WY in Trouble?

E

eyeguard

Active Member
Messages
590
Hey Boys (and Huntin' Gals too!),

I saw this post in a fishing forum I frequent...

"Wyoming has some of our most popular waters in the Western half of the under attack by Congress from a new bill in Congress HR 980 (Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act)

HR 980 would create 24 million acres of new Wilderness designation among five western states, with 3.26 million of those acres in Wyoming. This legislation was introduced by New York Democratic Representative Carolyn Maloney, and is cosponsored by seventy five other Representatives, all of whom are Democrats, and only three representatives are from the five states that are affected by this bill, and the rest are from the east coast or California.

The areas in Wyoming that would fall under the new Wilderness designation would include the Hams Fork, Commissary Ridge, Salt River Range, Southern Wyoming Range, Monument Ridge in the Wyoming Range, Little Sheep Mountain, Little Cottonwood, North Mountain, and Lake Mountain. This bill also includes smaller additions to existing Wilderness designations in the Gros Ventre and Wind River Range. These additions would include Freemont Lake, Half Moon Lake, Willow Lake, New Fork Lakes, Upper Green River Lakes, Boulder Lake, and the Big Sandy.

Once under the Wilderness designation, all of these areas would be under the rules that come with that designation. All of the existing roads in these areas would be closed, and these areas would be off limits to all motorized vehicle travel including, RV, ATV, snowmachine, and motorized watercraft. This legislation would also devastate the industries and jobs that currently rely on those lands, such as logging, mining and oil and gas production and development. We would also see a significant drop in recreation opportunities such as camping, hunting and fishing that we currently enjoy in these areas.

Please help us by contacting your elected officials and voice your opinion of this matter. Hopefully we can stop this idiotic legislation in it's tracks."

Anyone know anything more about this? What gives? Don't these stinkin' liberals ever get a clue? First of all, I want to know why a NY rep is proposing a bill she has no business proposing since she doesn't live out west! What does she hope to gain of it?! Second, the majority of reps supporting this bill don't even live in the area/region either! WTF?! Third, I consider myself a conservationist who cares about the land as much as anyone. But I'm also an ethical sportsman who wants to utilize the land for what I feel it was intended. How the hell can we do that to its fullest if access is restricted to such an extreme? Why must such an extreme measure be proposed in the first place?

For the record, I'm a Utard. But if anywhere could be considered "Heaven on Earth," it's the state of Wyoming in its entirety! I'm all for protecting/preserving the land for future generations to enjoy (like I've been privileged to growing up). But asinine bills like this one aren't the answer! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. Hell, even BOBCAT will vouch for me on this one I bet! :) Just kiddin' BC!

Write your politicians (I don't care if you're not from WY!). I have, and will write anyone else anyone can think of if it will do some good and make a difference!

EG


campfire2.gif
"A man can be hard to find in the mountains, but you're welcome at my fire anytime."
 
Isn't always a delight to see these concerned individuals in the East and CA that think they need to be telling everyone else out west how they need to live enacting legislation. The worse part about crap like this is you can't even vote against them to throw them out of office! This is complete BS!!

It's all part of their master plan to abolish hunting & fishing in this country. They have a multifaceted attack involving guns and ammo, eliminating & restricting forest access and camping and group events, prohibitive legislation against hunting dogs and kennels, increasing wilderness areas, protectionism for more endangered wildlife,lawsuits forcing study after study all paid for by our monies, restricting usage on our waterways and elimination of our dams and then abolishing hunting specie by specie, more expensive licensing of ATV & ORV and then restricting access of all motorized vehicles then individuals until their goal of eliminating hunting is completed and then finally the elimination of sport fishing.

They have infiltrated The U.S.Forest Service, USF&WS, State Wildlife Departments, EPA, BLM, and many other state and federal agencies including Congress to activly promote their agenda from within and to be able to manage these agencies in the process. We're in serious trouble here on many fronts and those that think otherwise are fools. Ask any long time employee of many of these agencies why they're taking early retirement and if the focus of their jobs has changed in a negative manner towards the public's use of our lands & wildlife for recreational purpose and you may be stunned what they tell you. Protectionism is a big word with an even bigger agenda and it's not being done in the publics best interst just the elimination of recreational opportunity and that is contrary to the principles on which many of these agencies and wildlife areas were formed.
 
I think it's great that someone wants to protect what we still have. I see ALMOST nothing wrong with what they want to do. More and more land is being turned over for development and many deer, elk and others are losing winter ranges and summer ranges. By not saving areas like this you would be losing hunting and fishing anyway in one way or another.Just take a look at Utah. There is either a house, cabin, new town or its now posted. The only thing I don't like about what they want to do is that a none res. can not hunt wilderness areas unless they have a guide.

As far as Oil gas and tree cutting go It has come to the point where we as poeple of this great nation need to think about saving something instead of using and abusing.
 
I haven't read the bill but restricting motorized vehicles,logging,mining,oil and gas development etc. kinda sounds like, uh, conservation to me.

Now if they restrict hunting that's another matter entirely as hunters have always been the best conservationists....
 
This is wrong on so many levels. This little piece of legislature will make it so that the only way we can access the wyoming and salt river ranges will be on foot or horseback. No more driveing up greys river with your family to camp hunt or fish. Or driveing up any of the beautiful canyons in the salt river range. All the roads will be reclaimed and bridges wiped out. And redfrog your post makes little to no sence. You can't build a house or cabin on any of these areas of public land. You can't put a posted sign on any of it either. And as far as your critisism of the timber and oil and gas industry, I suggest you sell your vehicle and your house, and purchase a adobe hut and a mountain bike.
 
Hey you guys that think this is ok better wake up and smell what it is you're shoveling. This is just one more step toward outlawing ANYTHING but hugging a tree in the wilderness! Hunting would definately be the very first thing that damnnnn liberals would take away. I am in favor of conservation but this is part of a much bigger government control plan.

My father loves this area and I guess he should just forget about ever seeing it again because at his age and health it is impossible for him to don a backpack like everyone who is in favor of this can. And my friend who is paralyzed who get around quite abley on his 4 wheeler, well I guess he is just SOL. So much for the equality that the libs like to shove down our throats. Thanks to all the liberals and their mind numb followers who blindly and sanctimoniously tell the rest of us how we should live.

One day, even those of you who think this is a great idea, will have age or health related issues that will limit you from seeing these places you love, unless it is in a vehicle. When that time comes, I hope you will not regret your support of this.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-07-09 AT 02:09PM (MST)[p]chesterwyo. Right now that land may be public so you can't build on it but it won't stay that way with out protection. look at the areas around some of that. Every year there are more and more cabins built its all spilling out of jackson hole, star valley, afton Alpine and so on. What makes you think that it would stay public forever when there are many more poeple with big money. It makes perfect sence. This legislature might get rid of what few roads are in that area but would save it in the long run. Land is being lost to oil companys and investors fast then you think. May not be as fast in WY as it is in other States. no one said you would not be able to still hunt or fish. Yes they may be chipping away to get rid of it but they are doing that anyway. Just look at what Oboma is doing right now with your rights to have a gun..hes chipping away at it. I love to hunt just as much as the next guy. My family loves spending time in the outdoors. I don't like seeing roads closed and camping areas gone but i don't like seeing poeple move in and doing it either. At least one way you still have access to it over another. Let me guess with the way you responded at the end you drive a big truck everywhere you go?
Im guessing your not one to take small steps to make things better for the future. I Don't know if there is such thing as globle warming and if CO2 emmissions have a huge impact on things but we do consume alot of oil and wood and one day its going to be gone. May now be while you and I are alive but IT could happen. AND JUST A LITTLE PIECE OF INFO. IF YOU DON'T THINK LETTING AND OIL COMPANY IN TO DO SOME DIRLLING WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON A PIECE OF LAND LOOK AT UNIT 22 IN CO.
 
Chesterwyo,

I couldn't have said it better myself!!

Keep wishing for more and more restrictions, see where it gets us. Do you really want to see ALL of these roads closed for access? I think its great that a family can take their kids, grandparents etc.... fising and camping on PUBLIC land.

Not everyone wants to do a weekend spike camp!
 
Redfrog, all of that development you see in star valley is taking place on PRIVATE land. I just don't see how you figure that houseing development can take place on national forest. You simply can't go to the forest service office and make them on offer on some land. It's not for sale. It can be leased for mineral development. But cannot be purchased outrite. This is a very sensitive issue for me personally. My family has lived in that valley for four generations. But I am involved in the oil and gas industry. I don't want to see it developed by oil companies for several reasons. The main reason being there is no hydrocarbons to be found there. Several wells were drilled there in 80's and all were dry holes. There are far too many people who depend on that place for recreation, food, and firewood to heat their homes. A majority of these things will be gone if this bill passes. THIS IS NOY A GOOD THING!!!
 
Just FYI. All three of the members of Wyoming's congressional delegation are aware of this impending legislation and are opposed to it. We'll see how it unfolds; many folks are watching.
 
States and the goverment sell public property all the time. Then its not public anymore. Thats how house and such end up on it. How hard is it to see that.
 
