Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act - Snowkiting

forrest · Since 21 Jun 2005 4330 Posts Hood River Hick **CGKA Member**

I do not oppose all policies of Wilderness Boundaries, just the retarded parts. For example, you can not snowkite, paraglide or mountain bike in a wilderness area. If we ban people from enjoying the forest how they see fit, our children's children might eventually stop appreciating the forest for what it is. Just think about all those potential snowkite spots that we've not discovered yet. Please take a moment to send a letter to your representative using the "web form" below. It takes 2 seconds.

Direct link to letter form....
https://secure3.convio.net/arra/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=453

Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) have once again introduced legislation (H.R. 1187, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act) that would designate a massive 23 million acre area across five states (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, ATVs, ROVs (side-by-sides), 4x4s, snowmobiles and mountain bikes. It is particularly important to note that the lead sponsor, Rep Maloney, represents Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn in New York City, yet has introduced legislation that would have an economic and social impact on millions of Americans who live, work and recreate on or near the lands in question. In a particularly ironic twist, Representative Maloney and the other cosponsors will not accept emails from anyone who does not live in their districts. So, these Members seek to force the most restrictive land management on millions of Americans, but will not listen to their concerns.

This sort of top-down legislation poisons the debate and makes meaningful collaboration at the local level more difficult. Who wants to participate in complicated and time consuming collaborative processes when Members of Congress from thousands of miles away, and who have little understanding of the areas in question, introduce and pursue enactment of sweeping legislation that would make all of that hard work moot?

Click Take Action link below to send an email to your Representative in opposition to this egregious bill that would forever lock OHV use out of 23 million acres of public lands.

DesertWinds · Since 01 May 2009 80 Posts

Signed and thanks.

SalmonSlayer · Since 27 Nov 2005 648 Posts Addicted **CGKA Member**

Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)

Signed

stevegriffith22 · Since 14 May 2006 434 Posts Obsessed

I generally don't respond to these things, I like to stay out of it and don't believe that it is productive to get involved in politital conversations. But forest has a very good point and I believe that he is in the right to bring this up.

My point is: when you, we or us are talking about land use please make note that the definition of BLM, STATE, FOREST SERVICE, PRIVATE USE, PARKS, change from state to state, and along with those definitions the use of each type changes as well. I'm not saying forest isn't right, infact he is right on the money, just remember that any time anyone says that someone can or can not use land in any capasity for what ever reason (including water) to be vigilant and alert, do a little research and make sure you know what doors your opening when you tell people what they can and cant do with land.

For instance in some states (colorado) water is owened by the land owner, even the fish, and you no longer can fish that land when floating through it.

Please pay attention to these types of leg.

Thank you for bringing this up Forest.

SalmonSlayer · Since 27 Nov 2005 648 Posts Addicted **CGKA Member**

Why are these congressman pushing this legislation instead of congressman from the districts affected by the legslation. If it is good for the people in the local communities, you would think they would be pushing it too.

I would bet money that a special interest group donated directly or indirectly to these congressman to sponsor this legislation. I would also bet that the special interest group wrote the policy that is sponsored. These are the same type of groups that are at the root of the "Friends of the Nicholes pit" and the folks that tried to stop snow kiting on forest land. They are interested in federal control over local control. They think they know better than you what is good for the environment and do not hesitate to trample on your interest to fulfill their agenda.

My congressman probably wont give a rats ass what I think (do any of them?), but, I sent him the letter just in the off chance it may be influenced him

Send a letter

lewmt · Since 04 Aug 2010 182 Posts MT Stoked

There seems to be some discriminatory authority regarding snowkiting in de-facto wilderness areas on a local basis. I have talked to several people in Montana and Wyoming both Forest Service personnel and some Fish & Game law enforcement - the folks who can write you a ticket if you're breaking the rules - about kiting in wilderness + wilderness study areas. So far all I've gotten is "Sure, no problem" Its a whole different story in National Parks.

It may be more worthwhile to put pressure on the local FS admins rather than congress. Obviously you can't snowmobile access to a kite spot inside wilderness boundaries so that aspect of the issue is probably worth taking to your Fed. congress person.

registered · Since 12 Jul 2005 1319 Posts tsunami Sandbagger

Enlightenment is blind to you adrenaline fueled nonsense..

You will want to start a user conflict eventually so its the best for the galaxy this way.

sorry. Wink

Keep paying taxes its working..

this land is your land hahaha