House bill moving forward to allow bikes in Wilderness

[BuzzH]

Bridges, trails, airstrips, cabins, etc. are not exceptions...they were grandfathered in 1964, under special provisions.

 

[Sytes]

Interesting article...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/thoreau-falls-bridge-wilderness-pemigewasset-nh-11727040

 

[Sytes]

The previously mentioned Frank Church wilderness issue is a prime example of Court defined exceptions to the typical Wilderness Act, NEPA / NWPS. Among other really interesting reading material on the subject of buildings, etc within the Wilderness areas, I referenced the links below.
One really fantastic read is the legal scholar review of questions with a relation to the discussion here. It is a bit more focused on subjective introduction of fish and habitat structures and the "human trammeled" aspects along with the minimum requirements to fulfill such rare exceptions.

The buildings and especially the bridge debate (less the personal attacks) hold exceptions that are not as open ended as shared here. There are significant restrictions on such - the limitations and the actual exclusion of such are keys within various court cases.

It is awesome learning subjects along this line. Stepping beyond the arrogance, it's amazing the depth beyond the general overview of the Wilderness Act.

A couple quick exerpts. Off to take my daughter and her friend to the movies... Joy. haha! Meh, gotta love phones for such. .

The court also found that the Forest Service violated the Wilderness Act. In 2010, the court had approved use of helicopters to collar wolves because its purpose of “understanding the wolf” furthered wilderness values. However, the judge warned that, because of cumulative impacts (and probably because of some skepticism about the state’s motives), “the next project will be extraordinary difficult to justify,” and that the Forest Service would need to give sufficient notice to allow opponents to “fully litigate” such projects.

9th Circuit Court’s decision: “In light of the clear statutory mandate, the Wilderness Act requires that the lands and waters duly designated as wilderness must be left untouched, untrammeled, and unaltered by commerce. By contrast, the Enhancement Project is a commercial enterprise within the boundaries of a designated wilderness and violates the Wilderness Act.” 353 F.3d at 1067.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw1H9wn4lWj5iGWjx83y0-v7

http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/legisact

http://www.wilderness.net/cultural

http://forestpolicypub.com/2017/01/26/court-slams-forest-service-wilderness-decision/

 

[Sytes]

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg held that Sequoia and Kings Canyon officials failed to conduct the requisite studies into the commercial need for pack trips in the two parks. Specifically, the judge noted in his ruling late last month, the Park Service must examine how commercial backcountry uses impact the landscape and "balance ... their potential consequences with the effects of preexisting levels of commercial activity."

Specific to what I've shared re: bridges and the Wilderness Act;
From USDA review, "Keeping it Wild".

(Landres and others 2012). For example, a bridge built to protect a stream bank from erosion caused by people or horses crossing the stream is also an installation that diminishes the opportunity for people to experience the primitive challenge of crossing the stream...

 

[OriginalOscar]

Interesting. Mountain bikes bad, airplanes-airstrips ok.

 

[shoots-straight]

I would venture to guess that the same people that don't want mountain bikes in Wilderness areas would also love to see airplanes gone. I happened to be one of them. ON the other hand, dare I say, that from what I see, those that want mountain bikes might also be on the same team as airplane use. Not scientific, or carrying any water, just an observation that might be miles off base.

 

[Sytes]

Curious, the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act" of '68... Is this why the new bridge being installed this year out of Spotted Bear area of the Bob is not bound by the Wilderness Act for following the "Minimal Standards" for use of wood matching the original "grandfathered" bridge, etc?

When I last spoke with the great FS employees over the general area, they shared the bridge is set to be built with pressure treated planks, etc... While I think pressure treated planks are great... Next, Trex decking / plastic composite? That would be fantastically durable as well and may fit well with the vast National Forests though for our Wilderness protected areas and compliance with the "Minimal Standards", I don't think that is in compliance with NEPA & NWSA.

During the week, I'll give a call as I would imagine the likes of "Wilderness Watch" and such would have done their own due diligence. ***Though curious if anyone knows whether that section protected under the Wild and Scenic is not under the Wilderness Act. Reading further on the requirements for the W&S stretch, there is a defined 1/4 - 1/2 mile on either side of the river for it's boundry giving ample space to build as necessary, the bridge over South Fork Flathead River.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

You need to get a life Sytes, as you're way overthinking this whole wilderness thing with a lot of what seems to be ridiculous comments about it that are way off base!

 

[Sytes]

You need to get a life Sytes, as you're way overthinking this whole wilderness thing with a lot of what seem to be ridiculous comments about it that are way off base!

Interesting opinion and I imagine shared by others. Fitting your style of posting as is your typical comments towards others here. Cheers to ya, TG -06.

Sad to hear your father passed. Has to be a tough time. I mean that with all sincerity. My thoughts are with you and all effected by your loss.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Interesting opinion and I imagine shared by others. Fitting your style of posting as is your typical comments towards others here. Cheers to ya, TG -06.

Sad to hear your father passed. Has to be a tough time. I mean that with all sincerity. My thoughts are with you and all effected by your loss.

***I don't know how you came up with either of those comments since all I did was disagree with your assessment of the Act like most others are doing and my Dad has been dead since 9/11/11, but thanks for the late condolence! Maybe you're thinking of my wife who passed away on 6/3/17 from a glioblastoma brain tumor that took her from us after the diagnosis on 2/17/17.

 

[Sytes]

***I don't know how you came up with either of those comments since all I did was disagree with your assessment of the Act like most others are doing and my Dad has been dead since 9/11/11, but thanks for the late condolence! Maybe you're thinking of my wife who passed away on 6/3/17 from a glioblastoma brain tumor that took her from us after the diagnosis on 2/17/17.

I apologise. I've confused you with another regarding the passing. Certainly not meant with any disrespect.

Regarding your statement, this is your pattern as I'm sure you well know. Or, if you need, I'll post up some of your greatest hits within the various threads. As for joining the chorus of the vocal few, cheers to you for your opinion. Keep it on topic not the person... I'm sure you've heard that before.

 

[Sytes]

Another who does not value personal attacks in the process of discussing such topics shared the following along with a .PDF of the Act. Yes, the ad-hominems vs topics discussed within threads surprisingly discourage others from sharing their thoughts. Me, I'll be y'er huckleberry...

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is not under the Wilderness Act. They work separate however;

Any portion of a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system that is within the national wilderness preservation system [Id. § 1132], as estab-lished by or pursuant to the Wilderness Act [id. §§ 1131-36 (1964)], shall be subject to the provisions of both the Wilderness Act and its chapter with respect to preservation of such river and its immediate environment, and in case of conflict between the provisions of the Wilderness Act and this chapter the more restrictive provisions shall apply.

I'm sure there is more to this as the Bob is well regulated and I would imagine well monitored... Especially considering the expense for the extensive bridge repair. Upwards $250k for repairs...

Thanks for the info. Also the HT member shared planks may be part of the approach locations of the bridge though the construction is more based on the concrete bases, cables, etc.

 

[BuzzH]

So, what's your point?

You still haven't shown anything to support your invalid claim that airstrips, bridges, trails, cabins, etc. should be removed from Wilderness areas via the 1964 Act.

You're just rambling on about crap that doesn't work at all to defend your position/assertion.

Maybe taking a course on Resource Policy would help with your confusion...or not.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I apologise. I've confused you with another regarding the passing. Certainly not meant with any disrespect.

Regarding your statement, this is your pattern as I'm sure you well know. Or, if you need, I'll post up some of your greatest hits within the various threads. As for joining the chorus of the vocal few, cheers to you for your opinion. Keep it on topic not the person... I'm sure you've heard that before.

***You do really need to get a life if you have the time to respond with that bunch of baloney! FYI most of my posts on here are helping people that are asking various questions about Wyoming and I very seldom even post on political stuff or things like this thread is about. However, IMHO you are so far out of touch with what you're posting in this thread that it's almost a joke. Do as BuzzH suggested and read up on stuff before you make any more posts on this thread that don't have anything behind them.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sytes, I truly believe you are in support of Wilderness and public lands, public land access and preservation ... and are opposed to the Bundly-like ideology, so at the end of the day I think you will regret your convoluted, irrational rhetoric which seems to present a "devils advocate" approach to each issue in the attempt to get advocates to recognize the flipside of the argument, but in realty paints you as someone who really strives to be believe and revere Cliven Bundy and his disciples. Your rhetoric describes you as someone who could be persuaded by Jennifer Fielder over a cup of coffee. It also taints you as someone who is missing a chip in the computer that provides logic and rational analysis to each issue.

 

[Sytes]

Here is the deal. I entered with the entire impression the Wilderness Act was a land of undeveloped, keeping with it's primeval status, no permanent improvements.

Based on this since who knows when... So I shared my position within this thread. Next, my post becomes a theme of fact by a vocal couple here when reality is, that was my understanding, my perspective, my position and still is, to some degree.

Then some wild accusation that I stated no humans we're permitted in the Wilderness. That's your style, Buzz. Never did I make such a comment nor even made any remote statement of the sort though you thrill your fan base with such manipulations.

Get messages... One example:

You sure Buzz is on your side and has the same enemies? <Edited... not necessary to add this portion of the comment for sake of the purpose> A couple more belittling posts by him and I might leave this site. It's not fun to watch guys like you get hammered for no reason. - XXXX

Edit added another to share different person's take on events here:

I think that some of the more vocal crowd here on HT have the opinion that everyone should have the depth of knowledge they perceive to have. Buzz thinks everyone should understand things his way and if you don't you're an idiot. At least that is my .02. Lots of choir preaching here lately and if you're not in the choir you are an outcast.

Buzz, I know you don't give a shit though I defended you prior to this message over your depth of knowledge and your strong support for public lands in a previous thread when one discussed your rude/arrogant personal attack type personality towards others. Then again here you are, manipulations, etc and again another set of emails and PM's.

Straight Arrow, take a step back and clear your thoughts of pre conceived notions... Follow this and take it as you will.

I start back at my position on the Wilderness Act. There is no devil's advocate here. This is my thought though upon some... Some quality content shared that had me reading way beyond just the quotes provided such as, well hell... Just type in the following, Wilderness Act (Google). It brings up a section of the NPS clip that states the following:

What is wilderness?
The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, created the National Wilderness Preservation System and recognized wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” The Act further defined wilderness as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions . . .

So, my belief IS an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining it's primeval character and influence without permanent improvements.
I shared my position with this understanding and then... So I dig in deeper. Learn more and find the fine print within the "wow" type content by NPS among others. I read more and share more here yet now it's a fight. I'm playing, as you say, devil's advocate. Heck, my first ever understanding that airstrips and airplanes ARE permitted... Sheit! So I have concerns over that. I dig even deeper. Look at court decisions, read this, that and everything I can to better understand.

Then many, including those here, complain about this or that regulation, act or law as there are questions about such... No worries it's good to question. However, God forbid some woke on the wrong side of the bed and made big issues over my position that I believe hold some questions. Even upon reading further.

As shared, there are legal questions based on NEPA & NWSA within the Wilderness.

Meh, it is what it is though you and i in PM's have shared brief conversations. I don't mind Buzz types... In fact I would say it is a spark to fight back especially with the PM's and emails. There is an underground conversation going on with several that simply find the Buzz types worth leaving this site. Though I shared my private support for his knowledge and a few have shared their thoughts on this subject... Heck, we almost had a Google chat group formed simply because the aggression here is less than appealing to discuss here. *** That is unfortunate.

Believe what you want. Really, this began a heavy hit when I shared my position on the Antiquities Act as a supporter of public lands yet agreed the Antiquities Act has been repeatedly abused...

I don't mind really. It's a bummer that we can not debate a topic vs dealing with personal attacks. Though, heh, I don't plant trees for a living... I deal with shits daily.

 

[onpoint]

Sytes, please......................

 

[tjones]

PM’s, emails, “private support” and “underground conversations” about other HT guys?

Weird stuff right there. Good luck Fin.

 

[Sytes]

Carry on...

 

[CampRipleyLF]

I wonder what percentage of the House has spent more than one night in a Wilderness area.

Probably not many...... one of the eight in Minnesota