By Lyman Youngberg
First off, let me say this bill STANDING ALONE makes good sense, however it is the result of stakeholders being held hostage to the Department of Interior (DOI) due to the extensive Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) existing and being proposed for wilderness status and the eventual lock up of thousands more acres to any activities as exist under the multiple use doctrine.
U.S. Interior Secretary Salazar's glowing comments about "local communities, elected officials and others" coming together to support (Obama's) Americas Great Outdoor Initiative is ruefully incorrect as Congress (that's us , right?) soundly rejected the previous massive land grab proposed by Interior known as the Omnibus Land Bill. This was accomplished by Congress defunding the program in the continuing resolution to keep the government running through the fiscal year ending September 2011. Just days afterward of the resolution in 2010 and the demise of the Omnibus Land Bill, Salazar announced Secretarial Order 3310 - directing the BLM to designate areas with wilderness characteristics under its (BLM) jurisdiction as "Wild Lands" This is a new category and term but the same old meaning. It's another attempt to bypass Congressional approval and leaves sole discretion to Salazar to determine in his view what is or should be wilderness. These areas lock up all human activity; mining, energy, timber harvest and prohibit any use of mechanized equipment (including bicycles) or even chain saws during range and forest fires.
At present there are 757 Wilderness Areas with a combined area of 109 million acres - that's more land than the total state of California plus New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island and the district of Columbia.
Just how much land do we need to protect that really doesn't need protecting - if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
The BLM presently has 9 million acres as Wilderness Areas (of which 3,371,425 acres are in Nevada), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has 21 million, the Forest Service (USFS) has 36+million and the National Park Service has 44 million.
How can the Secretary of the Interior justify more wilderness proposals in the name of recreation, protection and enjoyment when that already exists today in those areas. AND, freeing up areas for multiple use is somewhat redundant as they all had this prior to being classified as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) by the BLM - so they're going to give you back something you had but they took away?
The Pine Forest Bill is good in that it releases WSA's that have been tied up with the same restrictions as regular Wilderness for years, however it should not be presented along with 17 other proposals for new wilderness and National Conservation areas by the Secretary or BLM. Thus holding Pine Forest hostage to the other proposals.
We all should know the results of heavy-handed government edicts that restrict multiple use on the federal lands to enhance federal bureaucracies, satisfy environmentalists and further the political and social agenda of certain groups.
Lyman Youngberg is a resident of Orovada.
[[In-content Ad]]
