Calling a federal conservation proposal for 3.7 million acres north of Rock Springs a “monstrosity of a plan,” U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman urged a House subcommittee to pass her bill to block the initiative.
Hageman, a Republican and Wyoming’s lone congressperson, made her case Wednesday to the House Federal Lands Subcommittee, where members considered her bill and listened to testimony regarding it. H.R. 6085, to prohibit implementation of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s plan, is a 71-word measure that she introduced on Oct. 26.
The controversial plan covers the vast and sometimes fragile high-desert landscape from the Wind River Mountains across the Red Desert to Rock Springs and beyond. The BLM proposal would allow for special rules governing everything from off-road vehicles to oil and gas leasing and other activities on about 1.3 million acres of critical environmental concern.
Many area residents oppose the plan, saying it would deter oil and gas development, limit recreation, severely constrain the livestock industry and upset a Western way of life. The area covers valuable wildlife habitat, including migration routes for pronghorn, deer and elk, as well as a greater sage grouse breadbasket known as the Golden Triangle.
“In typical fashion,” Hageman said Wednesday, “the federal government has chosen the very alternative that has the most community opposition and would do the most damage.” The BLM proposed a conservation alternative over a range of other options.
The BLM comment period on the proposal passed earlier this year, and the federal agency has pledged to work with Wyoming on revisions before a final plan is released. Hageman’s bill has advanced nevertheless.
“The administration continues to insert itself into every community in America under the guise of claiming to do good,” Hageman said, “only to outright ignore the community’s needs — and to pursue bad policies in the pursuit of political goals.” Those goals “are not shared by Wyoming … are not in the best interests of our country.”The committee left the bill open for 10 business days for responses to further questions that might come from representatives. Hageman is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources that oversees the Federal Lands Subcommittee.
Thank you, Mr. Campbell, for you considered remarks. I have just a few words to add: path of the pronghorn, endangered Sage grouse, mule deer, desert elk. Please call or email members of this committee to briefly comment that many Wyomingites support the BLM’s plan. Please vote against H.B.6085. I just contacted Rep. Hagerman, Rep. Joe Neguse (CO), Raul Grijalva (AZ). We can stop this bill.
Harriet Hageman and Donald Trump are not the problem. An uninformed, uneducated population is. Vote Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis out and we could end up with worse. That’s frightening!
It would take a very severe scraping of the bottom of the barrel to end up with worse than the current Wyoming Triplets.
They sure are a problem. Three clowns makes a circus. You have two female anti democracy election deniers that support the orange groper. The other one sends out misinformation almost daily-almost all propaganda and lies. lastly but importantly, all three are against public land. I can’t imagine a Wyoming voter electing these clowns.
I am guessing she has no idea what’s in the plan. It’s way too long for her to read. She hates people that want conservation. When she was a lawyer she wanted to pump Wyoming water to Denver. Anything she can make money on. Her father would be ashamed.
Hags need to go. I hope a real Republican runs against her. She got elected because of the orange Cheeto
Cheney was such a better choice but she wouldn’t kiss the orange Cheeto.ring
Hageman family collected PPP money, but she thinks the US is too far in dept. For me but not for thee.
Hageman has struck me as a total nut case since I first heard of her. She’ll love serving trumples, the empty headed MAGAt, as he “leads” this warmongering, wealth-loving piece of real estate to oblivion…good riddance to bad rubbish.
Should we be surprised that maga Republican will put oil money and politics in front of our desire to preserve what natural things we have left it’s easy for outsiders and city dwellers to set aside the importance of the preservation of our great state if you truly consider yourself a wyomingite then you would understand that this state, the land the plains the mountains and rivers are our true pride and no one can convince us otherwise.maga Republicans like to pin blame and try to paint nasty pictures on who is to blame for once but we all either raised kids or at some point was a child so we are all fully aware how the blame game works the best way to make yourself look good is make someone else look bad and this is extremely important to maga politicians seeing how they have all claimed a vow of oath to the biggest criminal Pennsylvania avenue has ever seen but while the rest of the trailer parks across the nation fall rank in file to gop disinformation assault I would like this chance to remind Wyoming that we are better than that we understand what is truly important to us so please my felkow wyomingite have tge courage to make your voice heard we are not sheep, and hagerman is not our voice forvevery red maga hat you see please be reminded of the all cowboy hats that have been worn before them let’s stick to our roots we are better than this
Trump surrogate Hagaman simply wants to turn Wyoming into an oil field I would like to remind her tourism is huge in Wyoming they don’t come here to see oil rigs. There is more oil being produced in the United States than any other time and more than any other country on the planet. Harriet Hageman is the worst representative Wyoming has ever had.
