BWCAW land-swap bill passes House committee
August 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Legislation that would order the U.S. Forest Service to trade 86,000 acres of state land locked inside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness for federal land outside the wilderness passed the full House Natural Resources Committee Wednesday afternoon in Washington.
Continue Reading
“Cravaack’s bill is supported by mining and timber interests in Minnesota as well as northern politicians…” Yes, and a majority of the state House and Senate, and the Governor, as you finally mention as an afterthought in the last paragraph. It makes no sense for the feds to buy our land: 1. the feds are broke and getting broker by the hour. 2. there’s already too much fed land in NE Minnesota. Congress, pass this bill and let’s get this issue resolved correctly.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
16
This thing lanquished since 1978 without any action by Oberstar…nothing (the environmental movement didn’t want the land exchanged, so Oberstar did nothing ).
I am told by well placed sources in the Range delegation that each time they approached Oberstar, he was uncooperative and refused to budge. Here it is, only 1-1/2 years in his first term and Cravaack, working with the Range delegation, got the job done.
These lands were set aside in 1849 to produce revenue for Minnesota schools and that is what they should be doing. Plain and simple. Thanks Cravaack for sweeping out the closet of old matters just stuffed away with the hope nobody would find them again. There will be more of these in coming months, such as fire suppression in the BWCA, which also was changed by the 78 Act. Go get all Chip.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
23
It is not so simple. Remember the bill contains a Washington like provision to exempt the land trade from federal environmental rules under the National Environmental Policy Act. This makes it very suspicious.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
13
Any time something like this bill gets passed, you know there is much more to it than a simple passage. Someone or some “entity” is going to profit big time off this, and it`s not going to be Minnesota, or it`s schools. Not saying it`s not time to resolve the matter…but it smells, as does almost everything Washington lawmakers touch. You can bet it wasn`t passed because “we the people” are in need.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
13
Don’t we already know who wil profit? mining and logging big wigs
Like or Dislike:
12 
16
Cravaack has a progressive approach, Oberstar was regressive. Thanks you good people of the 8th district for giving us a change..
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
23
Quite obvious some people have not got over the last 8th District election.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
When you can no longer enjoy the pristine environment and clean water of the BWCA you know who to thank!
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
20
Tim, do you understand that this law would not change ANYTHING about the way land in the BWCA is regulated? This would merely trade Minnesota land in the BWCA for fed land outside. It would not change the amount of fed land nor state land in Minnesota — it would only change where that land is. Unless you want more federal land and less state land in Minnesota, I don’t know why you’d oppose this swap.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
I really wish Will Munger were around to voice up in favor of the BWCAW.
Like or Dislike:
10 
17
MrDeeds, there is no anti-BWCA side of this discussion so no pro-BWCA advocate is needed. The BWCA will remain the same as it is now. There will be no changes to its size, rules, entry points, quotas, protection — NOTHING except that the feds take over state land inside the BWCA. No attack is being waged or even planned on the BWCA.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
8
Burntsider, you wasting you breath. Some people do not want to understand.
Like or Dislike:
16 
8
I could not be happier that Willard Munger is no longer with us. He was a cancer on the culture of rural northeastern Minnesotans.
Like or Dislike:
5 
11