Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Yea fuck Bob Bishop, he is the single biggest threat that our public lands face. He is bought by whoever pays the most.

And f*?! that legislation. Pardon my French but this is seriously messed up.

Time to act! Call your senator, call your representative, write in, comment, do everything and anything. Our lands are at stake!

Thanks for the heads up on this Don, good on you to catch this.
 

·
Never enough free time
Joined
·
339 Posts
Someone check my read on this, but the basic gist is that the bills would give more of the limited number of available user days to commercials. Specifically, 75% commercial and 25% private.

Anyone know what the current break down is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Yeah I'm not sure what to make of this line:
Two bills in the House would allow unlimited special use permits for outfitting, guiding, recreational and competitive events, including guided fishing and hunting, both motorized and nonmotorized, and include areas that are already allocated with previously established ceilings of use.


So if I'm an Outiftter on the MFS I could just launch whenever I want?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Where is Tom?


I know that this site has it's drawbacks, but I just hate trying to have a real discussion about something on facebook.


So, I'm happy to read some dry, technical writing on an issue that I care about, but I just have a hard time reading a bill or law and understanding what is really being said. Currently, it seems like River Runners for Wilderness is, no pun intended, the lone voice in the wilderness in opposition to these bills. A host of maybe outfitter associated groups or groups I am not familiar with support them, but also American Whitewater and a few biking and climbing groups that seem legit have voiced strong support.


As of right now, I need to educate myself a little more and try to digest what is really in these bills before I make up my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
God what a convoluted pile of shit.

I don’t speak weasel word, but I have read through a few proposed bills over the years, wow.
They out did even themselves.

Emailing Congress with my public opinion on this one, emailing friends, and harassing my rep.

Thanks for letting us know Don.
It’s like a never ending battle with these creeps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: villagelightsmith

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,836 Posts
There is a ton of really, really bad stuff in the process of currently being approved by our government. Hopefully this "proposed" legislation raises enough red flags that it doesn't go anywhere.... but you all need to be paying attention to management plans that are being approved and for the most part, flying under the radar. Grand-Staicase/Escalante is a big one right now, and for southern Colorado so is the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan. The fed's draft of the Browns Canyon Management Plan is slated to be released October 11th.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Loved to death.


The elephant in the living room is logarithmic population growth. That has gotten beyond control of any group of people. All solutions are just temporary.


It's funny that plans are always just based on today's needs. Never looking to the future. Just kicking the can down the road. Like buying cheap tires every year, then 10 years have gone by.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,965 Posts
Does anyone have a list of Senator and Congressmen's actual e-mail addresses, not the forms from their Congressional Websites?
Here's the website Call My Congress. Find your congressional representative, put their number on speed dial, and call them. If you can get a bill number all the better, then you can just say, "Please support / oppose Bill SB- / HR-####." Typically you'll speak with an overworked junior staffer, unless you call Cory Gardner, in which case you'll get to leave a message. Be brief and concise, think of what you want to say before you call. They only need your name, town, and zip code. Please be polite and respectful and remember that it won't do any good (or win anyone to your cause) to vent your pent-up rage at the staffer, just ask them to pass on the message to your representative.

-AH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Its always better to send something in writing, either by snail mail or e-mail. Below is the language I used. I sent an e-mail to the Sub-committe contact Tom posted, then forwarded this to both my Senators and my congressman. I used the staff contacts for "environmental affairs".





Dear ________
It obvious to the private rafting community, of which I am a member, that access to federal lands and rivers is becoming a lot harder to obtain. Competition for scarce permits, that come with ever higher fees, is becoming more and more commonplace. Areas that require no permits are becoming more crowded. The commercial outfitting and guiding industry has noticed this also, and they are trying to get out ahead of the general do-it-yourself public with special interest legislation that guarantees their access.

Two bills in the House would allow unlimited special use permits for outfitting, guiding, recreational and competitive events, including guided fishing and hunting, both motorized and non-motorized, and include areas that are already allocated with previously established ceilings of use. I am writing to bring to Congressman Neguse’s attention my strong objection to these two bills and to request that he do all he can to defeat these or similar bills. I know the Congressman sits on the Natural Resources Committee and the National Parks, Forests, and Public lands Sub-committee. The Committee Ranking Member is a sponsor of H.R. 3458. The Chairwoman of the Sub-committee is a sponsor of H.R.3879. I hope the Congressman, along with Congresswoman DeGette, has opposed these bills in the hearings and both will do all they can to prevent passage.

I believe strongly in do-it-yourself recreation and fear that commercial recreation interests are trying to stack the deck in their favor and limit my access to Colorado lands and rivers.

Thank You for your time,

John Cravens
Loveland CO



From: John Cravens
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 5:52 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to H.R 3458 and H.R. 3879

RE: H.R. 3458 To promote innovative approaches to outdoor recreation on Federal land and to increase opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal partners, and for other purposes. “Recreation Not Red Tape”
H.R. 3879 To modify the procedures for issuing special recreation permits for certain public land units, and for other purposes. “Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act”


Dear Congresswoman Haaland


I am writing to voice my strong objection to the above named bills. As a Westerner that regularly recreates on federal lands and uses our rivers, I am highly aware that permits for these activities are becoming harder and harder to obtain. These two bills would eliminate even the small chance I have of obtaining a permit, in favor of commercial recreation.


I believe that these bills give away my federal land access to for-profit companies. Any bill that is passed must be amended to include safeguards to protect do-it-yourself recreational access.


Furthermore, our public lands are being degraded with the protections we have in place. Outfitting and guiding on federal land should not have categorical exclusion protection from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These bills must require a NEPA Needs Assessment for every new Special Use Permit. By removing this tool, you are silencing my voice from the management of MY federal lands.


While giving access to underserved populations is a worthy goal, Special Use Permits must be for underserved populations and youth only.


Finally, these bills give away actual use (commercial) plus 25%. This is MY access that your bills give away.


Thank You


John Cravens
Loveland CO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
If folks understand this bill enough to oppose it, please explain it to me with references to the language in the bill or another source so I can educate myself.


As of now, I really don't understand the "special recreation permits." Are our river permits "special recreation permits?" I thought that special recreation permits already existed and are used for special events like weddings, movies, and competitions.


Why are we opposing this bill? There is nothing of substance in this thread beyond the fact that Tom Martin does not like it. I am sure that Tom is a smart guy and passionate about non commercial recreation, but I need a bit more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
I too am confused by the language. Part of the confusion is the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up, so its hard to take many folks word for whether something proposed is good or not. One proposal is from a Pro-Acess Utah Rep, and one from an extreme Lock it up Democrat. So these 2 bills have to be vastly different. Sorry, realize that's not popular opinion around here. Its hard to be a Conservationist in a Preservationist era.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,965 Posts
I too am confused by the language. Part of the confusion is the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up, so its hard to take many folks word for whether something proposed is good or not. One proposal is from a Pro-Acess Utah Rep, and one from an extreme Lock it up Democrat. So these 2 bills have to be vastly different. Sorry, realize that's not popular opinion around here. Its hard to be a Conservationist in a Preservationist era.
This is kind of confusing. What do you mean when you say, "the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up?" If you mean that many or most river users want to be able to access to, and recreate on public lands, then I agree with you, however you make this sound like something else. If you mean that outdoor recreationists want public lands to be off-limits to recreation, then I think you've been listening to folks that are feeding you BS on this issue.

Please explain.

Thanks,

-AH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Why thanks, I found some substance here and it seems to confirm some of my interpretations of the language in the actual bills.

While the special recreation permit stuff sounds like a giveaway to outfitters and a way to undermine regulations against specific recreation groups (off road vehicles), I have not yet made a connection to the specific permits that we depend on for river trips and the like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
I too am confused by the language. Part of the confusion is the vast majority of River Users want public lands locked up, so its hard to take many folks word for whether something proposed is good or not. One proposal is from a Pro-Acess Utah Rep, and one from an extreme Lock it up Democrat. So these 2 bills have to be vastly different. Sorry, realize that's not popular opinion around here. Its hard to be a Conservationist in a Preservationist era.
No need for partisan hackery here. It is far less important who introduced these bills that it is important who actually wrote them.

Democrats and Republicans both love money
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top