Wilderness Campaign News

Why are there public lands? Good question.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:32:01 +0000

Editor's Note: The following piece appeared in the Las Vegas Sun on Saturday, February 4, 2012.

Why are there public lands? Good question.

William H. Meadows

As the Republican presidential nomination process moves on to the states of Nevada and Colorado, a new topic has arisen in a race that has already seen many twists and turns. That issue is the purpose and importance of public lands. In a recent interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the leading contender for the GOP nomination, was quoted as saying, in reference to the large acreage of public land in the state, “I don’t know why the government owns so much of this land.” As an organization whose mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places, I think it is important to answer the governor’s query for all people who enjoy and benefit from our public lands.

Our public lands, which include national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges and national wilderness areas, among others, are vital to America’s economy. Through recreation, such as hunting, fishing and hiking, and tourism, our public lands contribute over $1 trillion to the nation, not to mention millions of jobs.

Public lands provide much of our clean drinking water and without protection, much of it might be contaminated. Our public lands have also played an extremely important role in energy development, and the economic importance that comes with it. Oil and gas exploration could not have exploded the way it did during the early 20th century without our public lands, and now as we move forward in the 21st century, public lands can help us advance renewable energy development. Public lands provide some of the best places in the world for solar and wind energy and the energy self-dependence that the United States needs.

People of all political stripes in the West understand the importance of our public lands, as the Colorado College’s Conservation in the West Poll indicates. An overwhelming 78 percent of Westerners, across the entire spectrum, says, “We can protect land and water and have a strong economy with good jobs at the same time, without having to choose one over the other.” Sixty-eight percent think, “We should not allow private companies to profit from using our public lands when their doing so would limit the public's enjoyment of ‐ or access to ‐ these lands.” Ninety-six percent agree that public lands are “essential part of each state’s quality of life.” These finding support the contention that our public lands should be conserved and protected so that all Americans can enjoy them and recreate on them. Our public lands belong to all Americans. They are not for an individual state, or an individual company. They are a treasure and a legacy that extends back more than a century.

Gov. Romney has stated that as a child his family, “…went from national park to national park. And they were teaching me to fall in love with America.’’ We hope that as he travels the country, and especially our Western states, he will start to understand the answer to his question: Why does the government own so much of this land? For its preservation for future generations to experience what Gov. Romney did, traveling from sea to shining sea, marveling at the foresight of our ancestors to keep some special places free of exploitation, so all Americans have the chance to fall in love with this country like no other, where all the people own some land.

William H. Meadows is the president of The Wilderness Society.

Motorize the Wilderness Act

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:24:30 +0000

Image:

H.R. 2834, the “Motorize our Wilderness Areas Bill”

This benign-sounding proposal, “The Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act,” would more appropriately be titled the Motorize Our Wilderness Areas Bill. Introduced by Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI), the bill contains within it a provision that would effectively destroy the Wilderness Act with wording that would allow motorized use in designated Wilderness Areas. Allowing motor vehicles in designated Wilderness Areas would would harm the very recreational fishing and hunting opportunities the bill is intended to protect.

Fishing and hunting are important activities on our public lands and forests, and a major contributor to local economies. And Wilderness Areas are especially attractive areas for hunting and fishing due to the high quality habitat in such areas, and for the unique outdoor experience they afford hunters and anglers. But H.R. 2834 has some “Trojan Horse” language in it which would result in the destruction of the very wilderness values that millions of American hunters and anglers cherish. To ensure protection of wilderness values, the Wilderness Act generally prohibits the use of motorized vehicles, motorized equipment and other forms of mechanical transport. However, a provision buried in H.R. 2834 would undermine the Act by opening designated Wilderness Areas to all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, motorbikes, motorboats and other motorized vehicles as long as they are used for hunting, fishing or shooting.

In addition to undermining the Wilderness Act, another part of the bill undermines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is vital for environmental review and public disclosure for all federal action. Recreational fishing and hunting are important and vital recreational activities on our federal public lands. But the anti-Wilderness provisions of H.R. 2834 should not be allowed to become law.

Drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Act

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:16:01 +0000

Image:

H.R. 3407, the “Drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Act”

H.R. 3407, the “American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act,” or Drill the Arctic Refuge Act, would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge) to oil and gas drilling, eviscerating the protections now afforded to “America’s Serengeti Plain.” The case for drilling in the Arctic Refuge has been debunked over and over again, as some members of Congress repeatedly attempt to open up one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the country to oil and gas development.

This area was first deemed too important to drill some 50 years ago, when under the Eisenhower administration it was first set aside for wildlife conservation. Besides being an essential habitat to many Arctic species, there is much skepticism as to how much oil could even be recovered from the area. According to the Energy Information Administration, Arctic Refuge “oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. The figure is low enough that OPEC could neutralize any price impact by decreasing supplies to match the additional -production from Alaska.”

The Arctic Refuge is too valuable to be destroyed as an oil and gas field. But year in and year out the oil and gas industry’s congressional allies continue their efforts to destroy this fragile natural ecosystem.

The “End of the National Monuments” Acts

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:14:04 +0000

Image:

8 Bills to end National Monuments

Eight bills have been introduced that have the sole purpose of gutting the Antiquities Act: H.R. 302, H. R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, H.R. 2147, H.R. 2877 and H.R. 3292. All of these bills eviscerate the president’s authority to designate new national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Most of the above proposals seek to exempt individual states from having new national monuments designated within their borders, or limit the size of new monuments, or require congressional approval of their designation. The Antiquities Act is one of America’s bedrock land protection statutes, and has been used by Republican and Democratic presidents alike to protect sensitive areas large and small from polluters and irresponsible developers for over a hundred years.

Under these bills, the President will lose a critical tool for the preservation of our public lands for future generations, and states may lose local economic benefits that are created by visits to national monuments. In communities all across the West, the designation of new monuments has helped spur economic growth in rural communities. For example, “The designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument didn’t just help the economy. It is the economy,” said Steve Roberts, the owner of Escalante Outfitters in Utah. “My business increased by 25 percent this year, and we’ve seen similar increases since the designation. Each year, more and more people come because of the monument and the surrounding protected lands.”

This landmark and bipartisan law, used by 15 different presidents for over one hundred years, is not an obstacle to a booming economy; it is an economic generator.