Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,101

    Degette (Salazar) Land Grab

    Haven't seen a map yet to know what we're loosing.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2420:

    12,225 acres, Castle Peak Wilderness
    3,325 acres, Powderhorn Wilderness
    15,200 acres, Bull Gulch Wilderness
    325 acres, Maroon Bells Wilderness
    16,350 acres, Handies Peak Wilderness
    38,180 acres, Redcloud Peak Wilderness
    19,825 acres, Browns Canyon Wilderness
    16,690 acres, McIntyre Hills Wilderness
    11,701 acres, Grand Hogback Wilderness
    16,427 acres, Flat Tops Wilderness
    25,881 acres, Demaree Canyon Wilderness
    30,557 acres, Little Bookcliffs Wilderness
    27,569 acres, South Shale Ridge Wilderness
    21,900 acres, Thompson Creek Wilderness
    20,950 acres, Badger Creek Wilderness
    33,425 acres, Beaver Creek Wilderness
    33,525 acres, Grape Creek Wilderness
    21,110 acres, Bangs Canyon Wilderness
    14,089 acres, Granite Creek Wilderness
    26,914 acres, Palisade Wilderness
    39,392 acres, Unaweep Wilderness
    65,448 acres, Sewemup Mesa Wilderness
    33 acres, Platte River Wilderness
    22,604 acres, Roubideau Wilderness
    13,288 acres, Norwood Canyon Wilderness
    25,947 acres, Cross Canyon Wilderness
    33,467 acres, McKenna Peak Wilderness
    14,598 acres, Weber-Menefee Mountain Wilderness
    41,133 acres, Dolores River Canyon Wilderness
    32,050 acres, Snaggletooth Wilderness
    5,000 acres, West Elk Wilderness. The boundary adjacent to Blue Mesa Reservoir shall be 50 feet from the high water mark.

    (f) State and Private Lands- Lands within the exterior boundaries of any wilderness area designated under this section that are owned by the State of Colorado or by a private entity shall be included within such wilderness area if such lands are acquired by the United States. Such lands may be acquired by the United States only as provided in the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

    SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

    (2) ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE WILDERNESS- The fact that an activity or use on land outside the areas designated as wilderness by section 2 can be seen or heard within the wilderness shall not preclude the activity or use outside the boundary of the wilderness.

    (e) Military Helicopter Overflights-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act restricts or precludes--

    (A) low-level overflights of military helicopters
    (B) military flight testing and evaluation; or
    (C) establishment of military flight training routes over any wilderness area.

    (2) AERIAL NAVIGATION TRAINING EXERCISES- may conduct aerial navigation training maneuver exercises over the wilderness areas designated by this Act--

    (f) Running Events- The Secretary may continue to authorize competitive running events currently permitted in the Redcloud Peak Wilderness Area and Handies Peak Wilderness Area in a manner compatible with the preservation of such areas as wilderness.

  2. #2
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,539
    I'm sure our kids and our kid's kids will enjoy riding Apex... over and over and over and over.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    171
    Her 2009 Colorado Wilderness Act didn't even make it to House vote.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4289

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    944
    Wilderness is not 33 acre parcels.

    This is a joke.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,871
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    I'm sure our kids and our kid's kids will enjoy riding Apex... over and over and over and over.
    fixed it for ya

  6. #6
    TaS
    TaS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    62

    Be heard, otherwise live without a voice

    Uncle Trail-

    Thanks for the above information. I took a moment to let my elected officials know my thoughts on how I would like them to represent me. So far I have received a few replies, but below is the one I thought worthy of passing along.

    Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation which would establish wilderness designated lands. I appreciate hearing your thoughts and the opportunity to respond.

    I join you in appreciating the tremendous natural resources available to us in Colorado. Our great outdoors makes us the envy of the nation, and contributes substantially to our quality of life and our economy, especially through the visitors brought here for our outdoor recreation. I believe that it is our duty to maintain this resource so that future generations can continue to enjoy it.

    That being said, I do not believe we need to increase wilderness in our state. Wilderness designation is extremely restrictive, precluding many types of recreation that citizen can and do enjoy without causing any environmental harm. Consensus and cooperation regarding wilderness proposals are therefore crucial, especially among those who live and use the land. Wilderness designation is also permanent, so there needs to be a full and complete understanding and appreciation for the restrictions being considered.

