ALERT - Harry Reid to Force Vote On Omnibus Land Grab This Weekend - 09 Jan 2009

[Hank]

I thought hunting was not permitted in designated Wilderness areas. I'm not a hunter, so I may be wrong about that. Is hunting permitted anywhere in a federally designated wilderness?

Yes, you can hunt in wilderness.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Parking your car and walking or pushing your wheel chair out 50 feet is not being out in nature...as some in this thread would lead you to believe.

And driving there is? Now you're making no sense whatsoever.

Don't take my land away from me...don't take the land away from the people.

Again (I'll repeat it as often as I have to): It's not taking land away from anyone. It's saving it for everyone. Even people who can't, or choose not to, visit wilderness areas, benefit, in the edge effect from the core habitat on adjacent non-wilderness areas. I'm willing to bet Lance is aware of this.

As far as "keeping the land open to hikers, bikers, and 4x4s." Think about it. How many hikers do you see on 4WD trails? How enjoyable is it for anyone to hike where 4WDs are operating? Not very. I don't do it. 4WD trails are for 4WDs and motorcycles. When I hike I want peace and quiet, not the sound and sight of someone's Jeep coming up behind me.

It's so easy, isn't it, to blame an outside group like "greenies" for your loss of access. The main reason so many people are against 4WDs is due to the irresponsible use of 4WDs by so many "within" our community. Trash, wildcat trails - where are threads here about taking slob 4WD owners to task? I'm not talking about the cute Tread Lightly admonishments, I'm talking about getting a big group of responsible 4WD owners together and making life on the trail miserable for the slobs.

 

[Hank]

There are a few things that can be gleaned from the map you have posted. It appears as if the areas indicated as 'potential wilderness inventory' are worth of study because they would link other wilderness fragments that are probably suitable habitat for plants and animals. That's why they need to be studied. Islands of habitat w/o migration corridors are a serious problem for biodiversity among mammals, thusly hunting.

You would be correct. There are many "islands" of Wilderness in the area. If you could overlay this map with a Topo map, it would be easier to understand why some of the areas are designated Wilderness. Many of these areas are wide, tall, and long MTN ranges free of light pollution and other development.

Also, if you could view a Topo of this area, you would, too, see the network of recreation trails. I'm not talking about OHV, either. These are biking and hiking type single tracks. On the older Topo's (and some newer) they still show many logging roads, fire roads, and OHV roads. But I can assure you, anything besides "Shoe Creek Trail" on the Application MTN side of the Shenandoah Valley is closed to OHV traffic.

The problem with connecting any of these wilderness areas is the affect we'll have with recreation. There are other affects, such as jobs at WestVaco ( a MAJOR employer in the area) who cut and buy timber in these hills, but my main concern is recreation. Adding addition wilderness to our area would directly impact the MTN bike riding, the horse back riding, the camping, and the hunting.

Here, we're allowed to hunt Black Bear and Coon with dogs. This is an activity I've never really enjoyed, but it is a pass-time of the area. I don't really understand how the Black Bear population could be kept under control without the bear hunters and their dogs. We have a huge bear population. In fact, we have a bear problem, and have had this problem for many years. But if the hunters cannot track their dogs (by vehicle) what good is this going to do for the area?

Now, the physiography of the area (I'm looking at a relief map of the area as well and could be very incorrect due to my lack of knowledge of the area), looks to be a series of parallel NE to SW mountain ranges. The National Forest Boundary roughly follows that landform. Highways and roads bisect the mountains where the landform allows, cutting the natural migration corridors.

This sounds pretty correct.

Now, I'm not saying the whole darn thing should be a wilderness, I'm not informed enough to make that assessment. BUT, even a distant arm chair ecologist can see that there are issues which merit STUDY.

I totally agree! But why more wilderness? Like I said, once it goes "wilderness", we'll never gain it back. I'm sure there are other designations that would allow study, restrict access, yet leave the land available usable in the future.

It's timely for me that you have posted this particular region. I have been casually reading about the Appalachian Trail, which crosses thru that forest. One day I hope to find the time to enjoy a trip on the AT. You are fortunate to live near one of the Forest Service crown jewels on the East Coast. While I live on the West Coast, I have an appreciation for the East & the world in general too. My sister lives in Salisbury, NC and I have traveled those beautiful rolling green hills all the way to the outer banks a few times.

I don't know much about the trail. Pretty sad, too, as I could be standing on the trail within 15-minutes of my front door. The trail passes right tough the Shenandoah National Park, which, is basically wilderness. The trail would not be effected very much....at least not in my area. It's another breed of folks up there.