“Trump-Endorsed Harriet Hageman” becomes more brazenly dishonest and delusional with each move she makes. Wow!
Thank goodness , for Harriet Hageman!!!! Love this great woman!!!!’
Voters will have a choice soon. Here’s a chance to vote this woman OUT.
It might be a “chance” if this was anywhere but Wyoming.
I have not followed this story much but have a question, I understand that She says “This is not what’s best for the community” and it may not be. My question is, What’s best for the federal taxpayers since that’s who is paying for it? If conservation is what the majority of America wants then that’s how it goes, I don’t want to start an argument but it can’t be that some livestock owners are upset that they can not feed their livestock on federal lands the way they used too, or there is no more drilling due to people don’t want to see it when they go to the “Wilderness” and kept out of an area. I am an outdoorsmen and support giving the wildlife space. I understand the Wyoming viewpoint but do you understand the other. Federal dollars is what’s paying for this and if the country has went the conservation route so its there when we want to visit I am not against. I do not like when very few people decide how its going to be for all.
” I do not like when very few people decide how its going to be for all.”
Indeed, and not merely a few: mostly land-grabbers who want to destroy the land for profit.
The BLM owns the land, and that means about 860,000,000 people own it.
This is no surprise. Hageman has also co-sponsored bill to pull the US out of the UN and make it illegal for the US to help fund any UN peace-keeping mission. Meanwhile she wastes time preparing to help prosecute Mayorkas. That impeachment isn’t legitimate, but it appeals to her base. She won her seat as “Trump-Endorsed Harriet Hageman” and is relentless with her divisive rhetoric and actions. I doubt she’ll ever make an effort to pull us together. The fact we are all Americans is lost on her.
good for Hageman, Keep the Federal government OUT of WY. We can protect our own lands, and decide what’s best for WY. All states should be on our side as it affects their state lands also.
They’re not “our lands”. This is federal land not state land. This area is owned by the federal government and belongs to all Americans.
We are talking about land that is owned and managed by the federal government. That means it is managed on behalf of all 330 million Americans, not just the people that live next to it. Yes, the BLM should consider effects on local residents, but that is not the only consideration. Besides, the BLM is not banning development on the entire area, there are plenty of existing roads and infrastructure. Some people act like the BLM is building a fence around the entire 1.3 million acres and not letting anyone in, which is about as far from the truth as possible. Please read the actual plan and don’t just listen to the rhetoric from the politicians.
Just came back from a trip to the high desert country of SE Oregon. My observation is that the BLM needs to start doing it’s job and protecting the land it manages. I’ve visited this place frequently over two decades and it is in terrible shape. Overgrazing by a very small group of welfare ranchers is the sole cause. Cattle destroy the landscape and ranchers put far too many cows out for the land to support. They don’t care, not MY land. I know the politician is talking on behalf of the rich people who put her there but she is dead wrong.
Well, I guess Harriet is up for reelection. You can’t trust a thing she says. She lied about the presidential election and she’ll do anything to stay in the easy life. Our other two “Reps” are about the same quality. Lummis is another election denier. Can you imagine how these two women could support the woman “grabber”. It just goes to show the amount of corruption in our government. Barrasso and Lummis are introducing a law named after the young lady that was killed by the illegal immigrant. I guess they think nobody has been killed under a Republican presidency. It’s shameful to push your agenda using the death of this poor lady-even her father says so. But I digress. By the way, federal land belongs to all of the people in America, not just Wyoming folks.
God forbid we stop allowing people to tear up wildlife habitats with ATV’s and energy exploration.
WE HATE THE WORD ZONING IN WYOMING, BUT: These Federal resource plans have something in them for everyone and no one gets all of their requests. During the last twenty years, the forest plans and the resource management plans have come to resemble zoning of the federal lands but it isn’t called that. The basic concept is that some lands are better suited for specific uses and other lands are better suited for other uses. With respect to the Rock Springs RMP there are some areas that are most critical and better suited for trona mining or oil and gas development – but at the same time – there are other areas which are better suited for recreation, sage grouse habitat, wildlife migration corridors, etc. The BLM must identify which areas are best suited for each use – and there will be some areas which are best suited for multiple uses. Our cities are zoned for which areas are best suited for residential, which areas are best suited for commercial, etc. you can anticipate that the Final RMP will have something for everyone but each user of the federal lands needs to recognize that others have valid requests for land use designations in the RMP and some lands should accommodate almost all uses under a multiple use policy – its almost like zoning the federal lands but it isn’t called that.
Lee – you get my vote for the most logical, level headed, non-radical opinion of all comments on this page. Great job!