At least he's answering the socialist tripe F&S loves to print under the auspices of conservation. I don't care if he bought this letter from Kinko’s- it's 100% accurate. Do you dispute any of the Congressman's points, or just don’t like the fact that his office doesn't write a unique letter every time one of his 750,000 constituents voices an opinion?

One more point, if you want to know what is going on regarding public lands and hunting fishing out West, do not depend on the Wall Street Journal.

I don't disagree with any of you. However I don't want or need some DC Pimp telling others what they can and can't do. We have seen the downfall of "for the people" in the last 2yrs. I believe in restrictions on land development, but anything more is an overreach of the government whether what Mr. Heller said is true or not. The simple and easiest way of taking care of land issues and conservation is to designate land as "development free" "WITHOUT ANY OTHER ATTACHMENTS". So in a simple way on 1 sheet of paper a person can designate land with the consent of the locals so that it may never be developed or a time constraint and/or increase of similar habitat. I don't like never because there can be extreme issues that could arise in the future, but you get what I mean.

Folks I use to be a wilderness advocate until I saw what it prevents man from managing under the auspices that nature knows better than man. You should have seen my grandfather's farm before he managed it! Congressman Heller is right...you can't do so many things on Wilderness land and it should be up to Congress to decide not an unelected bureaucrat...and that is what the Secretary of the Interior is, unelected. All you "sportsmen" had better investigate what is happening in Michigan right now in a case known as Meister v. USFS. One of the Sierra Club devotees is now attempting to outlaw gun hunting on wilderness and semi-wilderness lands and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court has ruled that the USFS must re-access hunting on such lands. Courts have ruled against putting waterers on wilderness areas, not allowing search and rescue by air, my gosh you wouldn't believe some of the stuff done in the name of Wilderness. I Colorado check out the greenback trout and how beaver ponds can not be removed on wilderness areas. I am for conservation and limited preservation.

Congressman Heller,

Thank you for taking to time to address sportsmen directly.
I am disappointed to see a member of the sportsman's caucus use the phrase "locked up" when referring to wilderness.
It is untrue (there is not and never has been a wilderness that excluded entry by horses, people, or hunters) and it is a phrase mostly used by industry interests opposed to public land protection.
The wilderness areas I have hunted in New Mexico, Idaho and Colorado are some of the best hunting in the world and usually they are the highest demand big game tags in their respective state.
You may not like wilderness designations and that's fine, but don't try to misdirect and make the issue into something else. Saying the area could be closed to horses or would lock out sportsmen is not just pandering to industry, it's dishonest.

Mr Heller:
If what you say is true then why can't these lands have a "no development" tag attached to them. hunting, fishing, camping, horseback riding,hiking, etc. allowed but the land is not allowed to be developed for roads, building, drilling, and the like.

however, i think something like this would just be too much common sense for politicians these days....

it seems as though you have to be radically liberal or radically conservative

I would posit to Congressman Heller this question...how was the land 'managed' 200 years ago, or earlier? It did not need controlled burns, aerial spraying, or timber management - it did that on its own. Only man has made such a mess of the forests through policy actions that it NOW 'needs' management to not decline or erupt in devastation.

When land is preserved, it creates sustainable opportunity (both economic and spiritual) for the future. Habitat = Opportunity = Economic viability.

'Stewardship' of lands is often code for 'Extraction' in one way or another, be it trees, cows, or minerals. The recent initiative by the BLM is an attempt to restore some of that balance that was taken away during the Bush years - and balance is sorely needed in today's heated political atmosphere.

On the question of whether land was managed 200 yrs+ ago, answer is that it was extensively managed, and burning was a large part of that.

http://www.forestinfo.org/products/eco-links/fire-ecology.htm

The emergence of un-managed forests appears to be somewhat modern, with the establishment of those policies impacting relatively low-impact traditional uses disproportionately, not necessarily to the betterment of the resources they were designed to protect.

http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-against-Nature-Squatters-Conservation/dp/05...

Mr Heller,

Time and time again I hear folks like you misrepresent the facts about wilderness. That may work with your constituents back home, but perhaps you choose the wrong crowd this time?

Wilderness contains some of the best hunting and fishing in out country and sportsmen know it. You can't misrepresent the facts and say no horses are allowed in wilderness because just this past winter my elk was hauled out of the Bob Marshall of Montana with a horse. A wise old outfitter friend of mine once said Wilderness contains something more valuable than gold or silver - it contains the soul of mankind. As a sportsmen I get that, but as a politician, you obviously don't.

Congressman Heller,

I thought it might be interesting to share with my fellow hunters and anglers the folks who really influenced your canned response to Mr. Herring's post. I noticed in the latest campaign finance report listed on opensecrets.org, you were the beneficiary of more than $80,000 in campaign finance aid from the energy and natural resources sector--and the vast majority of that money came from political action committees, not individuals.

Listen, I don't have a problem with a lot of what you said. I've seen the brown hillsides all across Nevada--cheat grass and other non-native, noxious vegetation that takes over after land is disturbed by fire (or roads, or mines, or oil and gas platforms, ORV trails, or... you get the idea) is a problem, and your state is certainly "ground zero" when it comes to that issue. Keep in mind, however, that Secretary Salzar's new "wild lands" designation doesn't create a single acre of new wilderness anywhere on BLM lands. I think it's a bit disingenuous on your part to make that leap, and to use the noxious weeds issue as your logic to do so.

You're right about one thing--wilderness and wilderness study areas are managed under the most stringent, restrictive methods the government can provide. And thank God for that. You see, sportsmen are turning the corner--we've been coopted long enough by "conservatives" who answer first and foremost to their campaign donors and pretend to be sportsmen-friendly by supporting the etched-in-stone Second Amendment (thanks for going out on that limb, by the way) but generally nothing else we value. You want to be sportsmen-friendly? Start by protecting our opportunities--and that means by protecting fish and game habitat. But ... I suppose your "energy and natural resources cronies" who write the big checks to your campaign would frown on that, huh?

I, for one, applaud Secretary Salazar for restoring the BLM's ability to identify and manage high-quality habitat appropriately. As a hunter and an angler, that means the world to me.

Oh, and horses are, and always have been, allowed in wilderness areas. You ought to fire the staffer you assigned to write your response for even suggesting that ridiculous notion.