Many Montanans have written Senator Baucus and the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee to seek important improvements to the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (S. 1774). While the bill would protect some small portions of the world-class Rocky Mountain Front in Montana as Wilderness, as currently written the RMFHA protects only a paltry sum as Wilderness while leaving too much of the federal public lands along the Rocky Mountain Front open to private grazing, motorized use and other uses that compromise the ecological integrity of this American Serengeti.
Specifically, we have urged Senator Baucus and the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee to make the following changes and improvements to the RMFHA:
• The 67, 000 acres of Wilderness designations along the Rocky Mountain Front proposed by Senator Baucus is a paltry sum, given the world-class, and largely unprotected wildlands and wildlife habitat, currently found along the Rocky Mountain Front. Even the Forest Service has recommended more Wilderness protections in their forest plans for the area than what Senator Baucus is proposing. Unfortunately, last fall supporters of Baucus’ bill dropped almost 30,000 acres of proposed Wilderness from this bill at the request of snowmobilers and those who oppose Wilderness. We strongly urge Senator Baucus and the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee to include Wilderness protections for all the inventoried roadless wildlands along the Rocky Mountain Front.
• The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act preserves existing motorized, grazing and logging uses on 208,160 acres of federal land, designated as the “Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area." A serious question that should be posed to Senator Baucus is: How does preserving existing motorized use, grazing and logging on 208,160 acres along the Rocky Mountain Front actually result in eliminating the threats posed by motorized use, grazing and logging in these areas?
• Re: Grazing – This bill locks-in public lands grazing across the Front by stating that “The secretary shall permit grazing” where it currently exists. Under existing law, grazing may be allowed to continue, but it is not mandated that it must be allowed to continue. The current language of the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act ties the hands of the Forest Service and it is worse than a bail-out, as it mandates the federal government to keep a private, commercial enterprise operating on public land, regardless of the ecological consequences, both now and into perpetuity. This public lands grazing mandate MUST be removed from the RMFHA.
• This bill has special provisions for Wilderness management that should raise red flags to those who support Wilderness. This bill currently contains language for overflights, as it relates to commercial and general aviation, that is unprecedented in the history of the Wilderness Act and needs to go. The military overflights language, while bad, is pretty standard fare nowadays. But this language seems to preclude efforts to control or limit flightseeing or other overflights, which are incredibly disruptive to visitors, wildlife and Wilderness. Please REMOVE this language from the RMFHA.
• The language for maintaining existing facilities for livestock grazing is more liberal than previous Wilderness bills. The language incorporating State or local agencies for controlling fire, insects and disease promotes the trend toward devolution of federal public lands and is objectionable on that basis. Please REMOVE this language from the RMFHA.
• Much of the noxious weed stuff in the bill is all about taxpayer funding for dropping tons of poisons on the ground (while also mandating that all existing livestock grazing continue forever). If this were an effective strategy there wouldn’t be weeds in Montana. Given the complexities and unknowns of controlling weeds, especially with a rapidly changing climate and an escalating number of encroaching weed species, the called-for management strategy needs to focus on an assessment of existing weed infestations, the causes, potential controls, costs, likelihood of success, and clearly stated, measurable objectives to determine whether the controls are effective, and what will be done if they aren’t or if the funding doesn’t come through. At a minimum, this section of the bill should call for the plan to be written by an independent team of scientists.
Many substantive concerns regarding the Rocky Mountain Heritage Act have been expressed by a number of organizations and many experienced, dedicated wilderness and forest protection activists. Many Montana wilderness supporters remain disappointed that the Act would only designate a small fraction of Wilderness-deserving lands on the Rocky Mountain Front as Wilderness, while leaving too much of the Front open to logging and other forms of development.
We’ve tried to get the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front to listen to our concerns and add more protections to the unparalleled wildlife habitat and wildlands on the Rocky Mountain Front, but, unfortunately, they seem more concerned with politics and the appeasing the opinions of the anti-wilderness crowd.
As with any piece of legislation, we’d encourage people to read the actual language of the bill (http://ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/s-…). In order to fully understanding the bill language, and what it would mean for future management of public lands, it also helps to have a solid working understanding of bedrock environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act and certainly an understanding of the Wilderness Act. We’d put forth that perhaps there is more to the proposed Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act than simply taking the talking points of supporters at face value. The Rocky Mountain Front means a lot of things to lots of people and we will likely only get one chance to protect this world-class area.
Wilderness supporters should take action and let Montana's Congressional Delegation and the Senate's ENR Committee know about substantive concerns with the current bill language and how to make the bill better for Wilderness, for wildlife and for future generations.
What an absolute waste of time and shame on the people that signed that utterly stupid petition. Free speech goes along with freedom. If you don’t like it just engage your brain and change the station or move out of the USA.
End of story!
It is funny how leftists are all about free speech until it disagrees with what they think. Can leftists not learn how to turn the dial on their radio?
Good news. Some time ago, I contacted two national advertisers from whom I had sometimes placed orders. I heard their ads on the hateful Michael Savage program, also aired on KGVO. I wanted to be removed from their mailing lists and told them I would never support businesses that sponsor such nonsense.
I do not, will not listen to Rush Limbaugh. The petition web site names seven local businesses that pulled their ads from KGVO. I wrote them down and you can be sure I will go out of my way to patronize them in the future.
