|
Supervisors get in last-minute wilderness bill comments |
|
|
Saturday, 13 September 2008 |
|
By Mike Gervais
Register Staff
9-11-2008 In a last-ditch effort to comment accurately on the proposed Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday redrafted its letters to Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon and Senator Barbara Boxer to include recent responses from McKeon.
The supervisors also reiterated their concerns expressed in prior correspondence to the lawmaker, including the assertion that various areas being considered for wilderness designation do not meet the true definition of the word.
With Senate mark-up hearings on the bill starting today, the supervisors voted on Tuesday to draft a new letter in response to the correspondence it received from McKeon last week.
McKeon sent his letter at the same time the board was discussing on Sept. 2 how it wanted to proceed in commenting on the Wild Heritage Act. Needless to say, the supervisors did not receive that response in time to consider it last week, and were forced to hold off on their comments until the meeting on Tuesday.
Ultimately, the supervisors opted to respond to McKeon’s letter and draft a letter to be sent to Boxer and several committee members who will be discussing the bill in the senate today. That letter outlines some of the supervisors’ concerns about the bill and proposes the adoption of a “multiple use” designation to protect public land from further wilderness designations.
In its June letter to Boxer and McKeon, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors defines “wilderness” using the Wilderness Act of 1964 and explains that many areas outlined in the Wild Heritage Act do not qualify as “untrammeled by man.”
The board asked McKeon and Boxer to support only the areas of the Wild Heritage Act that fit into that definition.
The board also asked the legislators to “offer protection for multiple use and recreational use specifically designating lands for these current and future uses.”
In his letter of response, McKeon said “I am fully aware of the strong thoughts and feelings of my constituents in Inyo County following the two recent public meetings on the bill, and recognize the significance of (the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act) to the Eastern Sierras (sic).
“The extensive build up to (the Wild Heritage Act) was in fact in place many years prior to my exposure to these issues and it is that reality that underscores this bill. The land use conflicts you live with every day are serious matters deserving of Congressional action, not only to curb the more extreme proposals for the Eastern Sierra, but also to infuse our own shared goals and ideals into the inevitable legislative push for wilderness nationwide.”
But his letter goes on to say that he cannot, or will not, support a proposal by the board that could result in a designation to protect multiple-uses of the land, such as off-road recreation and camping.
“The support for a multiple use and recreational designation of public lands is small but widespread throughout the West,” McKeon wrote. “But the reality is no such designation will be entertained in the current Washington environment. Introducing such a bill would do nothing more than marginalize our shared ability to make the changes and compromises that are so badly needed to address Boxer’s statewide wilderness proposal.”
Despite McKeon’s refusal to support a multiple use designation, the Board of Supervisors and Advocates for Access to Public Lands Executive Director Dick Noles agreed on Tuesday that there is support for such a proposal, and decided to seek political aid in backing it elsewhere.
Noles said AAPL has organized a petition in support of a multiple use designation that has received more than 56,000 signatures nation-wide.
He also said numerous chambers of commerce and the State of Nevada have also showed interest in the bill.
With that information from Noles, the board agreed to adopt a resolution supporting any multiple use designation for public lands.
In hopes of garnering some legislative support, the board decided to compile a packet with its comments on the Wild Heritage Act, its resolution in support of the multiple use designation and other information about the wilderness bill and Inyo County. That packet will be sent to McKeon and Boxer, legislators in other states and committee members who will be deliberating on the Wild Heritage Act today.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 07 October 2008 )
|
