Going Feral: Bill on Rocks Springs RMP Revision.

Going Feral: Bill on Rocks Springs RMP Revision.:  

Bill on Rocks Springs RMP Revision.

 Very unusual to see a one off bill like this:

H. R. 6085

To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, and for other purposes.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 26, 2023

Ms. Hageman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

---

A BILL

To prohibit the implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON DRAFT RMP AND EIS FOR ROCK SPRINGS RMP REVISION, WYOMING.

The Secretary of the Interior may not finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, referred to in the notice of availability titled “Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming” published by the Bureau of Land Management on August 18, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 56654).

FWIW, a really good look at the plan was featured on Governor Gordon's podcast. The big complaint with the plan (which I don't think is that bad) what that it was sort of dropped on the area by the BLM after people believed that the groups they were working in with the BLM would have an impact on the plan, and didn't appear to.

I'd guess, but don't know, that the chances of a one off bill passing in the current Congress is really small.

Blog Mirror: The arrogance of the off-road vehicle lobby — Jonathan P. Thompson (@Land_Desk)

 

The arrogance of the off-road vehicle lobby — Jonathan P. Thompson (@Land_Desk)

Going Feral: Blog Mirror: Eric Movar from the Tribune: Rock Springs plan proposal brings commonsense conservation to the Red Desert

Going Feral: Blog Mirror: Eric Movar from the Tribune: Rock Sp...: 

Blog Mirror: Eric Movar from the Tribune: Rock Springs plan proposal brings commonsense conservation to the Red Desert

The Rock Springs Field Office proposed Resource Management  Plan includes a wise balance of  land uses for 3.6 million acres of public land, but it’s apparently much too rational for Wyoming’s  elected leaders. We have seen a pathetic outpouring of outright  lies from Wyoming politicians,  hot-headed hyperbolic rants from unhinged exploiters and  shameless industry lapdogs. 

Their slanted view of public land uses — extract every use from every acre regardless of the damage to the land, its wildlife populations, and public recreation — has held sway for far too long already.

Rep. John Winter, R-Thermopolis, says the proposed plan would  lock out hunters, and he’s lying.  Fact check: Not only will the plan  protect Little Mountain and many  other hunting hotspots from decimation by heavy industry, but it will improve habitats and boost big game populations, improving hunting opportunities.

Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, says the plan would “take away the livelihood of hundreds of ranchers,” and he’s lying. The reality is that 99.8% of the planning area would remain rented to ranchers for livestock forage, and the few areas slated for closure haven’t been grazed for years. Sure, there are new designations for areas where enough forage would have to be left behind for elk and mule deer, but that should have been required all along.

U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., says, “This RMP will exclude, prohibit and bar all access, management, and use of vast swaths, vast swaths, of public land,” and she’s lying. In truth, the entire planning area will remain open to public access, every acre of land will continue to be managed, and every acre of land will remain open to multiple types of uses. (Many public uses and benefits have nothing to do with lining some corporation’s pocket, by the way).

Much more in the article. 

The author, Eric Movar, is a Western Watersheds Project’s Executive Director and frankly, I'm not a big fan of the Western Watershed Project, which I think tends to be anti agriculture.  Here, however, I think they're right on the mark.

BLM Rock Springs plan. The politicos weigh in.

 

Meanwhile, one local politician from the area says "M'eh" in a Tribune op ed, entitled:

Chestek: Beyond the hyperbole: A rational analysis of BLM’s proposed resource management plan

Going Feral: Blog Mirror: Misinformation, hysteria dominate response to BLM’s plan for SW Wyoming

Going Feral: Blog Mirror: Misinformation, hysteria dominate re...: 

Blog Mirror: Misinformation, hysteria dominate response to BLM’s plan for SW Wyoming

Misinformation, hysteria dominate response to BLM’s plan for SW Wyoming

Blog Mirror: WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH: SPOTLIGHT ON BLM FEMALE EMPLOYEES IN THE FIELD

 

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH: SPOTLIGHT ON BLM FEMALE EMPLOYEES IN THE FIELD

Reactionary

 "Mind numbingly stupid" is the way one person I know characterized it.

Governor Questions Transparency of BLM Land Acquisition

CHEYENNE, Wyo. –  Governor Mark Gordon has announced that Wyoming is appealing a massive acquisition of land by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Natrona and Carbon Counties. The State has concerns that BLM did not involve the public in the acquisition process and that the environmental assessment did not adequately consider impacts on tax revenues, school funding, grazing, mineral development and other natural resources.

The Governor emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition is focused on the adequacy and proper adherence to the process that occurred. He supports the expansion of public access for hunters and anglers, as well as opportunities for recreation. He also recognizes the rights of private landowners to sell their land as they see fit. 

“This action is not about limiting access for sportspeople or challenging the rights of private property owners rights,” Governor Gordon said. “It is about whether the Federal government can increase its land holdings without public scrutiny, or should it adhere to the same transparent process that private landowners are subject to if they sought to purchase or exchange federal land.”

To buy or sell land the State must have a 60-day comment period and hold two public votes of the State Board of Land Commissioners.

