible. Thank you in advance for your help.

 

[Chukar Hunter]

I know it was alot of reading and no pictures (LOL) but this is a serious matter. I am sick of hearing about this from all over the country these people are constanly closing PUBLIC LAND that they have never even seen in behind our back closed door deals. Please don't let these thing continue unless you are willing to only use your camper in KOA'S and Wallmart parking lots

 

[craig333]

I have no problem with Wilderness as described in the 1964 wilderness act. I have a real problem when they try and make areas wilderness that are anything but wild.

Theres an area north of me that is proposed for wilderness. Three quarters of it I agree would make a fine wilderness. Why they insisit on including the quarter that is full of roads and anything but wilderness worthy I can't fathom.

Why people seem to think every area needs the maximum protection afforded by Wilderness designation I also don't understand. Is every acre of National Forest land under imminent danger of having a condo put on it? Of course not.

We can protect our natural areas without putting them off limits to people.

Some people won't be happy until this nation is returned to its pre columbian state. The paranoid side of me thinks all the new wilderness bills are just a pieces of what the "wilderness project" hopes to accomplish one day.

 

[chnlisle]

I'm more concerned with the BLM grazing permits. We've all experienced going to some remote camping area only to discover its covered with cow dung. We always take a rake with us now. And with the ridiculously low cost per cow ranchers grazing on BLM land have left us the following:

More than 410 million acres of U.S. rangelands - public and private - are in unsatisfactory ecological condition, according to an estimate by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. This is an area four times the size of California, or 21 percent of the continental United States, and nearly all of it is in the West. These lands are severely damaged, with at least 50 percent of the desirable plant species eliminated, high erosion and weed invasion rates, and riparian areas unable to function normally.

Hundreds of species across the West are in danger of extinction primarily due to livestock production. Species as varied as the Bruneau Hot Springs snail, the Southwest willow flycatcher, and the Bonneville cutthroat trout are endangered as a consequence of habitat loss or degradation due to livestock grazing and its associated activities. No other human activity in the West is responsible for the decline or loss of more species than is livestock production.

Public lands grazing subsidies, like most agricultural subsidies, disproportionately benefit large landholders. According to a recent GAO profile of BLM permittees, the largest 500 permittees, out of nearly 20,000 total, control 36 percent of the public lands forage. Just 16 percent of all permittees control 76.2 percent of the AUMs (animal unit months-a measurement of forage) available on BLM lands. Most of these permittees are big corporations or very wealthy individuals. The smallest 2,000 permittees control less than 0.13 percent of BLM forage.

And the list goes on and on.

 

[mtn-high]

We can protect our natural areas without putting them off limits to people.

Wilderness designation does not make the land off limits to people.

Such designation only limits the land to those who will not, cannot, or refuse to get out of their vehicle to experience it.

I enjoy both 4-wheeling and backpacking and I believe it is good that these activities are seperated through such designations. I backpack solely in the Wilderness because the LAST thing I wanna see after hiking for 3 days is you in your vehicle.

Just as some may not be happy until all of the forest is protected, others will not be happy until they've trapsed and torn and spilled oil on every square inch of this planet. Having a set of keys doesn't automatically give every person the right to go anywhere they please in the forest...and just as some fear over regulation I personally believe that if there isn't FORCED restiction some clown will surely be in there mucking up nature where no man has driven before.

Chnlisle..you hit the nail on the head. Cheap land leases are runinig our Public lands and I have NO IDEA why we are subsidizing these BUSINESSES in such a manner. I own property next to a large ranch and I HAVE NO RIGHTS whatsoever if the ranchers cows come on my land and do damage because it's a "Fence em out" mentality...a mentality that places no responsibility on the owner of the animal for the animal's behavior or the damage it may cause.

Cowpies while camping is annoying..for sure... cowpies on your BACK DOORSTEP is ..or should be..unforgivable. Unfortunately..once again..the rancher rules and all I can do is bag **it** up and hurl it against his front door. Idiot.

Oil/gas leases are even worse..but we'd bes' not go there on this forum...

 

[chnlisle]

Dont get me started on oil and gas leases.

Oil companies are sitting on the leases they already have. We don't see any of the Arctic oil being sent to the lower 48 its all exported to Asia. The oil companies have hundreds of thousands of acres under lease that they're not drilling on but want more. Now some members of congress are willing to cave in to their demands. Why congress is beholding to the big oil is fodder for another discussion. You may ask why big oil isn't drilling on the leases they already have. What are they waiting for? We all know the answer to that one. The oil companies are waiting for the oil to go up to $300 a barrel. Then you will see them drill like crazy. The insanity of all of this is that oil is finite. Incidentally after more than 30 years since Iraq nationalized its oil industry, Shell, Exxon and BP are going back in to claim their old areas. They're doing so with the blessing of the current US administration. Mission FINALLY accomplished.

I told you not to get me started.

 

[craig333]

I like wilderness. I still have my backpack and plan on using it again. Nothing I'd like more than to see irresponsible drivers have their vehicles impounded and tossed in jail for doing stupid stuff like driving across a meadow.

I don't mind seasonal closures and even other road closures.
I'd just prefer that in most cases these things be looked at on an individual basis rather than just closing off hundreds of square miles.

