28 August 2008 Register  |  Login
   
 Search
 


When thousands of people donate no more than $100 per person per election, we can build a campaign without money from special interests.

 
_______________________

But it's about more than money. We need your energy and your enthusiasm, too. Sign up to volunteer on Jim Hansen's campaign for Congress.


_______________________

 
Account Login



You must Register and Login before you can correspond with this community.

Disclaimer
These community forums are intended solely as a tool for people to express their views. As long as everyone in the forums acts in a respectful manner, the discussions will remain unmoderated by campaign staff.

The campaign is not responsible for forum content. Views expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect Jim Hansen's views, nor the views of his campaign.

Take them for what they are, an informal conversation about issues that matter to all Idahoans. And by all means, participate!

Forums > Community Forums > Energy & Natural Resources
Subject: Boulder-White Clouds

You are not authorized to post a reply.   
Author Messages
Ted Vanegas
Posts:15
07 Feb 2006 17:25 Alert 
Rep. Mike Simpson is pushing hard for his proposed Boulder-White Clouds bill. He claims that there is wide bi-partisan support for this, but is that really correct?
- Over thirty seven environmental groups, nationally and locally, oppose the bill citing unacceptable provisions, including land giveaways, erosion of protections in the Sawtooth NRA, and the establishment of huge ORV-dedicated management area.
- Many recreation groups, including ORV users and mountain bikers, also oppose the bill saying that it restricts traditional access and that more Wilderness is not needed in Idaho.
- The bill is supported by the Idaho Conservation League, The Wilderness Society and PEW's Campaign for American Wilderness. Their argument centers around the fact that no Wilderness has been created in Idaho in over 20 years, and that this bill, through careful collaboration, is the best chance to change that trend and provide permanent protections for the area.

It seems that the bill has a long way to go before it can claim wide bi-partisan support, but it has opened up the discussion among conservationists, ranchers and recreationists about the future of our public lands and the best way to protect and use them.
- What are some of the deeper issues at play here?
- Why has this bill created divisions among long-time allies, and alliances among long-time foes?
- What does Simpson want to accomplish with this bill? Is the motive genuine or is it a political maneuver?
- If passed who will benefit most from this bill, and who least?
Ted Vanegas
Posts:15
09 Feb 2006 22:13 Alert 
Here is an article in the Boise Weekly discussing this issue:
<a href="http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158333">
http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158333
</a>
Tom von Alten
Posts:2
02 Apr 2006 17:30 Alert 
This is a very tough issue. Is some wilderness protection better than none? Is getting some big-W Wilderness worth the list of compromises Simpson has packaged together for the locals?

I don't know. The wheeling and dealing of public lands has been going on since we stole the place fair and square, and it isn't exactly news that this bill comes up with a way to transfer some prime real estate for the benefit of a small group. My working principal is to err on the side of caution. ORV recreation is a flash in the pan, and may well be a moot consideration before we can find an agreeable compromise on how best to manage our remaining public lands. (But that could be used to support either position, too: what the heck, let 'em tear it up before we all realize oil is too precious to waste like that, vs. hold the status quo until we all realize...)
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Community Forums > Energy & Natural Resources > Boulder-White Clouds

  

 
 
 
2006  |  Citadel Hosting  |  Terms Of Use  |  Contact Us