Page 1 of 1

BLM threat in Congress

PostPosted: Feb 7, 2017 2:07 pm
by ohiocaver
This applies mainly to cavers in the West. This notice just came from the American Alpine Club (thus the climbing focus). This applies also to caving and is a chance for cavers to submit comment:

Congress is attempting to discard an important tool that is used to determine the future of 264 million acres of public land, managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A significant amount of climbing, such as Red Rocks and Indian Creek, is at risk [so, too, are the vast number of caves in BLM managed areas]. Congress has put a critically important planning process on the chopping block, called BLM 2.0, which provides the public an opportunity to weigh in on how BLM lands are managed. This planning process considers all uses, including recreation, in a transparent process that provides multiple opportunities for public input. This is not a partisan issue. If Congress throws out BLM 2.0, it is making a strong statement that your voice is not as important as corporate interests and that your values, whatever they are, do not need to be considered. This is a direct attack on our public lands and is part of the campaign to kill the public land system, one cut at a time.

Re: BLM threat in Congress

PostPosted: Feb 8, 2017 7:30 pm
by tncaver
Ohiocaver stated: "This is a direct attack on our public lands and is part of the campaign to kill the public land system, one cut at a time."

Could you be more specific how this will be an attack on our public lands? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re: BLM threat in Congress

PostPosted: Feb 9, 2017 12:49 pm
by ohiocaver
Short-circuiting the BLM 2.0 process will severely curtail the ability of groups like NSS, Climbers Access Fund, and other recreational users of BLM land to have input into the Agency's decision-making process. Note that I have absolutely no problem with timber corporations, small farmers, ranchers and wildcat loggers having input, too. However, I do have a problem when the scales are tilted to favor any one segment of BLM users over another.
No organization - public or private - ever suffered from having access to a wider array of information available in its decision making process. And that input should include cavers, too. BTW, the measure has gotten US House of Representatives approval and has moved to the US Senate. :cave softly: