Crying in the Wilderness

A federal wilderness bill that would expand the Green Mountain National Forest’s "wilderness" designation to an additional 42,000 acres hangs by a thread this weekend. The U.S. Senate has passed it, but the House has adjourned before taking action. The bill could still pass in the lame-duck session that will follow the November 7 election, but nothing is certain in Washington.

What’s certain in Vermont is that self-funded Republican U.S. Senate longshot Richard Tarrant strongly opposes the New England Wilderness Act despite the fact it has the support of Vermont’s entire congressional delegation and governor, including Tarrant’s opponent the Senate frontrunner Bernie Sanders. Richie Rich held a rare presser Saturday morning in front of B.J.'s Gun Shop on Industrial Avenue in Williston. Nice folks inside to chat with. Said Tarrant outside:

"Right now as you know we have in front of us an issue about the wilderness controversy. And I want to state very clearly that I stand behind the sportsmen. I think we have enough wilderness. I’m for conservation. I think we have to conserve our forests. We have to manage our forests, but the bottom line is we cannot take our forests away from traditional Vermonters who not only use them to make a living, but use them to recreate.”

Tarrant, who said he doesn’t hunt, told reporters that if elected to the Senate, he would oppose any expansion of the wilderness designation in Vermont which prohibits ATVs, snowmobiles and logging.

Observing Tarrant’s press conference  was Sanders for Senate campaign spokesman Paul Hortenstine. Afterwards, he described Tarrant’s view as “extremist,” and handed out literature stating Tarrant wasn't telling the truth about the bill restricting Vermonters' right to hunt and fish. Not so:

"The wilderness bill will not restrict hunting and fishing and will preseve hunting and fishing opportunities for generations to come."

"We’ve seen again today," said Hortenstine, "that he would rather hide behind his negative discredited attack ads. And when he finally does take a position on an issue, it’s an extreme position that’s not only out of step with the Vermont delegation but it’s also out-of-step with the Republican governor and with Vermonters."

Tarrant had a dozen "sportsmen" stand behind him, including former anti-civil union candidate for governor Brian Pearl. Pearl finished 10th in 2002 with 569 votes statewide.

Today we're getting a few responses regarding the Wilderness Bill not passing the House....yet. First from Vermont's U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders' office:

Despite a full court press by the entire Vermont delegation, the clock ran out on their effort to secure passage of the Vermont Wilderness bill late last night when the U.S. House adjourned without taking it up again.  Congress will return for a lame duck session following the November election and Congressman Bernie Sanders intends to continue his bipartisan effort with the all-Republican New Hampshire House delegation to get the Vermont and New Hampshire initiatives approved by Congress and signed into law.

Sanders said, "I am pleased that we got as far as we did in this process.  It puts us in a good position for the lame duck session in November.  Needless to say, I am very disappointed that essentially the clock ran out on our efforts in the last few days to get this done now.  But we are not going to stop pushing for the Vermont Wilderness bill until we get it passed."

Then from Gov. Jim Douglas, who fellow Republican Tarrant declined to criticize, saying he had not spoken to Douglas as yet about the issue. Said the Guv:

"I’m pleased Senators Jeffords and Leahy succeeded in moving our wilderness compromise through the Senate yesterday and I look forward to seeing this measure pass the House when Congress returns later this Fall.  I’ve reiterated my commitment to assist the delegation with this important work.

"All the issues surrounding additional wilderness designations within our Green Mountain National Forest evoke strong feelings from many Vermonters with multiple points of view. By recognizing the value of compromise, we were able to reach an agreement.

"This measure will expand wilderness areas within the Green Mountain National Forest and I appreciate the work our delegation is doing to move this bill through the Congress before it adjourns for the year."

And next from Peter Welch, the Democrat running for Bernie's seat in the U.S. House:

"It is disappointing for Vermonters that wilderness protection for our state has stalled in the U.S. House, despite an agreement between the Governor and Vermont's congressional delegation.  The leadership in the Senate did its job by unanimously passing the compromise language; unfortunately the Republican leadership in the House was unwilling to do theirs.