It is NOT a done deal.It hasn't even gotten out of commitee.They have been trying to pass this since 1992 in some form or another.Our delegation in Wyoming is opposed to this,because it will devastate the local economies here,among other reasons.Mainly,why do the Feds have to constantly try to ram legislation down our throats without taking into consideration any LOCAL viewpoints??They hear from a few tree-hugger types,and suddenly-Oh!that sounds really great!Let's do that without taking into consideration any of the local people's thoughts or concerns.Typical federal govt crap-they have no idea who we are or what we want(by we,I mean the general population.Case in point-wolves).Need I say more?And RedFrog-we know how to take care of our land in Wyoming.We DON'T need some federal bureaucrat cramming more bs down our throats.By the way,there are other states involved,too.We would appreciate all of you who oppose this to contact your legislators with your comments.
 
I fully support this legislation. You will still be able to drive your truck up the grey's river road and all other existing roads in these areas but this will end the continuous expansion of ATV trails that are spurring off the existing roads into the last roadless areas in this beautiful country.

As a non-resident I would be concerned about how this would impact my ability to hunt without a guide in these areas but this is something I could live with.

-RPinenut
 
Sorry I like getting poeple all wond up. Its funny that many of you make this out like it is a huge issue and it is. Do get me wrong. I don't like the big goverment telling everyone how they should do things and Wy has done great with thier state. But tell me why You all can make a big deal about this but when someone buys 40 acers of land and builds a cabin thats okay?????????
You are willing to fight a big issue and make such a big deal brought forth by Big goverment but not willing to stand and take action on the small issues that do the same thing.
 
Chesterwyo & nontypical well said!!!
It scares the hell out of me that any hunters would support this..

As long as you shrug your shoulders and abide it, then by the standards of your grandfathers you are culture cowards! Charlton Heston.




Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
 
Wrong answer Pinenut! Every piece of wilderness that they have designated had the roads shut down on day 1. Foot or horseback only!!! That is the difference between just plain old National Forest/BLM and Wilderness. You will not be able to access those roads if this passes. There will be more tags designated to outfitters as well because the only way you will be able to hunt these areas is with a guide if you're a NR. I don't see much good in this bill. It does nothing for conservation. Just look at who's sponsoring the bill. Do you really think that the Dems have the Wilderness areas best interest at heart? Come on!


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
I am the one who wrote that whole diatribe on the fishing site.

This is a very bad deal for Wyoming and anyone who claims to be a sportsman that enjoys Wyoming's lands. This isn't about just eliminating ATV trails from the landscape. All of the roads leading into the wilderness would be off limits to ALL motorized vehicles at the wilderness boundary, plain and simple.

That means no more motorized access to the Grey's River, Little Greys, Salt River, Hams Fork, Fontenelle Creek, the upper portion of Labarge Creek, Green River Lakes, Pacific Creek, plus many others that I can't think of at the moment. In fact there was debate in the Congressional hearing on Tuesday if the Highways that run through the Hoback, Salt River Pass, and Palisades, would need to be closed. Even our main highways may fall victim to this bill if it ends up successful.

This bill will virtually turn almost every square inch of National Forest land that Wyoming has into Wilderness. For those of you that think this is good to stop the oil and gas development, I have news for you, these lands are already PROTECTED from future development via the Wyoming Range Legacy Act that OUR Wyoming Senators passed with support for sportsmen. Not only are these areas already protected from future development the are also almost completely road less except for the main travel routes due to the new Bridger Teton National Forest Travel Plan that is now in affect.

We also will have lakes like Freemont, Willow, Halfmoon, etc, that are only a couple of miles outside of Pinedale be completely restricted from motorized boats for fishing in the summer and snowmachined for fishing in the winter.

But at least those of you who support this will know that you are in good company with the groups and individuals supporting the proposed legislation include the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the Sierra Club, Idaho Sportsmen Coalition, Association of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (OR), Blackfeet Crazy Dogs Society (MT), Cabinet Resources Group (MT), Friends of the West (ID), Earth Ministry (WA), former President Jimmy Carter, and pop music singer Carol King.
 
I was hoping they would modify this legislation. I say get rid of the wilderness designation they're looking for and instead, make it so no one with an ATV is allowed to even be seen on forest service property. I'd back it 100%...
 
I think its great they are trying to protect some of wyomings greatest land. It will only benefit the trophy potential in those area. It will affect those of you that live out of state but you can still hunt the area just with a guide or a resident. And for those that are complaining about the road closures get out of your trucks or off your atvs, through on a pack and start hiking.
 
To put this in perspective, Wyoming would be shutting down 3.26 million acres to any motorized equipment among other things. Yellowstone National Park is 2.2 million acres. In all 24 million acres in five states equals making wilderness 12 times the size of Yellowstone. Remember the fires of 1988 in Yellowstone. You will have 24 million acres that will have let burn policy for any naturally caused fires. The results will be catastrophic. The Feds have trouble enough managing what they have lets not just let this pristine land go up in smoke. The economy is already stressed here in North West Wyoming and with recreation a major source of income this bill will destroy it. This is not just a land swap of a few acres this is one of the biggest changes in U.S. history. Every person owns the responsibility to act and write letters to stop HR 980

Julius
 
I see this as another nail in the coffin to the common man, Joe Blow hunter. To shut down the dirt roads to the trail heads only benefits the young, healthy, or those with horses. The average age of the guys i hunt with is near 60 and we aren't getting any younger. Those that favor these type of restrictions are usually younger guys thinking only of how it benefits themselves. You to one day will be too old or broken down to pack in for the big hike. Leave the access open, install strict rules of off road travel, and enforce them with heavy fines, jail time, or both. Happy medium!

Joey
 
LAST EDITED ON May-08-09 AT 03:09AM (MST)[p]This is not just a Wyoming thing.

The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act - Designates the following lands in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System:

(1) Greater Glacier/Northern Continental Divide ecosystem
(2) Greater Yellowstone ecosystem
(3) Greater Salmon/Selway ecosystem
(4) Greater Cabinet/Yaak/Selkirk ecosystem
(5) Greater Hells Canyon ecosystem
(6) Islands in the Sky Wilderness
(7) Blackfeet Wilderness

I don't see how locking up all this land under the wilderness preservation system is a benefit to any sportsman or person that uses these areas. It will lock many people out, young and old alike.

The sponser of the bill is from New York and out of the 75 co-sponsers, not one is from any of the states that will be affected. The only co-sponsers from the Western states are the co-sponsers from California and one each from Texas and Arizona.

There are enough restrictions on land use already, why don't they just enforce the laws on the books. The National Forest Service would like nothing better then to have all access to the roads shut off, makes their job easier.

This is just a step closer to needing a permit to access the areas, then it will be a limited access and then no access at all.
 
Joey you've really got me thinking about the access issue.I guess it's all about balance-I think we need some truly remote areas and some more accessible areas.

I do believe excessive drilling,mining, and logging will eventually destroy our wilderness areas if they are not protected.Those in such businesses are only out for the maximum $$$-I'm not really even bashing them it's just the nature of the beast.The Wyoming methane production fiasco is a prime example.

I am willing to pay more for my fuel/wood,use alternatives, and conserve more to protect our wilderness areas. We don't have any more left down here in Texas(with the possible exception of the Big Bend area) so I realize what irreplaceable jewels they are.

BUT I am not saying this is a good bill.I don't know since I haven't read it.Seems to me like the Demos always go too far in restricting everything and the Repubs go too far the other way by allowing everything IMO...
 
How many of you guys that are against this hunt in current wilderness areas?

Wyoming has done a great job protecting thier resources, this looks like an awesome place to hunt deer...

cbm_field_aerial.jpg
 
Ya, and you need some serious help if you are hunting deer in the Jonah Field. Besides what does the Jonah Field or the Anticline have anything to do with the current wilderness propasals. They would still be drilled.

Look people, almost all of these lands these idiots want to turn into Wilderness are ALREADY protected from future development from the oil and gas industry.

These lands were protected by the Wyoming Range Legacy Act passing Congress earlier this year. Here is a map showing the lands that are protected from future development.

Wyoming-Range-Map-for-Press.jpg


These lands are in better shape now than they have been in the last 100 years. We no longer clear cut the timber, we have closed over 75% of the roads and ATV trails and designated the area as roadless due to the new Bridger Teton Travel Plan.

All that turning this into wilderness would do is elimate access to the lands except for a select few who had the means to spend their time on them, while allowing the Yellowstone playground to extend unchecked for the ECO Terroists pet projects of Wolves and Grizz.
 
Bambistew, places like that exist because of peoples unrelenting thirst for natural gas. Mostly people back east where you live. It's so easy for people on the outside to be critical of the way things are done out here. I doubt you have ever set foot on that piece of ground. If you had you would see that it is being developed by some of the most resonsible companies in the industry. Using some of the most advanced drilling and completion practices available. To reduce the footprint and stress to wildlife. So go crank up your car and turn your air conditioning/heat up and keep spouting off that nonsence.
 
Thats a reduced footprint??? I'd hate to see what the original plan was.

You didn't answer my question... but I will assume (since you did) you hunt or have hunted in a wilderness area. If not then I apologies, but only if you promise to NEVER set foot in a wilderness the rest of your life. I hope you never want to hunt in Alaska either. Would you still want to if there was roads all over the place? Would there still be a draw to the 'wilderness'?

4 generations? Does that somehow give you precedence to federal lands over someone with say only 3 generations? What if I said I was part NA and have no idea how many generations lived in WY before me? I think I have a pretty good feel for what is happening in the west. You Jonny come latelies have screwed it up royaly in the last 175 years.

I like hunting in wilderness areas because I know its about as close as I can get to the same experience that my ancestors/relatives had, its like stepping back in time for me.

Should everything in life be easy? We have rifles that shoot 1000 yards, bows that shoot 100 yards, etc. Some of use like to step back in time, some like to ride ATV's. There is a place for both, and currently the place to ride ATV's outnumbers the wilderness areas about 10 to 1. Yet the whiners and lazy would like to have it all.

I'm guessing that about 90% of the people who are against this don't realize that the areas in question are basically 'wilderness' already. The requirement for designation is pretty stringent. A few roads will be taken out, but so what. Now you'll have to hike or ride a horse. You know if you can afford a big bad ATV and 44s on your jacked up truck you can probably afford a horse, or at least rent one. When I hear that someone needs an ATV to get somewhere because their too old or crippled, I think... what's the difference between sitting in a saddle or on the back of an ATV? The only diffrence is the amount of effort needed. Being old and crippled is not an excuse to be lazy. Its not some impossible task to hunt or enjoy a wilderness area.

How did the old timers manage before ATV?s? You should ask one of your prior generations... heck they probably can barely remember a time before 4wd.

Like I said I could care less, but once designated we'll never have to worry about it again, and I can still hunt and fish in there as long as my legs still work, once my legs give out or I can't go anymore, I'll be content knowing that someone in the future will get to enjoy the same thing I did.

Wild fires? That's part of nature. Big deal. Tree's burn they grow back. Just because something is there for the taking doesn't mean we have to take/rape it. Why don't we kill off all the elk and deer too? Oh wait we did that that once.

So when the gas fields dry up in 10-20 years, you loose your job, and the oil companies walk away. Who is going to reclaim those CBM fields? I would bet my house on the fact that big oil will NOT reclaim those fields and bring them back to what they were prior to development. You honestly think they're going to remove all the roads, pipes, etc??? I'll bet it will be a big crap hole just like it is now. If I'm wrong there must be MANY places where big oil has reclaimed fields and returned them to a nearly virgin state. Find me a couple examples on the scale of the Jonas field or the Powder River Basin it should be easy since they're so responsible?

What about all the hunters that used to enjoy hunting antelope and deer where there is now a huge CMB field? I would love to hunt in a place like that, roads everywhere, trucks running all over the place, etc. I think it would be a really great experience. I mean with all the responcible development it would probably be very similar to hunting in a wilderness area.

I say the more wildernesses the better, it gives me more places to go hunt and get away from the whiners. If its ok for you to look out for yourself then the same must be true for me? That is unless you're paying more to use that federal land than I am?
 
Excellent post Bambi Hunter. These ATVer's and snowmobiler need to learn to ski and ride horses. I purchased horses and there are a 24/7/365 deal. I am 57 and can still hike all day, yes the mountains are steeper.
 
I think congress should pass a law requiring someone to become educated on a subject before they speak.

First of all there isn't a Coal Bed Methane well or field within 300 miles of where this Wilderness proposal is located in Wyoming.

Second, this Wilderness proposal does absolutely NOTHING regarding the Jonah Field or Pindale Anticline, they will continue to develope and operate, thanks to our wonderful Democratic President Clinton who issued all of those leases in 1999 and 2000.

Third, I don't own ATV's and I do own horses, I was raised on a ranch in Star Valley. Plus I spent more time in these areas on horseback by time I was 10 than you will in your entire lifetime. These are nice lands and deserve our protection from ATV's and Developement, but not in the form of wilderness. You people can't seem to get the fact through your thick a$$ heads that these areas are ALLFRICKINREADY protected from the things that you would want to limit them from by giving them wilderness designation. You people really need to study up on the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, The Snake River Wild and Scenic Act, and the new Bridger Teton Travel Plan.

I find it completely idiotic that instead of being able to drive to the trailhead and then ride 10+ miles into places like Alice Lake, the head of the Salt River or even The Monument, that we would turn this area into Wilderness making the same trip 45 + miles because we closed the roads at the forest boundary due to new wilderness boundaries. This is true especially when there have been roads in these areas since the Lander Cutoff of the Oregon Trail.
 
This is nothing more than a land grab by idiots that have never set foot in Wyoming or any of the other states with land being proposed to be STOLEN from a good portion of the public. How do you who support such actions explain how the sponsers of the bill(s) are all from metropolatan areas, and EVERY DC lawmaker from the state affected is against it? To say people should learn to ride a horse, are you really that arrogant/ignorant? Do you want every American riding horses in so-called prestine areas? What about the young/old Americans? Are they just SOL because of YOUR selfishness? The motives are clear, and they have NOTHING to do with perserving land for wildlife/recreation.

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
Bambistew, we have let this topic go astray. Oil and gas development isn't an issue with this bill. But to clarify a few things there are probably 2000 wells in that picture. Pretty small footprint for such a prolific field. In 20 years I will be 45 years old and more than likely most of the way retired. I will watch my kids work their way through college in those gas fields because they will still be there going strong, and I will be living in my cabin on my family's ranch in star valley right next to what will more than likely be the wilderness boundry. I would be more than happy to discuss these issues with you via PM. No need to drag it out on this post and take away from the original purpose of the topic. The fact of the matter is people who have more than likely never set foot in any of these areas are trying to take away the use of them by the GENERAL public. And in turn crippleing local economies. It's funny the only people who seem to be in favor of this are the people who only visit these places and don't actually live here.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-08-09 AT 02:29PM (MST)[p]I still would like to know how many of the 'no more wilderness' folks have hunted in a wilderness area. I'm guessing by the sound of the crickets, its probalby most of you.

A land grab... please. How is it a land grab. Even the WY boys are saying these areas are already basically wilderness. They might take out a few roads, big deal.

Should we pave wheelchair access routes all over the west? At some point we have to draw the line as to who and where some people can go. If you get to old and can't get around, thats life. I'm fully willing to accept that day, and will be greatful to know that I got to spend 100's of days in wilderness areas, and greatful to know that many other people will get to experience the same thing.

The last elk hunt I went on with my grandfather, he was 81 years old, his cousin was along at 82. We hunted off horses 4-8 miles from the trail head... they didn't complain, they knew it was thier last hunt and were greatful for me to be with them and to know that I would get to experience the same thing they had countless times before becaue it was a designated wilderness and no road would ever be put in there.

You're right we got off tangent, but the truth is some of the other areas are not safe from resource extraction at some point in the future. The CBM was just an example of what could happen. 50 years ago no one would have thought that CBM would be what it is, nor would anyone dreamt that it would have such a huge impact on the west. Who's to say something similar doesn't come along 50 years from now when my grand kids are learning to hunt elk and find out they can't hunt in those areas anymore because there are wells/mines/stumps(what ever) there now.

Federal does not mean State of Wyoming. If WY was paying to manage it I would say do what you want, but this isn't the case.

If they're basically wilderness already why not make them so? So what if you have to go 45 miles instead of 10. You whining about having to put forth a little more effort isn't much of an argument to me. There are places in the Bob Marshall in MT that are a long ways from a trail head, and there are thousands of people who live near by that utilize that wilderness area on a yearly basis and cherish every second of it.

Like I said above how did the old timers manage before ATV's and roads everywhere? Our society is lazy and expects everything to be given to us plain and simple.

As part of this bill are areas designated for wilderness in Montana. Some of which I have spent a considerable amount of time. Do they need to be designated 'wilderness' and would it make them any more or less wild? Doubtful, but it would guarantee that they stay that way for my grandchildren to experience.

I really don't care one way or the other to be honest. I just don't want to see what little land we have left carved up with roads and resource extraction anymore than it already is all so someone can have an 'easier' hike in somewhere.
 
Shoot down any Wyoming wilderness areas as us un- deserving non-residents arent welcome! Make all other areas listed in states other than Wyoming wilderness, and require Wyoming residents to hire guides. BH1
 
Why on God's green earth would you,as a nonresident,want more wilderness in Wyoming?So there would be LESS land for you to hunt without a guide?Do you guys have any idea how much wilderness we already have here?Why do you think us Wyomingites are opposed to this?Don't you think we might know a little more about this than you out-of-staters?FYI,the wilderness we have now will be there for your kids.And showing an aerial pic of the Jonah field is such an unfair comparison as to how we take care of our lands here in Wyoming,it's absurd.Totally out of context to what we're talking about just to try to strengthen your point,Bambi.(Also,off the subject,Encana,the main player in the Jonah,has mitigated to the tune of over $24 million dollars to offset habitat loss.)It's called progress.You will never stop it.Ever.Proutdoors hit the nail on the head.Federal land grab. Happened before in Nevada.The locals didn't like it,and we don't like it here,either.There is plenty of wilderness for you guys to hike in 20-30 miles or more already.Not that many of you ever will,if any.
 
