BrowningRage
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,560
My dad drove out to the Book Cliffs last weekend- Said the road out of Roosevelt is four-lanes-paved, all the way out to like Seep Ridge Road... how long before they just pave everything out there..??
I'm glad there are people with the money and influence to keep some of our wild lands wild...
"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
I'm glad there are people with the money and influence to keep some of our wild lands wild...
"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
The roadless rule not only prevents roads, but it also makes it difficult for biologists and managers to implement habitat improvement projects. So there is a down side to this ruling. It is not the "win" you think it is for wildlife. It will hinder and maybe stop managers from doing good things for wildlife.
E
elkun
Guest
rackster. like what? i do habitat improvements, i would like to know,.please explain,,,,
treedagain
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,771
i am not speaking for rackster, but it is hard to do some improvements with out some form of machinery....
How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait
How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait
E
elkun
Guest
funney how they did it 50 60 years ago'''''when there wasnt a road every where.....maybe thats why grandpa killed big ones, think???
elks96
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,851
One of the biggest issues is fire management and prescribed burns or even naturally started fires. This ruling limits everything including chainsaws. Helicopters, Planes etc. Most of these areas have spent decades under the idea that all fires were bad and have become overgrown kindle boxes waiting to blow up. So now they take this fire box and tie the hands of managers and do not allow anything to fight that fire. Ferris Mountain, WY is a prime example. The blm has been waiting for years to do some prescribed burns. Due to all the issues they had to wait until everything was perfect and before that hit, they lost a huge chunk of the area to fire. The fire was too hot and ultimately is believed to have damaged the ground that recovery will be hard.
The other issue is with the plan is that several properties were granted protection that did not even meet the original requirements. For example in Western Colorado there is an area outside of Debeque. THe land/area was meant to meet certain requirements including little to no development, etc. Well this area is a wild horse area and also a gas field. In this area there are several sections with in the area that have been excluded from protection. Basically in this "road less" pristine wilderness area there is about 300 acres of gas excluded in the boundaries, also in this same piece they excluded about 2000 acres such that they could use equipment to remove brush and trees to promote grass growth so that the ferral horse(a non native invassive speicies) can have enough food and not starve. Ultimately the adoption of this property was pushed for by supporters of Wild horses and has tied the hands to the BLM in terms of horse round ups, culling etc. This also has now forced the blm to use birth control as the horse population control since they can no longer fly and do round ups.
Yes it was such a great plan....
The other issue is with the plan is that several properties were granted protection that did not even meet the original requirements. For example in Western Colorado there is an area outside of Debeque. THe land/area was meant to meet certain requirements including little to no development, etc. Well this area is a wild horse area and also a gas field. In this area there are several sections with in the area that have been excluded from protection. Basically in this "road less" pristine wilderness area there is about 300 acres of gas excluded in the boundaries, also in this same piece they excluded about 2000 acres such that they could use equipment to remove brush and trees to promote grass growth so that the ferral horse(a non native invassive speicies) can have enough food and not starve. Ultimately the adoption of this property was pushed for by supporters of Wild horses and has tied the hands to the BLM in terms of horse round ups, culling etc. This also has now forced the blm to use birth control as the horse population control since they can no longer fly and do round ups.
Yes it was such a great plan....
E
elkun
Guest
ewlks96. thanks now i understand more, and see it was not all good,,,
elks96
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,851
>elks96- yes the rule is
>a good thing overall, you
>can nit pick but saving
>some roadless country is paramount
>to the future of quality
>hunting, and they do fight
>fires in roadless areas with
>helicopters and planes, sorry to
>squelch your story
No only under specific regulation. The blm cannot use any equipment in these areas. Hence the reason why Ferris mountain prescribed burns have been delayed for over 10 years. If the fire meets certain criteria then yes they can fight it, but when using a prescribed burn they could not... To get the emergency permission to fight a fire there are several things that have to be considered.
No, slick willies land grab was not a good thing. I agree we need to preserve wild lands, but this movement was done on the recommendations of a few individuals and not with the full input of citizens, agencies, communities, or states, etc. I personally hunt in 5 of these areas every year, and enjoy it. But I am not willing to give up my rights as a citizen and the rights of my state to get this.
Further more these areas were commissioned a Wilderness Study Areas, meaning they were identified as areas that could meet the legal definition of a wilderness area. Of the 5 I hunt in only 1 meets the definition and it is the smallest. The rest would not meet the criteria as they have already seen some pretty extensive development. The process as proposed was identify areas that could meet the requirements, mark them and complete studies on the areas ability to meet the necessary requirements. Those areas that met it would be pushed through to receive the higher protection levels, those that did not meet the requirements would have returned back to normal control of the BLM. Those that went back could have had a plan attached to lessen or prevent future expansion, or could have been categorized differently.
