GOP-backed bill is most serious attack on America's Wilderness Act in history
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 2276
PAGE 1 of 3
As we conservationists/environmentalists have always known, we never "win" any battle. A change in the power in Washington can erase anything we worked long and hard to accomplish, with the stroke of a pen. And here we go again.Quote:
Conservationists and wilderness enthusiasts across America are mobilizing to defeat a bill passed by the House of Representatives in April that would eviscerate the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Deceptively entitled the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act, the bill (H.R. 4089) purports to protect hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. The bill is being pushed by powerful groups like the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International and supported by some of the most anti-wilderness Republicans in Congress. And it would effectively gut the Wilderness Act and protections for every wilderness in America's 110-million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System – everywhere from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness along the Montana-Idaho border that I can see from my home.
The House bill's provisions could still become law during the current lame-duck session of Congress. Though the Senate is considering a different sportsmen’s bill that does not include the harmful elements, the Senate bill could eventually be merged with the devastating House bill in order to pass both chambers.
The Wilderness Act eloquently defines wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The statute further designates wilderness as an area that retains “its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation” and is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.”
But this great legacy of American Wilderness is essentially destroyed by H.R. 4089 in several key ways.
First, H.R. 4089 elevates hunting, fishing, shooting, and wildlife management above wilderness protection within designated wilderness areas. Visitors or wildlife managers could drive motor vehicles and build roads, cabins, dams, hunting blinds, aircraft landing strips, and much more in wildernesses if any of these activities could be rationalized as facilitating opportunities for hunting, fishing, shooting, or managing fish and wildlife.
The only limitation in H.R. 4089 on motor vehicles or development is that the activity must be related to hunting, fishing, shooting, or wildlife management, though that need not be its only or even primary use. In reality, almost any recreational or management activity could be shoehorned into one of these exceptions and thereby exempted from Wilderness Act safeguards.
This could include logging, if done to stimulate new forest growth on which deer might graze. Similarly, bulldozing new dams and reservoirs could be validated as a way to enhance fishing habitats. Poisoning lakes and streams to kill native fish and then planting exotic fish might be allowed under the guise of increasing fishing opportunities. And predator control (including aerial gunning and poisoning) could be defended for boosting the numbers of popular hunted species like elk or bighorn sheep that predators also eat.More at http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1130/GOP-backed-bill-
is-most-serious-attack-on-America-s-Wilderness-Act-in-history
If you give a shit, please tell your Congressperson. If you give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How can man be a visitor to nature ? We ARE of nature.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
Resident USA Freedom Fundie
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
First, H.R. 4089 elevates hunting, fishing, shooting, and wildlife management above wilderness protection within designated wilderness areas. Visitors or wildlife managers could drive motor vehicles and build roads, cabins, dams, hunting blinds, aircraft landing strips, and much more in wildernesses if any of these activities could be rationalized as facilitating opportunities for hunting, fishing, shooting, or managing fish and wildlife.
From H.R. 4089.
Quote:
(i) No Priority- Nothing in this title requires a Federal agency to give preference to recreational fishing, hunting, or shooting over other uses of Federal public land or over land or water management priorities established by Federal law.
You can read the whole bill at thomas.loc.gov
Sounds like the author of this op-ed is trying to expand "...to facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands..." from the bill into roads, airstrips, lodges, etc. But that's not how it works.
Access means you get to use it. In many wilderness areas that allow hunting, such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, hunters packhorse in, live in tents they bring with them, cook on campstoves with no open fires allowed, and take everything they brought in back out, just like a regular camper.
BTW, 5 of the 27 co-sponsors are Democrats.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Access would also allow those hateful ATVs into the backcountry. Why is it everyone I see on an ATV while I'm hiking looks like a fat, drunk, stupid asshole and their cross-eyed kids, and they're always revving their engines tearing up figure eights in the middle of the undergrowth of the freaking forest?
Legs: they exist for WALKING. Brains: they exist for THINKING. USE THEM.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Access would also allow those hateful ATVs into the backcountry.
As noted, there are places you can have access to hunt, and still can't use ATVs.
If you can find anything in H.R. 4089 that allows ATVs to be used for hunting in wilderness areas where they are otherwise prohibited, let me know, because I've read it and I can't.
I'd also note that the wilderness is everyone's wilderness. If folks want to hunt or fish there, and are willing to obey the access rules, I don't see why they shouldn't have access. If managers of wilderness areas have a good reason to prohibit hunting or fishing, prehaps relating to endangered species or heavy tourist traffic, they can still prohibit hunting/fishing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
What specific new powers are granted by this bill that did not formerly exist? Is it really just a 'ruin nature at your whimsy' bill?
What was the stated purpose of creating it? What need were they claiming to fill?
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What was the stated purpose of creating it? What need were they claiming to fill?
From the bill:
Quote:
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) recreational fishing and hunting are important and traditional activities in which millions of Americans participate;
(2) recreational anglers and hunters have been and continue to be among the foremost supporters of sound fish and wildlife management and conservation in the United States;
(3) recreational fishing and hunting are environmentally acceptable and beneficial activities that occur and can be provided on Federal public lands and waters without adverse effects on other uses or users;
(4) recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting organizations provide direct assistance to fish and wildlife managers and enforcement officers of the Federal Government as well as State and local governments by investing volunteer time and effort to fish and wildlife conservation;
(5) recreational anglers, hunters, and the associated industries have generated billions of dollars of critical funding for fish and wildlife conservation, research, and management by providing revenues from purchases of fishing and hunting licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as excise taxes on fishing, hunting, and shooting equipment that have generated billions of dollars of critical funding for fish and wildlife conservation, research, and management;
(6) recreational shooting is also an important and traditional activity in which millions of Americans participate, safe recreational shooting is a valid use of Federal public lands, including the establishment of safe and convenient shooting ranges on such lands, and participation in recreational shooting helps recruit and retain hunters and contributes to wildlife conservation;
(7) opportunities to recreationally fish, hunt, and shoot are declining, which depresses participation in these traditional activities, and depressed participation adversely impacts fish and wildlife conservation and funding for important conservation efforts; and
(8) the public interest would be served, and our citizens' fish and wildlife resources benefitted, by action to ensure that opportunities are facilitated to engage in fishing and hunting on Federal public land as recognized by Executive Order No. 12962, relating to recreational fisheries, and Executive Order No. 13443, relating to facilitation of hunting heritage and wildlife conservation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony, it opens up areas that were previously prohibited from having roads built or vehicles entering. As Geezer said, it's fine when people want to hike in...or even go by horse...but you open it up to vehicles, and away we go.
What they are "claiming" the bill is for, and what it really is for, are quite different. That's pretty common in legislation, that it's named something innocuous and it's "purpose" sounds fine, but what's really behind the legislation is quite different.
Note thatQuote:
Visitors or wildlife managers could drive motor vehicles and build roads, cabins, dams, hunting blinds, aircraft landing strips, and much more in wildernesses if any of these activities could be rationalized as facilitating opportunities for hunting, fishing, shooting, or managing fish and wildlife.
Previously, none of that was allowed. The Wilderness Act originally defined wilderness as Quote:
“an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." The statute further designates wilderness as an area that retains “its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation” and is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.”
Do you see the difference? It's a pretty big one...AIRCRAFT LANDING STRIPS??
Yes, logically it shouldn't make much difference, if it were handled responsibly. But I'm sorry, I've worked in conservation enough years to know what something "pushed by powerful groups like the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International and supported by some of the most anti-wilderness Republicans in Congress" means. I understand the game, every conservationist does.
Lest you think it's just us "hippie environmentalists", please note that HUNTERS are against it as well. This from Ammoland--Shooting Sports News:Quote:
HR 4089 – Bad For Backcountry Hunting & Fishing
As a big game hunter and former Air Force officer who cares deeply about our country and its wild public lands heritage, I’m constantly amazed by the apparent naivety of some who espouse anti-wilderness rhetoric.
Even though hunting, angling, and wildlife watching are enjoyed by some 87.5 million Americans, sometimes we forget that not everyone realizes the importance of our protected public lands.
Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act. While hunters and anglers support numerous parts of this bill, there are specific details that could result in enormous negative consequences for world-renowned hunting and fishing destinations, conservation, and public lands fish and wildlife habitat.
Included in the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act is specific language that would undermine the proud heritage American sportsmen have been defending for generations:
First, Section 104(e) (1) in H.R. 4089 would open Wilderness Areas to motorized vehicles, helicopters, road building and any other imaginable tool that is used for hunting or fishing, but is not allowed in Wilderness. This would undermine world class hunting destinations such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho, and the Weminuche Wilderness in Colorado.
Second, Section 104(e) (2) would allow industrial development of Wilderness areas. Activities such as industrial logging and oil and gas drilling are inappropriate for our nation’s Wilderness areas.
Third, we have problems with language under 104(1) (b) and 104(1) (c) that would prohibit adequate NEPA review of management decisions. The way the language is written in this section, it could actually result in less hunting opportunity.
In fact, expanding wilderness protection (the gold standard for wildlife habitat and backcountry hunting/angling grounds) for public lands enhances hunting and fishing an
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
First, Section 104(e) (1) in H.R. 4089 would open Wilderness Areas to motorized vehicles, helicopters, road building and any other imaginable tool that is used for hunting or fishing, but is not allowed in Wilderness. This would undermine world class hunting destinations such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, the Frank Church Wilderness in Idaho, and the Weminuche Wilderness in Colorado.
Second, Section 104(e) (2) would allow industrial development of Wilderness areas. Activities such as industrial logging and oil and gas drilling are inappropriate for our nation’s Wilderness areas.
Here's the latest Sect1on 104 (e)
Quote:
(e) Necessity in Wilderness Areas and `Within and Supplemental to' Wilderness Purposes-
(1) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATION- The provision of opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting, and the conservation of fish and wildlife to provide sustainable use recreational opportunities on designated wilderness areas on Federal public lands shall constitute measures necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the wilderness area.
(2) The term `within and supplemental to' Wilderness purposes in section 4(a) of Public Law 88-577, means that any requirements imposed by that Act shall be implemented only insofar as they do not prevent Federal public land management officials and State fish and wildlife officials from carrying out their wildlife conservation responsibilities or providing recreational opportunities on the Federal public lands subject to a wilderness designation.
(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use.
Note Paragraph (3), underlined. This was not in the original bill, but was in the amended version sent to the Senate.
And reading the bill, (have you read it, Niki?) I can find nothing authorizing roads, lodging, airstrips, commercial activities, etc. Unless you stretch the language in a PN-like manner. It appears you can have access to hunt wilderness land if you can get there the same way folks hiking or camping do. I know that many wilderness areas already have access roads to trailheads for campers, so I'd assume that hunters and anglers would use the same access.
As noted in a post above, this legislation is pretty much in line with Executive Order No. 12962, relating to recreational fisheries, and Executive Order No. 13443, relating to facilitation of hunting heritage and wildlife conservation. So if all that bad stuff was going to happen, it should have done so by now, since those Executive Orders were issued in 2007 and 2008.
I'm getting a lot of "Keep folks out of MY wilderness" from the articles you posted, and I think that's probably the goal of both the author of the first article and the backpack hunter from Ammoland. They don't want anyone else in their sandbox. Except it's everyone's sandbox.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, I think that's bullshit. What the authors and I want (and millions of others) is that people who want to enjoy what wilderness remains do so without changing that wilderness so that it's no longer wilderness.
I can't go to any wilderness, I'm physically and financially unable to, so your point fails there. I wish it could be preserved for those who CAN, those who are willing to hike in or go by horseback, etc. There is nothing to stop anyone who wants to from doing that. Admittedly horses do some damage to trails, but roads definitely destroy them, and I don't think the people who are pushing this legislation are being up front about it. That a safari company is in favor of it, as well as politicians who are well known to be against protecting wilderness, speaks to me. I also distrust the NRA, but I'll leave them out of it because there are probably as many members like those I quoted who are against it as there are lazy fat slobs who want to drive in and hunt with their automatic rifles who would be for it.
Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I believe you are wrong, and that wording can be parsed in a such a way as to allow things to happen which the legislation doesn't intend and doesn't clearly elucidate. You think the legislation isn't harmful and means what it says. We disagree.
And yes, to answer your question, I have read it. I believe I see potentials you do not and, having seen legislation which seemed innocuous used in very damaging ways many times, I believe in "legalspeak"; in other words, that laws can be written in ways that allow things which are not obvious in the language.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME