Whatever your take on whether the quid pro quo is worth it with wilderness designation, we’re in a different political atmosphere and that is beginning to show results – the bills are getting better :
Simpson removes criticized portion of Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill – Idaho Statesman
94 federal acres that would have been transfered to local development saved – 5,500 more to go.
Comments
Rocky wrote more about this on his blog here:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/05/19/rockybarker/simpson_removes_snra_development_land_from_white_clouds_bill
Rock wrote more about this on his blog here:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/05/19/rockybarker/simpson_removes_snra_development_land_from_white_clouds_bill
Rocky posted more on his blog:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/05/19/rockybarker/simpson_removes_snra_development_land_from_white_clouds_bill
Interesting, heard any news on the Greater Yellowstone bill?
Personally, I’m all for wilderness, so long as front country areas maintain access for recreationists. Wilderness designation in a popular area can effectively lock out a lot of people if the managing agency decides there’s too much foot traffic. To be clear, I don’t think that would be an issue here, but have seen it in other areas. If we want people to appreciate wild places we need to maintain access.
the omnibus which includes Wyoming Wild & Scenic river designation is being held up by Craig. He’s got no “hold” ability – but he’s being afforded the courtesy to address his concerns that Idaho AG irrigators get their water.
Of course it’s Craig. Should’ve known.