This non-resi thinks more wilderness in Wyo is all bad, but I would hike the 20 or 30 miles with a rifle on my back in the exsisting wilderness if the outfitters assocition would let me! BH1
 
So would this legislation really close down the grey's river road and the existing improved spur roads in the area like the road up Murphy Creek, Sheep Creek, Deadman and others like it? I really doubt that. I am 99.9% certain if this area is declared wilderness the boundaries will be drawn around the existing roads like every other wilderness area designated previously.

When other National Forest lands have been designated wilderness the USFS significantly steps up there enforcement of the no motor vehicle policy to the point that user created ATV routes generally disappear as fast as they are made but they dont block existing, established routes because areas with existing, established roads cannot qualify for wilderness designation.

I could see a scenario where you could hike a couple of hundred yards either way from the grey river road and be in wilderness but they arent blocking the road...there is no way that would fly.

-RPinenut
 
I don't understand hunters. we all love to hunt and do the outdoor activities that we all love but when it comes down to something like agreeing or seeing something as a threat to our sport you couldn't find a more un-unified group on the planet except for maybe a group of young girl scouts or something ( no offense to girl scouts). The way i see it is they are basically taking land from people who have hunted and enjoyed it for years that now may not be able to get there except via truck and saying well too bad you cant hunt here anymore. I have hunted wilderness area before and I loved it but I would be so pissed if they decided to off limit some of the other areas where I love to hunt that aren't wilderness. I mean we cant all afford to own horses. and say what you may now but when its your turn to be old i guarantee you would like to still hunt your favorite areas and not be shut out from them because your old and your joints are ruined from hiking countless miles. Im not even from any of the states affected by this and it still pisses me off that people who probably will never even go to any of the places affected by this bill in their entire lives have the power to change the laws about them. I am all for restriction of off road vehicles and conservation and protecting land from further development but I am also very very against politicians and laws such as this that have no idea what they are really doing. I mean just wait until the day they try and pass the laws to outlaw hunting in wilderness areas. and then hunting at all. that's what i see with stuff like this being passed.
 
Here is a link that will take you to the maps for the proposed additions:

http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/nrepa/mapIndex.shtml

Sorry, I don't know how to make it hot, you will have to copy/paste.

In looking at the additions for Oregon, I would probably be supportive of them. Most are fairly small, with the exception of the Hells Canyon area, which should obviously be a wilderness area, in my opinion. It looks like Idaho and Montana are where most of the acres are added, and in some very large chunks. If you look at the 2 wyoming proposals, one involves a fairly large chunk, but the other adds fairly small chunks, in comparison to existing wilderness.

I grew up hunting deer in Oregon in an area that became a Wilderness area when I was in my 20's. Loved having it protected, and hunted it for many years, not so much any more due to our group getting older (50's and 60's). Also spent a lot of time in what is now the Hells Canyon Recreation area. Love that place, and absolutely support Wilderness designation.

It would be interesting if those of you are familiar with some of these areas would look at the map and give us some feedback on how severely access will be affected. In Oregon, the size of the additions would not result in long treks to access it, and our terrain tends to be somewhat less severe than in other Western states. Obviously, roads inside the new areas would be closed, but these would become the main access routes, as has happened in the road closure areas in other areas. Without question, the lack of motorized access in these areas would benefit wildlife, which ought to be one of our primary concerns.

I think 24,000,000 acres is far too many to bring in at one time, and would guess this list will be pared down considerably prior to any serious consideration of the bill, but who knows for sure in the new world we live in.

Scoutdog
 
You guys just don't get it,do you? Don't let the feds make any more wilderness, we've got enough. I've been reading these posts, and it seems like alot of you are missing the point.When the feds make a wilderness area, they basically stop all logging, mining, gas and oil extraction, and livestock grazing.
I am a non-resident from Cali, and last year I drew my first Region G deer tag, put in for one this year,probably won't draw, but maybe i'll get a point. But if it turns into wilderness, I won't be able to hunt it unless I hire a guide.
The feds, with a total green agenda, have just passed into law 440,000 acres of new wilderness in my back yard. The ink wasn't even dry before Diane Finestien started legislation on an additional 750,000 acres in Inyo Co. We've been Californicated, don't let it happen to you. Also if the ATV'S are a problem, just enforce the laws already on the books, write tickets to the guys that are abusing the forest, don't shut it down because a few guys broke the rules. Make an example out of them, cut their ##t's off.
Just remember, the Wolf, the Spotted Owl, and the Yellow legged Frog are just tools to lock it up.
Thanks, Doug. P.S. Remember the old saying, Divide and Conquer, thats whats the feds, and the greens are doing to us sportsmen!
 
A land grab and nothing more, once wilderness, maybe they should just make or enlarge a few of the Natioal Park boundries and shut the hunting down altogether. They have the wolves to manage the herds now and maybe that original 300 wanted wasn't enough, so they need a bit more room and numbers.

We just sit by and give up our rights one at a time and then when we are locked out we'll ask ourselves what the h*ll happened?

Bambistew talks of Alaska. Look at all the hunting that was lost there in some of the best areas of the state when they made all the National Parks. It made private hunting preserves for people living in the areas and now they kill the animals under the guise of "subsistance". Like that 40+" ram is as good of eating as a nice fat ewe. Did that benifit anyone? No but it made the sponsers feel good about themselves and protecting something for their grand-kids, who will never see it but on a map.
 
Pinenut is correct. The Greys River road would not be closed down, but would be a "cherry stem". It's hard to see on the map at the link, but you can see that the roaded areas adjacent to the main road are excluded from the wilderness proposal. Lots of mis-information gets thrown around when people don't understand the issue.

The only reason I'm against the WY portion is because of the wilderness guide law.
 
I'm generally for wilderness areas, but I'd prefer they made this area roadless except for the main roads because of the ridiculous guide law. If this passes, I'll continue to hunt this area unguided and take my chances.
 
Let us know when and where you'll be and we'll be glad to turn you in. Might qualify for some poacher reward money...
 
Lets look at the facts!! Sponsored by Representatives on the East and West coast but not any sponsors from the regions it affects?? Isn't that enough??

The liberals believe we should all live in cities anyways. Take away employement in the rural areas and we'll all have to move to support ourselves.

I live in a rural area of Kali and see this everyday. The Liberals don't get votes from my community or from any other rural, western community. They resent us.

What's in it for them?? Ask yourself that!!!

Oh, bye the way, I'm opposed.
 
I guess it could be worse. They could be proposing to make this area a national park, which is another sneaky anti-hunting tactic that we need to keep our eye on.

We lost several thousand acres of good hunting to a national park where I grew up back east. Guess what, the park's boundaries expand just about every year with the yearly funding of the park's budget. How ironic--the antis use our own tax dollars to lock us out.
 
Well, I guess you just have to look at the up side. These states will have more room for wolves to expand without harassment from humans.:)

Eel

4a034f8f56fe5104.jpg
 
When I first saw this proposed a few weeks back, I didn't get too excited thinking it didn't have a chance to go through. Then I read responses on an "outdoors" forum like this and I'm amazed that more than one respondant sees this as a good thing. I just hope those people are actually PETA members trying to stir the pot a little.

This law has a huge negative impact on Wyoming and the people that live and visit here. Communities will suffer, education systems will suffer, and freedoms will be further taken away for all.

For those that made comments like "it should really help the trophy potential . . ." my only response is get a clue. Look at who is proposing this, do you really think they give a crap about "Trophy" potential? This law has nothing to do with helping improve your hunting opportunity. It is just the first step in taking away your hunting opportunities altogether and other freedoms away entirely.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-10-09 AT 10:13PM (MST)[p]With a handle like pinenut, you have to be a tree hugger.

I am strongly apposed of the HR 980 bill. I grew up in Wyoming and sadly now am a non-resident, if HR980 passes then I will be restricted from hunting areas I have hunted for many years, I am a DIY hunter and will not be hiring a guide to take me in areas that I have been hunting my hole life. I just have to shake my head to those of you that are continully in support of taking away our access. I would have to say that 80% of the roads that I traveld as a youth are closed now, isn't that enough?
 
Theodore Roosevelt actually set up wilderness areas and such to protect the resources and areas containing wildlife to preserve hunting for future generations for all w/o any language restricting access by the people. Once you designate a wilderness area guess what's next MORE WOLVES and more protectionism because they can't put them in everywhere and a wilderness designation allows more transplants. We can't even control predators in our KOfa National Wildlife Refuge since it got designated to protect the sheep. We are allowed to kill 1 lion a year even though they're eating sheep like hell won't have it. Once you turn the property over to a federal Wilderness area designation the state loses control to manage the wildlife in many instances especially when our little anti hunting friends get done with us in court! There used to be over 800 Bighorn Sheep in there and now we're dropping below 450. They even fought the sportsmen for wanting to put water in there the desert and went to court to stop it! Think this crap is about conservation now! NOT HARDLY!!!

I don't know about you but I fail to see where old wolfey is endangered anymore let alone any other predators but yet it's still an issue! The national forests were actually established for recreational opportunity just like our BLM lands and such. Go back and look at whats happened thru out the western states since slick willie was in there and see just how the dominoes have started to fall. They're not setting aside these blocks of land for the common man to use in todays world with restricted access and more limitations. We need our eyes fully open on this crap! If this issue was paramount in Wyoming DON"T you think a few congressman and a couple of senators from that state may have sponsored the legislation? It's time to WAKE UP BOYS and don't buy what they're selling because the writings on the wall.
 
Boskee is right on this. Anytime a treehugger liberal from new york is the bill sponser, you better look at the fine print and be very suspicious. The same goes for our two liberal senators from CA.
If this bill was to the benifit of the majority, without hidden agendas, the Senators from wyoming and ajoining states would be the ones behind this bill.
I am willing to bet that this is a "stick it too you" for wyoming fighting to manage the wolf population in their state. Make it federal, and you just took control out of the state's hands.

RELH
 
I am truly ignorant about this bill. You guys are probably right about it given who's names are at the top of it.

BUT I see alot of replies defending those who would destroy any wilderness they could get their hands on if there were'nt protections in place. The best conservationists have always been hunters but I see alot of my fellow hunters putting party labels and politics ahead of conservation. To me, that is misguided.

The only intelligent approach to conservation (or ANY issue for that matter) is to review each proposal on it's own merits.Don't be a sheep-sheep end up getting led to the slaughter.

Even our reviled by many current President is showing at least some willingness to do this-he just allowed Bush's rule that Polar bear designations will NOT be allowed to dictate global warming policy to stand.
 
Bambistew I have on numerous hunts in my life. But this really isn't about that and if you think it is you're being niave. Retrict the lands and you dimish the participation, create barriers and people lose interset. How are the older members of society going to go on a packin hunt? How are the younger kids going to do that? How is an older couple going to go into many of these areas to view wildlife? No matter if you agree with me on these points or not WHY is it that the congressional members from that state aren't introducing that legislation? If it was such a good idea don't you think they'd be doing it to get REELECTED? Why is it that it's being introduced by people the residents of the state of Wyoming can't touch? Think Bambi? It's smoke and mirrors and exactly how dirty politics work and agendas are promoted. You get the block of land put into a FEDERAL wilderness area and then you pass legislation to get the states hands tied so they can't manage it except how you want it done. If you're buying into this you need to research it a little more and get your eyes opened. Forget the mineral and gas rights the feds can get that anytime they want already. What are they really after here?
 
Boskee is right. I think that some wilderness is important. However, wilderness in most cases means little or no access other than walking. It shuts out many people. Anti hunting groups will and have stopped all wildlife transplants, water projects, range habitat/restoration, no preditor control, ie. flying for coyotes, etc.
More wilderness is not the answer if your a hunter. Wilderness in most cases is not a friend to wildlife or hunting. Restricted access, some road closures, is a much better approach in most cases. Conservation groups have tried too do many projects to help wildlife in established wilderness areas and have been shut down. More wilderness means less access for non res hunters, who cant afford a guide, or who dosen't want a guide. I hope this doesn't pass. People better email complaints.
 
Bambistew Ive hunted wilderness in all the western states that allow it which by the way is all of them except chump Wyoming! Im not against new wilderness just in WYOMING!, unless maybe the Wyo outfitters back off their federal land grab. BH1
 
Bambistew, I've not hunted the Wy Wilderness because of the absurd guide law. I have hunted Wyoming many times though and several trips to the area proposed. If this passes, i'm just one of many who will not be able to hunt that country any more. I barely can manage the costs associated with an out of state trip these days, hiring an outfitter is simply out of the question.

While i was back in that country, seemed plenty like a "wilderness" to me!

I live in an out of the way, outdoor recreational area of N. Cali that they have been closing access to the surrounding public lands, lakes, streams, campsites... I can tell you, the local economy has been effected and us residents here hate it!

Joey
 
the Federal government getting more involved is always a good thing. Just look at their track record. Those of you who want this are nuts.

"blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'donnell being fat."
 
Did any of you know that Alaska has 57,522,294 acres of wilderness? California is number 2 at 14,085,258 acres. Wyoming is about number six. GET THIS STRAIGHT! WE ALLREADY HAVE ENOUGH WILDERNESS IN THESE UNITED STATES,WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE. ALL THIS IS , IS A LEGASY BILL FOR SOME SENATOR FROM NEW YORK! JUST ONE MONTH AGO WE HAD THE SAME THING HAPPEN HERE IN CALI, DON'T BE STUPID, STOP THIS BILL! THAT NEW YORK DEMOCRAT HAS PROBABLY NEVER EVEN BEEN TO THE GREY'S THANKS, DOUG.
 
You can still hunt wilderness but,if your a non resident you can't hunt wilderness without a guide, or a resident companion, in Wyoming. But that's not the point. the U.S.A. has enough wilderness already. There are alot of other restrictions to a wilderness designation. All mining, logging, oil and gas exploration, and grazing. Trust me, we've been fighting, and losing this battle for a long time in the Eastern Sierra. Call your reps, and raise hell!
Thanks, Doug.
 
I skimmed through those 150 pages. It's pretty obvious a whole bunch of people have spent years dreaming and putting this package together. Now that we have a Dem Congress and a Dem President, the time is ripe for the picking.

Have you ever seen those photos of all the African villages, where the people are starving to death surrounded by vast herds wild animals? That could never happen here......

Eel
 
I read the entire 150 pages and I have been working on wilderness since I was in collage and this is the best thing for the State of Montana and hunting. I have been out of collage for 35 years and 30 years ago I was a hunting guide in the Big Hole Valley and there was not one 4 wheeler. Well, today there are 4 wheelers everywhere and I have seen areas with honey holes that always held elk and now 4 wheelers have built trails and the elk have left. I have seem very good hunting in the Big Hole Valley open up and destroyed by logging.

Anybody can put an elk on a 4 wheeler or drag it behind on a snow machine but it takes skill to tied it on a horse or mule which is a part of the total hunting skills.

Good hunting, long seasons and trophy opportunity takes real estate with limited access.

It seems to me that a number of writers on this thread are road hunters. I am not a man from the east but a 4th generation Monatana that fully supports wilderness and contributes and works for the cause.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-09 AT 11:34PM (MST)[p]Do you think the sponser or any of the co-sponsers of this bill are hunters? I doubt it, the majority are probably anti-hunters.

They are not supporting this bill to help give hunters a better wilderness experience or increase the trophy quality.

Why would anyone want the federal government to put more restrictions upon us? There are enough there already, just enforce them. Close down a few more roads, limit 4 wheeler activity, many other things can be done, after a public discussion about it, but don't think this bill is in the best interest of the residents of the states involved or for hunters.

This house bill has been introduced almost every year since 1993 and dies in committee hearings. Hopefully it will die again, but rest assured it will keep coming up.

If it is such a good bill, why has it failed to be pushed through for the last 16 years?
 
Some facts:

1. Federal wilderness areas operate on the same set of rules. Hunting regulations for all current and future wilderness areas are set by each state. There are other Federal Designations that are not like this, National Wildlife Refuges, National Heritage areas, National Recreation Areas, etc., but any land added to the Federal Wilderness designated system will NOT bar hunting.

2. The fact that Wyoming has an idiotic law that requires non-resident hunters to have a guide or resident accompany them is NOT a reason to oppose Wilderness designation per se. Deal with the stupidity of the law, rather than use it to oppose what could be a good thing for wildlife.

3. Many Western Senators and Representatives have long promoted commercial use of public lands, to the detriment of wildlife. The fact that they are not sponsors of this bill is hardly significant.

4. If you look at most of the current Wilderness areas across the west, access is not unreasonable. There are some huge ones, Bob Marshall, Frank Church, but does anyone really want to break those up? I would personally prefer to see new, smaller Wilderness areas added where none exist, as opposed to making current ones larger, but it can be tough to find areas that qualify.

5. It is all well and good to say that all we need to do is close some roads and we can accomplish the same thing as designating wilderness. As a person who has spent the last 10 years trying to get some roads closed in Central Oregon, I can tell you that is a difficult thing to get done. I have spent time in Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada and Oregon, and there is little doubt that road densities on average are increasing. This is a disaster for big game populations. Colorado probably has the largest areas of roadless habitat in prime deer and elk country, which I believe is a major reason for them having the largest elk and deer herds in the West.

6. I am now an old guy, who used to hunt Wilderness areas, not much anymore. I absolutely support them, even though I don't expect to get into them much. We have to get past the idea that every single person has some right to participate in every single outdoor activity in every single part of the country. I will never apply for a mountain goat tag on Cusick Mountain in Oregon, which is 13 miles inside the Eagle Caps Wilderness, but would hate like hell to see that lost.

7. Having said all of that, 24,000,000 acres is too much to bring in at one time. I would personally prefer to see new Wilderness legislation limited to one state at a time. This would allow residents of that state to focus on the proposal, and would likely result in a better bill.

Scoutdog
 
No one has cross referenced the Idaho side of the Wyo/Ida border---66a/76...lots of Wilderness proposed there too.....Caribou/Cache, Idaho on the link posted earlier.

I have hunted lots of Wilderness area's...... I rather enjoy the whole remote experience.

Being a Conservative Republican......I like the Wilderness ideology.

I think the Federal Wilderness proposal is getting very mixed up with the State Wilderness Guide Law........

Two different issue's.

Robb
 
Thank you, I agree with you 100%.
I showed this to 2 friends of mine that work for the Wyoming BLM,
and here is a quote from the email I got back
"Misrepresentation at its best.

