Down but not defeated: Wilderness legislation deserves another day
What a slug in the stomach March 11 turned out to be for wild lands.
At The Wilderness Society today, folks were waiting with bated breath and figurative confetti in hand as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on a long-awaited, historic piece of legislation that would have created the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 15 years.
Earlier in the morning, e-mails were zooming. Phones were buzzing. Everyone in the organization was anxious for wilderness history to unfold. The legislation at hand was the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which had enjoyed wide, bipartisan support on its way to the floor. All indications said the bill had great chances of passing.
As the organization’s Web editor, I was already envisioning my celebratory blog as I flipped CSPAN on for the final vote. Despite warnings that the vote would be very close, I was hopeful the House would come down on the right side of history.
If the act passed, more than 2 million acres of unspeakably spectacular wild lands throughout the nation would be preserved – places like Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park, where I've spent many soul-aligning moments would be safe from the unpleasant sites, sounds and smells of industrial despoilment.
And I wasn’t the only hopeful one. My colleagues who put loads of sweat and muscle into moving this legislation forward had every reason to believe we might be uncorking the champagne bottles today.
That’s because the act had tremendous support on both sides of the aisle. It was the culmination of years of work and support by numerous believers. In fact, the act had already passed in the Senate in January. The only major hurdle left was the vote in the House, after which the bill would take a short detour back to the Senate for a vote on an amendment added in the House version.
And then, in mere seconds the party was over. The bill failed by a mere two votes.
Because of a special procedural maneuver used to get this vote to the floor, a majority of two-thirds was needed. The 282-144 vote in favor did not make it.
What a blow. We were so close.
In the light of this opposition from a minority of House members, let’s be very clear about why this bill should have passed hands-down: Americans like you and me deserve to have such protections come about.
The lands in the bill provide jaw-dropping vistas, soul-calming outings and adventurous expeditions to anyone who chooses to enjoy the offerings. More than that, they represent our very last pieces of untamed American wildness. They are the final, but closing window to the wild, raw American frontier that Albert Bierstadt and his companions must have seen when they painted their great landscapes.
American citizens deserve to have these lands left intact. If not for the soul-nourishing aspects, certainly for the practical necessities they provide to life as we know it. Not only are these wild places a necessary part of any global warming solution, they also provide uncountable services from water filtration to air cleansing to recreation dollars for communities. And, they offer haven to the countless species that are integral to the world’s ecosystems.
Today was a blow indeed. But the one great take-away for me and my colleagues was that the bill came so gloriously close to passing. It confirms that Congress needs to keep hearing that we care about the public lands bill.
As one of our fearless leaders at The Wilderness Society said after the vote, “It is by no means the end. Today’s vote is a delay, not a defeat. This is merely another chapter in a great story.”
With that, we dusted off, stood up straight and prepared to fight another day.
photo: Aspen in Bridger-Teton National Forest, a part of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, Wyoming. Courtesy NFS.
Wilderness Experts View All >
Spencer R. Phillips, Ph.D.
Spencer Phillips is a natural resource economist who has been with The Wilderness Society's scientific team since 1992. His economic work has focused on helping people, communities and institutions realize the benefits of wildland conservation.
... more
Comments
Omnibus Public Land Management Act
If we want to protect our public lands we have to become allies with hunters and fisherman. These people have a vested interest in land protection as well as we (environmentalists) do. Our motives may be somewhat different but we share the common goal of protecting our public lands from the numerous threats that exist. If we reach out to sportsman we will be in a far stronger position to save more land. We simply cannot allow a few anti-gun people to sacrifice important legislation such as The Omnibus Public Land Management Act. C-mon, lets come together and protect more wilderness.
There are others to reach out to besides sportsmen
Since the "sportsmen" support may be essential, don't forget the "recreationists". Recreationists include far more than the OHV crowd. They also include folks such as bird-watchers, photographers, rockhounds and many "senior" RV enthusiasts. The vast majority of these folks highly respect nature. Many of these recreationists are baby boomers (or older) who have time on their hands to make their opposition known. Of particular interest is access for the disabled in "wilderness areas" since "mechanized devices" (read: wheelchairs) may not be used unless "self-propelled". So a wheelchair-bound birdwatcher can no longer get to a favorite place as the road to it was closed as part of the wilderness designation. ADA challenges will surely follow.
Don't forget the "law of unintended consequences". At a recent forum one recreationist remarked that "It seems you would rather have my horse spread non-native plants with it's droppings, than keep roads open for reasonable vehicle access. And then consider the old-fashioned, non-mechanized, heavy-wooden sled that I will have behind my horse to transport my disabled partner to one of their favorite outdoor sanctuaries." As outrageous as it seems, the old-fashioned, horse-drawn sled would be legal. And would scar the area worse than dozens of vehicles would!!! And the weeds and no-native flora from the horse droppings could also be a major threat to wilderness vegetation.
All I'm saying is that the backcountry lands are used by many different groups of people. And, I our zeal to "protect the wilderness" we may be hampering reasonable enjoyment of those lands by those who do no harm to it.
I am a former member of the
I am a former member of the Wilderness Society with plans to rejoin soon when I can afford it. The failure of this bill is as I feared. Due to some members in the U.S. House who oppose guns in the parks--not for hunting, which should forever be prohibited, but for self-protection--the whole effort at adding more wilderness was shot down. What a joke. The last thing that's threatening our parks and other so-called wild areas is the presence of a six-shooter in someone's pack or saddle. What a joke. I don't know the official position of the Wilderness Society or others on this issue, but if they are willing to derail such rare legislation, then it's time to rethink if they are really advocates of wilderness or anti-gun folks. For pete's sake hunting is already allowed in wilderness areas not in our national parks! Drop this insane attitude and come back with an even stronger bill, without this anti-gun attitude.
Hunting and fishing in wilderness areas
Hunting and fishing are among the many activities people can enjoy in America’s wilderness areas. Wilderness helps safeguard some of the nation’s best fish and wildlife habitat and the places people love to hunt and fish. It is for this reason that so many sportsmen and women support the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. In fact, earlier this week, more than three dozen organizations representing millions of sportsmen and women from around the country called on Congress to pass this important legislation. To see the ad go to: http://s22.w-w-h.org/media/Roll_Call_Ad_3.10.09.pdf
Omnibus
The rejection of the Omnibus legislation demonstrates that there are major flaws in the bill; political appropriations that degraded, or traded the ideology of an enduring resource of Wilderness for pork projects and political gain. This bill represented one step forward for one step back. Further use of riders and political pull jeopardizes the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the entire ideology. In some ways, the rejection of this bill is a victory for Wilderness purists who are unhappy with the further politicizing of the movement. I am not convinced that the Omnibus bill was a positive step for future Wilderness legislative strategies.
The Omnibus Land Use Bill
The Omnibus Land Use Bill lost because of a failed manuever by radical anti-gun leaders in Congress. The bill could have passed the US House with a simple majority vote and protected millions of acres of wilderness. But congressional leaders wanted to preclude any possiblity of amendments to the bill. They therefore established a "rule" that forbade amendments, thus allowing the bill to pass only with a two-thirds majority. It fell a mere 2 votes short in the House. What amendments were they afraid of? It is possible that some amendments could have gutted the Wilderness protection in the bill or at least excluded certain parcels from it. However, the overwhelming bi-partisan support the bill received yesterday indicates to me that such amendments would have been handily swatted down. No, the real reason to avoid amendments was to prevent changes to the bill which would have protected Americans' rights to keep and bear arms in national forests, national parks and Bureau of Land Mangement acreage. While many Wilderness Society members would not like to see firearms allowed in such areas, that is a topic for another day. First things first: preserve the land as wilderness and worry about extraneous issues later.
Flaw in bill
I think most people support the idea of protecting Wilderness but anyone who enjoys hunting on these lands is not going to support legislation that may threaten their customary hunting areas. The bill would easily pass if such safeguard were added to the bill to protect it from becoming a vehicle for the extremists who wish to ban all hunting and all guns.