When land is placed in a Wilderness Area or wsa, the local governments lose tax revenue, lose production which also impacts tax revenue, creates headaches such as harborer of weeds and pests including predators that often times cannot be hunted or controlled in these areas.
Balderdash. Which tax revenues do local governments lose when federal lands are designated wilderness? Wilderness generates revenue and local sales tax because lots of people want to visit wilderness and they spend a lot of money locally.
And as far as hunting in wilderness areas, you must be joking when you say it can't be done? I do it every year.
You talk about hunting season in Montana, but google "Estes Park Colorado." It would not exist without the wilderness of the Rocky Mountain National Park next to it, and it's packed with tourists year-round but especially all summer. You can't drive down the street or get a seat in a restaurant. during the summer. It's the same with other small towns located near popular wilderness areas.
And as someone already pointed out more than half of that "State of California-sized" wilderness you like to talk about is in Alaska where virtually no one in the lower 48 will ever travel so you need to factor that in to your calculus. It sounds like a big number but there are huge parts of the country with no wilderness. That's why we have so many non-residents flocking to Colorado every hunting season, and it matters not the length of the season, a lot of rural businesses couldn't make it without that influx.
Originally Posted by Tarkio
Those of us that live it know the reality.
You're entitled to your opinions, but just know the difference between your opinions and reality.
When public lands are moved into a wilderness or wilderness study designation, grazing rights are severely impacted and limited. Limiting grazing limits numbers of animals in a county. Limiting numbers of animals greatly impacts local revenue. Look at the CMR. When they created it, the powers that be promised to never exclude or negatively impact livestock use and particularly, access to water for livestock. Know what happened there.
So, by your reasoning, because it's a long ways away, Alaska doesn't count? I don't get it. One of the things you promote about the awesomeness of wilderness areas it the Fricking peace and tranquiity and the most far removed, peaceful and tranquil wilderness areas out there doesn't count in your book. How the hell does that work exactly?
I agree there are wilderness areas that benefit the local economy. But for every one of those, there are many that do not.
Help me where I said hunting in the wilderness can't be done??? I hunt in wilderness and study areas myself.
