LAST EDITED ON May-19-11 AT 09:55AM (MST)[p]Hunitindad,
I'll answer your questions...and you wont be liking the answers, just keep that in mind, while I'm handing you your a$$.
First of all, you arent "locked out" of any wildnerness in Wyoming or anywhere else. You're free to come here and hunt, fish, trap, hike, camp, 365 days a year 24-7. For big-game there is also 3 ways for you to hunt in Wilderness, like you stated, you can hire a guide. The second route to take is to have a friend in WY that is willing to obtain a FREE resident guide license available to all WY residents, and they can accompany you on the hunt(s) of your choosing. The third is to move to Wyoming and gain residency.
With those available options, I refuse to, and wont, listen to the whining about being locked out of wilderness in Wyoming. Its simply not true and a red herring.
As to the questions of kids, no I dont have kids, but do have 2 nephews that are both under 7 years old.
I knew where you were going with the question when you asked it, and your last post confirmed it.
Frankly, because I dont have kids, I should be a self-indulgent A-hole and shouldnt give a big rats-a$$ about anyone but myself when it comes to hunting, fishing, and my ability to access FEDERAL lands. I should be on the side of those that want a few miles of road and easy access on every last section of public land. Looking long-term that is what would ultimately benefit my personal situation the best...the hell with the integrity of the land...the hell with future generations, its all about me.
I fully realize that at any moment, I can suffer a disability that would EXCLUDE me from gaining access to wilderness and roadless country. I also fully know that the day is fast approaching when I physically wont be able to get into the same country I do now. But, where I differ, is that I'm not so selfish that I think I should be able to get there forever, despite my age or physical ability. I also dont think I should be granted special privileges because I'm old, have/dont have kids, am fat, lazy, or own ATV's. Just knowing that wild lands are there is enough for me, I dont have to be physically present there to enjoy its existence.
However, because I happen to care about wild lands and want future generations to enjoy them, I find myself on the side of advocating for more wilderness.
Currently, less than 4% of BLM lands are in any kind of designated Wilderness. Meaning that 96% are open to some sort of motorized access, grazing, mining, and other "multiple use" catagories. I disagree that protecting 4% of 169 million acres is "too much" and "we dont need more". If you'd bother to look at the areas that are designated Wilderness, you'd find that the areas under current designation are largely those areas with little value when it comes to extractive uses. In other words, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service have done an incredible job of protecting rock and ice. I'm of the opinion that a diversity of landscapes and ecological areas should be designated, not just areas where no extractive uses are viable.
If you and your kids cant find somewhere to recreate on the 169 million acres of BLM lands in the lower 48, you're a sorry excuse for a parent. Further, you also must lack the problem solving capabilites of a turnip.
I'm not, and will never be willing to give up the sliver of public lands in wilderness desigantion currently, so you and your 3 bad discs along with your kids can gain easier access to it. Further, I wont miss any opportunity to increase the amount of wilderness designation to something more meaningful than a pittance of public lands. I owe it to future generations, I owe it to the unselfish, I owe it the wildlife, and even further, I owe it to the land itself.
You have yourself a good day now.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention and have a great day and good luck this season.