"I, like most Vermonters, support a balance of land use for our National Forests- land that is truly wild for hunting, hiking, and skiing; active forest management; and recreation use such a snowmobiling.  This is a clear difference between me and my opponent Martha Rainville, who has stated clearly her opposition to 'any more' wilderness protection.

"The New England Wilderness bill is yet another example of why we must put an end to Republican leadership in the House and begin a new direction."

Nothing from the Rainville Campaign....yet.

And finally, this statement just in from Scudder Parker, Democrat for governor:

“Sadly, last night despite the best efforts of Senators Jeffords and Leahy and Representative Sanders, the New England Wilderness Bill failed to pass, leaving the protection of additional wilderness in Vermont in limbo.  Jim Douglas is to blame and must stand up and take responsibility for his actions.

“Douglas's role in derailing the bill is becoming clearer and clearer, and voters are paying attention.  Had he not written the letter to Representative Pombo, we would have a wilderness bill today.

“It is incomprehensible to me that a governor of Vermont, a state that came together over five years to support a workable compromise on wilderness, would have so utterly failed his constituents by playing last-minute political games.  He wrote the letter.  He derailed the process.  He should take responsibility.  He’s had his chance, and in November, the voters will have their say.”

The Guv's race is getting a little interesting, eh?

Comments

[Cedric]

"The Guv's race is getting a little interesting, eh?"

Not really. Parker won't (or shouldn't) bring this up in debates because his statement that Douglas "derailed the process" is a total crock. He'll wind up looking like a buffoon if he repeats it with Douglas there to correct him.

[Mick Dundee]

It's a crock because Cedric said so. Disregard the facts.

Disregard the letter that Douglas sent to the Chair of the House environmental committee ...

Facts aren't important. Just the Repub talking points

[Cedric]

Douglas asked for a last minute change to the bill to be undone. It was the same move that Leahy had OK'd weeks earlier. The bill will likely pass the House in a little more than a month from now. Leahy and Jeffords have appropriately left Parker twisting in the wind on this one.

Try reading something other than Freyne's take every once in a while, it might save you some embarrassment.

[blueprint vt]

Leahy is doing what to Parker?

Read Leahy's own press release: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906a.html

"This is the second time in two weeks that the Senate has passed a Vermont-related wilderness bill. . . but then was derailed when Gov. Jim Douglas contacted House Republican leaders to raise concerns about the bill."

[Cedric]

"On Thursday (yesterday) the Delegation... reached agreement with the Governor on the bill with the same compromise that had been offered to the Governor earlier this month, which removes about 6000 acres of wilderness acreage from the Glastenbury area."

The bill will likely pass in about a month. This is a dead issue.

[Hogan Smith]

Douglas wants it to be a dead issue -- but it isn't -- not by a long shot. Even the Freeps is saying that Douglas fucked this up.

Read their editorial page? Pretty damning of Gov. Dougie.

[Cedric]

Gee, someone wrote a heavily spun opinion piece five weeks before the election? What a surprise.

The issue's dead because a version that no one - even Parker - objects to will be passed next month. It's a version that is identical to one that Leahy offered up. No one is still contesting the content of the bill, or the likelihood of its passage. If Parker brings it up in a debate, where Douglas can actually respond, it will be a tactical error of Clavellian proportions.

[Rodney]

Cedric is right. Logic and facts are irrelivant.

Just keep repeating reality as you want it to be.

Works for Bush, right?

[Cedric]

Until someone points out where I've erred, I'm repeating reality as it is. I don't find that "irrelivant" (sic) at all.

[blueprint vt]

What evidence do you have that the Wilderness bill will pass after the election? Why would it pass. The only reason it had legs before Douglas' intervention is that the NH Republicans needed the NH Wilderness part of the bill to show they are good on the environment to win in November. After the election, it is an entire new game. Nothing is for certain. Unless, Cedric assume the Dems retake control of the House and Senate.