One should definitely go to the source for researching these things before acting.

I have a feeling an oil and gas group was behind this rhetoric..."
 
Scoutdog,

I hunted sheep near the Bob Marshall wilderness area this past year. I have a 70 yr old friend who lives near there, who has been a taxidermist and guide for more than 45 years. Most of the elk winter on the Sun River Wildlife refuge. They get accurate winter counts. Montana had a very warm fall with very poor hunter sucess in thst region. They have a manditory check station ALL big game animals need to be checked in. The counts this past winter were around 5 calves per hundred cows. The population went from around 2,500 elk down to 2,000 elk. Wolves and Grizzly bears are a HUGE problem in this area. WILDERNESS IS OFTEN NOT THE BEST THING FOR WILDLIFE AND HUNTING. This friend of mine has a great love for the Bob Marshall. He has lived and worked all of his life. He is depressed with the current situation. NO PREDATOR CONTROL AND VAST WILDERNESS MEANS LESS WILDLIFE AND HUNTING. SOME WILDERNESS BY ITSELF IS GOOD.
 
I live in Montana, and I oppose this legislation. There is no local backing for any of this crap. The only people who benefit from wilderness designation are outfitters, and people with horses.
It is about access for the common man. Some people believe that man should not be able to access lands that are funded and maintained by his taxes. Taxation without representation. It was once reason enough for revolution.
It basically comes down to elitism, some people believe that their use of land should take precedence over all others. These national forests belong to all Americans, not a select few.
If this passes, I think they should take it a step further. Unshod, bareback horse access only. Hand-made buffalo leather moccasin hiking only. Hand-made Bow and arrow only. No plastics, no gore tex, no gps, no cell phones, no fancy hiking boots, no place to park the $40,000 tow rig with $10,000 horse trailer. You have to ride all the way from home.
I think we need more wilderness designation in Washington D.C., and New York City. Re-introduce wolves and Griz. Limit access to all roads and trails to hikers and horse owners only. After all, it is for their own good.
Of course I know better than them how they should live their lives, I live thousands of miles away.
 
All I can say is lazy......Put your damn boots on and go hiking. You don't need a horse and you don't need to be an outfitter. Do you dirve three house down to your friends house? Or did some horse kick your A$$. If its that big of a deal maybe you could turn your x box back on and play your hunting games then you don't even have to leave the couch.

Its amazing how many poeple ##### about having to walk. Mabye there is some real good about have no roads. America could lose some weight.
 
>All I can say is lazy......Put
>your damn boots on and
>go hiking. You don't need
>a horse and you don't
>need to be an outfitter.
>Do you dirve three house
>down to your friends house?
>Or did some horse kick
>your A$$. If its that
>big of a deal maybe
>you could turn your x
>box back on and play
>your hunting games then you
>don't even have to leave
>the couch.
>
>Its amazing how many poeple #####
>about having to walk. Mabye
>there is some real good
>about have no roads. America
>could lose some weight.
So go for a hike. Nobody is trying to limit your personal access. If you want to hike on a road, you should expect some traffic. If you don't like to share, go hike in a wilderness area, there are plenty to choose from.

Am I the only person that enjoys hiking /camping in a wilderness area, and also enjoy driving my landcruiser up established primitive roads?
 
Redfrog I doubt you actually live in Wyoming or any other western state. When you eliminate access you eliminate opportunity and not everybody has a hayburner in their back yards these days or is able to carry a full camp for their kids and wives on their backs or may be older. The lands are there for all to enjoy not just those of you that want things set up to please you. When you start to discriminate against your fellow country men then maybe it's time you step back and take a look at what you're doing and supporting. I don't own an xbox and I walk to my neighbors house but I'm not going to shut another off from enjoying this country do to my own selfish motives. America may be fat but we ain't stupid now go brew up some herbal tea and turn on your new wave music and think of more defining ways to mistreat mankind. Be thankful all those fat people exist because if you were left to fend for yourself you'd starve to death or be speaking another language.
 
boskee...I have nothing against other poeple. I don't live in WY. I love hunting WY. The large areas of land with little roads and poeple is why I love hunting WY. I don't like it when roads get closed trails get shut down. You see there is a very small yet sometime large group of poeple out there that can't follow the rules. everytime they take there truck up a hill with no roads or ride the four wheele ten feet past where the roads end and push into other areas it give the rest of us who follow the rules a bad name. You see right now it may not seam like a big issue to some of you but i wan't something left for the future of my kids. I wan't them to be able to see places that look mostley untouched. On the same note I love to hunt. I now this issue could open up a huge door for wolve and bears and such and I would hate to see that part of it without control on the numbers of these animals. There is a huge balance between man and nature that man has been trying to find for sometime. As much as i don't want to through this out here look at yellowstone. If you know the history its been a try this change that try this kind of a thing to find it. Now I don't want to see other areas end up like yellowstone but there are things we need to make sure are left for the future. We may not like the ideas and things that other put in place and they may not always be the best thing. But sometime doing nothing is the worst thing that can be done. I don't have anything againt the person that follows the rules takes there vehicle up a dirt road or the 4 wheelers out for a ride. I love doing those samething. But care needs to be taken not to destroy nature. Right now there are a lot out there that could care less.
 
Redfrog we don't close the freeways because we have speeders. You need to step up enforcement where necessary. Through effective enforcement and fines you will get the message across. I agree that too many don't care but there are so many more that do. You lay down the law, enforce it strictly, and in no time at all the wayward lose their access or come into tow. This plays out on our roadways many times over every year and through enforcement things change. When people know they're going to get citied or their vehicle impounded they change their habits quickly or lose the priviledge. It sends out the right message and most will abide by the rules because they want to enjoy the outdoors. Things have become a little lax in this country and there are always those that will take advantage of the system. Enforcement is the key, it's a simple fix that has been used in law enforcement for decades and it works like a charm.
 
Let's see.....You love Wyoming,but you want more wilderness that you can't hunt without a guide.I guess you must have more money than most NR.As far as lazy??What makes you think everyone opposed to this is lazy?Get a grip,man.Not everyone thinks the same way you do,and it doesn't make them wrong that they don't!Why do you think there won't be wilderness left for your kids?If we don't have more,does that mean we'll have less??I don't understand your logic(or lack of),Redfrog.Why should someone from NY be able to effectively shut down local economies and people's livelihoods?No one has addressed that on this forum from the pro-wilderness bunch.Would someone please address this?I really want to hear what you guys have to say about destroying someone's livelihood so that you can have the warm,fuzzy feeling inside that there is more wilderness out there!
 
Gentlemen;

I think we need to look at this bill in a different light. This goes far beyound the closing of roads and who is limited to using the wilderness area. These are items that cen be controlled at the state level and need no federal intervention.

I have hunted Wyoming Wilderness area for elk and deer as a non-resident. I was lucky enought to have several locals act as non paying guides for my partner and I. My partner and I rented riding and pack horses for ourselfs from a local ranch.

I have never agreed with Wyoming's stance on NR having to have a guide in their wilderness area, but I accept the fact they have the right to regulate their state lands as they see fit.

What I do not like about this bill is several reasons. It takes control of that land from the state of Wyoming and puts it into the control of the federal gov. as I understand it. What does the Feds plan to do with this land in the future if they gain control and the states have no recourse or say so.

Now I ask why is a member of congress from the East Coast so bent on taking control of this land from the states,far out of her district, that the land is located in. Where does this congress woman stand with other issues that may effect this land that the state will not have anymore say so in. Is this a round about way of introducing more wolves into those states. We all know how that will effect the hunting of game animals.

There is too many unaswered questions here that need to be answered to really know how to stand on this issue. I would like those questions answered or changes made in the bill that will fully outline the use of the land and what will & will not be allowed on the land, such as introducing wolves, preventing hunting organizations from making game habitat improvements Ect!

I guess you can say I see some red flags here, and I do have a slight problem of fully trusting my gov. officials of always doing the right thing when given a blanket cover all bill made into law. There very well may be a hiden agenda here, or my fears may be unfounded, but I have a feeling they are not and questions need to be answered before I can accept this bill.

RELH
 
This tread is tiled "Wyoming in trouble" but this congressional bill includes lands in 5 states. I am from Montana and have lived there all of my life except for 4 years in Alaska and the years that I spent traveling the world. This bill is certainly not about hunting but the protection of the last remaining wildlands in the Northern Rockies. The lands belong to all the American people not the residents of the state or locals and they were apart of the Louisiana purchase and the Oregon Territory. The wildlife belongs to the state. What this bill is trying to do is set aside land in it's natural pristine state for future generations -- land once roaded, mined and logged will never have the same attributes.

I am going to be 58 years old in June. I have been a license hunter since 1963 and have been hunting with my father since I was 7 or 8 years old. I have seem a lot of changes and the changes are progressing more rapidly as the years past and not all for the good. I remember when hunters used the family station wagon for deer and antelope hunting and 4 wheel drives were rare, they were mostly underpowered Jeeps surplused from World War 2. These Jeeps in the late 50's and early 60's would follow the sheep and cattle wagon trails eventually creating new roads in the mountains, the number of Jeeps were limited. In the early 1960's the first Ski Doos were marketed, low powered machines that had limited range and use. Sometime in the 1980's 4 wheelers were developed and since 2000 have increased exponentially. Were I live today half of all the vehicles on the street are 4 wheel drives. We got along find without all of the motorization 25 years ago.

In November of 1961 or 62 my father, brother and myself were on the south side of Big Pryor Mountain hunting deer (the Pryor Mountains are on the north end of the Big Horn Basin northeast of Cody, Wyoming and east of Red Lodge, Montana) we were in a white Chevy 4 wheeler drive and at the base of Big Pryor Mountain my father said "this is as far as we are going and no one is going any farther until June unless they are on a big strong saddle horse. This is as far as we could go let the country be silence for 6 months. No one complained, this was the end of the road until June. Today, one would unload their 4 wheeler or snow machine and continue up the mountain. It was winter the mountains needed a rest.

I have not been over in those mountains in many years, but from what I have read these mountains have become very popular with the motorized recreation and there has been resource damage and new roads created from 4 wheelers. Several years ago some hikers came upon a number of 4 wheel drive enthusiasts driving and tearing up a mountain meadow and there were photographed and the pictures were published in the Billing Gazette. I do not think that the forest service every caught them. This area is now under consideration for wilderness designation and it should become wilderness.

In 1966, I worked on a ranch on the west side of the Big Hole Valley between Wisdom and Jackson, Montana. In 1966 the Big Hole Valley was in a slow transition. The hay was hauled on sleds drawn by teams in the winter and in the summer 20% of the haying was done by horses, the old ranchers used stone boats to irrigate, how many know what a stone boat is. This is the land that I learned to ride horses and cowboy. I was not there because I wanted to be there but father decided that I needed a job. That was 43 years ago. In the early 1970's the forest service built a road and did a timber sale and open up the country. I have been over there in the last several years, the forest lands that I chased cattle on are intersected with 4 wheeler roads. I was there last 4th of July and there were large groups of 4 wheelers riding. The wagon roads that we cut poles on 40 plus years ago are now 4 wheel recreational bi ways. The country to the immediate west is slated to be apart of this wilderness bill, if this bill does not become law the motorized recreational users will slowly build farther into the roadless areas and snow machines will penetrate the winter silence.

None of us can speak with knowledge of all the areas proposed for wilderness. From the areas that I am familiar with there will be enough forest and BLM lands for both wilderness use and non wilderness use. Would I buy a 4 wheeler? Yes, I would and I would use it as a tool to hunt with not to hunt from which I see more and more but once one is on one it is easy to ride than walk. I have chosen to purchase horses for the my remaining hunting years.

As far as the Wyoming guide law and new wilderness area go that will be a positive thing. It will force a federal court case and the court should invalidate the law which will be used to over turn the Alaskan law.

If anybody thinks that they can stop this bill with the political climate in Washington is in for a surprise, but this bill will not pass without a compromise from all parties. It is US and the more we participate the more democratic we become.
 
I have to agree with RELH.

There is enough wilderness. Closing roads and adding wilderness designations is counterproductive in my opinion.

To quote an old friend, "You are only a virgin once". If it has been used for a hundred years, leave it alone.

The Federal government needs to stay out of the States business.
 
Elk 375 if this was such a popular cause like you've outlined why haven't the legslators from the western states introduced and sponsored the bill? You can read anything you want into why they're doing this. But ANY politicain that had such a worthy bill happening in his state would have been on the leading edge of the legislation to take the credit! Politicians need to get reelected or they have to look for jobs like the rest of us. Not only that but their political party would be all over them because they would want the exposure.

Another interesting fact is that many posters on this thread that seem to support this don't seem to have too many posts on here or reside in the states effected, Now why would that be? Hunting is very popular in those states and the sportsmen would be lining up behind this bill if it were for the good of hunting and the states. That doesn't seem to be happening and there are literally hundreds on here from these states. Hmmm me thinks somthing is starting to smell a lot like fish just like the sponsors of this legislation probably none of which have ever squeezed a trigger to hunt in their lives. If this was such a worthy cause hunters would be behind it and that in itself seems to support the fact it's not in the best interest of the residents. The residents of those states can't be that misinformed contrary to all that talk about saving mankind, future generations opportunity and protecting these lands.

They've seen first hand how the so called" wildlife lobby" works and most of them won't ever give them the time of day again because they misrepresent everything, lie, cheat and won't honor the agreements that they agreed to in the first place and this little manifesto has all the trimmings for giving the states more headaches than the last little 400+ MILLION DOLLAR headache. No I think the states learned a lesson there and they won't be giving up their rights anytime soon at least old wolfey taught them that.
 
Is it really that hard to understand that Federal land doesn't mean "State"? You want full control and say over what happens on those lands, then pony up the cash and pay to manage it. IMO, residents are getting to use that land at the expense of all tax payers just by the fact that its in your back yard. You should be greatful of that.

Someone asked "Why should someone from NY be able to effectively shut down local economies and people's livelihoods?"

Exactly who's livelyhood would be impacted by these lands going to wilderness? How many people are we talking here? 30, 50? I'm very intersted you seem to know, I may change my mind if I find out how many people would be loosing thier jobs, homes, ATV's? How may hunters would stay home? I'll bet for every ATV'er there is one horse guy to take his place.

The way I understand in order to be considered for wilderness, an area must exibit certain qualities which include limited human disturbance, no or very few roads, no mining, no logging etc. They're basically wilderness as they stand, however there is nothing protecting most of these areas from future development. Most of these areas require foot or horseback travel as it is, nothing is changing that. I highly doubt many old crippled hunters, or young kids hunt these areas, if they do its because they're tough enough to do it now and they will likely continue to do so.

There aren't many places left in the world that meet the criteria. Its not like in 10 years they'll designate more, this is pretty much the scraps of whats left.
 
I guess we should just be grateful that the out-of-staters let us access the national forest at all. I mean, we are obviously too ignorant to understand the complex nature of historical access. Thankfully there are people far from here, who know better than us, to help us understand that their ideas of public land use are far superior to ours.
Give me a break, we are taxpayers and voters too. The people we voted into office say this legislation is crap. The people sponsoring this bill are not on our ballots. How is that representation?
This bill is a travesty to all do it yourself hunters. If it goes into effect you will be required to rent horses, or hire an outfitter to hunt your public land. Unless you can afford to take off two weeks to hike in. That may be ok to the tourists, but I don't know many locals that can afford that. We prefer that public access not be restricted by elitists.

Bambistew, where do you live? Do you enjoy national forest land there? How would you feel if someone from across the country told you that you could not access the public land in your back yard?
 
I use NF all the time in many states. Where does it say in the wilderness bill that you will not be able to use it? Who is telling you that you no longer have access? Again most of you don't realize that these areas are no motorized travel as they stand, or have very limited access. I can't figure out why someone thinks if you can't drive into a place then its locked off. If thats the case its already locked off and you don't know it.

Your politicos are not for it because of powerful groups in your state who by the way could give a crap if you hunt or not... ranchers, miners, loggers. You honestly put faith in poloticians doing the right thing? Its all about popularity and nothing more.

Again I think its funny that people who are against the new wilderness areas have admitted that they use current ones. How many people do you think cried and complained the first time around? I'm related to quite a few that were 'impacted' by it. They managed to get by, didn't have to pack up and move etc. The scare tactics get old.

The wolf thing is probably the funniest of everything so far. The wildlife is whiped out thats why in SW Montana they extened the elk season by nearly a month, and give out a second cow tag. This is in 'wolf' country. The main complainers were the ranchers wanting the elk thined. Hmmm wolves, elk, hunters, and ranchers. Who do you think is winning that battle?

I grew in a ranching family in SW Montana. We moved to the state in 1864... 3 of the 4 original homesteds are still in the family, my parents live on one, my uncle onthe other 2. I understand the issues first hand and can see it from both sides of the table. One side is conservation the other is give me everything and let me have my way because I live here. My family used to run sheep on what is now wilderness, I know a few other ranching families that lost alotments the first time around... they didn't move away and fold up, some of them sold thier places because they became so valuable they couldn't help themselves. Mostly because of the scenery.

The "I live here, so I know whats best" gets old. Again if you want to manage FEDERAL land offer to buy it, otherwise be greatful you have access to it and its free to use.
 
Backroads why don't you write your own bill then. IT sounds like you might get some support. This bill is not just about hunting. Its not about riding wheelers or driving roads. Its about saving forest and land for the future to enjoy not just you me or the guy next door. Theres alot of things that need to be worked out to make this as good as it can be for everyone.
By someone not doing anything where and what do you think would happen to this land? The state of WY has bills and laws that protect some wilderness but what about the other states. I think there are some things a few poeple will lose to this but I think there is a lot more to gain for everyone.
 
One of the reasons that you do not see many people supporting the wilderness idea on this forum is that it is a very esoteric and by the name "Monster Muleys" is not read by the general population of hunters. People who read and post on these hunting forums are generally conservative. Furthermore, to post on this or any forum takes time. I spent over an hour last night writing and editing my post.

