Federal "wild lands" order


Recommended Posts

Finally, it appears we have a friend on the US House Natural Resources Committee; Doc Hastings, newly elected Republican Representative from Washington State. From what I've heard and read so far,he is truly a western conservative who understands the nature and importance of private property rights, the true value in our natural resources, and the destructiveness of our governments over regulation of both.

I first learned of Doc on the Hugh Hewitt radio program back in January and liked what I heard. He says the things most of us are thinking and/or posting about the various Federal land management bureaucracies' regulations and practices. Recently I found this clip from a hearing he held on the Fed's "wild lands" order, showing the kind of no nonsense approach he will be taking in dealing with our out of control agencies. Let's hope he stays on top of them. I'll be writing him an email to let him know how I feel and I encourage you to do the same.

Later...Jim P.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=226853

P.S Sorry if this is too political for the general forum, please don't hesitate to move or remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting this Jim. I don't think this is too political at all. In fact it goes to the heart of the matter in regard to the government's (or some bureaucrat) limiting the public's right to access public land. It looks to me like Doc Hastings, like many of us, has had enough of this bs and in the video Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Bob Abbey appears to admit that the BLM has overstepped it's authority.

Here's another video of Doc Hastings as he addresses the Northwest Mining Association on the 116th Annual Meeting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the front page of the Star in Tucson this morning.

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_4a16ea3f-0daf-5e80-b9ed-ae4cad537e87.html

The question is will metal detecting be prohibited on "wild lands"?

Right. Here's the BS we are up against:

"This isn't about grabbing new wilderness areas,"said Matt Skroch, director of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition. "It's about protecting wilderness characteristics. It gives BLM management the flexibility to ensure that these areas have opportunities for solitude and non-motorized recreation.

"When a family goes out for a hike, or somebody decides to go on a backpack trip or somebody wants to go photograph spring wildflowers, the buzz and dust of off-road vehicles nearby degrades the public's experience," Skroch said.

Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all, some good news and some bad news:

Good news, the "wildlands" initiative has been de-funded in the most recent version of the FY2011 budget.

http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2011/04/wild-lands-initiative-defunded-in-final.html

I'm sure this is just a temporary setback for those wanting to lock the public out of public lands and the public domain, but it at least slows them down.

The bad news, the budget still includes 205 million dollars for land acquisition by the various Federal land management agencies. Later...Jim P.

H.R.1473

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

Sec. 1703. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Land Acquisition' shall be $22,000,000: Provided, That the proviso under such heading in division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.

Sec. 1706. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Land Acquisition' shall be $55,000,000.

Sec. 1720. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Land Acquisition and State Assistance' shall be $95,000,000: Provided, That section 113 of division A of Public Law 111-88 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.

Sec. 1745. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Acquisition' shall be $33,000,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share