Good win for the Wilderness

[dreaminbouthuntin]

http://wilderness.org/content/roadless-rule-becomes-law-land

arch came in like a lion to defend our national forests. After years of courtroom wrangling and legal uncertainty, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule has finally become the law of the land.

In early March a Wyoming federal district judge officially lifted a nationwide injunction that had blocked the US Forest Service from implementing the roadless rule. Adopted more than a decade ago, the roadless rule protects 58 million acres of national forest inventoried roadless areas across the country from road construction and commercial logging.

Due to the court's ruling, roadless national forest lands from the Southern Appalachian Blue Ridge Range, to Montana?s Whitefish Range and Washington state?s Teanaway Roadless Area will remain wild and open to world-class recreation, including hunting, hiking and mountain biking. These same forests also help supply drinking water to nearby communities, especially in the West.

The Wyoming court's action came in response to a historic ruling in the fall of 2011, in which a U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Wyoming district court and upheld the legality of the roadless rule. The Wilderness Society and other conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, intervened in the case to defend the rule.

History of the roadless rule

The Roadless Rule was developed through an extensive public comment process during the Clinton Administration. Along with the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 1980 Alaska Lands Act, the Roadless Rule is considered to be one of the most significant conservation actions ever taken by the federal government.

Almost upon the day it was adopted in 2001, the roadless rule was wrought with controversy, including legal attacks from the Bush Administration and other interests. Now, after a back-and-forth struggle in which The Wilderness Society has fought every step of the way, some of the wildest forests in the country are protected.

Forest roadless areas are still threatened

Serious legal and political threats to national forest roadless areas remain in Colorado and across the West. In the courts, the State of Wyoming intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and overturn the roadless rule fully. In Idaho, nine million acres of roadless areas have less protection under a state-specific Idaho roadless rule adopted by the Bush Administration.

The fate of Colorado?s four million acres of roadless forests remains in question. The State of Colorado has asked the Obama Administration for a state-specific rule -- similar to Idaho?s -- but that would allow more road building and logging that would set aside quiet recreation in favor of extractive industries, like coal mining.

One of Colorado?s justifications for a state-specific rule was the legal uncertainty surrounding the roadless rule. However, the courts now have resolved the legal issues and declared the roadless rule to be the law for roadless areas across the country-- one set of rules for our nation's valued forests. There is not a need for state-specific roadless rules in Colorado or elsewhere.

Why protect roadless forests?

Did you know that almost 80 percent of our country?s freshwater originates in forests? And of that, national forests are the largest source of water in the United States, much of that water being of the highest quality available. Millions of people depend on this water for drinking and personal use. Protected forests keep that water safe and clean.

Roadless forests also provide playgrounds for children and adults alike. Each year millions of people visit our national forests to fish, watch wildlife, camp, hike, bike and ski. A study by the Forest Service shows that recreation activities in national forests and grasslands have helped to sustain an estimated 223,000 jobs in rural areas and contribute approximately $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy.


This group promots keeping the wild roadless for better hunting, hiking, and non moto recreation.

 

[huntin50]

Dreaming,

I have a difference of opinion concerning wilderness. I think wilderness and roadless areas are important. Too much wilderness and roadless areas are not good.

Large areas of Wilderness are not the best interest of Wildlife and hunting.

1. Wilderness restricts sportsmen access. You can't back pack an elk out 10 miles away unless you have horses. Yes I think some areas are great. Roadless BookCliffs, Bob Marshall, etc.

2. Wilderness restricts predator control, habitat improvements, transplants,and water projects to help sustain and increase wildlife populations. Conservation groups try to do projects in wilderness areas and have been threatened with lawsuits. They say everything needs to be natural. Well if you have no water you have no wildlife, no wildlife, no huntings. No multiple use. More restrictions. If you have more vast areas of wilderness, there are more areas and argument for wolves to have a place to live as well. More predators less hunting opportunity in some areas.

The Bob Marshall is full of Wolves and grizzly and wildlife numbers are going down hill.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[customweld]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-12 AT 07:15PM (MST)[p]Here we go again with the roadless warriors. That's what we need more categorized roadless areas."The Wilderness Society and other conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, intervened in the case to defend the rule" That is a fine bunch of folks to align with.

 

[Idahoron]

Wilderness has largely reduced my hunting opportunity. I don't see the need to have every inch of public land be made a wilderness. Ron

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-12 AT 04:46PM (MST)[p]every square inch a wilderness? when you say things like that it makes you sound very ignorant of reality. I would much rather sign up with Earth Justice and the Wilderness Society than your sicko Governer and Congressional delegation from Idaho, If their not doing things like killing off bighorn sheep herds they are pushing to sell off public land. Lets just call it what it is.

 

[HayZeus]

Piper, if you would rather sign up with Earth Justice and the Wilderness Society you are the one that is ignorant. Our lawmakers in this state do a very good job for the benefit of all of us who call this great state our home. Im glad you dont vote here in Idaho but the antis probably wish you would.

