Badlands NP Defies Trump Administration On Climate Change

[LMBSGV]

I agree with Shawn. This should be moved to the Campfire along with all the other things that will most likely be happening in the future due to the stated forthcoming changes to public land use policy in the United States that will directly effect every person on this board's experience in the Sierra and other wild lands.

For years, the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service have been providing public information and creating policies based on the effects of climate change on our recreation areas. The “government policy” is that the employees of the NPS and USFS can no longer communicate to the public about climate change. Some of the employees of those agencies are taking matters into their own hands to communicate with the public.

I don't see sharing this story as "political." I see it as stating the facts. The only people making this "political" are those who believe there are "alternative facts."

[ERIC]

For now, looks to me to be nothing more than intelligent debate. Just keep your tempers, keep discussion clean (that includes passive aggressiveness) and I'll leave it open.

[TahoeJeff]

directly effect every person on this board's experience in the Sierra

Just how will my experience be affected?

[AlmostThere]

directly effect every person on this board's experience in the Sierra

Just how will my experience be affected?

I'm trying to figure out that point myself. Employees of NPS are tweeting climate change facts in defiance, as are employees of other federal gov't branches. That has to do with the Sierra Nevada or general outdoor activities.... how again?

If the article were about the pending destruction of the wilderness act, or the park system, or climate change, or something else the administration may or may not do that has an impact on the wilderness or use of it, sure. Tweeting in defiance of a gag order - meh. Off topic.

[LMBSGV]

Just how will my experience be affected?

There are currently many pending ideas/proposals being considered including:

rewriting the Wilderness Act

changing or revoking the Endangered Species Act

allowing mining nearby or even in designated wilderness areas

changing the roadless area designations in national forests

selling public lands(though the Secretary of the Interior nominee said he would not do this when he testified in the Senate)

giving increased local control to the managers of each park or unit of public land

[TahoeJeff]

There are currently many pending ideas/proposals being considered including:

rewriting the Wilderness Act

changing or revoking the Endangered Species Act

allowing mining nearby or even in designated wilderness areas

changing the roadless area designations in national forests

selling public lands(though the Secretary of the Interior nominee said he would not do this when he testified in the Senate)

giving increased local control to the managers of each park or unit of public land

Source(s)?

[LMBSGV]

I'll just do the Wilderness Act. These are all pending bills in Congress listed on Congress.gov. If you go there and search by "wilderness", you will see a very long list of bills, many of which deal with specific designations or are amendments (sometimes competing) to certain bills. Here are some of the many bills that have more general provisions included within the bill.

H.R.6156 Local Wilderness Management Act

S.49 — Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act

H.R.49 - American Energy Independence and Job Creation Act

S.3205 - Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act

H.R.5860 - Emergency Forest Restoration Act

S.3203 - Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act

Also, you can do an internet search on the Wilderness Act and the other things I listed if you want. For instance on the possible Wilderness Act changes, the Wilderness Society provides information. I figure since someone will say that's biased, as well as many of the other listings that will appear on a general search engine, I'd stick with actual bills in Congress as my response to your sources question.

[TahoeJeff]

From congress.org:

Summary: H.R.6156 Local Wilderness Management Act

This bill amends the Wilderness Act to require certain National Forest System lands, including those which have been designated, officially or defacto, by the Forest Service as wilderness study areas, to be managed by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for multiple use purposes, including mining, grazing, conservation, recreation, and other uses until Congress enacts a law that designates such an area as wilderness or specifies an alternative management approach for it.

The bill amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to require certain public lands, including those which have been designated, officially or defacto, as wilderness study areas by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to be managed by the Department of the Interior to promote multiple use purposes, including the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and mineral leasing, until Congress enacts a law that designates such an area as wilderness or specifies an alternative management approach for it.

USDA (with respect to National Forest System land) and Interior (for public lands managed by the BLM) may not designate, officially or defacto, land as a wilderness study area without first obtaining the written consent of the governing body of the county in which such land is located.


Summary: S.3205 Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act

This bill requires the Department of Agriculture (with respect to National Forest System land) and the Department of the Interior (with respect to public land) to authorize relevant local officials to determine all permissible forms of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods over any permitted routes within their jurisdictions.

The bill defines "local officials" as officers or employees who are the heads of units or jurisdictions of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

If a local official fails to make such a determination about a permitted route more than two years after this bill's enactment, then any form of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods shall be allowable on that route.

Meh. These two don't really bother me in the least if they became law.

[wildhiker]

Relative to the proposed bills listed that affect Wilderness...

These kinds of bills would pass one or the other house of Congress in recent years under Republican control, but were never taken seriously because Obama would veto them. With Trump available to sign off, the Republicans who prefer their wilderness in coffee table books and the real wilderness turned into logging, oil and gas drilling, off-road vehicle playgrounds, beaten up overgrazed range, etc., will make a serious effort to pass bills like this.

The point of H.R.6156 "Local Wilderness Management Act" is to eliminate all temporary protection for wilderness study areas on national forests and BLM lands so the mining, drilling, logging, dirt-biking, etc., can commence. This won't affect any of the true High Sierra, but it will affect a lot of other nice mountain and desert landscapes throughout the west.

The point of S.3205 "Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act" is to open up designated wilderness area trails to mountain bikes. This WILL affect the high sierra wilderness areas. Although the bill gives land managers two years to draw up plans for each wilderness area to desginate which trails are open to bikes and which not, since they have to follow the planning laws (such as NEPA) and you can bet that the administration will starve the agencies for funding, it is unlikely that very many of these plans can be finished in two years. Thus, ipso facto, the majority of wilderness trails will be opened to mountain bikes.

In both cases, I personally would be very much affected, because I enjoy visiting roadless areas around the country and want to see them kept undeveloped, and don't want mountain bikes in our high country wilderness.

-Phil

[Hobbes]

Perhaps a more interesting perspective is the result of adhering to the preamble of "We": Who's in charge here, the governed or the state? As consent was perceived to have been abused by political & bureaucratic overreach, the counter effects are the policy reforms now being instituted.

How this plays out at local levels is the wild-card. For instance, what is the authority of the current permit system? Or for that matter, bear canisters. Are they stipulations of the Wilderness act or Nat'l park charter, or are they merely interpretations subject to challenge? I'm being sincere here - actually curious.