Here's the actual complaint.^[1]

At some point conservationist, hunters, fishermen, outdoorsmen, sportsmen, and the tourist industry really should start to start questioning why they support Republican candidates in this state.^[2]  Suffice it to say, if Marty Throne, the Democrat, was now Governor, we wouldn't be putting up with this now.

Indeed, even while it's clear that the overwhelming majority of Wyomingites are very much in favor of preserving public lands, it continues to be the case that the Republican Party in the state has an element that doesn't.  Indeed, it's hard not to recall the late 1980s when Republicans from southeastern Wyoming attempted to privatize wildlife in the state, and came close to success before public outcry stopped it.  It's also worth nothing that a Hageman was part of that effort, and the current challenger to Liz Cheney is part of that family.

And more recently, the legislature came really close to passing a bill to "study" trying to take the Federal land away from the Federal government.  The far right in the GOP still supports that against the will of the residents of the state.

So let's break this down a little more on what the Governor said.

• The Governor emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition is focused on the adequacy and proper adherence to the process that occurred. He supports the expansion of public access for hunters and anglers, as well as opportunities for recreation. He also recognizes the rights of private landowners to sell their land as they see fit. 

Well, then, if all that's true, knock it off and don't be suing about it.

• “This action is not about limiting access for sportspeople or challenging the rights of private property owners rights,

Well that's exactly what the action does.

• “It is about whether the Federal government can increase its land holdings without public scrutiny, or should it adhere to the same transparent process that private landowners are subject to if they sought to purchase or exchange federal land.”

M'eh.  A land exchange isn't anything like a sale, and quite frankly it seems that in most land exchanges the Federal government ends up with less land than it started off with.

The state should dismiss this action.

There's no reason to believe that this land won't still be grazed.  It probably just opens it up for that, on a very large scale, for neighboring ranchers.  What it does beyond that is open up land that's been closed to ready access for years up to the residents of the state.

Footnotes:

1.  A "complaint" is the initiating document in a lawsuit.

2.  I know the answer to this question even as I pose it.  As the national Democratic Party is for gun control in a big way, for abortion on demand, for much more government involvement in everything, and is on the far left of every social movement, it leaves conservative voters with nowhere else to go.

This is a tragedy, quite frankly, as it leads to the delusion in the GOP that Eathornism is the view of everyone in the GOP, and the State.  And because a lot of people in any political party are followers, rather than thinkers, it means that people who support extreme positions in the GOP do so as they're just following along not thinking them out, which would lead them to some other conclusion on some issues.

I've long maintained here, for example, that there's no reason to believe that there aren't a considerable number of people who, for example, are opposed to abortion and the death penalty, but I'm certain if this came up to the GOP Central Committee right now we'd get full support for the death penalty in a major way. That's a minor example, however.

I'm also certain that there are those, for example, who are opposed to abortion, support the war in Ukraine, and are very concerned about climate change. Where do they go to vote? They can't vote Democratic, due to abortion, and the GOP here doesn't really reflect their views on anything else.

As a result of that, they vote Republican, as abortion is their big issue.  Some people do the same with the Second Amendment, and otherwise hold very Democratic views.  

And the Public Lands issue is a good example.  People who vote only on this issue, and there are some, vote Democratic quite a bit, I suspect.

The problem is, however, is that on life and death issues, like abortion, that leaves those very serious on those issues with hardly any options left.

This year might prove to be different, however, as the Republican Party is setting up horrific moral choices for the voters.  In numerous states, the GOP is running Secretary of State candidates who would have stolen the vote for Trump in 2020, had they been in power.  As people go to the polls this upcoming election, it looks like in many races they'll have a Republican candidate who effectively is pushing for the end of democracy, or at least the installation of an illiberal democracy.  As democracy is the first principal of democracy, many voters may now pause when they go to vote Republican and wonder if that principle requires them to vote for somebody else.

For those with less firm concerns, the switch to another party may even be easier.  This fall, for example, you know for certain that voters who normally vote Republican will go into the voting booth, having never said a word to anyone, and vote for a Democratic candidate as they're sick of Trump, worried about Eathorne, tired of Republican land grabbing efforts, not really convinced that everyone needs to have StG42, and worried about what kind of environment the future holds in a year that's been weird.  The GOP ought to consider that, as if they don't manage to install the illiberal democracy they seem to imagine, they may end up getting very much the opposite.

Blog Mirror: The Bureau of Land Management at Seventy-Five: Who Will Celebrate with Them?

 

The Bureau of Land Management at Seventy-Five: Who Will Celebrate with Them?

Saturday, August 14, 1909. Rainbow Bridge.

The location of Rainbow Bridge, the world's largest natural ridge, was disclosed by Jim Mike (1872–1977), a Paiute Indian, to William B. Douglas of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Amazing to think it had been disclosed so late.

The first motor race took place at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway took place.  It was a motorcycle race sanctioned by the Federation of American Motorcyclists.

Last edition:

Thursday, August 12, 1909. The father of a mass murderer dies.

Labels: 1900s, 1909, Georgia, Joseph Stalin, Personalities, Russia, USSR