McCarthy's wilderness bill strikes a balance
| Wednesday, Apr 20 2011 04:00 AM
Last Updated Wednesday, Apr 20 2011 04:00 AM
Listen to KGEO 1230 AM from 10 to 11 a.m. Monday through Friday when Californian staffers discuss this issue and others. You can get your two cents in by calling 631-1230. Lois Henry hosts Mondays and Wednesdays, or http://radiotime.com/ station/s_32796/ MartTalk_1230.aspx
Can someone give the world a chill pill? Make it a high dose.
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy's new bill regarding wilderness lands is not going to pave over paradise.
The way some blogs and (ahem) newspapers have carried on since the bill's introduction April 15, you'd think McCarthy himself was running a backhoe over Old Faithful.
"Your favorite places where you love to hunt, fish or hike? Gone. Protection for our drinking water and habitat for wildlife? Gone," declared Paul Spitler, a policy analyst for the Wilderness Society.
Nice hyperbole. But not quite.
McCarthy's bill is aimed at a very small set of lands that have never been declared "wilderness areas" and have, in fact, been deemed "not suitable" as wilderness areas by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
From 1979 through about 1990, both agencies were tasked with inventorying millions of acres to see what was good wilderness acreage.
Of the 12.27 million acres the BLM looked at, 6.72 million were deemed not suitable.
The Forest Service looked at 61.8 million acres and decided 36.1 million were not suitable for wilderness designation.
They shipped off their reports to Congress, which has the final say on wilderness designations, and waited. They're still waiting.
Meanwhile, those lands have been under defacto wilderness restrictions. No motorized vehicles and a host of other restrictions.
McCarthy's bill addresses those areas deemed not suitable for wilderness designation.
"Take (the lands) out of limbo, open it back up to the public and bring it back to local management," McCarthy told me.
In Kern County, 18,000 acres of BLM land and over 200,000 acres of Forest Service land could be opened up if the bill passes.
"No, it doesn't mean they're automatically open to oil drilling and mining," McCarthy said.
That, of course, is the fear.
No doubt some industries may be interested in operating on some of the lands. In fact, several oil companies are listed in support of the bill. Not to mention the off highway vehicle crowd, who have also come out full force in support of the bill.
But remember, the lands would still be under local management. Any new uses would be subject to public review, the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.
McCarthy's bill also addresses a jurisdictional hiccup, but, again, only in regards to these "non suitable" lands.
Congress has designation authority over public lands but the administration has some management control.
That fuzzy mix resulted in more than a decade of legal wrangling.
In 2001 the Clinton administration issued a so-called Nationwide Rule prohibiting road construction and timber harvesting on roadless Forest Service areas. The Bush administration tried to thwart that rule and it's been in court ever since with conflicting verdicts.
The Congressional Research Service concluded in a report released earlier this month that the best solution would likely be a legislative fix. Other bills have been introduced in both houses to make Clinton's Nationwide Rule federal law.
McCarthy's fix would prohibit the administration from creating blanket management rules, but only on the lands already deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation.
"This bill does not go too far," he said in answer to his critics. "People are bringing up Teddy Roosevelt (the father of public land conservation). But he believed we should enjoy public lands. Instead, we've shut people out."
I agree.
I've said many times that keeping the public -- yes even OHVs in limited and highly managed areas -- off their own land is not only wrong it will eventually backfire.
If people don't use the land, they won't love it and if they don't love it they won't care about keeping it for future generations.
The trick is to strike a balance between letting them love their land and keeping them from loving it to death.
McCarthy's bill will help even the scales.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