I hope that the public and decision makers in your area can develop a strong management plan that solves the issues threatening the forest, while maintaining recreational opportunities for all trail users. Just remember the big picture, the land needs to be managed to provide many things to many people. Foremost in my mind, is preserving ecological services to society as a whole (watershed, airquality,biodiversity,etc.) then recreation. For the record, I enjoy OHV travel and see wilderness preservation as a tool for saving that form of recreation. A balance can found with careful study.

I totally agree with balance. But the wilderness designation irritates me. I keep thinking about wind power, gas drilling, and timber sales, too.

There is no reason why Virgina and West Virgina could not offer a trail network worthy of Expedition type activity. But we'll never be able to connect the trail networks when Wilderness has locked up the land.

There is no reason why I should not be able to go biking or backpacking for multi-day trips through networked trails, and still enjoy the camping with fire.

The list goes on.

 

[modelbuilder]

And driving there is? Now you're making no sense whatsoever.

You are being a bit rude now.

It actually makes perfect sense. If they declared that portion of the desert as wilderness it would close down the 4x4 roads, which would mean that those who cannot access the area without the assistance of a vehicle would be out of luck.

So yes...I am making sense.

What is the point of saving it if you are limiting access to a select group of people?

There is a better way to go about it rather than passing a 1600 page bill that those in congress will not even read. They don't have to do it this fast.

But they will because it is politically fashionable.

But that poster was correct, there is no point in debating here...you are not the person I need to convince.

 

[Photog]

National Park is NOT basically wilderness. No hunting or firarms alowed in NP's. Hunting is just fine in wilderness areas. You just have to do it without wheels.

 

[ginericLC]

This is a bad deal for Idaho. The Owyhee Initiative is a terrible deal for all except the wealthy ranchers. The agreement allows land swaps that involve huge amounts of cash to a few ranchers. It also opens up grazing and closes off access for recreationalists. I've read the entire bill several times. I know the areas. And it is not good! It doesn't matter if you are a hiker, biker, kayaker, OHV enthusiast, or even equestrian. I'm not sure what it does in other parts of the country. But the whole idea of slamming a bunch of bills together to get them to pass really stinks because they usually stick something in there that doesn't belong. I don't normally look in this section because it is so controversial. And although I usually fight for OHV access I definitely have seen the abuse that has occured in some areas and realize that some of that needs to be stopped. Unfortunately enforcement costs more than closure.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I'm not being rude, I'm simply pointing out that what you wrote makes no sense, which it doesn't. Walking - or pushing a wheelchair - 50 feet into a wilderness area is far more "out in nature" than driving 50 miles down a road, any road. Wilderness areas rarely adjoin cities; you're usually already pretty far down a dirt road by the time you reach the border. Therefore you don't have to go far to appreciate the unique surroundings that only a wilderness area can provide.

What is the point of saving it if you are limiting access to a select group of people?

Again - sorry - this argument makes no sense, and indicates that you aren't reading my posts entirely before responding. First, if you insist on falling back on the "handicapped" argument - which as I have mentioned seriously annoys most handicapped people I've met when used by an able-bodied person - the vast majority of people are perfectly capable of the amount of walking necessary to fully appreciate a wilderness area - hardly a "select" group. Just because they, or you, choose not to do so, don't tell me I'm limiting access. Go find some handicapped acquaintances who believe the U.S. should blade roads into wilderness areas, and have them post here, rather than assuming for them for your own aims. Lance, our lonely representative "handicapped" person, has already voiced his support of wilderness, even if he and I might disagree on specific new ones. That's completely fair.

Second, and far more important, you are again falling back on self-centered arguments, assuming that if people "can't" go there it's not worth having. As I've repeated, wilderness is about aims above our own interests; it's about putting habitat and wildlife first. If you're not willing to do that on five or - gasp - six percent of the land in the United States, I find it very sad, and suspect that with such an outlook you and the others who think of wilderness as a "land grab," and I will never agree on much at all.

Regarding the speed of the process for this last bill, it's no more than a response to the equally precipitous pushes to open up vast tracts of public land to invasive resource extraction. Which approach, honestly, do you feel has more chance of irreparably harming public land? Furthermore, as far as I can tell, most, if not all, of the parcels in question have been under consideration for wilderness status for some time.

Sigh . . . I usually don't become depressed when I visit the conservation section of Expo, but the last few days have been discouraging. I'm going for a long walk.

 

[Guinness44]

Nobody said to blade more trails. Simple: Keep and stand up for the right to enjoy, what we have.
About the hiking, if pushing a wheelchair 50 feet into a wilderness, then hiking 50 feet into a wilderness should be enough also. So the hiking off any 4wd trail should then be no problem. That argument was used here also, the amazing thing is there is plenty of hiking where the 4WD trails stop. Once hiked into the Chile Canyons, during an event, and really thought was in the wrong canyon, it was very quiet. We were almost "on top" of the group, when we finally could hear them.

 

[Hank]

I don't know. Maybe more people should run out and rent Bill Burr: Why Do I Do This?. I think it's a free stream from Netflix, if you have a Netflix scrip.

It's not that I think you should take him seriously, but it does make you think, even if it is on the candid side.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Nobody said to blade more trails. Simple: Keep and stand up for the right to enjoy, what we have.

Actually, plenty of people advocate blading more trails, including into wilderness areas. There are crackpots on both sides, you know.

If you don't advocate that - that is, if you believe as you seemed to state that every acre of existing wilderness is valuable and has an important purpose, then surely you can't believe that there is no area, that is, not a single acre, in the U.S. that isn't currently wilderness that perhaps should be? If so, then 90 percent of our debate has been redundant, because I fully believe in careful selection of appropriate candidates for wilderness.

Unless, that is, someone on the opposite side is pushing for very un-carefully selected "land grabs" for extractive exploitation, as is currently the case. And that is why I supported S.B. 22. Simple.

 

[SinCityFJC]

Yes I'm still here on ExPo, last week & S.22 were a learning experience for me! I've changed the nature of my posts & the few PMs I've had with Jonathan Hanson help me understand were the core group is coming from. Cheers

 

[Photog]

Agavelver,(post #82)
Your link discusses the concealed carry of a firearm in National Parks and Wlidlife Refuges. This does not allow you to hunt in either of these places. The concealed carry is for self defense, not hunting. I did say "no firearms in a NP"; and that is not completely correct. No firearms that are not concealed would be correct. You are right about that.

Everyone,
This SB 22, is a heap of different bills, all thrown together. From the sound of it, it is not all about wilderness designations. The Owyhee properties in Idaho, sounds like a completely different scheme. Maybe one that could be brought up with an investigative news team, or the Supreme Court.

As for new wilderness areas; if there are already roadless tracts of land, then a wilderness designation will only prevent natural resource usage of the land. It won't prevent already existing access, except for bicycles or motorbikes. Backpacking, crosscountry hiking, campfires and hunting are also allowed in wilderness areas, with the standard restrictions based on dry weather, distances from lakes & streams, and elevations above treeline.

My feeling about a wilderness area has always been; it should not have had roads in it. It should be areas that have not been developed. Unless they plan to erase the roads, or convert them into hiking or horse trails, it won't feel much like a wilderness, with old road cuts running through it. What is the point then? Just do it to protect the natural resources?

From a country's point of view: Where does a country get its wealth? Service jobs don't make a country wealthy. Population does not make a country wealthy. Manufactured products, equipment, food, technology, raw materials, etc., are what brings money into a country. All of this comes from natural resources. Oil, gold, wood, silicon, iron, etc., all come from property that is not designated as a wilderness. At some point in the future, if we need the resources that are within a wilderness, the property designation will change, and it will be mined, drilled, logged, etc. Nobody believes the USA would rather become a third-world country, instead of making use of the natural resources. When it comes down to the wire, Alaska will be drilled for oil; bet on it. Also bet that it won't wipe out the wildlife.

I guess my problem with SB 22 is the procedure. Gather all property Bills together, and slam them through a vote, before anyone in Congress has an opportunity to be properly informed or lobbied.

 

[SinCityFJC]

Hi Brian

Funny in a odd way but is ExPo having a better debate of S.22 than the Senate did?

Cheers

Brian

 

[Photog]

I would bet money on it.:sombrero:

And the differing points of view are very useful and enlightening. Most of the folks here are not so polarized they can's discuss the issues.

Understanding the finer details of this Omnibus (Ominous) bill, is probably where it will make more sense, and give us enough info to contact our Reps, with constructive suggestions.

 

[SinCityFJC]

I would bet money on it.:sombrero:

And the differing points of view are very useful in enlightening. Most of the folks here are not so polarized they can's discuss the issues.

Understanding the finer details of this Omnibus (Ominous) bill, is probably where it will make more sense, and give us enough info to contact our Reps, with constructive suggestions.

I have to admit a week ago the concept of pro wilderness & pro vehicle base expo was baffling to me.