Anyone see this?

[2-BIG]

WASHINGTON -- Congress on Wednesday set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness -- from California's Sierra Nevada mountains to the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

The legislation is on its way to President Barack Obama for his likely signature.

The House approved the bill, 285-140, the final step in a long legislative road that began last year.

The vote came two weeks after the House rejected the bill amid a partisan dispute over gun rights. The measure was brought up again in the Senate and approved last week, setting up Wednesday's vote.

The bill -- a collection of nearly 170 separate measures -- would be one of the largest expansions of wilderness protection in a quarter-century. It would confer the government's highest level of protection on land in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

Supporters called the bill landmark legislation that will strengthen the national park system, restore national forests, preserve wild and scenic rivers, protect battlefields and restore balance to the management of public lands.

Opponents, mostly Republicans, called the bill a "land grab" that would block energy development on vast swaths of federal land.

"After nearly a decade during which our parks were taken for granted and our range lands were scarred by a spider-web of roads and (drilling) well pads," the lands bill "represents a new dawn for America's heritage and American values," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and other Republicans complained that the measure would lock up millions of acres of land that could be explored for energy and used for other development.

"Our nation can't afford to shut down the creation of jobs for jobless Americans, and we can't afford to become even more dependent on foreign sources of energy," Hastings said.

The bill "even locks up federal lands from renewable energy production, including wind and solar," he said.

Hastings and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to allow visitors to national parks to carry concealed, loaded weapons. A federal judge last week struck down a Bush administration rule allowing loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges.

Because of a parliamentary rule adopted in the Senate, the House took up the bill under a rule that blocked amendments.

Land to be protected in the bill ranges from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range and Oregon's Mount Hood to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

Land in Idaho's Owyhee canyons, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan and Zion National Park in Utah also would win designation as wilderness, and more than 1,000 miles of rivers in nearly a dozen states would gain protections. The proposals would expand wilderness designation -- which blocks nearly all development -- into areas that now are not protected.

The bill also would let Alaska go forward with plans to build an airport access road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge as part of a land swap that would transfer more than 61,000 acres to the federal government, much of it designated as wilderness.

[Mojostick]

Let's hope there isn't some language in there about banning timbering.

The anti's greatest long term weapon against us isn't outright hunting bans, but is to create public lands where timbering is banned and they become old growth mono-cultures. The game animals we hunt, be it larger game or even small game, do not prefer or thrive in old growth forests.
The game animals we hunt usually require newer, younger forests to thrive in.

The anti's don't have to ban hunting outright to hurt us. All they have to do is create a circumstance where there's very few game animals left on public land to hunt. An old forest with maybe 4-5 deer per mile and lots of red squirrels and owls is the anti's goal.

If public land is managed by politics instead of foresters, where timbering is banned, as that land becomes old growth, huntable numbers of deer, turkey, rabbits, grouse, etc. dwindle.

I recall talking to a MDNR biologist about the law suits the Sierra Club had against the USFS in Michigan a few years back, blocking poplar (aspen) cutting on USFS lands. The above opinion was his opinion also. He said one of the best management tools for game animals was the chainsaw. It was his opinion that the Sierra Club's true ulterior motive wasn't simply anti-aspen timbering on it's face, but the slow choking of available game animals on public land to hunt. I agree with that opinion.

I realize that a clear cut does look like h@ll when first cut. But after a few years, a clear cut becomes a game animal magnet.

[vermonster13]

Are they going to even allow any hunting on these lands?

[2-BIG]

I would think that deeming it "protected wilderness" would also mean no hunting.  :(

[Mojostick]

I found this gun owners alert on the bill. The thrust of this seems to be about attachments dealing with more gun bans. The way I read it, it seems like the lands would still fall under state game rules. If I read it correctly.

This would seem to state that hunting will remain open, right?

"Nothing in this Title shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting. Nothing in this Title shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting."


"An Important Message From Gun Owners Of America
-- Land grab bill coming back, again

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
  http://www.gunowners.org  

Monday, March 16, 2009

Do you agree with people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who treat the Second Amendment as if it were written only to protect your ability to go hunting and target shooting?

Or do you agree with Gun Owners of America, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who believe that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing fundamental right that is essential to the preservation of liberty?

Well, a whole lot of people in Congress are claiming to protect your Second Amendment rights, but all they're really doing is protecting your hunting season.

We're talking about the Omnibus Public Lands Act. You helped to defeat this bill last week in the House, but Congressional leaders have vowed to bring it up again soon.

S. 22 is an enormous package of over 190 bills lumped together with a price tag of $10 billion. The bill will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service, thus spreading the agency's unconstitutional gun regulations to more areas.

Fear of upsetting gun owners -- who helped elect many members of Congress from both parties -- kept this bill off the floor for several weeks.

Then, in a meeting last Tuesday, not held in an open committee hearing but behind closed doors, House leaders brokered a deal with some supposedly pro-gun Democrats.

They said they were concerned about your gun rights. They said they were going to "fix" the bill.

But they did not address the NPS anti-gun regulations that prohibit carrying a firearm for self defense without a government issued concealed carry permit.

What did they do? They added language to the bill to say you can still go hunting.

That's right. Many Congressmen claimed to be protecting the Second Amendment, when all they were really doing was thumbing their noses at self defense.

Here is the entire "pro-gun" amendment that was considered in the House. Judge for yourself if this really protects your Second Amendment rights:

"Nothing in this Title shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting. Nothing in this Title shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting."

They may as well have called it the "Elmer Fudd Protection Act."

A lot of people who voted for this bill campaigned for office as champions of gun rights. They said "Send me to Washington; I'll fight for the Second Amendment." And this is what we get? Pathetic.

But let's be clear. The issue is not just about the NPS gun restrictions, as bad as they are. And whether or not you personally use federal land is not the point.

What is important is the disdain with which legislators hold your Second Amendment rights.

It is imperative that you speak up on this issue. The outcome of this battle will be a preview of what we can expect for the next two years. Will your gun rights be comprised away little by little? Or will we stand together and hold legislators accountable to their campaign promises to uphold the Second Amendment?

This week there may be several votes in both the Senate and House on the Omnibus Land bill.

Congressional leaders plan to act quickly in an attempt to ram this down the throat of the American people without a fair and open process. They desperately want to avoid any amendment that would truly protect your gun rights.

Congress hopes to leave the gun ban in place, and enlarge the areas affected by it. For example, the bill expands existing park land, creates new national trails that will fall under the gun restrictions, and authorizes the federal government to buy more land adjacent to national parks and trails.

House and Senate leaders plan to move on this bill rapidly, although they are ambiguous about the process.

But our message to Congress is simple: Stop playing around with our Second Amendment rights!

We don't care about the process. We care about the Second Amendment. And we mean ALL of the Second Amendment, not just hunting.

Tell Congress you expect them to protect your right to keep and bear arms without compromising. Please take a few seconds and send the pre-written message below.

When you're done, become a force multiplier. Send this alert to a few friends.

It is important that you take this action because right now GOA is the only gun rights organization speaking out for ALL of your Second Amendment rights.

We've all forwarded jokes or funny pictures to our friends. How about forwarding a message to help protect our God-ordained constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?

And please do not think your voice won't be heard. Remember, this bill failed to pass the House by just two votes last week because people like you took action.

Congressmen need to know that their votes in the coming days will impact YOUR vote next year. But if they don't hear from you and they think you're not looking, many will treat your rights with contempt.

We're not alone in this battle. In the Senate, pro-gun champions such as Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are prepared to lead the fight against this bill.

In the House, Reps. Paul Broun, Rob Bishop and Doc Hastings are among those fighting hard for your gun rights.

In fact, there are many in Congress willing to stand up for the Second Amendment, but they are repeatedly squashed by the anti-gun leadership or undermined by pro-gun compromisers. Pro-gun Congressmen who want to repeal the gun ban are being told, in effect, to "Shut up and vote!"

Friends, we know we've asked for a lot of action from you already this year.

Unfortunately, that is not going to stop. But we will all draw the line at some point. Let's work together and do it now.

Thank you for working with Gun Owners of America. Our effectiveness in Washington depends on your activism. PLEASE try to get your pro-gun friends and family involved. Now more than ever, every voice is critical.

[bravedeer]

Old growth forests are needed just as new growth are. A healthy combination of both is needed for a balanced ecosystem. There's no evidence to support any claim that hunting will be banned in these lands.

As a matter of fact, the hunting community may have just gained 2 million acres of hunting land. Due to political bias its twisting it around into something that it's not.

[2-BIG]

Lets hope that they will allow states to regulate hunting and fishing on the property. Then you still have the problems that Mojostick pointed out that not allowing timbering or habitat management will lead to....old growth timber that will sustain no wildlife or some wacko will claim they saw a spotted Owl and then that will eliminate the hunting there.  

[Mojostick]

Some old growth is needed. Perhaps set aside 20%. But even then, that's something foresters should determine, not folks sipping $7 coffee in a Manhattan coffee house who only see tree's on their computer screens.

[fredbear1969]

it may be just me but none of the supposed leaders in dc and i mean none of them rep/dem give a crap what anyone thinks unless your inside the beltway.they don't care if you hunt or want a gun for self-defense they just don't care.they may lie to you every election year and a lot of people fall for it just like they did when czar obama did it .well we are all worse off because of who the people voted in.

[vermonster13]

Well since hunting is to be allowed and this has wandered into a gun right thread it doesn't fit the rules for this forum. Be watchful guys and if it changes to where it will impact hunting let me know.