I saw another note about it that proposal.
I would like to underscore one significant point. Like the Red Rock Wilderness bill, this plus somw others have been introduced in each legislative session for several years.
The last session (2005) the Red Rock proposal had 140+ sponsors. This introduction has about 122 sponsors. And, more important, NONE of the Utah delegation have signed on as sponsors.
The fact that none of the Montana delegation supprot the proposal indicates there will possibly be little action.
That does not mean this should be ignored. It is important for everyone to let their elected representatives know that you (as an individual) do not support legislation that will eliminate your opportunity for recreation.
These proposals are among over 30 wilderness bills that are (or will be) introduced in this congressional session.
They ARE NOT the most critical issues. Each BLM and Forest Service unit is entering a land (forest) management plan revision. Within the revision process, many miles of existing routes WILL BE ELIMINATED. We stand to lose more routes through the planning process than through wilderness designation.
Check any web site for reference to "travel management" and "route designation".
I would offer a phrase to anyone considering comments on any of the proposed wilderness bills:
I am opposed to the legislation because it does not acknowledge all pre-existing rights and rights held by state, local, and tribal governmental entities.
It is up to you -- become involved or lose your opprotunity....