|
|
|
|
Group feels 'betrayed' by Buck McKeon |
|
|
Friday, 30 May 2008 |
 Advocates for Access to Public Lands activists Dave Mattovich (l) and Dick Noles expressed shock at the wilderness legislation being proposed by Congressman Buck McKeon, which they say resembles nothing like a proposal they worked on at McKeon’s request. Photo by Ken Koerner By Ken Koerner
Register Staff 5-29-2008
Reaction to the wilderness bill introduced by 25th District U.S. Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon runs the gamut from pleasant surprise to skepticism to anger.
But there are Eastern Sierra residents who are not only feeling hot under the collar at McKeon’s bipartisan effort to gain wilderness protection and wild and scenic river status for locations within Inyo, Mono and Los Angeles counties, but also downright “betrayed.”
McKeon announced his legislation at a press briefing at the Eastern Sierra Regional Airport in Bishop last Friday, and absent at the conference were those residents that have been working closely on the issue with McKeon since 2001 and find the bill McKeon introduced to the House on Thursday, May 22 “more than a little shocking.”
“I was not a party to any of the goings-on at the press conference at the airport because Buck has backed away from all that he’d asked for us (multiple-use access/OHV recreationalist community) to accomplish on his behalf on this front,” Advocates for Access to Public Lands (AAPL) co-founder Dick Noles said. “Many of us have worked at his request so diligently for years and what’s happened with the introduction of this bill is an absolute betrayal of our trust.”
McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) is the sponsor of House Resolution No. 6156, with a companion wilderness bill in the U.S. Senate being introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California). The two legislators had been working on their respective bills in unison of late, in an effort to gain bipartisan support for their passage in both Houses of Congress.
The two bills seek permanent wilderness status for tracts identified as the White Mountain Wilderness, Hoover Wilderness Additions, the Granite Mountain Wilderness, John Muir Wilderness Additions, the Owens River Headwaters Wilderness, the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness, the Magic Mountain Wilderness, as well as waterway protection status for the Amargosa Wild & Scenic River, the Owens Headwaters Wild & Scenic River, and the Piru Creek Wild & Scenic River.
Although McKeon solicited questions from those present, it’s fair to say the well-attended press conference was essentially absent of targeted questioning from the audience.
Following reporting on the bill’s announcement (The Inyo Register, May 27) by McKeon, criticism was immediately forthcoming.
“This is not hearsay, I’ve been involved at every step of the way with Buck on all of this,” said Noles, “and this (the current bill’s provisions) is ‘back-door-stuff’ that the public doesn’t know anything about – this is a 180-degree shift on the part of Buck McKeon in terms of what he assured us he wanted to achieve and would support.”
A contentious dialogue about increased wilderness designations in the Eastern Sierra is anything but “news.” What appears to be “news” regarding those coming forward in criticism of McKeon’s bill is how deeply they now feel divided from the congressman they have long supported.
“I’ve held fund-raisers for Buck and had him to dinner at my home because he has always stated he believed completely that no land designations should be undertaken without being guided by true local input,” Noles said. “Now he turns around and puts his support into essentially backing Senator Boxer’s California Wild Heritage Act, which was unanimously opposed by every member of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors less than a year ago.”
In addressing the specific areas slated for wilderness designations within the McKeon bill, Noles explained that some were familiar ground – and some were never even incorporated into discussions during his years of working “at Buck’s request.”
“Buck specifically asked me to work on his behalf on seeking consensus among stakeholders on a management plan for the White Mountains. This was something I undertook just for Buck. I worked with the governing officials of Esmeralda County, Nev. as well as Inyo and Mono counties, with ranchers, with bighorn sheep interests and wilderness folks,” said Noles. “We developed a plan that provided for 50,000 acres of ‘wilderness character lands’ and called for a 170,000 acres of land to be managed as a National Recreation Area. This alternative to a ‘pure wilderness designation’ was actually championed most actively by (Mono County Second District Supervisor) Hap Hazard – and agreed to by all those with whom we were interacting – as a totally reasonable and workable management plan for the Whites. That’s not how I read Buck’s position at this point.”
Commenting on the Hoover Wilderness Additions detailed in McKeon’s H.R. No. 6156 bill, Noles explained that area identified as the “East Addition” was never discussed in terms of wilderness, because “under the current U.S. Forest Service Forest Management Plan it’s managed now and has been for years, allowing for snowmobile recreation during the winter season and you can use a mountain bike on those lands and a deer-cart during hunting season. That shouldn’t be altered.”
In terms of areas included in McKeon’s current bill that were “never discussed” over the years of working closely on McKeon’s behalf, according to Noles, are the areas identified as the Granite Mountain Wilderness, the Owens River Headwaters Wilderness, the eastern scarp additions to the John Muir Wilderness, the Owens Headwaters Wild & Scenic Rivers designation, the Piru Creek Wild & Scenic River tract, the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness and the Magic Mountain Wilderness.
Noles did indicate that the Amargosa Wild & Scenic River designation had been part of his discussions with McKeon and Noles explained there was “no disagreement about the appropriateness of that choice.
“This McKeon bill is a pile of (expletive deleted),” Noles exclaimed, “and the public should be outraged.”
Another AAPL supporter, Dave Mattovich, expressed similarly strong sentiments in critiquing McKeon’s proposed wilderness legislation, as well as recalling his admonishment to McKeon about the lack of congressional support throughout his years of lobbying on behalf of broad public access to local lands.
“I looked at him (McKeon) and said, ‘I haven’t spoken much during this whole hour that we’ve been sitting here talking, Buck,’” Mattovich recounted, “‘but Congress promised that they would be examining all these wilderness study areas (WSA) to verify their suitability as lands with a true wilderness character – they made a promise to deal with the release of those lands that genuinely didn’t rise to the level of genuine wilderness – and they absolutely have not done that as they promised they would. So, those WSAs have now become a foot-in-the-door for the well-oiled political machine that wants to keep a huge percentage of the public from using their own public lands as they should.’”
No doubt, there will be many more words uttered by those for and against the companion bills from McKeon and Boxer. Certainly as specific and relevant facts are provided, this newspaper will continue to report on those details as they become available.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 July 2008 )
|
|
|
|
