Breckenridge Destinations supports independent journalism. Click for great deals on vacation lodging in Breckenridge.
Speaking at field hearing in California, GOP leaders repeat myths of over-regulation and environmental litigation
Republican lawmakers in Congress are looking to open vast new areas of public lands to exploitation and degradation.
By Summit Voice
SUMMIT COUNTY — In the Orwellian world of the know-nothing Republican-led House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, advocacy for control of damaging off-road use becomes support for “unfettered access” for motorized users. That’s the message the House leadership send in a press release following a field hearing in Sacramento, where Republican backers of extractive industries once again renewed their call for removing what they call multiple-use barriers on public lands.
The hearing was led by Utah Republican Rob Bishop and Tom McClintock, a California Republican who has essentially declared war on wilderness conservation with legislation aimed at removing millions of acres of federal land from wilderness status.
Without offering any substantive proof, the Republican leaders once again claimed that decades of increased regulation, environmental litigation and reduced forest management have diminished multiple-use access of these public lands.
Here’s what Bishop had to say:
“Given the federal government’s ownership of over 600 million acres of the land containing these resources and incredible natural sights, much of this debate is centered on how to best balance the many competing and worthy uses of public lands and resources.” National forests are an important and necessary source of economic activity and recreation for local communities and the public. This resource needs to be managed for the benefit of all users and I strongly believe that there is plenty of it to go around. … During a time when certain activists are all too eager to exercise the full force of the law to attack multiple-use, we need our federal land managers working with us to keep the public’s lands open for the use and enjoyment of all.”
McClintock’s statement:
“The preservation of our forests for future generations does not mean closing them to the current generation. I believe that the vast timber, land and recreational assets administered by the U. S. Forest Service represent a limitless and renewable source of prosperity for our nation and for our local economies, a portion of which can then be redirected to assure the maintenance and preservation of the national forest lands for the use, enjoyment and prosperity of the American people in perpetuity. But, that will require a significant change in policy within the current Administration.”
And Republican Congressman Wally Herger added this:
“Today’s hearing highlighted the fact that poor federal land management practices have significantly harmed rural communities. These are the people’s lands and I believe that we can protect our federal lands while ensuring Americans have multiple-use access to them, which would help restore recreation, timber and many other essential rural industries. Unfortunately, burdensome, unnecessary regulations combined with frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups have helped to create a cycle of high unemployment, underfunded schools, and forests that are consistently threatened by catastrophic wildfires. At a time of great economic hardship it is essential that we bring restore public access to our federal lands and allow local communities, not bureaucracy, to decide what is best to get themselves back on their feet. If we put local communities back in charge of their own destinies, I believe that we will see renewed job creation and greater stability for the rural economies that truly need it.”
Filed under: energy, Environment, Forest health, forests, gas drilling, oil drilling, public lands, Summit County news Tagged: | conservation, Federal lands, national forest lands, public lands, Rob Bishop, Tom McClintock, United States Forest Service, United States House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks Forests and Public Lands
Arapahoe Basin supports independent journalism. Click to visit The Legend online.
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?
Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.
Who would have thought that fantasy would become reality? I’m referring to the present group infecting the Congress of this U.S. and the movie “Yellow Submarine” of 1968 culture. Specifically, the “Blue Meanies”, going around turning everything beautiful into ugliness. It’s really mind boggling the rational behind their thinking. I’m sure that they will also wear it as a badge of honor, being referred to as “Blue Meanies”, but, as in the movie, this too will pass, they will be defeated, hopefully before they turn the country into a total ruin.
I agree that the last thing we want is to have our national forests turned into wasteland by logging and mining activities. The problem is that this is already happening through our federal government through corrupt contracts that give the people little say over the matter. Bringing the lands back into control of the local people and their representatives will hopefully lesson the corruption and destruction of our public lands. I don’t have a problem with some economic activity on our public lands, as long as it is done in a environmentally sane way. The feds have been a disaster for our public lands to date. I think it is much easier to keep our local representatives in check than the monstrosity of government in Washington.
You raise some interesting points. I don’t think local governments have the resources to adequately manage the public estate; plus, having such huge reserves of land owned by the people of the entire country is an incredible asset.
You’re also giving federal land managers a bad rap by generalizing. Can you fault some jurisdictions for dysfunctional land management? Probably. Can you find areas where public lands are well-managed for the benefit of the people? Definitely.
Some of the best work right now is being done under collaborative efforts, where federal land managers balance the overall interest of the American public with the needs and concerns of local communities.
These guys in charge of the House subcommittee are radicals and they are just grandstanding to their constituencies. If they presented a well-reasoned alternative to public land management based on sound science rather than pure ideology, I’d be a lot more likely to listen.
I agree that there is a lot of grandstanding going on, but that is the nature of politics. The best we can do is educate the politicians constituents and then put the necessary pressure on the representative so he/she represents us correctly. This is much easier done at a local level.
I think land management would better be done by local people as well. Local people have a more personal interest in the protection of their land than does someone a thousand miles away. We are much more likely to have people taking action when they can be part of the land that is their back yard. There are many non-govt groups that come together to help with land management on a volunteer basis. With less govt taking the responsibility, more people would step up to the plate.
I still have not made up my mind of what is the best approach, but in general, local govt does a much better job than does the federal and so I’m inclined to go the local govt route when it comes to solving this.
Jon, I assume you’ve heard of ALEX?! Considering that local representatives may be knowledgeable about local lands, we have seen just as much gridlock in the locals trying to deal with issues as the Federals do today. Remember, in politics today, it takes money to run for office, which has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, our supposedly esteemed S.C.O.T.U.S. gave away the store when they voted 5 – 4 in favor of letting businesses, both inside of the U.S. as well as outside the U.S. give unlimited amounts of money to political funds, both directly & indirectly. You have to be naive to believe that any politician who takes those funds will vote for the guy who gives $5.00 vs to the one who gives $100.00. Whose interest do you think will be represented? As for development, well, are you willing to go on a promise that allowing same will be done without damage?
Keep in mind that the professional naturalist lives solely in that world, while the local politician only plays a small part time roll. This is not to say that locals aren’t suited to play a part, indeed, they should do so, but leaving it in the hands of locals alone, invites exactly what has happened in the Congress as well as many of the federal agencies, that being corruption. The process was allowed to get out of hand many years ago, sort of like letting the genie out of the bottle, so to speak. Do you believe that the genie can be put back in the bottle again, especially after this long as well as the freedom he’s had?
Norman, it is you and I that are responsible for our representatives and what they do and money is not the ultimate playing card in deciding how a representative votes. The politician ultimately ways in his vote and how it will impact his chance of being re-elected the next time around. We, the constituents have a duty to ensure our reps are feeling our heat. It’s out part of keeping our country free. Bob Bennet saw what happens when he ignores the people and now Orin Hatch has changed his voting record considerably because he knows he is under an eagle eye.
In saying this, it is much easier for local groups to organize, pressure, and vote someone in or out than it is on the national level. Perfection will never be achieved, but we can get closer to a better world if we keep things local and in the community. Throughout history, it’s the people who suffer from giant centralized systems of government. Better to keep it local and closer to the control of the people.
Jon, Yes, it’s true that we the people ultimately hold the final say, but that doesn’t always transforms into our being able to control those whom we have as elective individuals. Again, in politics, money does play a role, a bigger role then you think. A simple example: Al runs for political office, he gets 10 people who each contribute $10.00 to his campaign, which equals $100.00, he also gets 2 contributions of $100 each from company XYZ which equals $200.00. Politicians being who they are, will the elected one vote for or against: then 10 or the XYZ company? Not 100% of the time, just on issues that effect XYZ or its interests. This is not to imply that all who are politicians are corrupt, especially on the local level, but keep in mind that the politician who votes for XYZ, will more than likely have a job with XYZ if the people vote (throw) him out.
Consider how long it took before Bob Bennet served before he lost?
Corruption is a cancer, a terminal cancer, sometime you don’t know you have it until it’s too late. There still is no known cure save for surgery, which ultimately ends up in death. We elect people to represent us because we don’t have the luxury of spending the time required for the job. Therein lies the devil in the details. Food for thought.
That was the point I was hoping to make about Bennet. He was one of the most powerful and established reps in Washington before the people came together to toss him out. He outspent Mike Lee almost 5 to one before being crushed by the people. Unfortunately it’s taken the complete destruction of the U.S. economy for the people to take interest, wake up and end the empathy that plaques this nation.
The level of corruption always corresponds to the amount of money available. As the federal govt grows in size each year, so will the required money to run that organization and in turn the level of corruption. Following the advice of our founders and allowing Washington a specific limited constitutional role in our lives will minimize the magnitude of the corruption.
Corruption at the state level is much easier to control and impacts less people than on the federal level. Just my thoughts when I consider the situation with federal lands.
Having already corrupted the Congress, sadly you own people, the money is being directed towards the state & local governments, which will complete the takeover. Consider one thing about the Federal Government, without all it’s intrusions into our everyday lives, the financing of most of the research money, DARPA perhaps being the biggest, we wouldn’t have the benefits that we enjoy today.
By tearing down that which has take years, decades to build, do you honestly believe the country will be better off? You have seen what unfettered industry’s have done to the environment, leaving the cleanup to the taxpayers, envision what Colorado would look like if the Coal industry started removing mountain tops, polluting the waterways, the air you breath, and what of the Oil & Gas drillers, the pollution they bring with their operations. You believe that the locals can prevent that?
I’m not trying to convince you away from your beliefs, just to look at the bigger picture away from the local influences, to see nit what some may present as taking control, but what’s in the best interest of everyone concerned, it’s your state, what do you personally wat to do with it? Food for thought.