Fritz/gst again thanks for the info. Have you ever read the book "If you give a mouse a cookie"? Let me summarize it for you... essential if you give a mouse a cookie it becomes your friend asks you for a bunch of favors and eventually ends up sleeping with your mom... seems a little far fetched doesn't it.
So your saying we shouldn't save any of our beautiful native landscape in it's natural form. Not even 5% of this one area. We should road it and mine it on boom and bust cycles and watch radioactive waste get tossed in the ditches, spills happen, and native animal habitat dwindle. All because your worried about what theoretical stuff might happen after the designation.
First it's the wilderness designation. Then there will be another time period to help facilitate change and we get to discuss those next changes and we get to vote and go to the meaningless comment period meetings. You can give a mouse a cookie and still throw him back outside.
I read the article about the monument in Utah that sucks for those people I hate that that happened but that was there and this is here and there are a completely different set of circumstances.
Let's evaluate the plan thats written and not the what if's after that. If you stripped the names from this group and reevaluated it. how much would it change your decision.
What would your proposal be if 58% of ND wanted to save 5% of the LMNG? Mine would be remarkably similiar.
Can anybody clarify this for me? If they feds do transfer ownership to the states to manage, as I understood it they still couldn't change the wilderness designation but could sell the remaining land in the LMNG's
Yes I used to read that book to my kids when they were little.
As was said, NO that is not what is being said. I spelled it out clearly that I support saving many of these "wild" places.
What you seem to want to ignore is that these are not "theoretical stuff" but rather very real agendas being carried out in other states.
Do you honestly think orgs like the Sierra Club would not use the courts to make changes to retrictions here in ND just becasue it is ND???
It has been PROVEN time and again all across the west that the courts tell you the mouse has to stay and yet you seem ot wish to deny fact.
What facts in the links I shared is it you do not wish to accept as reality, that these law suits happen? That the area containing ND is the area where the USFS has lost most of their cases in court? That these orgs will not try to impact the LMNG as they have other places?
Did you even read the articles and information I provided in the links?
It is not just Utah that has to deal with these consequences that "sucks for those people".
the thing you don;t seem to realize if one mouse gets in your house.......even if you throw that one out there will be another that gets in until you prevent the means they have access to get into your house.
- - - Updated - - -
We also have to consider the what ifs if the feds turned the land over to the states. We have historical proof of what they would do.
Who here is advocating that for this 5% plains?
No one. This is simply about a designation.
Maybe you should just stick to maligning Smokey Bear..........
- - - Updated - - -
How about a poll that asks this question,
1. Should we as tax payers be paying litigation costs of groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club to remove multiple uses from public lands?
2. Should groups like CBD and SC and BCH&A be able to use the courts to end run legislative Acts regarding public lands
How about these.
1. Do you honestly think the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club support hunting?
2. After the CBD and SC are successful in removing all other multiple usage from public lands, will they target hunting?
- - - Updated - - -
Let's evaluate the plan thats written and not the what if's after that. If you stripped the names from this group and reevaluated it. how much would it change your decision.
What would your proposal be if 58% of ND wanted to save 5% of the LMNG? Mine would be remarkably similiar.
You ask to ignore the "what ifs" .......then ask two "what if" questions...........
Please explain why this group would use a 37 year old House report that has had the information contained in it trampled all over to try and ease the concerns of people over what might happen?
Do you think these people are that disconnected from reality? Or do they know what has happened time and again and are simply trying to keep from having to answer for that?
It would appear this group is either incredibly naive or very disingenuous.
If ND residents (and not outside groups based on the east coast gaining millions of dollars in donations from whacked out environs thru the courts) could determine the management of these lands here in ND I would support it.
If you could rope and catch a winged unicorn, (maybe after baiting it close enough with a pile of corn) would you saddle it up and ride across the prairie skies?
- - - Updated - - -
From another thread. The reality you seem to wish to ignore impacts not only forest lands but grasslands as well.
http://forestpolicypub.com/wp-conten...%80%932002.pdf
ConclusionThis study analyzed a census of legalchallenges to Forest Service national forestmanagement initiated from 1989 to 2002; itrepresents the most complete picture of nationalforest litigation assembled to date.The results confirm many policymakers’ andstakeholders’ perceptions: three of every four cases involve parties seeking less resource use; Region 6, the Pacific Northwest, experiencedalmost a quarter of all litigation; andNEPA was the statutory basis in nearly 7 ofevery 10 cases.
We expected variation in the number ofcases by Forest Service region. Other researchreported similar findings. However,the large volume of Region 6 cases was unforeseen,despite the public focus on thespotted owl and the Northwest Forest Plan.The underlying cause of this volume mayinvolve the region’s large number of bothendangered species and advocacy organizations.
Although logging was the focusof most lawsuits, other management activitiesaccounted for more than 60% of cases.
Planning cases (involving a challenge toa national forest’s land and resource managementplan) and logging cases each accountedfor more than 10% of all cases.Combined, salvage and logging cases represented37.8% of all cases. The Forest Servicewin, loss, and settlement rates in cases involvingthese activities were close to its overallpercentages during this time. The ForestService won more than 65% of cases involvingmining, road (construction or decommission),and special-use permits (issued atthe Forest Service’s discretion for a widerange of activities, such as concessions, skiareas, facility use, and tour guides). It lost more than a quarter of its wilderness and wildlife cases. It was more likely to settle watercases (including dams, water diversion,and riparian zone management) than anyother category of case.
The Forest Service was more likely to lose challenges in Region 1 (North Dakota, Montana, and northern Idaho), and it also settled the most cases in this region (28.7%). T
I don;t know if the people sending these are getting the results they are looking for cuz they make me laugh more often than not too. 
