Wilderness?
- Thread starter BillyGoat
- Start date
Calif. Hunter
Active member
I don't think we need any more in the areas I am familiar with... I can see more going into National Forest or National Monuments, though.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
It's not being created, I mean what's there has always been there, Gods not manufacturing anymore. Can you have too much designated wilderness? I guess that depends on if your a logger, miner, or some other type of extraction type oriented worker.. If your a hunter, NO!
I'd like to see more and more that's just a pile of rock on top of the mountain. I'd also like to see Wilderness Study Ares abolished. If they still have wilderness characteristics, designate them as such. If not, set up a management plan...
A-con
New member
I’m back and forth on this one. I want to see as much land as possible protected from new roads, logging and commercial development. The trouble is “Wilderness” designation mandates wiping out existing roads and that makes much of the land inaccessible to anyone not ready to pack in for days.
Here in California, two of my favorite hunting areas were at the end of long 4WD trails, and took the better part of a day to get to. Then they got designated “Wilderness”. What used to be a three or four day weekend hunt is now a full week, fifteen mile backpack hunt. At my age, that’s quickly becoming out of the question.
Here in California, two of my favorite hunting areas were at the end of long 4WD trails, and took the better part of a day to get to. Then they got designated “Wilderness”. What used to be a three or four day weekend hunt is now a full week, fifteen mile backpack hunt. At my age, that’s quickly becoming out of the question.
T Bone
Well-known member
More please.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
I'm with Dan. Designate too much of it as wilderness and you eliminate too many people from ever benefiting from it. Keep a few open roads and ban ATVs if you want. But make it somewhat accessible to hunt.
There are probably a dozen people on here regularly who would be able to back pack in 10 miles uphill or more on flat land for a hunt. I wager that most here could not do it with provisions for a week. Several could - but not most on here!
There are probably a dozen people on here regularly who would be able to back pack in 10 miles uphill or more on flat land for a hunt. I wager that most here could not do it with provisions for a week. Several could - but not most on here!
BuzzH
Well-known member
More wilderness is the answer.
I DO NOT agree with A-con, too bad you have to get old, but I'm not going to build a road so you can access it.
Get in better shape, I know many hunters well into their 60's that hunt wilderness every year.
A friend of mine wrote this as part of his written testimony regarding Wilderness Designation and Roadless Land Management.
"Although ecosystem-specific goals will be needed, currently roadless areas should retain in common an absence of roads, off-road vehicles, logging, and mining. This will accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. Some roadless opponents argue that maintaining the status quo in currently roadless areas would be unfair to the disabled and the elderly. However, those who cannot, or choose not to, walk or ride a horse are accommodated by the current road system. There are 380,000 miles of roads in the National Forest system, more than 30,000 miles in Montana alone. As I approach the age of 60, I struggle to reach the same areas I did 20 years ago. However, even when I can no longer get to these areas I will remember the values that exist there as I look up from a distant point. I do not support those who are so self-indulgent that they insist on being able to drive to anywhere they might choose. One doesn't need to be physically present in wild country to appreciate its existence. I am most concerned about perpetuating wild country experiences for the next generation. Future generations deserve our prudent care of roadless areas."
I DO NOT agree with A-con, too bad you have to get old, but I'm not going to build a road so you can access it.
Get in better shape, I know many hunters well into their 60's that hunt wilderness every year.
A friend of mine wrote this as part of his written testimony regarding Wilderness Designation and Roadless Land Management.
"Although ecosystem-specific goals will be needed, currently roadless areas should retain in common an absence of roads, off-road vehicles, logging, and mining. This will accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. Some roadless opponents argue that maintaining the status quo in currently roadless areas would be unfair to the disabled and the elderly. However, those who cannot, or choose not to, walk or ride a horse are accommodated by the current road system. There are 380,000 miles of roads in the National Forest system, more than 30,000 miles in Montana alone. As I approach the age of 60, I struggle to reach the same areas I did 20 years ago. However, even when I can no longer get to these areas I will remember the values that exist there as I look up from a distant point. I do not support those who are so self-indulgent that they insist on being able to drive to anywhere they might choose. One doesn't need to be physically present in wild country to appreciate its existence. I am most concerned about perpetuating wild country experiences for the next generation. Future generations deserve our prudent care of roadless areas."
A-con
New member
Well Buzz I agree with your friends point of view. He seems like a literate person. Since you obviously can’t read very well, perhaps you could have your friend read my post to you before you respond next time.
BuzzH
Well-known member
A-con,
You sound like John Kerry...flip..flop...flip...flop. You may have a bright future in politics.
You sound like John Kerry...flip..flop...flip...flop. You may have a bright future in politics.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
More - for sure. I'm too old or fat or lazy to access it is the most lame excuse I've heard.
Can someone post a poll for this? This site has some hard-core hunters on it. How many have or realistically could hike 10 miles into wilderness and hunt for 10 days? I bet it is way more than 6 or us.
I've done it. Anyone else? When I can't, I'll buy a horse or two.
elk_hunter
Active member
We need more. Absolutely. Having so many areas accessible by motorized vehicles really sucks. I wish all areas were...drive in your rigs to your campsite and then have to hike and hike and hike to get where you wanted to go. It would sure make chasing game a lot more fun/interesting since they wouldn't be 'run off' from the vehicles.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
elk hunter - you say to drive into your campsite. Vast areas of wilderness means you walk or ride a horse into your campsite. To me, having wilderness areas hundreds of miles long by hundreds of miles wide with no access other than on foot or horseback is making it inaccessible. I am not saying make every piece of ground accessible to the weak, old or infirm. There should be land available for all, however - but that does not mean all land is available to all.
I don't want to have to buy a horse, feed and medicate it all year for huting season. I don't even like horses. I don't even think they should be allowed in wilderness areas. They crap all over, people build "temproary" corrals for them, they eat vegetation that could be feeding wildlife, make erosive trails and for what? So people can pack in and create "tent cities" with all the comforts of home, and call it a "back country" experience?
This can turn into a pissing contest real easy - "I can walk ten miles and stay for ten days." "Well, I can walk 20 miles and stay for a month."
Pointer - I have no definitive answer about "how much" or "how far." There are wilderness areas in the desert around here that, if you have enough water, are flat enough that I could easily walk 30 miles in a day, and I'm 55 and sit at a desk all day. There are other areas like the San Gorgonio wilderness (where I have been on top of every peak over 10,000 feet, by the way, and have spent weeks at a time in) where 10 or 15 miles is a good day's work.
My point is not to create a challenge to the studs on this board, but to say that there needs to be both - wilderness for the die-hards and "less wild(?)" places where a person can drive to a primitive campground (no water, etc.) and hike a few miles each day to hunt. This does not mean a network of roads making every speck of public land accessible to everyone. I would ban all off-road use of ATVs on public land.
I don't want to have to buy a horse, feed and medicate it all year for huting season. I don't even like horses. I don't even think they should be allowed in wilderness areas. They crap all over, people build "temproary" corrals for them, they eat vegetation that could be feeding wildlife, make erosive trails and for what? So people can pack in and create "tent cities" with all the comforts of home, and call it a "back country" experience?
This can turn into a pissing contest real easy - "I can walk ten miles and stay for ten days." "Well, I can walk 20 miles and stay for a month."
Pointer - I have no definitive answer about "how much" or "how far." There are wilderness areas in the desert around here that, if you have enough water, are flat enough that I could easily walk 30 miles in a day, and I'm 55 and sit at a desk all day. There are other areas like the San Gorgonio wilderness (where I have been on top of every peak over 10,000 feet, by the way, and have spent weeks at a time in) where 10 or 15 miles is a good day's work.
My point is not to create a challenge to the studs on this board, but to say that there needs to be both - wilderness for the die-hards and "less wild(?)" places where a person can drive to a primitive campground (no water, etc.) and hike a few miles each day to hunt. This does not mean a network of roads making every speck of public land accessible to everyone. I would ban all off-road use of ATVs on public land.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Calif. Hunter,
There are 380,000 miles of accessible roads in the NF system. If you cant find a "less wild" place to camp in a primitive campground and hike a few miles to hunt...you aint looking real hard.
There is currently a disproportionate amount of roaded country compared to unroaded country.
Take a look out a plane window next time you fly somewhere over the Rockies. Tell me we have enough wilderness. Tell me we need more roads.
Good grief.
There are 380,000 miles of accessible roads in the NF system. If you cant find a "less wild" place to camp in a primitive campground and hike a few miles to hunt...you aint looking real hard.
There is currently a disproportionate amount of roaded country compared to unroaded country.
Take a look out a plane window next time you fly somewhere over the Rockies. Tell me we have enough wilderness. Tell me we need more roads.
Good grief.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
There IS land available for all. There's not enough wilderness - WHICH IS ALSO available to all. Who cares how far somebody can or can't walk, how old or fat thay are, if they have horses, or the where with all to "access" wilderness areas. It's TOTALLY not the point. Just because it's public ground, doesn't mean it should cater toward easy enjoyment for everyone.
I've never backpacked anywhere for 10 full days.
I've never backpacked anywhere for 10 full days.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
Let me repeat -
I also agree that many of those 380,000 miles (doesn't matter if that number is accurate - there ARE too many miles of roads) should be closed.
How many acres/square miles of wilderness area are there? (I'll look and see if I can find the answer...)
I also agree that many of those 380,000 miles (doesn't matter if that number is accurate - there ARE too many miles of roads) should be closed.
How many acres/square miles of wilderness area are there? (I'll look and see if I can find the answer...)
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I favor more designated wilderness, expecially when designation comes after a collaborative process such as this. Who opposes this common sense approach? Extremists on both sides such as the BRC and the George Wuerthner types.
Collaboration can resolve many forest conflicts
By BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE PARTNERSHIP
A dramatic change is under way in how Montanans think about our public forests. The days of conflict and confrontation are giving way to honest discussions about shared interests and hard work to find common ground. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership is a great example of the good things that can happen when Montanans work together.
New ideas are naturally subject to scrutiny, and in her op-ed in the Missoulian (Jan. 28) and Los Angeles Times, Erica Rosenberg criticized this effort by conservationists and timber mill operators to work together and move beyond past conflicts.
As the Montana architects of the landmark Beaverhead-Deerlodge proposal criticized by Rosenberg, we offer an accurate overview of what we propose. Additional detail is available at www.b-dpartnership.org.
We have created a legislative proposal for Congress’ consideration that does many things. It would permanently protect for future generations the best backcountry of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. And it would put Montanans to work by producing wood products using restoration forestry, including activities that fix damaged habitat and recreational areas.
Our proposal recognizes that Montana’s timber industry is an important partner in securing a healthier future for this forest by creating jobs in the woods using environmentally sound timber practices, and by investing the value of cut timber directly into habitat restoration that creates additional jobs. We propose that timber-producing stewardship projects occur over 10 years on 70,000 acres of the forest’s 2.2 million timbered acres.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge is a recreation paradise, with world-class hunting and fishing. Yet, even the Forest Service recognizes that important recreational values and habitat, especially those associated with native trout, continue to decline. Under our proposal, the Forest Service and public would partner in designing projects that produce timber, eliminate sediment-bleeding roads, fix damaged streamside areas, remove some of the estimated 140 major road culverts that block trout migration, repair trails and campgrounds, and control noxious weeds. Basically, things the Forest Service says it has little money for today.
We also think it makes sense to use stewardship projects to protect wildlife by reducing existing road networks to that level which biologists say is critical for habitat. According to the Forest Service, the forest has over 5,600 miles of roads (think of driving from Missoula to Miami, Fla., and back). Many roads are important for recreation and should and will be kept, but some are unneeded, not maintained, and harmful to wildlife and trout streams.
Our proposal is clear on where we think the priority for projects should occur n in those parts of the forest that need restoration, including where insect infestations are raging in fire-prone timber stands, especially near communities. Despite what critics such as Rosenberg claim, the legislation does not suspend any environmental law, and it requires more up-front public participation in projects than is the case with current Forest Service activities.
Just as important as the details of the partnership proposal are the lasting relationships we’ve developed with each other and with many other Montanans. We’ve discussed our proposal, face to face, with more than 75 organizations as well as local governments, lawmakers and countless individuals. Most responses have been positive. Many people have told us Montana needs more cooperative efforts like ours.
Unfortunately, a few folks seem to prefer fighting the old timber versus wilderness wars. We n conservationists and loggers n believe it is time for Montanans to move beyond old hostilities and work toward broad public partnerships on management of national forests. We have learned that no one interest will ever get all that it wants, but by working together respectfully we can achieve our most noble common goals: A healthier economy, robust forests, improved fish and wildlife habitat, enhanced recreational opportunities, reduced fire risk to communities and permanent protection of Montana’s most beloved wild places.
Our common goals were born out of collaboration, a concept sometimes derided by skeptics, but firmly upheld by our partnership as we pioneer cooperative solutions for Montana.
This guest column was signed by Tim Baker of the Montana Wilderness Association, Bruce Farling of Montana Trout Unlimited, Tom France of the National Wildlife Federation, Bob Boschee of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, Sherm Anderson of Sun Mountain Lumber Company, Dan Daly of Roseburg Forest Products and Ed Regan of RY Timber
Collaboration can resolve many forest conflicts
By BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE PARTNERSHIP
A dramatic change is under way in how Montanans think about our public forests. The days of conflict and confrontation are giving way to honest discussions about shared interests and hard work to find common ground. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership is a great example of the good things that can happen when Montanans work together.
New ideas are naturally subject to scrutiny, and in her op-ed in the Missoulian (Jan. 28) and Los Angeles Times, Erica Rosenberg criticized this effort by conservationists and timber mill operators to work together and move beyond past conflicts.
As the Montana architects of the landmark Beaverhead-Deerlodge proposal criticized by Rosenberg, we offer an accurate overview of what we propose. Additional detail is available at www.b-dpartnership.org.
We have created a legislative proposal for Congress’ consideration that does many things. It would permanently protect for future generations the best backcountry of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. And it would put Montanans to work by producing wood products using restoration forestry, including activities that fix damaged habitat and recreational areas.
Our proposal recognizes that Montana’s timber industry is an important partner in securing a healthier future for this forest by creating jobs in the woods using environmentally sound timber practices, and by investing the value of cut timber directly into habitat restoration that creates additional jobs. We propose that timber-producing stewardship projects occur over 10 years on 70,000 acres of the forest’s 2.2 million timbered acres.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge is a recreation paradise, with world-class hunting and fishing. Yet, even the Forest Service recognizes that important recreational values and habitat, especially those associated with native trout, continue to decline. Under our proposal, the Forest Service and public would partner in designing projects that produce timber, eliminate sediment-bleeding roads, fix damaged streamside areas, remove some of the estimated 140 major road culverts that block trout migration, repair trails and campgrounds, and control noxious weeds. Basically, things the Forest Service says it has little money for today.
We also think it makes sense to use stewardship projects to protect wildlife by reducing existing road networks to that level which biologists say is critical for habitat. According to the Forest Service, the forest has over 5,600 miles of roads (think of driving from Missoula to Miami, Fla., and back). Many roads are important for recreation and should and will be kept, but some are unneeded, not maintained, and harmful to wildlife and trout streams.
Our proposal is clear on where we think the priority for projects should occur n in those parts of the forest that need restoration, including where insect infestations are raging in fire-prone timber stands, especially near communities. Despite what critics such as Rosenberg claim, the legislation does not suspend any environmental law, and it requires more up-front public participation in projects than is the case with current Forest Service activities.
Just as important as the details of the partnership proposal are the lasting relationships we’ve developed with each other and with many other Montanans. We’ve discussed our proposal, face to face, with more than 75 organizations as well as local governments, lawmakers and countless individuals. Most responses have been positive. Many people have told us Montana needs more cooperative efforts like ours.
Unfortunately, a few folks seem to prefer fighting the old timber versus wilderness wars. We n conservationists and loggers n believe it is time for Montanans to move beyond old hostilities and work toward broad public partnerships on management of national forests. We have learned that no one interest will ever get all that it wants, but by working together respectfully we can achieve our most noble common goals: A healthier economy, robust forests, improved fish and wildlife habitat, enhanced recreational opportunities, reduced fire risk to communities and permanent protection of Montana’s most beloved wild places.
Our common goals were born out of collaboration, a concept sometimes derided by skeptics, but firmly upheld by our partnership as we pioneer cooperative solutions for Montana.
This guest column was signed by Tim Baker of the Montana Wilderness Association, Bruce Farling of Montana Trout Unlimited, Tom France of the National Wildlife Federation, Bob Boschee of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, Sherm Anderson of Sun Mountain Lumber Company, Dan Daly of Roseburg Forest Products and Ed Regan of RY Timber
