When our forefathers formed this nation, their objection was that England was ruling from across the sea. Taxing the goods and services over here, while they sat over there, across several thousands of miles of ocean. Today, we’re in a very similar situation. We have a bunch of representatives who want to designate Federal lands within Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming as “wilderness areas” with HR 980 - the Northern Rockies Environment Protection Act (NREPA).
This isn’t the first time this legislation has been before the Natural Resources committee in the House of Representatives. This same bill has been pushed every session, and this is only the latest incarnation. None of the Representatives who are sponsoring this bill are from the effected areas. All of the sponsors are from either east of the Mississippi or California - Although one Representative from Washington is listed as a sponsor.
When we first moved to this area, the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest was just as green and beautiful as any other forested land. But after missing a few hunting seasons, and hunting in other areas, it was a couple of years before I saw “my” old section of the Medicine Bow-Routt forest again. I had heard talk of the Pine Beetle blight, now I get to see it. There are lots of trees up there that are dead and dying. If the trees were of the variety that were supposed to change colors, then it would be as beautiful as Fall in New England. But looking at evergreens in various shades of brown, and somewhere in between dead and dying is truly a sad sight to see.
The hearings in committee have been posted on YouTube, and are also quite a sight to see. The lead sponsor of NREPA, Rep Carolyn Maloney from New York (New York?) is trying to tell the western states what to do with their land. When Rep Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming asked her if she had ever been out west, Rep Maloney said she had spent two weeks out here. Rep Lummis kept pressing to know exactly where Rep Maloney had been. “Well I’ve been to Cheyenne”, was her reply. Rep Lumms said “that is where I live.” On top of that Cheyenne is in no way connected or near the effected areas. Rep Bishop from Utah remembered that the legislation had come up two years ago, and couldn’t understand why none of the wording had been changed since the last time. Rep Maloney didn’t have an answer, but kept suggesting that Rep Bishop suggest some language to put in the bill. Rep Bishop thought that the responsibility belonged to the person who wrote the bill. (Imagine that!)
I worked at a sawmill that is within the effected area. Because of the hoops that logging companies had to jump through in order to do ANY logging, we were not cutting any “local” logs. Everything that we cut was brought by train from Colorado or New Mexico. We couldn’t even sell our chips locally. The were all shipped to wood plants out in Washington (state).
What the sponsors of this bill fail to understand is that in order to have healthy forests, we need to do responsible cutting. There is no cutting around here, and the area has been a “forest fire waiting to happen” for years. The undergrowth, and dead and dying trees need to be cleared out, if it’s not too late already.
If NREPA passes, then the forest would be virtually untouchable. Access would only only be on foot or horseback. The city of Pinedale (and Farson as well?) would be left without a water supply. There are two Boy Scout camps that would be left virtually inaccessable. Bill supporters claim that these areas will be “grandfathered” in, and access will remain open. History proves that when a bill neglects to guarantee this, that it may start out that way, but access will quickly and quietly be withdrawn.
In the hearings it was told that grassy areas in Central Park are behind a fence. What enjoyment to people get from a park or a forest if there is no access whatsoever? What good is it to preserve our forests if our children and grandchildren won’t be allowed to enjoy it anyway? The forests will be there, but no one will be able to use them.
There is no doubt that some areas need to be protected from excessive off-road vehicle use, irresponsible camp fires, and lumber theft, but it is equally clear that it needs to be done in a way that ensures responsible management, and not in a way that locks it away from being of any use.