Instead they set the areas, they got initial protection and they have just sat in state, not receiving status up grades etc. They basically said we are going to take these areas study them and when we are done some will become X and you will get some back. When in all honesty none of it has happened and as a result now have these areas all locked up and not moving. Since the studies were not done, and the full legal process not followed we will never see these areas used as anything else.
But heck if your OK with the Feds not following proper procedure, not allowing your state, community and citizens a voice in this matter. Or you OK with the feds not holding up their end of bargain or telling you one thing and doing another then yes this is a good thing.... It basically is an identical situation to the wolf recovery efforts, just people don't hate road less areas as much as they hate wolves...
>a good thing overall, you
>can nit pick but saving
>some roadless country is paramount
>to the future of quality
>hunting, and they do fight
>fires in roadless areas with
>helicopters and planes, sorry to
>squelch your story
No only under specific regulation. The blm cannot use any equipment in these areas. Hence the reason why Ferris mountain prescribed burns have been delayed for over 10 years. If the fire meets certain criteria then yes they can fight it, but when using a prescribed burn they could not... To get the emergency permission to fight a fire there are several things that have to be considered.
No, slick willies land grab was not a good thing. I agree we need to preserve wild lands, but this movement was done on the recommendations of a few individuals and not with the full input of citizens, agencies, communities, or states, etc. I personally hunt in 5 of these areas every year, and enjoy it. But I am not willing to give up my rights as a citizen and the rights of my state to get this.
Further more these areas were commissioned a Wilderness Study Areas, meaning they were identified as areas that could meet the legal definition of a wilderness area. Of the 5 I hunt in only 1 meets the definition and it is the smallest. The rest would not meet the criteria as they have already seen some pretty extensive development. The process as proposed was identify areas that could meet the requirements, mark them and complete studies on the areas ability to meet the necessary requirements. Those areas that met it would be pushed through to receive the higher protection levels, those that did not meet the requirements would have returned back to normal control of the BLM. Those that went back could have had a plan attached to lessen or prevent future expansion, or could have been categorized differently.
Instead they set the areas, they got initial protection and they have just sat in state, not receiving status up grades etc. They basically said we are going to take these areas study them and when we are done some will become X and you will get some back. When in all honesty none of it has happened and as a result now have these areas all locked up and not moving. Since the studies were not done, and the full legal process not followed we will never see these areas used as anything else.
But heck if your OK with the Feds not following proper procedure, not allowing your state, community and citizens a voice in this matter. Or you OK with the feds not holding up their end of bargain or telling you one thing and doing another then yes this is a good thing.... It basically is an identical situation to the wolf recovery efforts, just people don't hate road less areas as much as they hate wolves...
elks96
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,851
Here is even more:
http://www.cfpa-nv.org/wilderness/wilderness.htm
Here is the real issue: This is for Nevada:
On Bureau of Land Management lands, a WSA is a roadless area that has been inventoried (but not designated by Congress) and found to have wilderness characteristics as described in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. BLM manages wilderness study areas to protect their value as wilderness until Congress decides whether or not to designate them as wilderness. Wilderness bills often include so-called "release language" that eliminates WSAs not selected for wilderness designation.
Some WSAs are managed exactly the same as wilderness areas, and the rules for others permit activities that are generally excluded from wilderness. For example, some WSAs allow mountain bikes and off-road vehicles.
WSAs in Nevada total approximately 2.55 million acres with only .72 million acres "recommended suitable" by the BLM. BLM's Carson City Field Office managed WSAs in Douglas, Lyon, Mineral, Nye and Western Churchill counties total 277,811 acres with 0 acres "recommended suitable", yet these WSAs remain under the protection of wilderness status.
AND HERE ABOUT FIRE:
The Wilderness Act of 1964 sets forth certain prohibited activities on any land designated as Wilderness. The most troublesome of these prohibitions is that ?No Motorized Equipment is allowed.? Additionally, lands that have been designated as Wilderness Study Areas by the Bureau of Reclamation also prohibit Motorized Equipment. When one reads the actual definitions of what land can be designated as Wilderness the ?no motorized equipment? prohibition makes sense.
Unfortunately, Wilderness proponents (Nevada Wilderness Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness and the Wilderness Society), have, as a matter of policy, worked to designate as Wilderness Areas many hundreds of thousands acres of public land that do not meet the definition of Wilderness as prescribed in the 1964 Act. Many such Wilderness Areas border populated areas, state highways, and county roads where considerable development has occurred and many people reside.
So, what happens when a wildfire starts is such an area? One would think the proper reaction would be to extinguish the fire by the fastest means possible to reduce harm to humans, man-made structures, wildlife habitat, and the land itself. However, since ?motorized equipment? is prohibited in Wilderness Areas, these fires are not extinguished by the fastest means possible, if they are extinguished at all. Wilderness proponents argue this is not the case. They state; ?Motorized equipment can be used to fight fires in Wilderness Areas?.
Given these contradictions, what actually happens when a wildfire erupts in a Wilderness Area? To find out we need only look to the recent fires that occurred in the Six Rivers National Forest located in the Siskiyou Mountains in Northern California. These fires threatened several homes and other buildings. As to how these fires would be fought Tyrone Kelley, the Forest Service Manager in charge of this Wilderness Area, was quoted as saying: ?Because the fires are in a Wilderness Area, fire lanes are built by hand not with bulldozers.? Hence, firefighters were reduced to building fire lanes with hand tools only. It is reasonable to conclude that the statement of a Forest Service Manager trumps the statements of Wilderness proponents. It should be noted that several structures and homes were destroyed as a result of these fires. Fortunately, no human life was lost.
As long as Wilderness advocates continue to seek of any and all public lands for such designations even though the lands do not meet the congressional definition of Wilderness and our elected federal representatives allow such nonsense, federal land managers and the public at large will be plagued by this dangerous, destructive and potentially life threatening policy of fighting wildfires in Wilderness Areas with hand tools.
Coupled with the fact that many areas should not be Wilderness Areas in the first place, such a practice is a prime example of how the welfare of the public is endangered by the radical environmentalists that seemingly dictate what is ?good? for this nation.
http://www.cfpa-nv.org/wilderness/wilderness.htm
Here is the real issue: This is for Nevada:
On Bureau of Land Management lands, a WSA is a roadless area that has been inventoried (but not designated by Congress) and found to have wilderness characteristics as described in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. BLM manages wilderness study areas to protect their value as wilderness until Congress decides whether or not to designate them as wilderness. Wilderness bills often include so-called "release language" that eliminates WSAs not selected for wilderness designation.
Some WSAs are managed exactly the same as wilderness areas, and the rules for others permit activities that are generally excluded from wilderness. For example, some WSAs allow mountain bikes and off-road vehicles.
WSAs in Nevada total approximately 2.55 million acres with only .72 million acres "recommended suitable" by the BLM. BLM's Carson City Field Office managed WSAs in Douglas, Lyon, Mineral, Nye and Western Churchill counties total 277,811 acres with 0 acres "recommended suitable", yet these WSAs remain under the protection of wilderness status.
AND HERE ABOUT FIRE:
The Wilderness Act of 1964 sets forth certain prohibited activities on any land designated as Wilderness. The most troublesome of these prohibitions is that ?No Motorized Equipment is allowed.? Additionally, lands that have been designated as Wilderness Study Areas by the Bureau of Reclamation also prohibit Motorized Equipment. When one reads the actual definitions of what land can be designated as Wilderness the ?no motorized equipment? prohibition makes sense.
Unfortunately, Wilderness proponents (Nevada Wilderness Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness and the Wilderness Society), have, as a matter of policy, worked to designate as Wilderness Areas many hundreds of thousands acres of public land that do not meet the definition of Wilderness as prescribed in the 1964 Act. Many such Wilderness Areas border populated areas, state highways, and county roads where considerable development has occurred and many people reside.
So, what happens when a wildfire starts is such an area? One would think the proper reaction would be to extinguish the fire by the fastest means possible to reduce harm to humans, man-made structures, wildlife habitat, and the land itself. However, since ?motorized equipment? is prohibited in Wilderness Areas, these fires are not extinguished by the fastest means possible, if they are extinguished at all. Wilderness proponents argue this is not the case. They state; ?Motorized equipment can be used to fight fires in Wilderness Areas?.
Given these contradictions, what actually happens when a wildfire erupts in a Wilderness Area? To find out we need only look to the recent fires that occurred in the Six Rivers National Forest located in the Siskiyou Mountains in Northern California. These fires threatened several homes and other buildings. As to how these fires would be fought Tyrone Kelley, the Forest Service Manager in charge of this Wilderness Area, was quoted as saying: ?Because the fires are in a Wilderness Area, fire lanes are built by hand not with bulldozers.? Hence, firefighters were reduced to building fire lanes with hand tools only. It is reasonable to conclude that the statement of a Forest Service Manager trumps the statements of Wilderness proponents. It should be noted that several structures and homes were destroyed as a result of these fires. Fortunately, no human life was lost.
As long as Wilderness advocates continue to seek of any and all public lands for such designations even though the lands do not meet the congressional definition of Wilderness and our elected federal representatives allow such nonsense, federal land managers and the public at large will be plagued by this dangerous, destructive and potentially life threatening policy of fighting wildfires in Wilderness Areas with hand tools.
Coupled with the fact that many areas should not be Wilderness Areas in the first place, such a practice is a prime example of how the welfare of the public is endangered by the radical environmentalists that seemingly dictate what is ?good? for this nation.
J
jaswayne9
Guest
Looks like its not just a cut and dry deal, hmmmm.
