Bodie WSA issue draws no action

bodiehills20 years ago, the Bureau of Land Management in California followed directions from Congress and designated dozens of Wilderness Study Areas – land to be considered for Wilderness or not.  Today, BLM still manages some 80 WSAs in our state.  One of them contains the Bodie Hills and an ongoing controversy which was repeated somewhat on Tuesday.

The people closest to the area seem to favor getting rid of the Wilderness Study Area designation.  Many others fear that move would open the door to major mining in the Bodie Hills.  A few months ago when Cougar Gold Mining asked the Mono Supervisors to support removal of the Bodie WSA, the public objected in the boardroom and the Supervisors declined.

Tuesday, Supervisor Tim Hansen, who represents Bridgeport in his District 4, asked the Board of Supervisors to consider a resolution from the Bridgeport Regional Planning Advisory Committee.  The resolution discussed removal of the Bodie Hills Wilderness Study Area.  Hansen pointed to a night meeting in Bridgeport after the earlier Cougar Gold meeting and the fact that virtually the entire room raised hands in support of removal of the WSA.

Hansen said he wanted to support his constituents and so brought the issue back to the Board of Supervisors.  Hansen said he pointed to “protection of what we have.”  Mining, he said, is another issue that would be handled by BLM if anyone ever made a proposal.  The Wilderness Study Areas, Hansen said, were never designed to lock up an area indefinitely.

Hansen made a motion to acknowledge the Bridgeport RPAC resolution and pledge to the citizens of Bridgeport that there would be a future public dialogue on the Bodie Hills.  There was no second to his motion. “I was really disappointed,” said Hansen.  He suggested that there should be a multi-use discussion on Bodie Hills.  “We can leave mining to the BLM,” he said.


, , , ,

7 Responses to Bodie WSA issue draws no action

  1. Ken Warner August 3, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

    “Bridgeport Regional Planning Advisory Committee”

    It would be interesting to know the business interests of those committee members. The question that comes to my devious mind is, “…how would the committee members benefit from the removal of the WSA designation from the Bodie Hills area….”

    Just curious……

    • LP August 8, 2011 at 11:45 am #


      Who might have an interest in seeing the continuation of the WSA and the demise the Cougar Gold project so that their employees don’t have an employment option?

      • Wayne Deja August 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm #

        LP..Who has an interest in seeing the continuation of the WSA and the demise of the Cougar Gold project?…easy answer…All of us that want the Bodie Hills….and the Ghost Town of Bodie left alone……FOREVER!!!

  2. Rob August 6, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Ken – People want jobs. And not minimum wage tourism jobs, they want real jobs from businesses that won’t hire illegal’s. Perhaps more people would be working if Mono County was famous for being a sanctuary for illegal aliens. With TOML more the 50% Hispanic and more babies on the way the County had better start collecting more taxes for social services soon.

  3. Wayne Deja August 7, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    If anytype of mining operation was to come creeping into the Bodie Hills….which it ain’t going to…any jobs for locals would be the type of work THEIR OWN people they bring with them doesn’t want to do… other words,the low paying jobs…and my guess would be the type of people willing to re-locate to that harsh area,away from the cell phones and X-boxes,willing to work hard in really bad weather at times,would be the Hispanics…

  4. Rob August 7, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Wayne there’s no lower paying jobs that pay legal wages then jobs in the tourism industry.

  5. Rob August 8, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    Does anyone know anybody that works at Red Hill. I’d imagine workers there come from Ridgecrest.


Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design