To the Editor:
The Wilderness Act of 1964, America’s foremost conservation law, secures for future generations the opportunity to see and experience pieces of the wilderness that once stretched across the continent.
Unfortunately, your children and grandchildren may never have that “opportunity.”
The U.S. House may soon vote on the so-called Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act) (H.R.3668). This bill would “provide for the preservation of sportsmen’s heritage and enhance recreation opportunities on Federal land, and for other purposes.”
“What could possibly be wrong with that?” you ask. Well, lots of things. If the SHARE Act were signed into law:
It would gut the Wilderness Act of 1964. Rather than protecting wilderness areas, the SHARE Act would give hunting, fishing, and other recreational pursuit top priority. It would allow construction of “temporary” roads and manmade structures. Wildernesses would cease to exist.
It would open millions of acres of public lands to trapping. Traps are indiscriminate land mines. They would threaten everyone including children, pets and non-targeted wildlife.
It would block any regulation aimed at phasing out lead bullets and lead fishing tackle that cause the slow, painful deaths of countless birds and other non-target wildlife.
It would strip Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes region and would block the delisting from being challenged in court.
It would allow the importation of polar bear pelts and other body parts of bears killed prior to May 2008.
Much of the SHARE Act has nothing to do with “enhancing” sportsmen’s heritage or recreational rights.
Express your opposition to the SHARE Act charade. Contact your U.S. congressman.