Polaris RZR Forum - RZR Forums.net banner

Utah - 9.4 Million MORE Acres of BLM at Risk for "Wilderness" Designation

990 views 2 replies 2 participants last post by  The Lyin King 
#1 ·
BRC Utah Wilderness Update
SUWA's Massive Wilderness Bill Introduced in Congress... again
Action Requested

Dear BRC Utah Action Alert Subscriber,

Today, Eric Bontrager from E&E News E&E Publishing -- The Premier Information Source for Professionals Who Track Environmental and Energy Policy. reported on the re-offering of a massive Wilderness proposal pushed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). Bontrager's report stated that the bill, sponsored by New York Representative Maurice Hinchey and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, would designate 9.4 million acres of Bureau of Management Lands in Utah as Wilderness.

BRC notes that it is not clear whether the 9.4 million acre figure includes lands owned by the state of Utah. If state lands are included, the figure may well be over 10 million acres'.

The announcement will not be news to BRC's members. SUWA has been able to convince New York Congressmen to introduce Wilderness in Utah for twenty years now.

What will be of interest to our members is Bontrager's reporting of comments made by Utah Representative Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson:

"The fact that not one member of the Utah congressional delegation or political leader in Utah supports this shows how off-base and ridiculous this proposal is," Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah.) said in an e-mail. "This is not the way Congress should make designations like this."

Rep. Jim Matheson, the Utah delegation's lone Democrat whose district includes the proposed wilderness area, declined the opportunity to be a co-sponsor on the legislation because he felt other stakeholders such as the energy industry and OHV users were not included in the creation of the bill. "He understands that this does represent a lot of places that deserve designation, but this a very long-running, contentious debate," said Matheson spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend. "He just feels strongly that, in order to get consensus, this has to be an inclusive process."

BRC applauds Matheson and Bishop for their approach to SUWA's unwise proposal. But we do not believe SUWA, or the Wilderness lobby in D.C., is interested in an "inclusive process." This is why they must rely on Congressmen from New York to push their Utah Wilderness bill.

Our position is that any discussion of Utah Wilderness must include careful consideration of important strategic national interests (oil, natural gas and minerals) as well as popular recreational uses, such as OHV use and mountain biking, which are banned in Wilderness. BRC and other recreation groups support Wilderness where it is appropriate, but we insist that other "recreation friendly" designations, such as National Recreation Areas, be considered where it isn't.

Our suggested Action Item is for our members and supporters to call Bishop and Matheson and thank them for their approach to SUWA's bill.

Speaking honestly, I am beginning to wonder if the Utah Congressional Delegation knows we are here, and in what numbers. The treatment the Utah OHV community received via the recently passed Washington County Wilderness bill is disgraceful. We must never let that happen again.

So when our political representatives do the right thing, we need to thank them.

Congressman Matheson: Salt Lake City Office - (801) 486-1236
Washington DC Office - (202) 225-3011

Go to Rapid Response Center - BlueRibbon Coalition, enter your zip code and click go. Select Jim Matheson from the list of Representatives, then click on the Contact tab. Click on the Web Form link, and follow the instructions.

Congressman Bishop: Ogden Office - (801) 625-0107
Washington DC Office - (202) 225-0453

Go to Rapid Response Center - BlueRibbon Coalition, enter your zip code and click go. Select Rob Bishop from the list of Representatives, then click on the Contact tab. Click on the Web Form link, and follow the instructions.

Congressman Chaffetz: Provo Office - (801) - 851-2500
Washington DC Office - (202) 225-7751

Go to Rapid Response Center - BlueRibbon Coalition, enter your zip code and click go. Select Jason Chaffetz from the list of Representatives, then click on the Contact tab. Click on the Web Form link, and follow the instructions.

As always, please call or email if you have questions or need help.

Brian Hawthorne
Public Lands Policy Director
BlueRibbon Coalition
208-237-1008 ext 102
 
See less See more
#2 ·
First of all the feds cannot write legislation on any but federal lands ie. BLM and US Forest Service. Second why is it before we all go off half cocked where are these lands in question? Some kind of map has to be out there to indicate what the proposed legislation includes. I have ridden the Richfield ATV Jamboree eight years now and am entered to go again this year. Yes I am interested in where these lands are and if they impact me but after the most recent wilderness bill was passed for the approximately 2.3 million acres out west I called one of it's main sponsor's, our Sen. Ron Wyden's office and got a 45 minute update on where in Oregon the bill addressed. Of the many places we currently ride none were affected but only roadless areas not available to us before. She also is sending me thirty maps of the affected areas by snail mail to clear up any uncertainty. I strongly support groups like the Blur Ribbon Coalition and other groups that support our ATV riding on public lands but before I develop a good case of paranoia I like to find out the facts first. Gerry
 
#3 · (Edited)
No paranoia and not half cocked, just up-to-date information as it stands today. As a community we need to get involved in issues like this from the onset and stay involved throughout the entire process, this is merely a heads up for same.

People like you who care about these issues WILL do further research; discover what facts are currently available and more information will become available through National Organizations and other means as this evolves.

You are right in that . . . "Only Congress can designate wilderness under the Wilderness Act."

"Only Congress can designate wilderness under the Wilderness Act. The act specifically states that, wilderness areas are “to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ‘wilderness areas’ . . . no Federal lands shall be designated as ‘wilderness areas’ except as provided for in this chapter or by a subsequent act.” 16 USC §1131(a).

Reviewing courts have agreed that this express command reserves the power to designate wilderness exclusively to Congress.

While the Secretary of Agriculture, and therefore the Forest Service, certainly has responsibilities under the Wilderness Act, those duties are succinctly summarized as “the duty to study and recommend.”

The Forest Service simply does not have the authority to make any wilderness-specific management directives until Congress has made a determination of wilderness status.

Off-road vehicles, which are generally prohibited in designated wilderness areas, but frequently enjoyed within proposed wilderness areas, must be properly and effectively managed by the Forest Service in non-wilderness areas, including proposed or recommended wilderness areas.

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) shall, until Congress determines otherwise, be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture so as to maintain their presently existing wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

In short, the statute requires the Forest Service to strike—and maintain—a balance between wilderness character and motorized use. Because Congress did not require a “freeze,” it did not require that only those segments of the Wilderness Study Areas already open to motorized activity should remain so, or that those segments already closed should remain so . . . instead, Congress required that the Forest Service ensure continuing opportunities for enjoyment of the study areas by use of motorized vehicles, as well as continuing opportunities for enjoyment of the study areas’ character qua wilderness.

Many of the areas potentially affected by the Regional policy on recommended wilderness lands have experienced meaningful historical use by motorized and/or mechanized vehicles. Apparently through application of the Regional policy, this agency has inappropriately defined lands with wilderness potential and/or recommended wilderness that have long received meaningful motorized/mechanized access. The Proposed Action seems to reflect a doctrinal view that recommended wilderness lands should be cleansed of all “non-conforming” uses.

The Forest plan generation, is NOT designed to thoroughly, let alone conclusively, determine on-the-ground status or future project-level management prescriptions."
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top