We've moved!
MadvilleTimes.com!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Noem Didn't Read Whole Wilderness Bill Before Blasting It

I thought after hammering out ten posts on the State Fair U.S. House debate, I'd be done with Kristi Noem for a while. But Princess Kristi keeps spinning the hits.

map of proposed national grassland in western South DakotaLocation of first national grassland wilderness (blue zones), proposed in Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. Click image to enlarge. [Image courtesy of South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition]
After trumpeting her opposition to Senator Tim Johnson's really good proposal to create the first national grassland wilderness right here in South Dakota, Kristi Noem faced some questions... like did you read the bill?

Ask Noem a question, and that's usually about when the wheels come off:

Noem said she has read “most” of the bill and feels informed on it. She voted for a resolution in the state House this past session to oppose the designation [Tom Lawrence, "Noem Opposes Wilderness Legislation," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2010.09.09].

OpenCongress.org measures S.3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010, at about six pages. Princess Kristi couldn't take time to read all of six pages. She apparently just read the talking points Senator Thune handed her.

Had Noem read the actual bill (or even my humble blog coverage thereof from June), she would have learned that nearly every point of opposition she raises to the bill is bogus:
  1. "I believe this federal land grab is a solution in search of a problem." False: this bill takes no land away from private owners. The wilderness area is already entirely federal lands.
  2. "We should continue what has worked in order to preserve and protect these lands and to ensure these lands are available to be enjoyed by the public." True... and S. 3310 continues current practices. Current grazing rights are protected. Current state fish and wildlife management practices are protected. Fire, critter, and disease management practices are continued. Access by soldiers, Indians, and private landowners is protected. We just won't go in and sell off this land for further development.
  3. "It would threaten the rights and livelihoods of those with grazing permits in the proposed wilderness areas..." False.
  4. "...it also has the potential to compromise the control of forest fires, prairie dogs, and noxious weeds in the designated areas." False and false.
  5. "Our federal forests have been neglected and mismanaged by the bureaucracy and now we are dealing with an extremely serious pine beetle epidemic and the threat of catastrophic fire." Fa—what? Federal management will not lead to a pine beetle infestation of grasslands. And the catastrophic fire risk in the Black Hills comes from all of us (yup, my fault, too) wanting nice thick stands of pine for pretty pictures as well as residential developments packed hither and yon right where good healthy forest fires might blow through.
  6. "There is overwhelming local opposition to S 3310." False! The only survey out there shows Pennington County voters favor the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act by a 61% to 34%. Among Custer County voters, the split is 53% for, 39% against. Noem's boosters have cited smaller poll margins than that as signs of overwhelming support for their candidate.
That's what you get when you hurry to get things done. Kristi, you really need to take the advice of your own Tea Party boosters and fearless leader John Boehner: Read the bill.

And stop saying silly things that make my blogging far too easy.

Now if we can just get Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin to cut the crap and endorse Senator Johnson's really good bill.

7 comments:

  1. Cory, Cory:

    1) If it isn't a "land grab" (intended to change the use), what is it?

    2) If it continues current practices, what does it do?

    3) Who is proposing selling it? It requires an act of Congress which could do it even with this designation.

    4) Does it not change the way weeds, pests, and prairie dogs can be dealt with?

    5) The pine beetle analogy is in reference to #4 above.

    6) If it didn't have local opposition, I'm pretty sure Herseth wouldn't be so reticent to support it. Or maybe she agrees with Noem. :)

    P.S. Maybe Noem did read your humble blog on this. Only she agreed with my comments. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I saw a poll that was published in the Mitchell Daily Republic a day or two ago. The poll was put on by the DSCC and Stephanie was ahead by a whopping 11 %. Cory, maybe you could put that up on the main page or do some checking, but it looks and I hope south dakota will just say no to crazy kristi. This is a great site and you do a good job.

    Erik M.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark this down. First time grudznick agrees with this Corey fellow that runs this blog. First time. Noem is pandering here. She'll still win, and isn't in Pelosi's pocket, but she's pandering to the hardcore ignorants in deep west river. BAH!

    Mr. Jones, I thought you ran away after Sattgast sent incorrect and bogus emails about your candidate. I'm glad to see you back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Troy:
    1. It is already federal ground.
    2. It consolidates ground under two departments into one.
    3. Huh?
    4. Pests? Get real.
    5. There is no pine beetle problem; there is a pine/human problem.
    6. The opposition is coming from special interests.

    ps. Noem is a puppet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Grudz,

    Just because it is named after Tony doesn't make it a good idea. He should have something named after him closer to home, tied to fishing or goose hunting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And here's the SDWC's follow-up

    http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/14162

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.