Comments on: U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Poised To Shake Things Up

By: rork

rork — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:38:00 +0000

Department of interior has lawyers, and thinks that language is something to worry about:
http://www.nps.gov/applications/digest/headline.cfm?type=Announcements&id=10957
So who says Wilderness will not be opened?

I haven’t seen anyone mention a place closed that needs to be opened. They are only a handful that might be affected, and sometimes they are just restrictions on methods that make some sense (for example, at Big Cypress in Florida, you aren’t allowed to use dogs when hunting pigs or deer, and you aren’t allowed to trap at Sleeping Bear Dunes – I can live with that). This article mentions more:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/11/fears-rise-congress-could-open-more-units-national-park-system-hunting9065

By: rork

rork — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:33:00 +0000

Below is some of the language of concern, from http://thomas.gov/home/gpoxmlc112/h4089_ih.xml (link in the article did not work for me).

“The “within and supplemental to” Wilderness purposes, as provided in Public Law 88–577, section 4(c), means that any requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented only insofar as they facilitate or enhance the original or primary purpose or purposes for which the Federal public lands or Federal public land unit was established and do not materially interfere with or hinder such purpose or purposes.”

Got a lawyer?

By: rork

rork — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:19:00 +0000

So you’re against the Wilderness Act. Cause if we are going to build roads, and cut the trees, and mine it, it’s not wilderness.

By: Outdoor Guy

Outdoor Guy — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:33:00 +0000

I disagree that allowing for greater access to wilderness land and timber cutting is “anti-conservation.” I would argue that is what is needed for “conservation.”

By: Amy Trotter

Amy Trotter — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:46:00 +0000

As you can see, I have greatly expanded on the blog to include a link to the bill (see Text of Legislation) as well as several clarifying points about what this bill does and doesn’t do. I hope this moves it from fuzzy sound-bites to meat and potatoes.

By: rork

rork — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:51:00 +0000

Watch out. There can be devils in the details, so if you can’t see the actual wording or know what it really means, I wouldn’t jump to saying this is a good thing. I am concerned that this will be a means to allow road building, timber cutting, and mining on our designated wildernesses – that’s anti-conservation. Weakening the Wilderness Act is not a good thing.
Follow the money, and don’t just swallow the bait based on fuzzy sound-bites, like we got from Amy today.