Cedric, your political outlook seems naive and simple. It also seems like you have no handle on the true aspects of moving legislation in DC.

Bottom line: this will be a political issue in the VT governor race. It also is likely to have moved Douglas’ negatives above 50%.

With a Sanders’ win in the bag and Welch’s race his to lose, the emergent Parker campaign is the interesting one to watch, indeed.

[FYI]

Douglas provided political cover to the GOP House Chairman - who doesn't want any more wilderness - to kill this bill. This bill is dead. When the House returns, it will finish up some budget issues and go home. Pombo isn't going to push a wilderness bill he doesn't like during what might be his last days as Chairman; he'll be too busy looking to sell off our national parks.

Douglas will continue to say that the bill will be passed because he thinks that way he can't be blamed for killing it. Afterall, you can't disprove a hypothetical like that. The bill is dead.

[Cedric]

"Afterall, you can't disprove a hypothetical like that. The bill is dead."

If it wasn't going to pass earlier solely because of Douglas' opposition, then it should have no problem now, because he supports the current version - the compromise that Leahy originally proposed. If it doesn't pass despite his support, it wasn't going to pass anyway. Ain't logic a bitch?

[odum]

If it wasn't going to pass earlier solely because of Douglas' opposition, then it should have no problem now, because he supports the current version - the compromise that Leahy originally proposed. If it doesn't pass despite his support, it wasn't going to pass anyway. Ain't logic a bitch?

Apparently so, as the only logic in your tirade is of the "God is love, love is blind, Stevie Wonder is blind, so Stevie Wonder is god" variety.

Your cocksure statement is so blazingly simplistic as to approach willful stupidity, or at the very least, a mind-numbing degree of naivete. Do you really expect it to be taken seriously? It is possible to intelligently disagree with "FYI" without making a fool of yourself, you know...

[Cedric]

"Your cocksure statement is so blazingly simplistic as to approach willful stupidity"

Yeah, it's so easily refuted that I guess you forgot to do so. So are there other reasons the bill could have gone down besides Douglas' opposition? Or would you say that that was the only thing holding it up, so it will almost assuredly pass, either in the lame duck session or in the new congress?

[Guvnor Pombo Steppin Init]

How much of Vt is not wilderness? And we are talking about a tiny proportion that is left to be wild in it’s wild state. Hunters and gatherer’s can hunt bullshit, play cards, drink beer and gather a plenty. So what the fuck is up? It’s Nature hating, where some are wrongly brought up that they have to fiddle fuck with everything to make it better – Horseshit!. This fiddling much like our involvement in Iraq is the equivalency of screwing something that has been going on without human intervention. Some have made statements theat man must manage nature to have nature. Horse pucky with the straight face! If that was so then Grizzly’s would populate Central Park New York city.

Low grade paving societies beware there plenty of folks who do not want interference and if the Guv. And Mr Tyrant choose to support paving and fiddle-fucking well beware. If you are so inclined to live in a mall – go live in a mall. Politicians will rightly pay for their anti-nature ways. Teddy Roosevelt would roll over in his grave to see what his Republican Party has become in so many ways.

[tom]

There's no question Douglas will take some heat.

Why does Douglas now approve of a "compromise" that Leahy previously offered?

Douglas' is playing the odds to derail the bill permenantly. In contacting Pombo, he reaffirms his far right base. In now agreeing to the "compromise", he attempts to reaffirm his moderate democratic support. He knows that the bill's chance of even reaching a vote in 2006 is slim. Passage in 2007 is unknown depending on who gets elected into the house.

Has 11th hour actions were meant to derail the bill permenantly. His action to support wilderness is merely political cover and is typical do-nothing-Douglas method of operation.

[what-the]

This is all political play. The 6000 acres in question is just about useless. It might as well be wilderness.

Besides, if logging these 6000 acres is required for your business plan, then you need a new business plan.