    House Resolution 2420, the Colorado Wilderness Act, was introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman DeGette on July 6, 2001. This legislation has subsequently been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am a member. I do not at this time feel that the wilderness proposals contained in the Colorado Wilderness Act meet the aforementioned thresholds. Rather, I would prefer to maximize responsible use of our public lands, and save wilderness designation only for truly special and widely supported parcels.

    Additionally, this legislation would impact the High Altitude Training Site (HATS) located in Gypsum, CO (near Vail), which is vital to aviation training for not only the Colorado Air National Guard (and Air National Guards of other states), but also for the training of law enforcement and search-and-rescue aviators. HATS offers unique training for operating helicopters in a mountainous environment that is not available elsewhere and the Colorado Wilderness Act would restrict the use of airspace around the site, effectively rendering it useless for training. For these reasons, I cannot support the Colorado Wilderness Act.

    Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. For more information on my work in Congress on your behalf, please sign up for my newsletter at https://forms.house.gov/coffman/webforms/enews.html.


    Sincerely,

    Mike Coffman
    Member of Congress


    Have a Day

    Tom

  7. #7
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,497
    The "16,350 acres, Handies Peak Wilderness" addition would be an absolute travesty... some of the most spectacular bike riding I've ever done in my life.


  8. #8
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Quote Originally Posted by TaS View Post
    Uncle Trail-

    Thanks for the above information. I took a moment to let my elected officials know my thoughts on how I would like them to represent me. So far I have received a few replies, but below is the one I thought worthy of passing along.

    Have a Day

    Tom
    That is interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write your representative and share his response.

    As I browsed the House Committee on Natural Resources I also found this that has somehow escaped attention of the MSM:
    Seeking Transparency on Potential National Monument Designations - House Committee on Natural Resources

    "A leaked internal document from the Department of Interior (DOI) revealed the Administration’s plans to potentially designate new national monuments using the Antiquities Act. Republicans continue to seek increased transparency on the Administration’s action and will oppose efforts to unilaterally lock-up more public land."

    The leaked document: (BLM Long Range Plan)
    http://naturalresources.house.gov/Up...ISED062910.pdf

    Member response to leaked document:
    Chairman Hastings
    “Based on the Obama Administration’s track record in this area, I’m taking a ‘trust but verify’ approach to their actions. The Administration only set aside its unilateral attempt to establish de facto wilderness with the Wild Lands Secretarial Order after Congress blocked its funding, and Secretary Salazar has not actually rescinded the Wild Lands order. We also shouldn’t forget the leaked documents showing internal Interior Department plotting of possible new unilateral national monument designations. Secretary Salazar and the Obama Administration need to prove they’re serious about listening to local communities and their elected leaders – just pretending to listen while calculating unilateral Presidential dictates that could significantly impede job-creating economic activities is not acceptable.”


    I'm so stuck in the middle on this whole issue.... I don't know what to think.

    UT

  9. #9
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    682
    It's so sad that using the "wilderness" designation makes many of us oppose public lands protections that we might otherwise support.

  10. #10
    Big Boned
    Reputation: Manmountain Dense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,535
    Hope and Change
    Never rub another man's rhubarb.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Spinone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense View Post
    Hope and Change
    ^^^^^^^This. Trusting any politician is insane; trusting this administration is a joke.

  12. #12
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    It's so sad that using the "wilderness" designation makes many of us oppose public lands protections that we might otherwise support.
    I agree. There's a large contingent who would gladly support Wilderness designation if that damned '84 ban on bikes hadn't been "interpreted" and implemented.

  13. #13
    t.i.t.s.ceo/FR amoeba rep
    Reputation: PBR me!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense View Post
    Hope FOR Change
    fixed.
    I'm a cowboy on a steel horse i ride!

    the blog

  14. #14
    Big Boned
    Reputation: Manmountain Dense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by PBR me! View Post
    fixed.
    Never rub another man's rhubarb.

  15. #15
    t.i.t.s.ceo/FR amoeba rep
    Reputation: PBR me!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense View Post
    no that was for the other suckers that bought that load of crap
    I'm a cowboy on a steel horse i ride!

    the blog

  16. #16
    Big Boned
    Reputation: Manmountain Dense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,535
    I hereby retract my snarky image.
    Never rub another man's rhubarb.

Similar Threads

  1. Land Grab
    By Blurr in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 09:32 AM
  2. Brakes won't grab
    By Ignignokt in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 01:35 PM
  3. weekends ride... Salazar
    By ritopc in forum Mexico
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 03:12 PM
  4. Salazar good to mtb?
    By 545cu4ch in forum Mexico
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-29-2006, 12:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •