# What??? Decent public lands legislation?



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45203163&n...orts-bill-for-more-recreation-on-public-lands

Check it out. Unbelievable. -------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

It's nice to see, a lot could be solved with bi-partisan legislation. There's a lot to improve upon and coming together, but every step forward is welcome.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

It'd be interesting to see which/what relaxing of regs and rules the guides and outfitters are pushing for on public land. I have no idea how many hoops they have to jump through or restrictions that are in place on public land. I know Idaho is a bit more strict than us.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The summary (of text and actions taken thus far) as well as the full text of the Bill can be found here:

S.2706 - Recreation Not Red-Tape Act

One element of the summary is to streamline interagency policies so a uniform process is available to applicants. I like that in theory but I would like to know how they are going to accomplish that goal given the different mandates between each agency. For instance, the VERP (Visitor Experience Resource Protection) approach by the NPS clearly accounts for the dual mandates they are guided by and does not align as well with say the BLM's framework. I would hope the goal is to just make it is easier for companies to apply to multiple agencies at once while not undermining an agency to uphold its specific conservation and preservation objectives. I am not an expert in legal language so understanding the specific and broader implications of the Act is difficult. Currently, in regards to this section, I think the spirit and goal seems sincere.

There seems to be some relatively boring/benign elements to the Bill, like increasing opportunities for the elderly and veterans, that should be no problem and are worthy mandates. It would take a policy wonk though to understand all of the revisions to other Acts in other sections, like the one about conservation corps.

One glaring concern is the increased costs of such an Act in departments with dwindling budgets. It would be great to see greater trail maintenance in some areas (as require by the Bill) but I have skepticism that the funding will ever match the demands.

In the surface the Bill looks interesting but I always wonder about Trojan Horses in these cases. There is a lot of language about working with States that sounds good in theory but I sincerely lack the ability to decipher the full meaning. This is likely a chance for bipartisan agreement and good solutions but most of us will have to rely upon our preferred authorities (representatives, NGOs, etc) to let us know how appropriate the Bill is at satisfying our values.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

"The final goal is to make sure that people have faster and easier access to recreate in the outdoors," Bishop said.

I generally walk everywhere I go and I can't go any faster, but thanks anyway fellas.

.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't know for sure what flavor the cool aide is that Bishop is serving up but I believe anything coming from Bishop will not be good for the average sportsman or outdoor recreationalist. I don't trust Bishop in any way, shape or form when it comes to looking out for the average American. Something stinks here I am willing to bet.
I'd have not read the bill but I am guessing it has something to do with allowing more guides and other business greater access and control of our public lands. 
Bishop is a snake in the grass when it comes to public property and we must watch him very very close.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I read the proposed legislation. There's some stuff in there about charging fees for using National Forest.

It's true, I'm not making this up. I can read.

.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've thought for a while they will soon require a general camping permit for anywhere in the national forests. That would be one way to reign in the guys who leave campers in the mountains all summer.


-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I started skimming a little tonight. I love the section about the youth, the focus to make the public lands more accessible for them (and their families), and teaching more about these public lands in schools.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm with BP. I've never seen anything from Bishop with which I agreed. He's just as bad as Noel. Proceed with great caution.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It is a bicameral bill, and the senate sponsor is a democrat. Remember, democrats have never and will never do anything that harms anyone in any way. Just go with the senate version and jump in head first without thinking about it.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> It is a bicameral bill, and the senate sponsor is a democrat. Remember, democrats have never and will never do anything that harms anyone in any way. Just go with the senate version and jump in head first without thinking about it.


There is hope, but I'm leery of anything Bishop supports. Trust but verify.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> I read the proposed legislation. There's some stuff in there about charging fees for using National Forest.
> 
> It's true, I'm not making this up. I can read.
> 
> .


I only found information about fees for Special Recreation Permits, ie guiding, and ski area payments. I could have easily missed something as I skim most of these legal documents.



> She said the opportunity creates a "sweet spot" where both businesses and customers benefit from the increased access to recreation areas and l*owered requirements for permitting*.


Its quotes like this that make me a little worried. I am all for streamlined permitting as I have experienced the logistical nightmare of applications to multiple agencies. That said, "lowering requirements" and making it "more permissive" alongside making it cheaper to operate on federal lands (another statement in the article) isn't necessarily a good thing for the land or citizens. The fees many outfitters pay from land use is minuscule compared to the revenue they obtain.

There are some solid supporters of the bill which eases some of my concern from the article but I am still curious enough to be skeptical. My hope is that the newspapers are just using imprecise language that doesn't accurately reflect the bill. Wyden has been trying to pass a similar bill since 2015. No clue why it didn't pass before and what changes have been made.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

This stinky skunk is not going to suddenly start smelling sweet. If Bishop is involved IT IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR ANYONE on this forum. The actual implications of this language is something that us average Joe's probably can't quite figure out, at least with only a cursory reading, but I'll promise you that Bishop and his troop of outdoor hating, public land grabbing, sneakies fully understand it. And with the help of their like minded lawyers have written the bill explicitly in this vague manor to make it appear like they aren't planning anything nefarious. I am sure it's just another back door attack on public lands. I got to hand it to old Bishop, he's a faithful old dog. Once he takes that bribe...oh wait, I meant campaign contribution... he shamelessly gives them his all.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> This stinky skunk is not going to suddenly start smelling sweet. If Bishop is involved IT IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR ANYONE on this forum. The actual implications of this language is something that us average Joe's probably can't quite figure out, at least with only a cursory reading, but I'll promise you that Bishop and his troop of outdoor hating, public land grabbing, sneakies fully understand it. And with the help of their like minded lawyers have written the bill explicitly in this vague manor to make it appear like they aren't planning anything nefarious. I am sure it's just another back door attack on public lands. I got to hand it to old Bishop, he's a faithful old dog. Once he takes that bribe...oh wait, I meant campaign contribution... he shamelessly gives them his all.


Nice to see I have company in the Land of Skepticism. I haven't seen anything good come from Bishop's hand.


----------

