Montana may not be Utah, but.......

......we have our own brand of goof balls in the state house.

Gallatin Valley's own Kerry White has introduced HJ9 - recommending the release, from wilderness study area designation, a chitload of public land acreage in Montana.
I admit I am an unapologetic wilderness advocate - I spend a ton of time playing (hunting and fishing being two of my play choices) and working in these areas.
Whether or not I'm a wildernutt - I cannot stomach the idiocy that these guys come up with to justify their little ideas......one of the "whereas'es" of this piece of legislative gold....

WHEREAS, these lands are defacto wilderness in lieu of congressional action, a situation that has resulted in a waste of forest assets, no management of public forests, and a harmful reduction in forest road construction and multiple-use access improvements

"no management of public forests" and a harmful reduction in forest road construction??????? Alternative facts to say the very least.......

Utah -or any other state for that matter - is not alone.......... Montana elects 'em, too.

I don't like this at all.

I can think of many WSAs that are some of my favorite places in Montana.

That's it, I'm running for office next time around...

The hearing is on Monday at 3 PM in House Natural Resources. Anyone who wants to come in and testify against it is welcome. You'll be in good company.

Schaaf said:

I don't like this at all.

I can think of many WSAs that are some of my favorite places in Montana.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact guys on here have shot goats in the Hyalite/Buffalohorn/Porcupine WSA. How many elk have been taken in the West Pioneers WSA. Etc., etc., etc., etc. ..........

If anyone does go to the hearing, make sure and ask Kerry White if he wants to go hiking with you along the Gallatin Crest.....he loves human powered transportation:hump:

I'll send some emails this weekend. I'll be on a plane on Monday.

De facto wilderness, but it still needs some roads, apparently.

HSi-ESi said:

I'll send some emails this weekend. I'll be on a plane on Monday.

De facto wilderness, but it still needs some roads, apparently.

Click to expand...

Emails, call, letters - all great.
One thing I want to ask these hypocritical aholes is why do they waste MT tax $$ on the frivolous legislative practice of pursuing state legislation telling the federal government what to do, all the while claiming to be fiscally responsible and against government over reach??

I am not a proponent of WSAs at all! Nor am I a fan of de facto management. Designate them or not and I prefer the first if they qualify. That said, leaving them in "purgatory" is not a good way forward IMO. What are they studying that they haven't figured out yet?

1_pointer said:

I am not a proponent of WSAs at all! Nor am I a fan of de facto management. Designate them or not and I prefer the first if they qualify. That said, leaving them in "purgatory" is not a good way forward IMO. What are they studying that they haven't figured out yet?

Click to expand...

Research the sordid and good old boy political history behind the reasons for the status of the WSA's listed in this legislation. Ask how many people on this very forum have posted pics and hunting TV program videos of their hunting/fishing/etc adventures taken within these WSA's. Almost 50 Montanan's showed up at this hearing last night, opposing this legislation. Sit in a lot of other legislative hearing - see if that many folks show up....not too often. I agree. leaving them in purgatory is not a good idea. I disagree releasing their status to the whims of the current political climate is a good idea - which is what the legislative sponsor desires. Sometimes obstructionism is a very effective tool - ask the last eight years congress....

1_pointer said:

I am not a proponent of WSAs at all! Nor am I a fan of de facto management. Designate them or not and I prefer the first if they qualify. That said, leaving them in "purgatory" is not a good way forward IMO. What are they studying that they haven't figured out yet?

Click to expand...

I agree, but you may not be so supportive of designating existing WSA's in Wyoming as someone who hunts here as a NR.

Maybe in the case of Wyoming, purgatory may be your best option.

1_pointer said:

I am not a proponent of WSAs at all! Nor am I a fan of de facto management. Designate them or not and I prefer the first if they qualify. That said, leaving them in "purgatory" is not a good way forward IMO. What are they studying that they haven't figured out yet?

Click to expand...

I've had to explain this a lot lately. In 1977 Congress told the Dept. of Interior to locate the remaining lands are that mostly road less and could or might, fit the description of designated Wilderness and inventory them. They (congress) told the Dept of Interior to hold the discussion on those lands and find which ones should be entered into wilderness and those that don't have the qualities set forth by that Congress would be returned to multiple use. This report was to take place and happen within 5 years. So along came King Regan. He said not one more acre in Wilderness. So during his rein there was no discussion. Then came Clinton, and every time he brought it up with certain wildlerness bills, the new wave obstructionists showed up and stopping the discussion from taking place. Every time a bill is crafted to do what Congress said should happen the obstructionists show up. I'd bet the Oil and Gas Company's have had a large hand in this. If you looked farther the people spending the most on our elections today were involved. I'd also guess those same people are the ones working the Lands Transfer.

The pawns in the game. Logging industry workers, the ATV crowd etc. Have been manipulated to come forward and fight these Wilderness designations for the big guys. Not knowing that they ultimately hurt themselves by stopping the conversation on those lands.

Today, a judge ordered the lands picked by Congress to be managed as Wilderness until we have the discussion. Working to not have to do as Congress said has ended in much of the lands that would be open to multiple use being closed to those uses. All it would take to open much of the lands to multiple use management would be to HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. Of the lands Inventoried in WSA's I would guess less than half would meet the criteria.

I'm sure Buzz knows a bunch about this.

My favorite areas are WSA. All the quiet without all the hype and trails.

shoots-straight said:

I'm sure Buzz knows a bunch about this.

Click to expand...

Buzz isn't the only one... You didn't catch the sarcasm font.

Buzz- Good catch on the being an NR and the slippery slope of designation in WY. Don't think it'd change my mind. Besides, I know folks in WY...

neffa3 said:

My favorite areas are WSA. All the quiet without all the hype and trails.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I think that is a point as well as close proximity that should be made to the committee members. One committee member asked if Glacier Park was on the line, as if we only needed places like that where we can't hunt, take our dogs, and make reservations to camp.

The opponents to this bill outnumbered the proponents more than 10:1.