I spend almost all my time in National Forest lands so I can't say I know what you're dealing with on the BLM lands.

One thing no one mentioned yet is noise. I'm all in favor of setting decibel limits on all vehicles. I keep mine as quiet as is reasonably possible.

Craig
REI member since they were free lifetime memberships.
Charter member Tread Lightly. UFWDA CA4WDC Blue Ribbon.

Of all the yahoos I've run across, not one has ever been sporting an association or club sticker (probably goes for the backpacking yahoos who cut switchbacks etc, but harder to tell there). Not sure if its ignorance or lack of peer pressure or just general stupidity that makes some people irresponsible.

I'd love to see a huge increase in the budgets of BLM, Forest Service etc, and have a big chunk devoted to increased law enforcement. Unfortunate that its necessary but those of us who play by the rules have nothing to worry about.

 

[mtn-high]

Something else happening here (Vail Valley) is that historic forest access is being blocked by gated subdivisions and private homes. Homes are built much faster that the USFS can relocate the access..and in some cases..it all just gets lost on the mire/red tape of the beauracracy and the access STILL hasn't been reopened/redeeded..20 years later. Coming down out of the forest on these roads you will often find large burms or rocks placed on the historic road by the newly transplanted homeowner (who most likely only visits 2 weeks out of the year) to keep folks from driving thru their backyard...

I'm involved in this group www.saveroanplateau.org and we are fighting hard agains ther bifg oil/gas companies because they are TRASHING Western Colorado (and W. Wyo if you've been near Pinedale lately). Once the gas is gone they'll be gone too...and in their wake they will leave irrepairable damage.

Short-sighted. Is that what America wants to be remembered as? Is that what we want to leave our kids so we can push harder on the pedal? (IMO, gas prices AREN'T high enough yet if folks complain and STILL drive 90 miles and HOUR!)

 

[chnlisle]

When Pam an I were headed home on the 70 after visiting friends in Boulder we were awe struck by the beauty but once we got into the Vail area we were awe struck by the development. I guess you cant stop "progress". Having never been to the area we didnt know what we were missing but like here in the White Mountains of AZ developers rule and pristine places like Show Low are now just giant condo areas with trees. Too bad.

When we headed ou on our last camping trip a few weeks back you cant imagine the number of people I pissed off because I was going 65 mph to save on fuel.

 

[mtn-high]

The growth here in the last 20 years has been staggering, and like the rest of the country all of the current projects are MASSIVE. America dosn't know how to build *small* anymore, and the intro of box stores and other city-type amenities here is taking away the individual charachteristics of the area very quickly. Home Depot/Wal-mart/FourBUCKS coffee...we got em all now. Ughh.

And pricey too. The cost of an entry-level home here will curl yer toes. I built my home in 1990 and it is easily worth 5x what I have in it..and the prices just keep rising. I'm basically living *in* my retirement fund and while I hate the development..it's like everything else in America that you get wrapped up in and sucked along with. We didn't plan it this way...it just started taking off at just about the time we built in '90 and it hasn't let up since. Within the next 5-10 years I won't be able to pass on the profit and will sell and get out...

Talk about change. I spent summers in Tucson in '71-74 and went back to Tucson/Phonix 2 years ago and was completely disgusted how polluted/huge..(especially Phoenix) they've become. That brown cloud in Phoenix was never there in the 70's. Scary stuff.....

yeah...*progress*. Pffft.

 

[chnlisle]

Hey I was here as a kid in the late 40's My grandparents house doesn't exist anymore and where I live now it was just empty desert back then. Of course having lived in SoCal until last June I can believe anything.

We sold our little beach retirement fund last year about 6 weeks before the market took the big dump.

 

[chnlisle]

This is an apology to anyone I may have offended with my views. This probably isnt the forum for it and I meant no offense.

 

[Chukar Hunter]

I don't think I read anything here that should offend anyone, but it is great to see people sharing ideas from both sides. That is what is wrong with most of these wilderness projects, they are very one sided and if "WE THE PEOPLE" do not pay attention it happens before you know it and next year when you want to go to one of your favorite camping spots the road will be closed.
I am all for keeping our wild places wild, but more should be done with inforcement rather than closure. The roads that are already there and have been for years should be left open, and heavy fines and/or jail time should be used to protect the land so good people that are maybe getting older or not as phisically able can enjoy these places. I don't know how these closures get by the ADA.

 

[chnlisle]

Chuck,
As I'm sure you know one of the best things about this forum is the frank exchange of ideas from all sides. Its always civil, polite and often humorous. Maybe in other places some of us (read me here) get into heated arguments trying to make a point to someone who won't listen or vice versa. But here we are all campers enjoying the out doors. To be sure there is plenty of dogmatic (read me again) thought here. After all we are representative of the political make up of the country. It gives one reason for hope.

 

[craig333]

This has always been one of my favorite sites because of the lack of discord here. We do all have at least one thing in common. Like Jay I have other sites where we have the usual heated discussions. Even if its was offered, I'd say no thanks to a political discussion topic. This is as far as I want to go here.

I also have a sneaking suspicion theres more agreement here than might be obvious at first glance.