Rush is laughing all the way to the bank on this phony issue:
Rush Limbaugh does not have a constitutional right to bully people in a paid job on a radio station. He has a constitutional right to say how he feels, and I have a constitutional right to say how I feel. I have a constitutional right to sign a petition, and to ask like-minded people to sign that petition, and to call advertisers (many of whom I do business with) and say that I hope they will reconsider buying ads on a program that promotes bullying. Free speech is for everyone, and I am exercising mine. It amazes and saddens me that people are so quick to defend the free speech rights of bullies and hatemongers, and so quick to attack those who speak out against those bullies and hatemongers. I am neither a narcissist, a bully, nor the modern incarnation of John Wilkes Booth, nor am I self-righteous; I am, however, on a crusade. I am a Christian mom who has had it with bullies. Period.
free speech is only for what you like i take it?
as a citizen of the USA i have the right to listen or NOT listen to any show. i'm very adept at changing stations when i don't like something. maybe the letter writer doesnt know how to change the station??? hmmmm...personallly i dont care for the windbag but i dont pretend to be so self righteous that i try to force my views on anyone else.
Karl Gharst is an interesting case of someone with major personality disorder. He claims to have been racially conscious for many years and loudly condemns those who have " race mixed" but investigation has revealed that his own child is partially nonWhite. In fact he was married to a nonWhite woman for several years. This is a typical Jewish tactic, to point fingers at someone else for transgressions that they themselves commit.
I believe this is why he badmouths Dr William Pierce and his organization. Because he knows that he would never be allowed as a member due to his past transgressions and race mixing.
HarHar, I did not correlate the assassination of a president to the attempt to silence a talk radio slug. I only used Wilkes Booth's narcissism to make a point about that condition. Clearly you have learned nothing in the art of rhetoric. Rush Limbaugh is not "pissing" in my ear, because I simply do not listen to him. If everyone would do the same thing and turn him off, he'd go away on his own. But to try and force a minority view on the majority by censoring him, isn't the ethical route.
@jetMech - No mention was made of going to the government. Guess you just had to throw in some of those right wing buzz words whether or not they had any reference to reality, sadly typical.
What a moron, letMech. You think telling people to stop supporting Rush's drug-addled, divorce-heavy lifestyle has something in common with ASSASSINATING A PRESIDENT?!?! Clearly, Rush has been pissing in your ear long enough that your brain done dissolved.
That very last quote from Cooper reminds me of John Wilkes Booth. After he committed the horrendous act, one that he was also passionate about, it is said that as he was nursing his broken ankle he read the news the following morning and was perplexed by the public's attack of him and his act. See, he felt he was doing the nation a great service. That's the thing about narcissists; they always think they are doing the best thing for the greater good even when they take someone's life or, in this case, someone's voice.
The mature thing to do would be to go out and start your own radio program that counters Limbaugh, but you know that no one would listen so, like little children, you run to the nanny state in hopes that they will just silence him. It's sad, really.
Gary Marbut is a (not so) closet white supremacist who has written articles for racist newsletters.
..and no, I'm not in any way shape or form a proponent of gun control. I'm a proud gun owner who despises the Brady Center but doesn't make alliances of convenience with Fascists.
This isn't hunters asking for the culling. They should use bow hunters to reduce those urban deer numbers, that way, the hunters will pay through licence fee's, and it won't cost the state a dime.
So sad to hear this. Hope they get on their feet.
Mr. Marbut has done a wonderful job on behalf of Montanans and he works diligently to help preserve our rights. Last session, he spearheaded several pieces of legislation, including the Sheriff's First bill (SB 114) which was passed in both house and senate, only to be vetoed in grand fashion with a branding iron by governor schweitzer. SB 114 would have given some level of protection to Montana caregivers, but that didn't matter in the insane world of left-right politics. We need to address federal encroachment on State's Rights, particularly where gun rights and medical marijuana are concerned. In order to address the concerns of caregivers, we must address the federal encroachment on such rights. The Sheriffs are our last line of defense against the over reaching tentacles of the federal government. Anyone who fails to understand that very important fact isn't paying attention, and has forgotten who works for whom in this country. Sheriffs ARE the law of the land. Bar none. Mr. Marbut has my full, unwavering support. I would describe him as more Libertarian than Republican, and that's a good thing, in my eyes.
THIS IS AMAZING!!! ALL YOU HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS OUT THERE THAT WANT THE WOLVES GONE BECAUSE THE "DEER POPULATIONS ARE DOWN" SHOW AGAIN YOUR ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE...HERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE!!!
Trapping has been going on in North America far longer than we've been kown as a country. Were it not for trappers, much of the west would have been unkown back in the early 1800's. The Native Americans trapped for food & clothing and early settlers trapped for the same reasons as well as to make money. Today, modern trappers are sometimes used as management tools but mostly that is left to Government Trappers...oh yes folks Government Trappers do exist and employ the same methods and traps that you commonly see. Trapping has NEVER NOT been employed in every State of our Nation. I believe that EVERY STATE allows trapping. It is a time honored tradition that many folks still employ to make some extra money and to just be out on the land. As in every walk of life, there are some who give the rest a black eye. I just got mine from the pictures of this man's wolf posted all over the internet, and honestly wish he hadn't done that but I'm not going to beat this man up for his lawfull activities and much needed management of these wolves. He is not a barbarian, he is an outdoor sportsman who was proud of his ability to catch a wolf and he will make use of that animal for his own reasons.
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation