New Wilderness Bill in the Senate.

MinnesotaHunter · Jun 9, 2016

I am really interested to hear some educated thoughts on this. From my very topical understanding, This looks like it create some consternation for the NR hunter in WY, especially one who would like to chase elk in the Bighorns, or deer in Region G.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/environment/ambitious-wilderness-bill-introduced-in-senate-for-first-time/article_f820a032-40df-5bf7-bea8-4666310af8ad.html

MinnesotaHunter · Jun 9, 2016

Dark Green is new wilderness

Ben Lamb · Jun 9, 2016

No senator from the states that would be impacted support the bill.

In my opinion, the bill goes way too far in terms of taking all Inventoried Roadless Areas and turning them in to Wilderness. It has little to no support inside the Northern Rockies from sportsmen organizations, regional conservation groups, Wilderness groups, etc.

MinnesotaHunter · Jun 9, 2016

Ben Lamb said:
No senator from the states that would be impacted support the bill.

In my opinion, the bill goes way too far in terms of taking all Inventoried Roadless Areas and turning them in to Wilderness. It has little to no support inside the Northern Rockies from sportsmen organizations, regional conservation groups, Wilderness groups, etc.

That is what I got from the article. Do you think this is just a first step, and we will see something scaled back in the near future?

MThuntr · Jun 9, 2016

I can't speak for most of the map but the stuff in SW MT most is already classified as Wilderness Study Area. Some have open roads right through the middle of them while others have roads right to the edges. I don't see it happening.

Big Fin · Jun 9, 2016

I know may sound selfish, but so long as some states like Wyoming have stupid rules about how non-residents can use Wilderness areas, I am opposed to additional Wilderness legislation. I have supported other designations, such as the new Conservation Management Area designation we used in the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. I think wild country advocates will have greater support using CMA-type designations, rather than official Wilderness designations. We have shown in other places that the backcountry values can be protected without official Wilderness designation.

Additionally, as someone out toward the point of the political spear on this topic of Federal land management and designations, a large scale Wilderness bill just makes our job more difficult in the current political climate. For them to even introduce the bill is a bad idea. Almost as bad as a termed-out President thinking that National Monuments and aggressive use of the Antiquities Act to override local input/concern is somehow beneficial to the long-term solution. If the President goes on a big National Monument kick this summer/fall, as did Clinton in his last term, expect the heat on public land issues to get a lot higher, making it even more complicated to try have a sane discussion on Federal land management.

Nameless Range · Jun 9, 2016

I would love to see some of the areas in NREPA to be wilderness, but IMO this is garbage legislation with no future.

Notice that no cosponsors of this bill come from any of the states affected by it. Think of a lot of the activities in the west that occur on Designated Roadless lands that cannot occur in wilderness - from mountain biking, to snowmobiling, to nonresident hunting in Wyoming, to the filming of Fresh Tracks, to other forms of multiple use.....This bill would create enemies, and would basically chit on a lot of the contingents out there that would otherwise be good partners in reforming and improving management of public lands.

I am a believer that we need to permanently protect a lot of what is currently roadless. Good ideas such as Recreation Management Areas (FJRA) or Conservation Management Areas(Rocky Mtn. Front Protection Act), protect roadless lands from motorized use while still allowing other, less harmful uses on the land. That's the future. That's how you get buy-in.

Like I said, I would love to see new Wilderness. It would be awesome to see the Whitetail-Haystack Wilderness, or the Elkhorns Wilderness come to fruition. But those Wilderness Designations should come from place-based coalitions, not wholesale designation changes.

MTGomer · Jun 9, 2016

Wyo can kiss my 3 1/2 month long $4400 interest free loan every year goodbye if this happens and they don't change their rules on wilderness hunting. Not that they care. It looks like it would lock up unit 1.

This would also give a lot of ammo to those who oppose fed management, due to out of touch, one-sized fits all, top-down, beltway arrogance-and rightfully so.

RobG · Jun 9, 2016

Big Fin said:
I know may sound selfish, but so long as some states like Wyoming have stupid rules about how non-residents can use Wilderness areas, I am opposed to additional Wilderness legislation.

I think I know what you are referring to, but I know a lot here don't. Can you explain what the rules are?

Ben Lamb · Jun 9, 2016

MinnesotaHunter said:
That is what I got from the article. Do you think this is just a first step, and we will see something scaled back in the near future?

They've been running this bill since the early 2000's with no support. It gets introduced every year, and sometimes even gets a hearing before it gets stuffed back in the drawer, where it belongs.

There are several proposals out there for new wilderness that come from the ground up that deserve to be passed long before this piece of legislation gets any kind of hearing, IMO. I also don't see any Senator from the affected region thinking this is a good idea when they are putting a lot of effort in to the local collaborative efforts (D's & R's) and transfer/sale efforts (only R's).

Irrelevant · Jun 9, 2016

I would support it, but I see why others wouldn't. My dream of high country mule deer in WY would die.

SteveE · Jun 9, 2016

Curious why you would like to see the elkhorns go wilderness?

Climb Casey Peak. You will see no other soul up there 99% of the time. Same deal with High Peak, Elkhorn and Crow Peak

Wildness equals non use areas for all but horsebackers. Why limit everybody except horsebacks when so much of that country is untouched. I'm all for limited roads but wilderness designation is a bad deal for my recreation pursuits.

We have millions of acreas of wilderness for the horsebackers that is never used. I just read an article concerning the lack of budget to clear what they do have. They cant keep up with current wilderness areas.

Dont shut the rest of us out of more country.

And what does a mountain bike harm on a horse trail? Spooked horses is the only thing I can think of.

JoseCuervo · Jun 9, 2016

SteveE said:
Curious why you would like to see the elkhorns go wilderness?

Climb Casey Peak. You will see no other soul up there 99% of the time. Same deal with High Peak, Elkhorn and Crow Peak

Wildness equals non use areas for all but horsebackers. Why limit everybody except horsebacks when so much of that country is untouched. I'm all for limited roads but wilderness designation is a bad deal for my recreation pursuits.

We have millions of acreas of wilderness for the horsebackers that is never used. I just read an article concerning the lack of budget to clear what they do have. They cant keep up with current wilderness areas.

Dont shut the rest of us out of more country.

And what does a mountain bike harm on a horse trail? Spooked horses is the only thing I can think of.

Nonsense.

Anybody that wants to can use Wilderness areas.

I have spent weeks on end, 100's of nights in the Wilderness areas, never once used a horse to access the wilderness areas.

Hell, I can't stand sitting on a horse for hours on end.

Ben Lamb · Jun 9, 2016

SteveE said:
Curious why you would like to see the elkhorns go wilderness?

Climb Casey Peak. You will see no other soul up there 99% of the time. Same deal with High Peak, Elkhorn and Crow Peak

Wildness equals non use areas for all but horsebackers. Why limit everybody except horsebacks when so much of that country is untouched. I'm all for limited roads but wilderness designation is a bad deal for my recreation pursuits.

We have millions of acreas of wilderness for the horsebackers that is never used. I just read an article concerning the lack of budget to clear what they do have. They cant keep up with current wilderness areas.

Dont shut the rest of us out of more country.

And what does a mountain bike harm on a horse trail? Spooked horses is the only thing I can think of.

Spooked horses is a huge deal, don't you think? Dude leading a string of clients down a trail and 6 mountain bikers come hauling ass down and cause a train wreck could have some serious issues that cause harm to other users.

Mtn bikes also are a weed vector. Check out the South Hiills of Helena and you can see the damage those things do to trails. Mtn bikes do have a larger impact on trails than horses and feet. I've yet to see any credible evidience that they don't. I'm all for sharing the landscape and I think Mtn bikes are a great way to recreate on public lands as well as hunt, but there are areas that deserve wilderness protection.

The other part of wilderness that a lot of folks seem to forget is that it's not just about recreation. It's about protecting watersheds and conserving wildlife. If you look at the areas in the RMF that had wilderness protections, they are prime mule deer, Bighorn & Elk areas, as well as providing connectivity for grizzlies.

Wilderness isn't just about how humans interact with a landscape. It's how we view the land ethic, and decide what to save. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of roads & trails open to motorized and non-motorized use in the public land system. Protecting what's left of actual wilderness isn't going to harm other recreational pursuits, and if legislation is done correctly, like the Heritage Act, it will increase uses like Mtn Biking by looking at areas more appropriate for that kind of use.

Flatland Crusoe · Jun 9, 2016

Ben Lamb said:
Spooked horses is a huge deal, don't you think? Dude leading a string of clients down a trail and 6 mountain bikers come hauling ass down and cause a train wreck could have some serious issues that cause harm to other users.

Mtn bikes also are a weed vector. Check out the South Hiills of Helena and you can see the damage those things do to trails. Mtn bikes do have a larger impact on trails than horses and feet. I've yet to see any credible evidience that they don't. I'm all for sharing the landscape and I think Mtn bikes are a great way to recreate on public lands as well as hunt, but there are areas that deserve wilderness protection.

The other part of wilderness that a lot of folks seem to forget is that it's not just about recreation. It's about protecting watersheds and conserving wildlife. If you look at the areas in the RMF that had wilderness protections, they are prime mule deer, Bighorn & Elk areas, as well as providing connectivity for grizzlies.

Wilderness isn't just about how humans interact with a landscape. It's how we view the land ethic, and decide what to save. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of roads & trails open to motorized and non-motorized use in the public land system. Protecting what's left of actual wilderness isn't going to harm other recreational pursuits, and if legislation is done correctly, like the Heritage Act, it will increase uses like Mtn Biking by looking at areas more appropriate for that kind of use.

Are the mountain bike areas you are talking about built to IMBA standards, because a lot of issues around mountain bike trail damage have more to do with mountain bikes using pirate trails and poorly designed existing infrastructure. When I started riding in the mid 2000's a lot of trail systems were really degrading because people didn't know how to build the trails correctly during the explosion of mountain biking in the 90's and it was most cost and time effective to close and rebuild new trails than maintain poorly designed trails over even a few year. In the last decade there has been a huge push in mountain bike community to build purpose built trails that are sustainable over the long run and actively closing trails if they are wet. Its a night and day difference for everyone involved.

IMBA has standards to follow that solve a lot of these issues in their trail building handbook and certifications the same way the BLM has standards for wildlife friendly fencing or range management. If you follow good management practices a lot of the problems go away.

Horses are a silly line to draw because of their relative availability as the US population becomes less rural and more urban. Horses under bad conditions cause just as much damage as mountain bike if not more when they starting punching 4" diameter 6" deep holes in the trail while taking a dump on the trail.

Ben Lamb · Jun 9, 2016

Flatland Crusoe said:
Are the mountain bike areas you are talking about built to IMBA standards, because a lot of issues around mountain bike trail damage have more to do with mountain bikes using pirate trails and poorly designed existing infrastructure. When I started riding in the mid 2000's a lot of trail systems were really degrading because people didn't know how to build the trails correctly during the explosion of mountain biking in the 90's and it was most cost and time effective to close and rebuild new trails than maintain poorly designed trails over even a few year. In the last decade there has been a huge push in mountain bike community to build purpose built trails that are sustainable over the long run and actively closing trails if they are wet. Its a night and day difference for everyone involved.

IMBA has standards to follow that solve a lot of these issues in their trail building handbook and certifications the same way the BLM has standards for wildlife friendly fencing or range management. If you follow good management practices a lot of the problems go away.

Horses are a silly line to draw because of their relative availability as the US population becomes less rural and more urban. Horses under bad conditions cause just as much damage as mountain bike if not more when they starting punching 4" diameter 6" deep holes in the trail while taking a dump on the trail.

The way Helena promotes mountain biking, I would hope they are up to IMBA standards, but since it's mostly a volunteer force that creates & maintains them, I'm not sure: http://pricklypearlt.org/trails/

But that brings up another issue, if the trails need to be up to IMBA standards to ensure no degradation, who is going to pay for that infrastructure expense? As was previously noted, we have a budget issue regarding trails already, and if we include mtn biking in wilderness, you've just opened up every trail to redesign and upgrade. That's a lot of flat-brimmed caps & growlers of micro-brew.

Nameless Range · Jun 9, 2016

SteveE said:
Curious why you would like to see the elkhorns go wilderness?

Climb Casey Peak. You will see no other soul up there 99% of the time. Same deal with High Peak, Elkhorn and Crow Peak

Wildness equals non use areas for all but horsebackers. Why limit everybody except horsebacks when so much of that country is untouched. I'm all for limited roads but wilderness designation is a bad deal for my recreation pursuits.

We have millions of acreas of wilderness for the horsebackers that is never used. I just read an article concerning the lack of budget to clear what they do have. They cant keep up with current wilderness areas.

Dont shut the rest of us out of more country.

And what does a mountain bike harm on a horse trail? Spooked horses is the only thing I can think of.

SteveE,

I am not committed in a hard way to the creation of Wilderness in the Elkhorns. I am also open to the idea of Recreation or Conservation Management Areas which do allow biking. I do not think mountain bikes belong in Wilderness, and as said above, bikes do spook horses and do spread weeds, but ultimately I don't think mountain bikes are the enemy. If we are open to implementing different management designations other than big W, I think that the mountain biking community could be a powerful ally in keeping areas free of motorized use, which is far and away the activity that robs wild country of what I personally appreciate most about it. Mainly, I think it would be good if the Roadless Parts of the Elkhorns stay that way, and are not jeopardized by some bastard's Roadless Area Release Act or some such thing.

Here's a map of what in the Elkhorns could someday be Wilderness according to NREPA. This is using all categories of inventoried roadless areas. Those categories being both those areas where Road construction and reconstruction is prohibited and where it is not prohibited. IMO, this is an unreasonable boundary. This is NREPA.

Now, here is potential wilderness boundary for the Elkhorns, where only those Inventoried Roadless Areas within the category of road construction and reconstruction being prohibited are considered. I think it is a much more reasonable boundary.

I think it would be pretty cool to hike into Glenwood or Hidden Lakes and be in the Elkhorn Mountains Wilderness Area. Every summer, at least once or twice, my family four-wheels into the Tizer Basin. According to the NREPA boundaries that would no longer occur. Any wholesale wilderness designation that shuts out motorized use to the Tizer Basin or other parts of the southern Elkhorns would be vehemently opposed by locals. But with local input, a more informed Elkhorns Wilderness Boundary could be potentially be considered. Maybe Wilderness isn't right for the Elkhorns, and maybe it is...

Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion, but it is interesting to think about.

Flatland Crusoe · Jun 9, 2016

Ben Lamb said:
The way Helena promotes mountain biking, I would hope they are up to IMBA standards, but since it's mostly a volunteer force that creates & maintains them, I'm not sure: http://pricklypearlt.org/trails/

But that brings up another issue, if the trails need to be up to IMBA standards to ensure no degradation, who is going to pay for that infrastructure expense? As was previously noted, we have a budget issue regarding trails already, and if we include mtn biking in wilderness, you've just opened up every trail to redesign and upgrade. That's a lot of flat-brimmed caps & growlers of micro-brew.

Pretty much all trail building is done with volunteer work or grants from private foundations all across the country. Building to IMBA certifications doesn't really cost anything, you buy a manual for the cost of printing and pay for someone from your community to go to travel to a class. A lot of areas have non profits setup that manage the trails like cambr.org or http://gorctrails.com/ where you have workdays and a non profit owns Mini Skidsteers and Wheelbarrows. It costs the government nothing. There are a few instances of state funded projects like Brown County Indiana and Copper Harbor Michigan where the work was either contracted our or they have 1 trail builder on staff employed by the local tourism board.

The mountain biking trail conservation is really evolving and even good trails have sections that still need reroutes and erosion control.

There is no reason to exclude mountain bikers from wilderness areas while letting the horses stay in. At least the mountain bikers are moving under their power rather than just sitting there. Horses only get a pass because of misplaced nostalgia and because their user group has historically had a lot more influence.

Ben Lamb · Jun 9, 2016

Flatland Crusoe said:
Pretty much all trail building is done with volunteer work or grants from private foundations all across the country. Building to IMBA certifications doesn't really cost anything, you buy a manual for the cost of printing and pay for someone from your community to go to travel to a class. A lot of areas have non profits setup that manage the trails like cambr.org or http://gorctrails.com/ where you have workdays and a non profit owns Mini Skidsteers and Wheelbarrows. It costs the government nothing. There are a few instances of state funded projects like Brown County Indiana and Copper Harbor Michigan where the work was either contracted our or they have 1 trail builder on staff employed by the local tourism board.

The mountain biking trail conservation is really evolving and even good trails have sections that still need reroutes and erosion control.

There is no reason to exclude mountain bikers from wilderness areas while letting the horses stay in. At least the mountain bikers are moving under their power rather than just sitting there. Horses only get a pass because of misplaced nostalgia and because their user group has historically had a lot more influence.

Weeds, conflict with other trail users and a statutorial mandate against mechanized use are three very good reasons to keep mtn bikes out of wilderness. Add wildlife security on top of that and it's not a good idea to have mtn bikes in Wilderness, IMO.

As I said, I'm all for developing opportunity for bikes in CMA's, etc but some places deserve to not have wheels of any kind.

Flatland Crusoe · Jun 9, 2016

Ben Lamb said:
Weeds, conflict with other trail users and a statutorial mandate against mechanized use are three very good reasons to keep mtn bikes out of wilderness. Add wildlife security on top of that and it's not a good idea to have mtn bikes in Wilderness, IMO.

As I said, I'm all for developing opportunity for bikes in CMA's, etc but some places deserve to not have wheels of any kind.

There are plane landing strips in wilderness areas. Why are those there. Mountain bikes didn't exist when wilderness areas were created but that doesn't mean that legislation can't evolve with technology. Email didn't exist when the 1st amendment was written, but its covered now as a natural evolution of technology.

Trail conflict isn't about mountain bikers being the problem its about shared use. From a public policy prospective losing the growing group of mountain bikers isn't to the greater public land benefit.

Horses move tons of weeds via their hay. There are rules to prevent it, but it still happen. The things damage trails when its wet. I don't follow your logic as to why mountain biking is a problem.

Keeping horses isn't logical as the population because ever more urban. Limiting access to wilderness areas because you can't have horses in your apartment in the city while you can keep a mountain bike that has the exact same issues is just playing the good ol boys club.

New Wilderness Bill in the Senate.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page