I am a real estate appraiser in Southwest Montana and there is far more money and even more in the future for maintaining our last remaining wild areas. Over 60% of the income in Gallatin County is non earned income, meaning SS, retirement accounts, trust funds and other non work related endeavors. I do not make my money off of those who ranch, log or guide on public lands. In years past I have logged, been a tyro cowboy, and both a hunting and fishing guide none of them paid the bills. I have great respect for those that do.

What is driving the economy of the New West is the abundant public lands, excellent fishing and hunting, skiing and other outdoor activities. The unfortunate situation is a change in new comers altitude, old family ranches be purchased by those who made there money else where, and population growth. In my last post I referred to the 60's several times. In the 60's this country had less that 200 million people today we have over 300 million and counting. This is the driving force.

Both my family and Bamistews family is from the territorially days. It does not give us anymore say or power. We both only have one vote and one voice, but it gives us historically perspective.

I have hours of professional writing to do and I wished that I was enjoying the local lands but we all must work.
 
Bambistew here you go.

"Our analysis indicates that Sublette County will be severely impacted if this proposal were enacted, but the exact level of economic impact could not be determined. A total of
2,545 jobs in the county, with an economic output of $768,202,000, would be affected by this proposal. These jobs come from every sector of our local economy. Our neighbor
Lincoln County, would have 1,679 jobs affected with an estimated output of $441,177,000. In total, this proposal would have some impact on 4,224 jobs within a two county area, with an output value of more than $1.2 billion. (Please see Attachment 2 for more information on this analysis.)

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009/05/JBousmanTestimony.pdf

Keep in mind that these jobs are already existing and this study is only in two counties and there are 8 more that are not included in this study.

As for the roads that will be closed, I was wrong about the Greys River and I apologize. The map I was going off of did not show the "Cherry Picking". Here is a more detailed map showing more details for Wyoming.

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009/04/NREPA_WY_own.pdf

This bill although it does not shut down all of the roads, it does shut down over 500 miles of roads in the Bridger Teton NF. Some of them would be good, but some would be terrible. The ones that would be harmfull to hunters would be roads that led to trail heads, such as the Wyoming Peak TH, Asbaroka Ridge TH, Fontenelle Lakes TH, South Labarge Creek TH, Scalers Cabin TH, etc.
 
You know I think you guys could be right. Why don't we just throw in the towel and sit back and watch how much better they plan on making things for we poor ignorant souls. They couldn't care less that you like hunting because they don't! They couldn't care less about your atv because they don't have one and they certainly couldn't care less about our wildlife management because in their world they will introduce enough predators so that eventually hunting will not be needed to help control the wildlife. They certainly won't control any wolves or any other predator because they don't believe in it. But don't concern yourselves, because hunting WON"T be there for your children. But they'll be able to walk anywhere they want and they'll be thrilled to listen to you tell stories bout how it used to be.

It literally took us billions of dollars and decades upon decades of quality wildlife management to get our wildlife numbers where they are today so you can enjoy hunting on federal land. I'm sure these guys from CA and back east have all the right answers because they're knowledgeable and look at all that vast wildlife they have to hunt where they live. Even though they're not the one's that built the North American Hunting Model we have today, and are really concerned about your opportunity to hunt. Imagine all the trophies hanging on their walls. The only trophy they have hanging on their walls is one with a hunter and a big red circle around it with a slash going thru the center. Keep giving in boys because it's just a matter of time before your willingness will make their dream a reality.
 
Thanks for posting that info wyoshed. Beyond even the economic impacts shown I think the final quote sums alot of things up.

"As a last comment, I want to invite anyone with an interest in this topic to come to
western Wyoming and see for yourself how we are providing stewardship of our natural
resources. The wonderful natural resources we have in our area would not exist if it were
not for us, the people living here on a daily basis, taking care of our environment."
 
Boskee

Quote: Even though they're not the one's that built the North American Hunting Model we have today, and are really concerned about your opportunity to hunt. Imagine all the trophies hanging on their walls.

I think that the father of the North America wildlife model is a New Yorker and hobby rancher called Theodore Roosevelt. George Bird Grindell born in New York City one of the foundering members of the B/C club. William T Hornaday born in Indiana and lived in Washington DC and New York City and was influencial in passage of the Federal Migratory Bird Law, but his greatest victory was probably his successful fight to preserve the American Bison. He lived in New York and Washington DC. There are many more -- Boskee do some research.

I justed talked with one of my clients a few minutes ago, talking about this wilderness bill and yes she is good looking well educated chick from the east who loves to hunt. Got an elk and deer last year. On opening day a mile up the trail that was clearly posted against any motorized travel here comes 8 four wheelers. She got there license number and reported them to the forest service, the forest service was to busy with limited resource to do anything.

There are not a few bad egg in the carton but half of the carton is rotten.
 
Okay...WY does a great job....What about the areas in these other states? The state of WY has things in place right now that protected the areas in this bill. What do these other states have???????????
 
I have to through this out since it just crossed my mind.

Can you imagine what it took to write the constitution? the debts and aguments and with all the other things that were going on at the time......
 
Well this Congresswoman Maloney from New York does not know jack about the lands she is trying to preserve and protect. Besides it is all for the Caribou!!!

Here is the video from the Congressional hearings last week.

It is absolutely disgusting that she is even allowed to write this bill.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-09 AT 03:25PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-13-09 AT 03:09?PM (MST)

Elk375 if you noticed above I made a reference to Theodore Roosevelt and he did it for the right reasons not some hidden agenda like these new age wildlife proponets that most likely haven't ever hunted a day in their lives. When you get to watch first hand how they fight your Fish and Game Departments for doing the right thing to protect a species you kind of have an awakening so to speak. Kind of like you experienced with wolves. They have blocked sportsmen conservation groups & the state from putting in water sources to sustain all wildlife, fought the department for wanting predator controls, got the state to shorten the season on Mt lions then immediately asked for a ban on all lion hunting it starts to paint a picture. Now couple this with the fact that there are fewer Desert Bighorns then wolves in the US and it starts to become clear. Then we have them going into the National Forest Service and working to close down areas down here that people use for all different types of recreation many of the same people that belong to the groups that caused issues with our sheep. When all you have to do is enforce existing laws. They told us it was for the right reasons too initially then they got their talons in and suddenly we're in the lion growing business compliments of these fine folks. Now everybody knows that they way to increase your sheep herd is by increasing your predators! By the way the sheep went from over 800 down to about 400+ so oops, maybe a little more predator control would be in order. Nope we're allowed to kill 1 lion a year in the boundary's. Yet they are seriously impacting sheep. Nope got to have a study done. Sound fasmiliar?

Then lastly when you have a relative that spent 30+ years with the USF&WS that lives in one of those states effected telling you it's bad I tend to believe him rather than some individual from CA or the east that thinks they know more and probably hasn't ever lived there let alone visited. Based on what I've seen up there they aren't increasing elk permits in the area around Gardiner. Wonder why? Predator problem? It's smoke and mirrors to get what they want and when they do you'll be hunting a lot less in those areas at some point in the future no matter what you are falling for today. Then as an appraiser I would think you'd understand how this might effect things from an economic standpoint. Maybe you have a fondness for those distant clients that have driven up the property values out there in so many towns that the locals couldn't afford to buy a house until this mess hit. Many of those same folks that won't be able to access these areas that the rich will simply write a check and have to themselves and their pristine experience. If you live there it's not just as simple as making a wilderness area out of it now is it. But when you come to visit and live states away it's a different matter because you know what's best for everyone and if you like the call of the wild what could be better! You've laid the ground work for your own sanctuary. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
 
Those videos are ridiculous. Rehburg didn't seem too impressed either.
Anyhoo, if this passes, the evil mountain bikers and those irresponsible rednecks who use game carts will finally be banned from the woods. Thank God, those people who use the wheel are up to no good!
 
Boskee:

I bet that we agree on more than we disagree, but I do not have time to write. A young good looking hunteress client chick wants her report now.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-09 AT 03:50PM (MST)[p]Elk 375 & bambistew take a moment and listen to all those fine hunting organizations lined up supporting this legislation! #2 Maloney talks about supporters HSUS etc this is a coalition of anti hunting organizations so get out the smelling salts. These guys have never done a damn thing to protect yours or anybody else right to hunt. On the first segment listen to the congressman at the end even he is dubious as to why they would sponsor such legislation and questions their motives. I rest my case and we've all been bilked one time or another but a few of us smelled a rat and that's exactly what it is! Nothing personal guys and you're right Elk 375 we most likely share more common ground than not on hunting. CA
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla
C
$150 NR tickets for violating Wyoming Wilderness rule (12 tickets in 10 years)
2
Replies
162
Views
5k
jm77
jm77
J
Colorado Prairie Dogs- NE Area or anywhere in Colorado - I’m flexible !
Replies
1
Views
372
270Whatelse
2

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

image000000.jpg
IMG_3630 copy.jpg
Big Utah Bull
IMG_8772.jpeg
3D5BA906-5DAB-4565-97AC-64B8BB184D31.jpeg
FDE80FDF-A4C6-4829-A4B9-E89D6E6D93E7.jpg
Mule2022.jpg
20220901_080607.jpg
tmj2.jpg
IMG_1339.jpg
35582012_deer2.jpeg
IMG_0136.jpg
Back
Top Bottom