 

[twsnow18]

i love the wilderness and back country. just because it makes it tougher for you to fill a tag and actually get off of your atv idahoron, because i know you hunt from one you said so. i love how everyone is freaking out about how it's limiting hunting access, hunting isn't supposed to be shooting from a road, or in my beliefs even within a half mile of a road. just because you don't fill your tag say every single year, but maybe every other, does not mean it's ruining your hunting access. i don't consider that hunting. pull out some boots and a backpack and enjoy the outdoors and sometimes you get lucky and i bet you guys would fill more tags anyway. if they expected you to fill a tag every single year they'd call it killing, not hunting. albeit i understand some people are better at it then others.

 

[BuzzH]

Good deal...

"The idea of wilderness needs no defense. It only needs more defenders." -Edward Abbey.

 

[customweld]

It has nothing to do with hunting. It is a about a state that already has 9.3 million acres of roadless land.How much more protection does it need? If it would have been profitable to log or mine it it would have already been done. Incremental land grabs will eventually leave us with no access at all. I have already posted it in the Woodland Caribou thread but look up the wildlands project and see for yourself if there is any correlation to what has happened thus far and what the TWP is working towards.

 

[customweld]

There you are Buzz I wondered how long it would take for you to cheer lead.

 

[6speed]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-12 AT 08:05PM (MST)[p]twsnow18 There is a key with a little up arrow that would help your post come across as having been written by someone with a reasonable amount of comon sense.

As for wilderness I am all for what we have and opposed to most of what has been proposed.

 

[customweld]

Here is another quote from Buzz's beloved Edward Abbey "Whole regions perhaps that will be free of human interference. Ideally, I would like to see certain large areas of the planet set off-limits to human entry of any kind, even aerial over flights."

Edward Abbey-Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: The Natural Wonder: An Ecocentric World View. New Dimensions Radio, 1998

 

[BuzzH]

A few more I like...you can guess who said it.

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

A Book-Lover's Holidays in the Open, 1916

"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others."

Address to the Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis, TN, October 4, 1907

"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them."

Seventh message to Congress, December 3, 1907

"Nothing should be permitted to stand in the way of the preservation of the forests, and it is criminal to permit individuals to purchase a little gain for themselves through the destruction of forests when this destruction is fatal to the well-being of the whole country in the future."

Eighth Annual Message to Congress, December 8, 1908

"I do not intend that our natural resources should be exploited by the few against the interests of the many"

 

[customweld]

"Nothing should be permitted to stand in the way of the preservation of the forests, and it is criminal to permit individuals to purchase a little gain for themselves through the destruction of forests when this destruction is fatal to the well-being of the whole country in the future."

Eighth Annual Message to Congress, December 8, 1908

And 2 short years later the largest wildfire in Americas history burned 3 million acres in 2 days and killed 83 people. Nothing stood in the way of that forest preservation.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-12 AT 09:57PM (MST)[p]Naturally occurring wildfire has been part of the landscape for thousands of years...

BTW, the 1910 and 1919 wildfires created the habitat that supported large herds of ungulates (you know, deer, elk, moose, etc.) in Western Montana and Idaho for the next 40-50 years.

I'm for burning it again...all 3 million acres.

 

[customweld]

Spoken like a true ecoterrorist.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-12 AT 10:18PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-12 AT 10:18?PM (MST)

Spoken like someone who has been suckered by Smokey Bear...

I see you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Congratulations?

 

[Idahoron]

You know nothing of how I hunt. Yes I do use ATV's. I use them instead of trucks. Trucks on some winter roads tear the crap out of the roads. I also have a back pack and a pack frame that is always in my truck during my big game hunts to pack out my animals.
Actually for your info wilderness has not affected how I hunt at all for animals I need a "tag" for. The only place where wilderness has affected me is for chukar hunting. In the canyon lands there are places that you can't drive any closer than two or three miles from the canyon rims. If you have a four to six mile walk on top of five to eight miles of hunting that breaks a guy down no matter how old you are. In that wilderness the west side of the Bruneau was mostly unaffected by the wilderness since the hunters on that side had better representation looking out for "their" hunting.
So before you start lecturing me on the benefits of lacing up the boots you need to get all the information.

I got to wonder do you have older family members you take hunting? Do you make them hike in 10 miles to hunt a deer? You sound like a young guy that has a lot of ability to get way off road. Good for you. Take an 88 year old WWII vet on a elk hunt some time. You will see why wilderness is not for everyone.
I am also way past the need to "fill a tag every year" Like I said before you don't know anything about me.
Ron


>i love the wilderness and back
>country. just because it makes
>it tougher for you to
>fill a tag and actually
>get off of your atv
>idahoron, because i know you
>hunt from one you said
>so. i love how everyone
>is freaking out about how
>it's limiting hunting access, hunting
>isn't supposed to be shooting
>from a road, or in
>my beliefs even within a
>half mile of a road.
>just because you don't fill
>your tag say every single
>year, but maybe every other,
>does not mean it's ruining
>your hunting access. i don't
>consider that hunting. pull out
>some boots and a backpack
>and enjoy the outdoors and
>sometimes you get lucky and
>i bet you guys would
>fill more tags anyway. if
>they expected you to fill
>a tag every single year
>they'd call it killing, not
>hunting. albeit i understand some
>people are better at it
>then others.

 

[twsnow18]

you hit the nail on the head ron, i am 21 and in decent shape. i did 26 miles packframe and the works last year to find a buck. but yes, i understand not everyone is able to do so and i am lucky and take full advantage of it at my age. i will continue to do so until i can't, and do not take it for granted. BUT, just because person A is up in age and not in the greatest shape of their life and is unable to pack a deer out 6 miles (most people can't), doesn't mean they should ride a quad pushing every deer in the county around and possibly ruining a hunt for person B that is a few miles off of the road hunting, just so that they can hunt. see what i'm saying? it's just the fact that so many abuse their quad privileges and seriously/honestly the only way to realistically stop it is to take drastic measures regarding atv/trail laws. it's a tough law because where do you draw the line between hunting from your quad, game retrieval, setting up camp to saying you hiked 30 yards down from your quad to take the shot. i agree with atv use for the intended laws but it's such a gray area and so impossible to enforce for the one fish cop/ every 100 square miles in idaho.

 

[Idahoron]

I was in your shoes. To a degree I still am about some hunts I like but things will change for you. Like you I walked in on all my hunts and I wanted everyone to walk because I knew most guys wouldn't. I didn't like horsemen because they had the upper hand. I didn't like Motorcycles because I didn't have one and I didn't have the skills to use one.
For years I lost opportunity to hunt with my Dad and my Uncles because I was too focused on wanting to do back country hunts that they could not do. Ya I shot a LOT of game. I shot some Great bucks. But I was greedy, I didn't want others in my hunting areas so the best way to keep them out was to lobby against motorcycles and horses. At that time ATV's were not around then. When I started to hunt with my kids I couldn't go in 6 miles to do a hunt. 12 year old kids don't have that kind of drive to hunt. They need success and to keep them interested they need that opportunity to not be a death march while carrying heavy gear. Things change, I promise.

In your case Hunter A vs Hunter B. I might be wrong so please correct me. Your saying that Hunter B is off road. You don't say if Hunters A is on trails or roads.
If Hunter A is on roads and trails and is using his machine to access areas where he gets off and go hunting I don't see your issue. If hunter B is hunting on roads and trails on foot that are open to motorized use that is hunter B's problem if hunter A is following the law.

Now if Hunter B is off road and off trail and hunter A uses his machine to actually hunt off of, off road and off trail, then hunter A has probably broken a law taking his machine into ares where he is not supposed to. He HAS broken the law of using a motorized vehicle in the actual hunt. In this case Hunter B turns that person in and that person is prosecuted.

Just because someone uses an ATV does not make them lazy or a criminal. I will also give you another hint. Not all trophy animals are 20 miles into a wilderness area.
Ron

 

[piper]

the point being lost is that the vast majority of land is not wilderness, some of you act like everything is wilderness. If people don't want or can't hunt in wilderness areas they certainly have plenty of other places to go. The only difference is tags may have to be restricted if you want quality animals or the quality of the hunt is compromised if you want unlimited hunters. Its true that not all trophy animals are 20 miles back in, so why get upset? its not like there a whole lot of areas 20 miles from a road.

 

[BuzzH]

. Take an 88 year old WWII vet on a elk hunt some time. You will see why wilderness is not for everyone.


What a crock...

Waiting for the other excuses to have a road on every last stitch of public lands...what about young kids, what about fat people, what about my uncle with a bad back, etc. etc. etc.

If these people cant cut it in the wilderness...too bad.

Idaho has 32 million acres of BLM and FS lands...only 4.5 million in designated wilderness.

If you cant find a place to hunt on the remaining 27.5 million acres of public lands...I dont know what to say.

We're also not including state lands and private lands where you are also free to take your 88 year old WWII vet friend.

Get a grip...

 

[Idahoron]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 12:51PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 12:45?PM (MST)

So what I said was a crock?
Ok here is a picture of a crock I guess.

I am not saying that every last inch needs to have a road. But wilderness status and wilderness study areas ARE being applied to areas that have and historically are multiple use areas.

Most of us agree that if you can't cut it in the wilderness stay out. I agree 100%. What I am saying is why take areas that already have roads and multiple use and make it wilderness?

I don't want to take my uncle hunting in wilderness areas. He used to go hunting in wilderness areas with his horses. He doesn't want wilderness opened up for him either.
The issue is when new wilderness is pushing these people out. We have enough wilderness.

I am willing to bet someday your attitude will change. It may take some time but it will. BTW Buzz, when was the last time you took an old timer hunting or a young kid? Ron

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 02:32PM (MST)[p]Idahoron,

For starters, no my attitude wont ever change about wilderness. I'm not a selfish SOB that thinks I should always be able to hunt the spots I do now. I find great value in knowing that many of the areas I hunt are going to be there for future generations, even when I'm no longer physically able to hunt there. I actually find it quite comforting knowing most all of the areas I hunt are not going to be developed, roaded, and other-wise ruined.

The Men I grew up with hunting didnt ask for easier access, nor did they whine like a 2 year old when they no longer could hunt areas they could in their youth. They hunted where they could and made the most of it. They passed on the tradition of hunting, land ethics, and wilderness/roadless values...most of which I still believe in today.

I think a better question for you would be, "Buzz, when was the last time you HAVENT taken an old timer or a kid hunting".

I give back plenty...time, money, and helping others.

This old dude here, was also a WWII vet...and my Grandfather. Never heard him whine once about being "locked out" of anywhere.

Been known to help these guys pack an elk or three out as well. Oh, and they still hunt wilderness every year (at 63 and 74 years old).

 

[BuzzH]

Kids??? I dont have time for that...too busy whining about too much wilderness, and no they arent my kids:

I think I should get double credit for this one...kid and old guy...

A friends nephew:

 

[BuzzH]

A good friends Dad:

Another good friend of mines Uncle...great guy and I look forward to hunting with him each year more than anyone else.

 

[BuzzH]

Another older friend of mine:

Been known to help this guy out a time or three:

 

[BuzzH]

Some more:

 

[BuzzH]

Helped lots of friends...none that "old"...

 

[BuzzH]

Help out my younger brother once in while:

Should of pushed him down in the snow and shot this one, but, beings how I'm such a selfish Ba$tard...stopped it with a grunt call and watched him shoot it.

Another time I should have pushed him down:

Elk the same day:

Glassing up a buck for him...

About an hour later:

 

[BuzzH]

Help this chick out once in a while...

Again, being the selfish ba$tard that I am...I let her shoot this B&C buck that I'd scouted:

A few years later, let her shoot this Booner as well:

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 03:20PM (MST)[p]Yep, pretty much hunt for myself and kick everyone else to the curb...

Oh, and theres plenty more where those came from...hardly even warmed up.

 

[HayZeus]

It looks like you like to hunt ALOT, but be careful who you side with or you mint help take away your own rights. All it takes is a foot in the door to get in.

 

[dreaminbouthuntin]

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12
>AT 03:20?PM (MST)
>
>Yep, pretty much hunt for myself
>and kick everyone else to
>the curb...
>
>Oh, and theres plenty more where
>those came from...hardly even warmed
>up.


Heck of a good time it looks like Buzz. Keep up the good work. +1000

 

[piper]

Yea, I also think you should be carefull who you side with, I haven't heard anyone from the wilderness society pushing to sell national forest land to the highest bidder.

 

[Idahoron]

Those are some great pictures.

There is a big difference, and if you would step down off your high horse long enough you might realize it.

If I started hunting a wilderness area and then found my self not able to go there due to a physical disability, I would miss hunting it but would not feel like I was locked out. I would also not feel like rules should change to allow me to hunt there. In this case I would accept it because it was wilderness when I started to hunt there.

In my case, my Chukar hunting area that has roads all over it was turned into a wilderness area. That is different. I am still able to walk in and hunt but my older friends can't. Yes we feel like we were locked out. Because we were.
Ron





>LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12
>AT 02:32?PM (MST)
>
>Idahoron,
>
>For starters, no my attitude wont
>ever change about wilderness. I'm
>not a selfish SOB that
>thinks I should always be
>able to hunt the spots
>I do now. I find
>great value in knowing that
>many of the areas I
>hunt are going to be
>there for future generations, even
>when I'm no longer physically
>able to hunt there. I
>actually find it quite comforting
>knowing most all of the
>areas I hunt are not
>going to be developed, roaded,
>and other-wise ruined.
>
>The Men I grew up with
>hunting didnt ask for easier
>access, nor did they whine
>like a 2 year old
>when they no longer could
>hunt areas they could in
>their youth. They hunted where
>they could and made the
>most of it. They passed
>on the tradition of hunting,
>land ethics, and wilderness/roadless values...most
>of which I still believe
>in today.
>
>I think a better question for
>you would be, "Buzz, when
>was the last time you
>HAVENT taken an old timer
>or a kid hunting".
>
>I give back plenty...time, money, and
>helping others.
>
>This old dude here, was also
>a WWII vet...and my Grandfather.
>Never heard him whine once
>about being "locked out" of
>anywhere.
>

 

[huntindad4]

Okay, first Buzz how many of those pics are wilderness hunts?

The fact that not just anyone can use wilderness is not a crock. I am happy with the amount of wilderness currently available, are you? If not how much more do you want?

Over one eight of the federal land in ID is wilderness (using your numbers so I am assuming they are correct) if you can't find plenty of wilderness land to hunt on then you have a problem. Again your thinking.

Ron and nobody else here that I have read a post on is asking to take wilderness back to non wilderness status or did I miss something?

I would venture to guess that not even five percent of outdoors enthusiasts use wilderness areas (their loss I will agree) so why should there be more than is currently available?

Would you by choice have the majority of public ground be wilderness? Ninety percent? Where should it stop in your opinion? At what point would you consider it selfish? At what point would you consider it selfish for a proponent of non wilderness? Is me being happy with the current ratio selfish?

I do agree with you on fires! Burn it up! Especially if it's burned in the last century and has no timber of value, if it does I like some clear cutting it's great deer and elk habitat.

I know you won't read and honestly answer these questions but instead get all hot under the collar and call me a fat lazy slob of a road hunter who cannot hold a candle to your many conquests with pictures to prove it, give me a break! Your posts on this subject here and others are some of the most selfish and obstinate posts I have read on this sight and there is not enough pictures on the entirety of the Internet to change that.

Dreamin and others,

As for the ATV and road hunters, I love them! Just like I used to love all the blacktail hunters I would see (in the 90's and early 2000's) standing at the edge of HUGE expanses of burn or clear cuts staring looking for deer, the whole group of four or five with not one bino for the group! My point? Why would I or any intelligent hunter for that matter want more people out of their truck hunting? I like the advantage I have of them in their truck or on their ATV rarely if ever grassing. But that's just me, you keep banging the drum and trying to get yourself more competition.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!

 

[MULEY204]

Hey there Buzz, OL' 4XL asshat here....LOL..Hey what is your take on Y2Y or the wildlands project....For me it just scares me and makes me worry. I just feel like there trying to take the land from us. These are baby steps and then it will get more severe later. 30 to 100 year plan....call me paranoid...

Very nice pictures of your friends and family .

PM me if you want , I am curious what your take is on those 2 subjects

 

[twsnow18]

alright BUZZ H, we get it. you wen't a little overboard trying to prove a point. really cool interesting photos but you had attitude in each one of those captions.

 

[customweld]

Hows about it Buzz. What is your opinion about those 2 subjects?

 

[MULEY204]

Y2Y AND THE WILDLANDS PROJECT ...JUST GOOGLE THEM AND READ THE PLANS. THINGS ARE CHANGING

 

[BuzzH]

The fact that not just anyone can use wilderness is not a crock. I am happy with the amount of wilderness currently available, are you? If not how much more do you want?

It is a crock. Those that cant access wilderness are free to use the 27.5 million acres in Idaho that arent. No, I'm not happy with the amount of wilderness we have now, for lots of reasons. One being that the USFS has done a great job of designating rock and ice in wilderness. Take a look at a map sometime...take a hike through the Bob, Selway, Frank Church. I'd like to a see a wider distribution of habitat types, forest types, rangeland types, etc. etc. under wilderness designation. How many acres of winter range are under wilderness designation? Ever wonder why states with the most roadless/wilderness also have the longest hunting seasons? OTC tags? Is that just by chance? I know its not. Its also not by accident that a lot of the countries water supplies are provided from Wilderness areas. Lots of intrinsic value that really has no price tag. Many T&E species rely heavily on wilderness. Many GAME species rely heavily on wilderness. The upside to wilderness...there arent many downsides, other than the excuse that the old, weak, fat, and lazy cant drive an ATV into them.

I'd like to see all the current lands that are inventoried as roadless under RARE II classified as either Wilderness or at a minimum, another designation that keeps motorized travel off-limits.


Ron and nobody else here that I have read a post on is asking to take wilderness back to non wilderness status or did I miss something?

Yes, you missed a big something.

The areas in question have already been identified as having roadless qualities. Putting these lands back into a "multiple use" classification opens them up to roading, oil/gas exploration, etc. etc. etc.


I would venture to guess that not even five percent of outdoors enthusiasts use wilderness areas (their loss I will agree) so why should there be more than is currently available?

I've already answered that question, lots of reasons to designate more wilderness. I dont care if many people are too lazy, fat, weak, or ignorant to use THEIR PUBLIC LANDS within the wilderness boundaries. They can use the 90% that isnt in wilderness.

Would you by choice have the majority of public ground be wilderness?

No, and it never will be...any other red herings you want to throw into the discussion?

Where should it stop in your opinion?

I'd be reluctantly happy with all those lands identified in RARE II going into either wilderness or a primitive/non-motorized designation.

At what point would you consider it selfish?

When 51% of all public lands are designated wilderness.

At what point would you consider it selfish for a proponent of non wilderness? Is me being happy with the current ratio selfish?

At the point we're at currently...446 million acres of public lands between the FS and BLM with only 44.9 million in designated wilderness. The BLM, in particular, is ridiculous...they control 253 million acres and have 8.8 million in Wilderness designation. Its selfish to not allow all the acreage of roadless lands defined under RARE II to not be designated wilderness.

Are you selfish? I dont know...you've never listed your reasons explaining why a 90-10 split in favor of multiple use is fair and balanced? I also think you're not up to speed on this issue and dont understand NFMA, RARE, or the Wilderness Act. You've also never given a reason why you think its a good idea to open up the acreage in question to logging, mining, and having roads and ATV's running through all thats left of roadless country?

 

[Idahoron]

Does this look like roadless wilderness? This is what I am talking about. This picture is of "wilderness" area that was recently designated wilderness. With wilderness like this what is next down town Boise? Ron

 

[BuzzH]

Thats the result of waiting 40 years and having lands in WSA's...

The Fat-a$$ed atv/motorized crowd just cant help themselves.

Another strong point for more wilderness ASAP...if you wait the gearheads will ruin it.

 

[Idahoron]

Those are not ATV roads. To be honest some of them were probably started by horses and wagons. Some of those roads even go to Stone buildings.
The point is why make it a wilderness. it is clearly not wilderness nor should it be. I am done arguing with you. Idaho has enough wilderness. If you want your back yard to be wilderness more power to you. Ron

 

[6speed]

Here is a question for both sides. If tomorrow morning every legally developed road were magiaclly protected and our all knowing government passed a bullet proof bill that not another road would be built nor closed would you be happy? Why? Keep in mind I'm not talking about protecting illegal atv trails and I'm not talking about shutting down the land it could still be used, logged mined etc. They would just have to do it without building any more roads.

 

[BuzzH]

I am done arguing with you.

You were done well before you ever started...

 

[dreaminbouthuntin]

>Those are not ATV roads. To
>be honest some of them
>were probably started by horses
>and wagons. Some of those
>roads even go to Stone
>buildings.
>The point is why make it
>a wilderness. it is clearly
>not wilderness nor should it
>be. I am done arguing
>with you. Idaho has enough
>wilderness. If you want your
>back yard to be wilderness
>more power to you.
>Ron

Says the man that uses, rides, and is pro atv..

Lmao.. road started by horses.. psh.

 

[customweld]

Every one of those pictures has something that was either mined or grown. I guarantee that sometime during those hunts you took a $hit and I guarantee that you wiped your liberal ass with toilet paper that came from trees that were logged in the forest that you want made into wilderness. I also guarantee that whether it was roadless or not that you got to the trailhead on a road that you drove a vehicle to. That vehicle more than likely ran on petroleum that was extracted from the earth. The point being that in order for human beings to exist we need natural resources. Unless you walk every where and live in a cave you are a hypocrite .

 

[MULEY204]

We need to be very careful not to let these enviro folks confinscate to much land. They operate under a different agenda than you think. This is not about stopping the motorhead or creating a place for hunters on foot or drinking water. The land grabs are very well planned out and stratigic.

Buzz, I am shocked by your lack of acknowledgement . You know more about this movement than anyone and yet your silent to the real agenda.

 

[deepforks]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-12 AT 12:34PM (MST)[p]gee, this sure sounds like a swell plan huh? i'm sure buzz and dreamin' will actually agree with it though.

 

[Idahoron]

>>Those are not ATV roads. To
>>be honest some of them
>>were probably started by horses
>>and wagons. Some of those
>>roads even go to Stone
>>buildings.
>>The point is why make it
>>a wilderness. it is clearly
>>not wilderness nor should it
>>be. I am done arguing
>>with you. Idaho has enough
>>wilderness. If you want your
>>back yard to be wilderness
>>more power to you.
>>Ron
>
>Says the man that uses, rides,
>and is pro atv..
>
>Lmao.. road started by horses.. psh.
>


Yes some of those roads were started by horse and wagon. Again I will show a few more pictures. This time of homesteads that are there. How did people get to these homesteads? First by horse and wagon, then by vehicles. We are talking about an area that has had Multiple use for over 100 years. Ron

 

[dreaminbouthuntin]

>>>Those are not ATV roads. To
>>>be honest some of them
>>>were probably started by horses
>>>and wagons. Some of those
>>>roads even go to Stone
>>>buildings.
>>>The point is why make it
>>>a wilderness. it is clearly
>>>not wilderness nor should it
>>>be. I am done arguing
>>>with you. Idaho has enough
>>>wilderness. If you want your
>>>back yard to be wilderness
>>>more power to you.
>>>Ron
>>
>>Says the man that uses, rides,
>>and is pro atv..
>>
>>Lmao.. road started by horses.. psh.
>>
>
>
>Yes some of those roads were
>started by horse and wagon.
>Again I will show a
>few more pictures. This time
>of homesteads that are there.
>How did people get to
>these homesteads? First by horse
>and wagon, then by vehicles.
>We are talking about an
>area that has had Multiple
>use for over 100 years.
> Ron
>
>

>

>

>

>
>
>
>
>

A road is a two lane track capable of a full sized vehicle traveling on it. A horse trail is a single lane track. So no, a horse cannot start a road. What dont you get about that?

 

[Idabow]

You sure are ignorant. First, he said "horses and wagons." Second, yes they can. You can guarantee that no road was ever started by horses and wagons? And if you have never been out the desert, like in Ron's picture, if you drive down a horse trail, and you come back the next year, it will most likely be drivable by any full size vehicle. Does that make it a maintained road that will be marked on a map? Probably not, but it will probably be passable by a full size vehicle.


"Suck it, terrorists," -Keith Stone

 

[MULEY204]

You guys should take the time to watch the video Deepforks has posted on youtube. Thanks Deepforks for posting .

 

[Idabow]

+1 Muley204. Its kind of disturbing that the enviros have so much organization and power. We can't even agree on... anything.

"Suck it, terrorists," -Keith Stone

 

[IDdesertman]

Ron, if I'm not mistaken, the 3rd and 4th picture you posted are actually on private land, 5-10 miles from a wilderness area. Correct?

 

[Idahoron]

I bet that were talking the same place. The area has private land here and there mostly in the canyon a little on top. The whole area has been multiple use for as long as those buildings have been there maybe longer.
The roads out there were started by horse and wagon. Ranches there prove that. Ranchers still use all the roads. I saw a rancher checking cattle in the wilderness last year.

I agree the Link Deepforks posted is a very interesting video.
Ron

 

[piper]

That youtube clip deepforks posted is one of the funniest things Ive seen in a while, I wonder what happened to all the green private land? and that voice, sounds like the 1950s alien invasion is real and happening all over again, I hope none of you guys commit suicide over that stuff. Maybe Butch Otter can get that pesky government land sold, then we won't have to worry about human starvation the wilderness taking over.

 

[MULEY204]

The enviro crowd has done alot of damage to our country and there not done yet.

 

[deepforks]

>That youtube clip deepforks posted is
>one of the funniest things
>Ive seen in a while,
>I wonder what happened to
>all the green private land?
>and that voice, sounds like
>the 1950s alien invasion is
>real and happening all over
>again, I hope none
>of you guys commit suicide
>over that stuff. Maybe
>Butch Otter can get that
>pesky government land sold, then
>we won't have to worry
>about human starvation the wilderness
>taking over.

piper, take the time to read up on what the founders of the wildlands project have to say. you say its funny, but these nutjobs are serious as hell about their crazy cause. do i think it will ever fully be what they set it out to be? probably not. but i do believe they will continue to "land grab" like there is no tomorrow. they want the private land locked up just as much as they do the public lands. and they have a $hit ton of support from the private sector as well as the enviros that hold public office. so laugh all you want.

 

[piper]

yea muley204 those terrible environmentalists, your post shows a total ignorance of fairly recent history in America and a complete disregard for the quality of human life.

 

[HUNTNNW]

Take a trip up to WA...I will argue against roadless areas. Yeah some areas deserve the title and should be kept that way and I do hunt some wilderness units in other states. The ones they are trying to designate here are useless and is hurting the elk and deer population. The forests around here are dense and thick, much like the coast. Logging here is huge deal and creates opening in the the canopy for browse to grow. If not for logging we wouldnt have the moose, whitetails and elk that are abounding now in NE WA.Take a trip to our Salmo-priest wilderness...beautiful area and deserves to not be ruined,but it goes to show what no logging does to 366,000 acres..its completely void of wildlife. There are alot of bears, few muleys and elk, but the hunting is 10fold around the wilderness that is heavily logged.

 

[MULEY204]

Piper, elaborate on the ignorance and be carefull not to put your foot in your mouth again.

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 07:40PM (MST)[p]For one thing the air and water in this country is far cleaner because of the environmental movement and the landmark environmemtal laws that were inacted because of that movement, If not for those environmental laws, cancer and a whole variety of diseases of the lungs and other internal organs would occur far more in people if those laws were not on the books, I guess because you live in a relatively pristine state, and maybe because your young and don't know a lot about history you may not see or appreciate what other people have fought for.

You may have a better understanding if it was the Salmon river in Idaho that caught fire instead of the Cuyahoga river in Ohio, you may think differently if you had children with Cancer,
but what the heck, lets just say those environmentalists have ruined everything.

 

[huntindad4]

Dont forget the fact that we are now a feeble bag of bones in the industrial world we used to OWN and the PATHETIC STATE our economy is in because industry cannot compete with other countries due to the FACT we are OVER REGULATED. The logging and Commercial Fishing industries are dead we are slaves to oil producing countries even though we sit on oil of our own that the environmental movement won't allow to be withdrawn these things among many others cripple our country's economy and our children may never see daylight from under our debts.......etc........etc........

Oh nevemind I forgot that's all Bush's fault.

The small good that has come from the environmental movement would have come without it and the bad just keeps going on and on and on.....

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!

 

[piper]

yea right, we pay more in health care alone than most competing countries make in wages, sorry but its a bit more complicated than that.
Ignorance is whats killing this country, not a clean environment.

 

[huntindad4]

Well your right about one thing. Ignorance is what's killing this country.

Ignorance of the fact that we need to compete in the economy, nationally and globally and if we don't we lose!

Not sure what your saying with the health care unless your trying to say it will all soon be fixed by king obomba and his health care act.?

I think there needs to be a bit of balance and the enviros will NOT allow any balance, it's all or nothing.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!

 

[HayZeus]

Its official, Piper drinks his own piss for breakfast! I also have to believe hes an anti-hunting enviro-wacko.

 

[MULEY204]

IT'S OFFICIAL,,,,,PIPERS FOOT IS IN HIS MOUTH.....THE EPA AND IT'S DEFENDERS HAVE CRIPPLED THIS COUNTRY AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.

LOG SMART, DRILL SMART, BUILD SMART, MANUFACTURE SMART...PUT THE PROPER RULES IN PLACE TO DO WORK AND LET'S GET TO WORK....THE EPA'S MOTTO IS SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN AND DO NOT FIRE IT BACK UP UNLESS WE HAVE A 5 YEAR STUDY. THE FIVE YEAR STUDY IS USSUALLY FOLLOWED UP BY ANOTHER.

 

[whuppinstick]

> You can't back pack
>an elk out 10 miles
>away unless you have horses.


I backpacked a 6-point bull 13 miles out of Idaho wilderness last year. Alone. I love wilderness.

 

[MichaelJ]

Man its gettin a little warm in here!

The one thing I can say is there has been some good things come out of the environmental movement... The problem is, with society as a whole its entirely too easy for some joe schmoe who grew up in the city, has no idea where the meat in the grocery store comes from, and thinks animals can really talk will take an interest in being "green" and before you know it he's an extremist...

There's a balance in everything. Got a degree in rangeland ecology and I can tell you I had classes and interacted with people of all believes and extremes! 95% of the people going to school for some sort of natural resources had the same goals, they wanted preservation of natural resources, protection for endangered species (really endangered!), and smart approaches to natural resource utilization. The disagreement lies in what that smart approach entails, and what people deem an acceptable level of use.

I've sat in a lot of working groups (a lot of them deal with Sage grouse issues and grazing). It would truly surprise you to find out that if you have a good fascilitator, and a good presentation, you'll have environmental folks there who showed up initially thinking "stop the grazing, save the sage chickens". They will a lot of times leave there thinking "Grazing can work, we just need to be smart about it and keep people accountable, and I can do something to help!"

My whole point in this is we all really want the same thing. No continued damage to our natural resources, and to preserve hunting for future generations on our traditional lands. Now how are we to get there???

You guys can get back to argueing and figure that one out...

Mike

 

[MULEY204]

MichaelJ...I agree with you that there are some good things that have come from the enviro movement. However the extreme enviro is crippling our country. To clear cut large sections of forest is not good, but to clear cut small sections could be very positive for the overall health of the forest. LOG SMART... Just one example

 

[GSJ]

Mr Hettrick should be more selective with that string of pics he's posted again for the umpteenth time. Obviously a habitual doe/forky killer. Poster child for antler restrictions.
If your not aware, this guy is point blank the enemy of almost every hunter in the Idaho forum. Do a bit of research...







the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".

 

[deepforks]

here's piper in a nutshell.....direct quote. really shows you who's side he's on.

"conservatives have destroyed the best of America and hurt untold millions of citizens, while most are just dumb sheeple, their leaders deserve the harshest most terrible things that could possibly ever happen to any lifeform. Dantes inferno and the final layers of hell are too good for the leaders of the radical right, the sickness and suffering they have bestowed upon the working class should be compounded a thousandfold and given to the evil public land selling, hate loving, warmongering rightwingers that have taken this country hostage."

 

[piper]

Quite the memory you have, Im guessing that must have hurt your feelings.
So I try to get the rightwingers on the political forum stirred up a little.
Truth is I only see the rightwingers trying their best to sell public land and it pisses me off, want to justify that? Im waiting

 

[deepforks]

public land for sale!! where? i'd love to get my hands on some. please keep me informed. thanks.

 

[piper]

Check with governer Butch, he is usually up on the latest scheme, that or just wait for president Santorum he spoke of his wish list in Boise.

 

[deepforks]

thanks piper. guess i was wrong about you. look forward to seeing you on the new season of whale wars.

 

[piper]

I have a feeling your wrong about most things, and thats fine except where it effects the future generations of outdoorsmen and hunters.

 

[MULEY204]

IT'S OFFICIAL !!! PIPER IS A QUACK !!!

 

[IDdesertman]

Yes, it is absolutely true that state land has been,is, and continues to be sold.... thus, what a guy could hunt in the past now has No Trespassing signs. Makes me cringe when I hear people/politicians say that the BLM/FS lands should all be managed by the state. As many issues I have with the feds management, at least it's PUBLIC and I don't have to pay a trespass fee everywhere I go...