Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: H.R. 980, the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act"

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    156

    Default H.R. 980, the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act"

    So far I am the only one from Alaska to sign this petition...Link provided.

    Do not let them close more land in the lower 48 like the Chugach National Forest did in AK!

    I'm sure Begich will be into this bill..he thinks it will help his agenda to close public land!

    http://www.rallycongress.com/klim/19...ds-accessible/



    December 8, 2009
    Dear Representative Young,
    Dear Senator Murkowski,
    Dear Senator Begich,

    As a concerned motorized outdoor recreationist and a registered voter, I am writing you today to voice my opposition to H.R. 980, the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act", and to ask that you oppose this legislation. If this bill passes, it would represent a fatal blow to the already struggling power sports industry and would negatively impact tens of thousands of businesses that directly or indirectly rely on public access to the lands in question.

    H.R. 980 would designate 23 million acres of land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming as Wilderness. This means each of these 23 million acres would be made permanently off-limits to motorized and mechanized recreation, including off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, 4x4s, snowmobiles and mountain bikes, closing all trails in these areas to responsible motorized and mechanized access. Forest Service studies show that less than 4% of total forest visitors use the existing wilderness and that the demand for motorized recreation is rising (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum, FY 2007 National Summary Report, p. 7).

    In addition, much of the land that would be designated as Wilderness does not meet the criteria set forth in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Many of the federal lands addressed by H.R. 980 include roads, bridges, campgrounds, trails, etc. This contradicts the intent of the original Wilderness Act, which essentially defines wilderness areas as lands that show little or no signs of human involvement.

    Most importantly, Congress should honor the established protocol of respecting State and local rights by not imposing wilderness designations on people whose elected Congressional delegation are not in full support of the designations.

    Wilderness is defined as "Untrammeled by the aspects of man" in the 1964 act. Trying to call reclaimed land as widerness does not fit the charecter and is a method to restrict public access of multiple choice from OUR public lands. The USFS has already gone to extreme measures to restrict access on National Forests in Alaska and has gone well out of the way to restrict motorized access on OUR public lands. Enough is enough. We do not need MORE wilderness area created which is nothing more than an effort to restrict the public. No more National Parks or Wilderness Areas!!!

    Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Please oppose H.R. 980.
    Sincerely,

    Mr. Cliff Larson
    PO box 1127
    Girdwood, AK 99587

  2. #2
    Member matjpow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    KGB
    Posts
    301

    Thumbs up

    Signed and sent. Thanks for bringing this up.
    That's what she said...

  3. #3
    Premium Member denalihunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    67 mi E of Cantwell, 68 mi W of Paxson
    Posts
    1,556

    Default Thanks!

    Signed and sent! Thanks and good deal.
    Experience Real Alaska! www.alpinecreeklodge.com

  4. #4
    Member cjustinm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kotz
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    yeah this sucks, where i lived in Montana they closed all sorts of trails to motorized travel. the thing is the trails are so far back and get snowed in all winter nobody gets to use them and in the summer unless you have a horse you aren't going to see them either. So now I hope it doesn't start up here. I be driving around the arctic and not be able to go off a designated trail that will make for some fun hunting.

  5. #5
    Member matjpow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    KGB
    Posts
    301

    Default

    This is what I got back from rep. Don Young. It is irresponsible what representatives from eastern states have done to the Rocky mountain states.

    Dear Mr. Powell,
    Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 980, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2009. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

    H.R. 980 would designate approximately 24 million acres of lands in and around the western U.S. as wilderness areas. This legislation will designate lands as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (System) in the following states: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Additionally H.R. 980 would designate nearly 2,000 miles of Wild and ScenicRiver systems in the same five states.

    During this Congress, both the House and Senate passed and President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Public Lands Act which created the most wilderness acreage in history. Proposing this bill, which has floated around Congress for over a decade-and-a-half, merely weeks later is nothing short of irresponsible. The designations in the bill essentially "lock up" an area equal to Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, combined. This area, larger than 19 individual states, would become inaccessible to most Americans. There would be no roads and minimal handicapped access. This legislation would seize state water rights, bar timber harvesting other than firewood gathering, and prohibit oil, gas, and mineral leasing activities. Additionally, this bill would prohibit any new homes from being built and the expansion of any communities that border the proposed area or lie within. Notable to this legislation is that of the 90 cosponsors, none represent any of the areas that would be affected by this bill.

    Throughout this Nation's history, there have been times where preservation of our scenic lands was required to maintain this country's scenic beauty and heritage. However, those efforts should come from the elected officials of those states and local governments, not from national representatives from unaffected states.

    Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to sign up for my e-newsletter at http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htmand my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RepDonYoung. Doing so will allow me to provide you with updates on this and other important issues. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    That's what she said...

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    156

    Default

    got replys from Lisa and Don...but not Mark Begich. I guess I am not one of "HIS" constituants

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •