SW Desert issues and many other areas

Buzz for such an educated man your reading comprehension skills suck!

I said:"I just know if it is difficult for me logistically to take my family into the wilderness to hunt then it is difficult to impossible for others who take it less seriously than me. Now honestly I don't really care about the adult who cannot or will not hunt the wilderness, my concern is for their kids."

You said:"So, the reason you dont want more wilderness is because the logistics are tough for you? Thats not a selfish attitude? Sounds like a personal problem...use those advanced problem solving skills and figure it out."

Reread them I clearly stated my concern for OTHER PEOPLE'S children not mine they will be just fine.

I said: "If we lose these places then we lose the future IMO because many will miss out on the experience cause dad will wait too long to take Jr. because he can't walk himself 10 miles in where the bucks are at until he's X years old and by then he has no interest or fire to hunt."

You said:"Again, because YOU choose to "wait too long" you blame it on Wilderness? Sounds like a personal problem and a selfish attitude again. We should open things up and keep them open so its convienent for you, when and if you decided not to wait too long?"

Again I clearly stated my concern for other kids mine will be fine and are well on their way to becoming great outdoorsmen/women.

Now for your questions.

How is less than 4% of the total BLM land in the lower 48 locking you out? It doesn't (except WY)

How does wilderness designation lock you out? See above.

You must mean, "I cant drive my atv there, so I'm locked out" Yes? No again your reading comprehension skills suck as I clearly stated I have NEVER hunted with an ATV.

Now to a couple of your comments.

"I also contribute thousands of dollars in application fees, hunting license fees, fishing license fees, etc. in states I dont even hunt...and unless I'm extremely lucky, probably never will. Hows that for selfish! Paying the freight for others when I'll likely never even get a chance!"

I think this applies to almost all of us here on MM and speaks nothing to selfishness or lack thereof.

"I should also just sit back and let you and your kids complacency in these issues decide the fate of public lands."

Me and mine are fine and I have never said otherwise so I will again have to question your reading comprehension.

Thank you for all of your service and donations to the fish and wildlife and their habitat. I honestly appreciate you and others like you (yes there are many out there that do the same),I have even been known to give a little.

I would LOVE to see more wilderness in the west and agree that in the right places it is the best way to protect the future, however it is not right for every place and person and people who want something different for a place have just as much say as you or anyone.

There are drawbacks to wilderness and ANYONE who says otherwise is either lying or thinking only of THEIR view on that tract of lands usefulness.

I am glad there are places where my children will always be able to go and get away from roads and people and hope for more to be set aside in the future but I am also grateful for the fact there are and hopefully always will be places where they can (even if old or handicapped) drive out to a place where they can get out of the truck and fish or hunt.

You speak from the perspective of a healthy young person who has the ability to go in and do it but not everyone can and if god forbid that happen to you I hope you truly still feel the same way.

I think we all pretty much agree on 99% of this but I think I got a little sideways when you came out with you A$$handing post along with it's presumptions of me and my intent. Your posts are always energetic and reflect directly your views and that is good but they also often come across as selfish and conceited and that is not so good.

I think you are truly a person who wants to protect the future of our fish and wildlife and the land they live on for not just yourself but others including my complacent kids LOL. I am too! As are most others on this site and just because their view differs from yours or mine doesn't make them less valid or caring.

Bill

Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-21-11 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]Why the concern for "others kids"?

They have 96% of the total BLM lands to find a place to recreate.

What about the "others kids" that are forced into less than 4% of the BLM lands? Who's looking out for them?

Do you feel that a 96%-4% split is "fair"? Do you feel that the 4% of BLM lands in Wilderness designation fairly represents a cross section of habitat types found on BLM lands?

The upside to Wilderness designation is theres no downside, despite what you claim.

For the record, its more than possible to mitigate water issues in dry climates within designated wilderness. Happens all the time as water sources are currently maintained for ranchers with grazing leases within wilderness areas. No, its not a typo, cattle grazing IS allowed in designated wilderness both on BLM and FS land.

If anyone responding to their "concerns" about water would have taken 5 minutes to educate themselves, and heaven forbid actually read the Wilderness Act, they wouldnt be dragging a bunch of BS,untruths, and lies to this thread.

Just so you know, I'll quote directly from the 1964 Wilderness act, I'll bold the important parts:

"Established motorboat and aircraft use is continued. Measures necessary to the control of fire, insect and disease are allowed as are roads and facilities needed for administration. The President may approve any water development in a wilderness area, and prospecting and mineral exploration can continue until 1983. Claims staked before 1983 can be worked thereafter."

It sure seems to me that there is more than a bit of room to mitigate the water issues...but you know what, thats not really what those opposing wilderness are truly concerned with. They're concerned that they wont be able to ride their ATV's everywhere they want...the water issue is just their straw man.
 
huntingdad - I wonder if you really are thinking out for the kids as you claim,because what you are saying makes little sense. Your back yard is a wilderness to a 5 year old,an empty lot is a wilderness to a ten year old, and any part of the national forest is pretty wild to a 14 year old. The absolutely most selfish thing you can do for young people is take away their dreams of hunting or recreating in a bit of wild America someday. When I was twelve I used to listen to my Uncles talk about the great fishing in the High Uintas, later I would hear people talk about the big deer here and there, and I couldn't wait to get old enough to check those magical places out. While most of the deer spots are gone, the Uintas are are still just as inspiring as before, and thats what Wilderness is all about. Its not about you or your eight year old not being able to easily visit those areas, its about keeping a few wild places intact so that young people can still have something to dream about. Get a map, read the wilderness act, open your mind, its not just about you.
 
Buzz I will admit I did not know that about water improvement in WA and should have educated myself better before using that as a con. Good to know.

You may be right about the fact that most only dislike wilderness because they can't ride their wheeler in there I can only speak for myself and say I do not care one bit about that.

I do feel there should be MORE wilderness and have said so here more than once. I just don't feel it is right for every piece of Federal land. Not saying there is a threat of ALL land going wilderness just saying certain plots of land aren't optimal candidates IMO. I think people who live near and recreate in the area of a proposed wilderness should have more sayso because their lives will be most affected. Before you say it yes I know it belongs to all of us.

Piper, 12 year old kids are not the same as when we grew up they live out fantasies virtually on games and right or wrong they need exposure and maybe easier success than we did when we were young to light the fire, I wish it wasn't so but it is.They are our future.

As for the rest of your post you can think I am worried about me and mine all you want I will not explain myself for the 10 time just so an idiot can catch on.

Bill

Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
 
Protecting wild lands should not mean locking out the American people from benefiting and enjoying it's wonders and resources. Certain areas can be designated for commercial and recreational use, while those areas deemed untouchable, designated as historical or wilderness areas. The point is to be smart and practical how and where we designate and use our wild areas.

Eldorado
 
Thats the whole Idea Eldorado, although I don't know what you mean about getting locked out? Wilderness is open to everyone, it just you have to get in there the old fashoned way, and the vast majority of public land is not wilderness, and won't ever be wilderness. The most spectacular places are usually national parks, and easy access to most of those areas is available to anyone.
 
Piper---Your last sentence is rather interesting in that National Parks are basically designed for easy access by vehicles for a general overview of the country by the vast majority of those who visit them and where hunting is not allowed. This thread is more of a discussion of areas that are for much more of what would be considered multiple use, including hunting and fishing. However, they are similar in that if you really want to get away from the crowds you have to go in on foot or by horseback in either one.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 03:18PM (MST)[p]Some like the energy industry or OHV proponents would argue that their rights have been curtailed in many of the acts to protect our wild lands. There's nothing more rancorous out here in the West than the protection and utilization of our wild lands and unfortunately, you can't please everybody.


Eldorado
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 03:38PM (MST)[p]The most spectacular places in the American landscape are usually designated National Parks, people in wheelchairs, little children and seniors can all see,and enjoy these areas . I say that because after they have been told what a small percent of public land is wilderness, then the Anti wilderness people usually complain that wilderness protection locks out the handicapped ect. from some of the more scenic, wildlife rich areas, As far as hunting goes, I guess you have a point, handicapped people can't easily hunt most wilderness areas, but then again, thats the least of some peoples problems.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 05:25PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 05:25?PM (MST)

I might entertain the argument of the energy industry and OHV proponents being "locked out" if BLM lands were 96% wilderness and 4% was open to extractive/consumptive uses.

But, its the other way around.

Neither group will be getting any sympathy from me that they're being "locked out" of using public lands, mainly because its simply not true.

Further, both groups better wake up and educate themselves, and start learning to compromise before they really do start finding themselves "locked out". The American public is starting to push back from all the abuses of its public lands by these groups of takers.
 
You misunderstood my point. There will always be dissatisfaction how wild lands will end up being protected and utilized. I was using those two groups as one example. Another example are those environmentalist who do not believe at all in the consumptive use of any wild lands. There must be a fair and honest balance between preservation and consumptive/recreational use of these wild lands if all Americans are to truly benefit and enjoy their natural heritage.

Eldorado
 
A fair and honest balance is not a 96-4 split, not even close.

In particular when that 4% is largely areas that hold no extractive/consumptive value.

We arent even in the realm of "fair and balanced" currently...thats for sure.
 
As an avid horse hunter and someone who spends an awefull lot of time on the ground in question ,both in the saddle and atop my atv i do half to agree that there are way to many roads and access,

But with that said i am in no way in favor of it being wilderness, the dwr is allready over objective on elk by at least 1,000 animals and they claim the deer buck to doe ratio is the best in the state at i believe 22-26 bucks to 100 does and this is with the access we currently have.

I think in a matter of a couple of years the cattleman would be crying foul and the unit would be overrun with elk, which is good for the opportunists but a nightmare for the dwr and other agencies


As for buzzh, partner you are more full of shitt than the xmas goose,i know you think you are a pure bred pack mule but brother wake the hell up, and quit boasting and posting pics of all your wilderness pisscutters and get down to the facts and whats best for the resourse as a whole land ,animals,people and let the people who live on and use the land put in their 2 cents.




'IT AINT EASY BEING ME'
 
In the end, it will be a few political hacks and not the American people that will decide the fate of this nation's wild lands and that is the real tragedy of this situation.

Eldorado
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 09:22PM (MST)[p]

buzz your kind of an idiot imho (just my opinion remember). You try to act big and bad, and try to use big words so you look smarter than you are,I can see right through it, sorry to burst you bubble.

Anyone that is willing to lose land to those tofu eating, hypocritical environmentalist idiots has no respect from me.

The people that propose these ideas want nothing more than non-consumptive use out of it. I personally believe once these people have a large portion of land locked up in Wilderness, the consumptive side of wilderness will be fought against. They will begin pushing against hunting etc in the wilderness areas. Dont say it can't happen look at all the Nat'l Monuments, we sure as H cant hunt in them! I personally know of one wilderness in So utah that they are trying to add it to the NM that borders it so hunting will not be allowed in it. I know you will say that its so far fetched,... but why even give thenm the tools to do such things!

I can see your side where you can and are fooled into thinking wilderness is good, and it is a shame that you are so naive about it.THey arte very good at manipulating the weak! The way you act about being so intelligent, you would think if you really were, you could think for yourself and see the power you will give to the Un-American tofu slime balls! I have hunted wilderness and non-wilderness, I see monster bucks every year in non wilderness. I know plenty of areas that are non wilderness that i hike into, its just not worth giving into the environmentalist groups so i dont have to see a 4 wheeler driving down the road.

Oh fyi if this passes it wont be 96-4 split. out of the 22.9 million acres of blm this will will make it 10 million acres that would be 43-57 split of blm meaning the majority rec enthusiasts will be cut of almost half of the land that they can use in the way they choose

Longshooter is exactly right in his post imo

If this area was turned wilderness i would actually benefit the rewards of the non access more than most, because we graze cattle on some of this blm and i would be in there on Horseback more than i already am. I dont think thats fair to anyone. dont even start on talking bad of ranching on ppublic land, there wouldnt even be a 1/3 of the water that is currently out here without ranchers.
 
theox- that was an amazing post, you ain't been around the country much have ya? Oh and there is 253 million acres of BLM in the US, thats where the 96 to 4 split comes from. go SUWA, and after listening to you, I might send them a check to help with their efforts.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 09:19PM (MST)[p]22.9 million in utah genius so the 96-4 split wouldnt be corresponding to utah!

piper i havent had respect for you in a long time your dang near the biggest tard on this site imo, i wouldnt be surprised to see you help suwa and other retard organizations. I have known for quite awhile you cant think for yourself and are easily manipulated.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 09:58PM (MST)[p]
+1 piper!!! Those last couple posts ripping BuzzH,when with his background he probably has more expertise on what we are talking about than these two members realize, is really ironic. I think Buzz has explained his point of view pretty well and has remained pretty calm for the most part compared to the way I've seen a number of his posts in the past and IMHO his viewpoint is not one that will benefit him much in the future, but rather future generations. Overall, this thread has been pretty darn good the last few days and it looked like everyone was coming to a pretty good consensus on a proper mixture of wilderness and other ways including road closures as ways to improve the habitat depending on where and what type of climate it has. Now here we go again with people getting on a thread and calling others idiots, etc., just because they have a different point of view! I don't know why this always seems to happen, but I think most members lose respect for those who do that, rather than just giving a coherent, courteous reply. I know I just lost any respect I might have had for two particular members that have made recent posts and that's too bad. It would be interesting to see a poll of a cross segment of hunters regarding wilderness, road closures, etc. and my guess is that it would be just as polarized as hunters/gun owners vs. the antis and tree huggers.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 10:17PM (MST)[p]

I just believe he is an idiot personally because he thinks that these people wont try to change wilderness rules when they already do! majority of this land doesnt even fit the criteria of wilderness but they change their criteria to suit there needs to limit our use. If they are already that sneaky and shady, i dont trust they will not continue to bend criteria rules to suit there needs. why even give them the chance? they already do it why would they stop now?

IMo you cant give these people an inch because they will keep inching until they have the whole mile, they do it all the time and you guys just continue to let them manipulate you.

Just for some track record look at some of the groups that support this they are also p[ro wolfers. yeah those people arent shady manipulative dishonest slime balls are they? just good honest stick to their word good down home people huh! those people would love to end hunting and you and i know it! so lets start off by giving them a boost to help end hunting by restricting atvs(hunters) campers etc. just blows my mind that people are so naive to this crap!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-11 AT 10:36PM (MST)[p]I've been involved in issues like this for a very long time, and I've heard all the excuses against wilderness. So if a couple posters on this board think they'll rattle me with lies, half-truths, and common-vanilla BS...they'd better think again. Facts always trump BS...always.

The fact is that the American Public has come around, they realize that there have been massive abuses of public lands for a very long time. Those abuses have happened at the hands of many extractive/consumptive uses...including over-grazing of a majority of BLM lands, illegal atv use, mining, logging, etc.

I'm not implying that all those uses cant be administered correctly, I know they can I've seen them all done correctly. SLOWLY things are getting a bit better. I'm cautiously optimistic that we're getting back on track thanks to some progressive thinkers within the various public land agencies, extractive industries, and also the American Public.

However, the biggest change I'm seeing is within the hunting/fishing community. I talk to many hunters and fishermen that are more and more supportive of limiting access and also in favor of wilderness designation. People are realizing that when the choice comes down to, and largely HAS, either wilderness or unfettered access...the choice is an easy one. In particular when they see truly wild country shrinking to a pittance year after year after year.

I simply know for a fact that wilderness designation is far from being supported by only "enviros" and "hippies"....nothing could be further from the truth. Those that think otherwise are in for a rude awakening.

Thats why you get posts like those from theox, they attempt to drum up fear, misinformation, and lies to support their opinions. Its all they've got, the facts are there for those that seek to find them.

oh, and for the record, I'm no super-human back packer, not by a long shot. But, I'm no mental-midget either and I'm sure not afraid of laying down some boot leather and shouldering a pack. People are capable of wayyy more than they think they are.
 
Out of curiosity, could these proposed wilderness areas ever be closed for example to grazing, fishing, and hunting if there where enough political pressure to do so? Just asking.

Eldorado
 
Read the 1964 wilderness law. It would take an act of congress to change that, and of course its possible to do anything, It would be right next to impossible. Maybe a century from now? who knows, but I wouldn't worry about it. The way things are going, by then sport hunting as we know it will be a thing of the past. Theox is full of hogwash
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-11 AT 08:30AM (MST)[p]+1 on your last post BuzzH!

eldorado---That's a very good and, IMHO, legitimate question which speaks specifically to the worries of these other members! I suppose anything is possible and all you have to do is look at some of the people we have elected to high offices lately to realize that! I'm not really up to speed on what it takes to make changes to lands designated as Wilderness Areas, but I think while I have some time today I will dealve into the Act to see exactly how it's written. I hope piper is correct in his assessment, but the way the higher courts are meddling with stuff nowadays it does make me leery of what might happen.
 
Here is the entire Act and it's not that long, so I figured it might be worthwhiel to just c/p it here on the thread to save others time that want to bone up on it!

The following is the full text of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1 1 21 (note), 1 1 31-1136
88th Congress, s. 4
September 3, 1964
An Act
To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wilderness Act" (I 6 U.S.C. 1 1 21 (note)).




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify, all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so so to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.

(b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for addition personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System.



DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized 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. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act 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 and which
(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;
(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;
(3) has a least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and
(4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. (16 U.S.C. 1131)


NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM:
EXTENT OF SYSTEM
Section 3. (a) All areas within the national forests classified at least 30 days before the effective date of the Act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as 'wilderness', 'wild' or 'canoe' are hereby designated as wilderness areas. The Secretary of Agriculture shall-
(1)Within one year after the effective date of this Act, file a map and legal description of each wilderness area with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and such descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal descriptions and maps may be made.
(2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers.
(b) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after the enactment of this Act, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the national forests classified on the effective date of this Act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "primitive" and report his finding to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the designation as "wilderness" or other reclassification of each area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now classified as "primitive" within three years after the enactment of this Act, not less than two-thirds within seven years after the enactment of this Act, and the remaining areas within ten years after the enactment of this Act. Each recommendation of the President for designation as "wilderness" shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Areas classified as "primitive" on the effective date of this Act shall continue to be administered under the rules and regulations affecting such areas on the effective date of this Act until Congress has determined otherwise. Any such area may be increased in size by the President at the time he submits his recommendations the Congress by not more than five thousand acres with no more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres of such increase in any one compact unit; if it proposed to increase the size of any area by more than five thousand acres or by more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any one compact unit the increase in size shall not become effective until acted upon by Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President in proposing, as part of his recommendations to Congress, the alteration of existing boundaries of primitive areas or recommending the addition of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominately of wilderness value. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may complete his review and delete such area as may be necessary, but not to exceed seven thousand acres, from the southern tip of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado, if the Secretary determines that such action is in the public interest.

(c) Within ten years after the effective date of this Act the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of the national park system and every such areas of, and every roadless island within, the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on the effective date of this Act and shall report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation as wilderness of each such area or island on which review has been completed, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of the areas and islands to be reviewed under this subsection within three years after enactment of this Act, not less than two-thirds within seven years of enactment of this Act, and the remainder within ten years of enactment of this Act. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance of roadless areas within the national park system.

(d)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, prior to submitting any recommendations to the President with respect to the suitability of any area for preservation as wilderness-
(A) give such public notice of the proposed action as they deem appropriate, including publication in the Federal Register and in a newspaper having general circulation in the area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land;
(B) hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the areas affected. The hearings shall be announced through such means as the respective Secretaries involved deem appropriate, including notices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area: Provided, That if the lands involved are located in more than one State, at least one hearing shall be held in each State in which a portion of the land lies;
(C) at least thirty days before the date of a hearing advise the Governor of the State and the governing board of each county, or in Alaska the borough, in which the lands are located, and Federal departments and agencies concerned, and invite such officials and Federal agencies to submits their views on the proposed action at the hearing or by no later than thirty days following the date of the hearing.
(2) Any views submitted to the appropriate Secretary under the provisions of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any recommendations to the President and to Congress with respect to such area.

(e) Any modification of adjustment of boundaries of any wilderness area shall be recommended by the appropriate Secretary after public notice of such proposal and public hearing or hearings as provided by in subsection (d) of this section. The proposed modification or adjustment shall then be recommended with map and description thereof to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to such modification or adjustment and such recommendation shall become effective only in the same manner as provided for in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. (16 U.S.C. 1132)



USE OF WILDERNESS AREAS
Section 4. (a) The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered and-
(1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 1 1), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215).
(2) Nothing in this Act shall modify the restrictions and provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539, Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020), the Thye-Blatnick Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Andresen Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-fourth congress, June 22, 1956; 70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916, the statutory authority under which the area was created, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain to or affect such area, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432 et seq.); section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(2)); and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.



PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
(d) The following special provisions are hereby made:
(1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restriction as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. Furthermore, in accordance with such program as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of mines to determine the mineral values, in any, that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, until midnight December 31, 1983, the United State mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the same extent as applicable prior to the effective date of this Act, extend to those national forest lands designated by this Act as "wilderness area"; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development and exploration, drilling, and production, and use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, producing, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose. Mining locations lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonable incident thereto; and hereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonable available, and if the timber is not otherwise reasonable available, and if the timber is cut under sound principles of forest management as defined by the national forest rules and regulations, but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products there of, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act: Provided, That unless hereafter specifically authorized, no patent within wilderness areas designated by this Act shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after the effective date of this Act within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this Act shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses covering lands within national forest wilderness areas designated by this Act shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto.
(4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(5) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.
(7) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests (16 U.S.C. 1133)



STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS
Section 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands with areas designated by this Act as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value under authorities available to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That the United States shall not transfer to a State or private owner any mineral interests unless the State or private owner relinquishes or causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in the surrounded land.
(b) In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occupancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness area, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations consistent with the preservation of the area of wilderness, permit ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated.

(c) Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the perimeter of any area designated by this Act as wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress (16 U.S.C. 1134)



GIFTS, BEQUESTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Section 6. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture may accept gifts or bequests of land within wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness. The Secretary of Agriculture may also accept gifts or bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas designated by this Act for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty days advance notice thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Land accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture under this section shall become part of the wilderness area involved. Regulations with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such agreements, consistent with the policy of this Act, as are made at the time of such gift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as may be included in, and accepted with, such bequest.
(b) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept private contributions and gifts to be used to further the purposes of this Act. (16 U.S.C. 1135)



ANNUAL REPORTS
Section 7. At the opening of each session of Congress, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall jointly report to the President for transmission to Congress on the status of the wilderness system, including a list and descriptions of the areas in the system, regulations in effect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommendations they may care to make. (16 U.S.C. 11 36)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approved September 3, 1964.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative History: House Reports: No 1538 accompanying H.R. 9070 (Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs) and No. 1829 (Committee of Conference). Senate report: No. 109 (Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs). Congressional Record: Vol. 109 (1963): April 4, 8, considered in Senate. April 9, considered and passed Senate. Vol. 110 (1964): July 28, considered in House. July 30, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 9070 August 20, House and Senate agreed to conference report.
 
overgrazing too many roads and atv abuse,. take care of these.you dont need more than that...
 
Theox,

Many agree with you, including me. I'm not a chicken little guy thinking the sky is falling.
I don't trust groups who try to take away sportsmens rights.

Groups that don't want predator control. Lot's of wolves,coyotes,bears,etc. These groups and enviro's want nature to balance wildlife populations. They don't want grazing, hunting, trapping,etc. I don't trust these groups or individuals, that think along these lines.

Some wilderness is a great idea. Providing multiple use of our lands and limiting roads,and protecting environment is important. We need to be good stewards of our lands. Blocking off access to the majority of citizens isn't the best action. We all need wild places. We don't need more wilderness in Utah IMO.
 
Elkun I agree but the last 20 years it's only gotten worse. Remember last year they closed a few roads on the Dutton and a few lazys flipped out. The abuse has got to stop and maybe the wilderness issue is the only way?
 
thr is an old saying.and iam about that old. dont throw the baby out with the bath water...be carefull what you ask for......
 
Thanks Topgun for posting the 1964 Wilderness Act. There is language in some of the provisions that are a little dicey that IMO could affect hunting if the provisions governing recreational/commercial use where to ever be legally challenged. Just an observation.


Eldorado
 
I keep hearing that we are "blocking", "denying" or "locking out" people from wilderness areas. Would someone please explain to me who exactly these people are that are being locked out? Last time I went into wilderness I do not remember a sign saying you must be this tall to enter. My 3 year old cannot climb to the top of Hoback peak. Does this mean that he has been locked out of it? Should we build a road to the top so that I can drive him there? Would this suffice for access?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-11 AT 03:13PM (MST)[p]
eldorado---I know where you're coming from and I agree that our biggest worry on anything nowadays is our liberal higher court azzholes that abound throughout the country, especially out West who would rule on things that matter to us. Judge Malloy is just one good example of a nutcase I can name with what I consider close to asinine rulings!!!

mulecreek---Great post and I think that is exactly what BuzzH keeps trying to point out in his posts and I concur with him after a simple analysis of the posts on this thread. Yes, if there are no roads a very young or old person or one that is disabled may not be able to go into a wilderness area on foot. I would offer up that most of us older people like myself have probably had enough great times in the outdoors that we ought to be willing to give up something in order to "pass it on" to our future generations!
 
Topgun,

Thanks for posting the Wilderness rule. Here is a copy of Secretarial Order 3310, issued by Secretary Ken Salazar in Late December 2010.

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Washington

ORDER NO. 3310

SIGNATURE DATE: December 22, 2010

Subject: Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management

Sec. 1 Purpose. This Secretarial Order (Order) affirms that the protection of the wilderness characteristics of public lands is a high priority for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is an integral component of its multiple use mission. The Order provides direction to the BLM regarding its obligation to maintain wilderness resource inventories on a regular and continuing basis for public lands under its jurisdiction. It further directs the BLM to protect wilderness characteristics through land use planning and project-level decisions unless the BLM determines, in accordance with this Order, that impairment of wilderness characteristics is appropriate and consistent with other applicable requirements of law and other resource management considerations.

Sec. 2 Authority. This Order is issued in accordance with the authorities contained in: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950, as amended, 5 U.S.C. ? 301, 43 U.S.C. ?? 1451, 1453; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. ? 1701 et seq. (FLPMA) (excluding 43 U.S.C. ? 1782); Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C ? 1131 et seq.; and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. ? 4321 et seq. (NEPA); Section 1320 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 43 U.S.C. ? 1784.

Sec. 3 Background. In an increasingly developed world, public lands with wilderness characteristics (as defined in the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. ? 1131(c), and BLM policy guidance adopted in accordance with this Order) provide social, cultural, economic, scientific, and ecological benefits for present and future generations. Many of America?s most treasured landscapes include public lands with wilderness characteristics that provide visitors with rare opportunities for solitude and personal reflection. In addition, many of these lands have culturally significant and sacred sites important to tribes. Many people and communities value these lands for hunting and fishing, observing wildlife, hiking, and other non-motorized and non-mechanized recreational uses. Lands with wilderness characteristics are also important for their scientific, cultural, and historic objects, which further our understanding of human and natural history, the functions of healthy ecosystems, and how human activities change our world. They also provide a variety of valuable ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, watershed protection, and air purification, and may contain habitat for numerous threatened and endangered species and other rare biological resources worthy of protection. Managing an area to protect its wilderness characteristics provides unique opportunities and benefits for present and future generations that may otherwise be irreparably lost.

For all these reasons, proper management of public lands with wilderness characteristics is a high priority for the BLM, and the open and productive natural state of such lands should be protected to the extent possible, consistent with the BLM?s planning and management authorities.

Sec. 4 Policy. In accordance with Section 201 of FLPMA, the BLM shall maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and identify within that inventory lands with wilderness characteristics that are outside of the areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas and that are pending before Congress or units of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The BLM shall describe such inventoried lands as ?Lands With Wilderness Characteristics,? share this information with the public, and integrate this information into its land management decisions. All BLM offices shall protect these inventoried wilderness characteristics when undertaking land use planning and when making project-level decisions by avoiding impairment of such wilderness characteristics unless the BLM determines that impairment of wilderness characteristics is appropriate and consistent with applicable requirements of law and other resource management considerations. Where the BLM concludes that authorization of uses that may impair wilderness characteristics is appropriate, the BLM shall document the reasons for its determination and consider measures to minimize impacts on those wilderness characteristics. Where the BLM concludes that protection of wilderness characteristics is appropriate, the BLM shall designate these lands as ?Wild Lands? through land use planning.

The BLM should develop recommendations, with public involvement, regarding possible Congressional designation of lands into the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The BLM shall ensure that all lands with wilderness characteristics outside of the areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas and pending before Congress or units of the National Wilderness Preservation System are managed in accordance with this Order and applicable law.

Sec. 5 Implementation. Consistent with Section 4, the BLM shall:

a. Develop policy guidance (BLM Manual or Handbook) within 60 days of this Order that defines and clarifies how public lands with wilderness characteristics are to be inventoried, described, and managed in a manner consistent with this Order (hereinafter ?BLM policy guidance?).

b. Ensure that wilderness characteristics inventories are conducted consistent with this Order and BLM policy guidance.

c. Maintain a national wilderness database that is accessible to the public and updated annually. This database will describe all public lands identified by the BLM as possessing wilderness characteristics and the manner in which the BLM is managing these lands.

d. Ensure that any new project-level decision or land use planning effort takes wilderness characteristics into consideration in accordance with this Order, subject to valid existing rights, as further provided below:

(1) Land Use Planning Decisions; Protection of Lands with Inventoried and Identified Wilderness Characteristics. Where lands with wilderness characteristics have been inventoried and identified and the BLM is undertaking a land use planning process subsequent to this Order, the BLM planning decision shall designate these lands as Wild Lands unless the BLM determines, in accordance with this Order and BLM policy guidance, that impairment of wilderness characteristics is appropriate and consistent with applicable requirements of law and other resource management considerations. Wild Lands shall be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics as part of BLM?s multiple use mandate.

(2) Project-Level Decisions for Lands Designated as Wild Lands. Where a land use plan has designated an area as Wild Lands, decisions regarding projects proposed for the area must include appropriate measures to protect the area?s wilderness characteristics.

(3) Project-Level Management of Lands Not Previously Inventoried and Analyzed in a Land Use Planning Process Conducted in Accordance with this Order. For project-level decisions in areas where the BLM determines that the land appears to have wilderness characteristics that have not been both inventoried and analyzed in a land use planning process conducted in accordance with this Order, the BLM shall preserve its discretion to protect wilderness characteristics through subsequent land use planning, unless the BLM determines otherwise as set forth below. Where the BLM has determined that the land appears to have wilderness characteristics and the proposed project may impair those apparent wilderness characteristics, the BLM shall conduct an inventory. If the inventory identifies lands with wilderness characteristics, the BLM shall consider the potential effects of the proposed project on the wilderness characteristics and measures to minimize impacts on those characteristics as documented in an appropriate NEPA analysis. Based on this NEPA analysis, the BLM may approve a project that may impair wilderness characteristics if appropriate and consistent with requirements of applicable law and other resource management considerations consistent with this Order or necessary for the exercise of valid existing rights. The BLM shall, in BLM policy guidance developed pursuant to this Order, identify appropriate officials who may approve actions that may impair wilderness characteristics in accordance with this Order.

e. Submit a report to the Secretary of the Interior within six months of the date of this Order that describes the BLM?s plan for considering wilderness characteristics in existing land use plans consistent with this Order.

f. This Order does not alter or affect any existing authority of the BLM. This Order does not change the management of existing Wilderness Study Areas pending before Congress or congressionally designated units of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Sec. 6 Effective Date. This Order is effective immediately and will remain in effect until it is amended, superseded, or revoked, whichever occurs first.
/s/ Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior

SO#3310 12/22/2010
 
hogwash hahaha yeah open your eyes buddy your teaming with the antis! that is a fact!!!!!!
the people creating tis wilderness bill and all the supporters are antis' hippies and enviros.fact look up the website and the supporters. i dont see one not one hunting or atv etc group teaming with these idiots ( that is also fact!)
just because you have been involved with wilderness for years doesnt mean your right. there are plenty of people that have jobs that for years that still dont know how to properly perform it.so i dont care if you have a 100 years experience that doesnt mean you know everything.
i know our range has greatly improved over the last 10-15 years. mustang elk and cattle numbers have grown out there. there is more grass and more water holes out there. we have done conservation and habitat restoration projects on private as well as school section to better suit everything from elk deer and of course our cows , and unfortunately even the practicly unmanaged mustangs. that will go even further unmanaged if wilderness engulfs this area. the blm will not allow us to do any habitat restoration out there to better improve range lands that will benefit wildlife and domestic cattle. if the blm would open there eyes to how much better thhis land is now after restoration they would benefit hunters more than a wilderness ever will. wilderness cannot be restored, if will continue to be over ran with invasive and noxious species,pinyon junipers. we all know that pj encroachment is a major major major habitat problem and will never ever be addressed in wilderness areas. that is also a fact buzzy and you know it. so quit with your misconceptions and half truths that wilderness is the answer.

i dont doubt that closing down a few roads would benefit things infact i wouldnt mind a few being closed but to close down an entire mtn range is a joke and unnecessary.

i am no lazy hunter i do not road hunt, i have packed animals on my back numerous times lots of miles. i love hiking it keeps me in shape but i do not need wilderness areas to hike. neither does anyone else.

mulecreek wilderness locks out mtn bikers, atv'ers people with disabilities that cant hike long distances, people wanting to camp while being in close proximity to there vehicles(not bivying in 15 miles to camp) call people lazy but i say some people just arent as hardcore as others and we shouldnt punish them for it. just because you or i or buzz likes hiking doesnt mean joe blow does. to him a successful fun hunt is sitting on his butt on an atv drving the roads enjoying the scenery while hoping to luck into a stupid deer while having fun on his atv on an existing road!!! there is no crime in such things. n or is there crime in hiking down into the canyon that joe blow drives past on his trusty ol atv.
there are plenty of aras to hike without wilderness areas needing to restrict people to their choice of recreation on their public lands. not just yours its theirs too.
 
theox,

Clearly we are never going to agree. Just to clarify, the things you say are "locked out" are not people they are inanimate objects. Mnt bikers, atver's and car campers are not locked out. The mountain bikes, atv's and cars are. Mnt bikers, atver's and car campers can still go into the wilderness but they just need to do it on foot. Your logic is equivalent to saying atver's are locked out as soon as the road ends on any BLM or national forest land. The road has to stop somewhere, we just disagree on where. I never called anyone lazy and could not care less how someone else hunts. I have been known to drive a two-track and I enjoy mountain biking. We do agree that there is no crime in any of that. I am just advocating more balance of all the options. You obviously feel its enough already. Thats cool, we each have our opinions. Best of luck to you this season, wherever you go about finding your buck.
 
+1 mulecreek! IMHO the scales are really not balanced at all at the present time if you look at the percentage of public lands where people can literally drive right up to the animal they shoot. That is if they are lucky enough to find one dumb enough to stand there and watch the guy drive up in his truck, or even worse in his ATV where he could have easily walked. When it comes right down to it, I would be happy camper if there were just a lot more road closures to keep motorized vehicles out of areas that are easily walked by anyone other than someone who is basically totally disabled! Even if 1/4 of the roads were closed on public lands there should still be more than enough to satisfy theox and others like him.
 
I think we should all just start walking from home! I hate all the roads from Michigan to Wyoming and think they should be closed as well! Nothing against NR hunters, I just hate the roads!
There's no reason to make it as easy as it is! Better yet, lets outlaw hunting farther than 20 miles from your house!

Theox,
look what you've done now! I can't even add a clear thought to this muddy thread!
I find it disturbing that the most vocal folks have never seen, been to, or will be in the area in question. I know everyone has an opinion but remember opinions are like a-holes, some are stinkers!

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON May-24-11 AT 04:06PM (MST)[p]Wilderness does lock out opportunity for the ave joe. You can not get a large animal out of a large wilderness area with out horses or mules. I have access to horses. If you were bow hunting elk or deer in August/ Early Sept, after hiking in 10-15 miles. There is no way to get the animal out in many parts of central or southern Utah before it spoiled.

If you had limited roads every 4-5 miles in some areas, and every 10 miles in other areas, it would be possible to hunt with out horses. It would still provide opportunity for many instead of a few. It would be a quality experience, with few people.

Millions of miles of wilderness, does stop 90% of the general public from hunting.

We do have some great wilderness areas in Utah. We don't need millions of miles of wilderness.
 
Come on guys! Post some legitimate stuff on the thread please and enough of this ##### about driving from MI just to put somebody down from another part of the country, etc., for Pete's sake! I have not seen any posts advocating "millions of miles" of wilderness and I believe this discussion is more about the entire US than just one area in Utah. Granted, many of us probably have not been there and I, for one, have not made any particular comments on this one area in Utah because it may be best left alone, some or no roads closed, etc. As far as the average Joe not being able to hunt with horses and/or mules, I say BS! I've done that a couple times in Wyoming with rented trailer, horses, and tack and I'm not of above-average wages! Also, neither time I did a DIY with them was even close to a wilderness area, but I wanted to get further in from human activity and chose to do it that way. If I can do that, I don't see why others couldn't do it once in a while either. The only thing I have a problem with is on the nonresident wilderness big game hunting restriction in Wyoming, but that's an individual state issue. I have friends out there if I ever want to go in one that I'm sure I could talk into getting a license to do it, but I've been happy where I hunt. Again, I would ask that we keep this thread on track and not just make posts to cut down members that might not agree with your particular perspective on the subject---thanks!
 
I like your ideas Greg, but it just seems like it will be all or nothing. I dont see closing a few roads and that being followed.
 
How many areas are going to be more then 5-10 miles from a road? I have hiked a lot of wilderness areas and hardly ever are you more then 10 miles from the nearest trailhead. We just don't have that large of wilderness areas anymore.
 
DirtyTough, and all
You probably know how far 5-10 mile is but I can tell you that MOST people would NEVER be able to get an elk (or a deer) out of the back country without horses. Most folked hike 3 miles and think it's 10!
I would wager that I've backpack hunted as much an any or most on the site (there are some hardcore dudes who would kill me in the mtns right now) and I can attest that 10 miles of roadless stuff might as well be on the moon for MOST hunters.

I don't like all the roads one bit! Let's be clear on that. We have make progress in some areas and lost in others. I want more roads closed but to say we should close off every road in a huge arid area is not headed the right direction. There are other things which can, should and will be done to IMPROVE the land for the benefit of all IMHO.

Topgun, and all
I didn't call you out specifically nor did you expressly call me out. Thanks, maybe there's hope we can get along.
The point I was TRYING to make was to state the ridiculous! I think you got the point since I already know you're pretty smart! I feel some of the comments have been silly IF we're referring to THE area in question. If it's a concept of which you speak then we are not too far apart. It would be better applied elsewhere.

Cheers,
Zeke
 
Zeke---We can get along fine and I think we are definitely on the same page based on your last post!!! We should always be able to disagree on things as it would be pretty boring if everyone agreed on every single thing that is brought up. Doing it in a civil way is what matters in order for others to respect a person's opinion and no matter what some people say on their posts, I just don't care to see others calling them stupid, idiots, etc., even though they may be, LOL!!! Have a good evening gentlemen!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-26-11 AT 09:07PM (MST)[p]this thread was to inform people of the dirty low down under the radar tactics they are using to turn this area wilderness without the public having a say in the matter. this was not intended to start a fight of whether or not wilderness is good. In some cases yes it can be good but not always. many of the people pushing for this are from states back east that probably havent even set foot or even seen pics of the country involved.
There is a spot or two out in some of these areas that would be fine as wilderness there are currently no raods in the areas,(possibly a 4 wheeler trail) and very rugged, but only maybe 1000-2000 acres in size i would have no problems with these being turned wilderness but to turn the entire range into a wilderness is plain whacked and completly insane. with no justifiable benefits
This the reason i started this thread just so anybody with any knowledge of the areas and enough knowledge to understand this 9.4 million acres of proposed wilderness should be thought out a little better and not just turned without a little common sense.

Like i have stated numerous times the people pushing for this are mainly environmentalist pro wolfer type people with no common sense on management.(we all know how that stuff turns out(wolves hint hint) look it up there are lists of supporters not one is a legitimate hunting fishing or atv type supporters. there is not one legislator from idaho wyoming or utah even for this. do you think that says something about this bill?
my point was we need to look this stuff over before letting these people have there ways with what they think is the best for the public. you as well as i know many of these type of people go off emotion over actual common sense.

so look over the bill yourself, look at the land involved and see if this actually benefits the public or it just hinders the use of the lands.(dont just sit back on your computer never even set foot in these areas and assume wilderness will benefit the areas ) much of this area imo will not have very many people eager to want to hike through millions of acres of dry desert and pj trees, etc. there may be a few hunters that reap the rewards of this but i doubt at least on the sw desert that really anyone will/ would even benfit from this wilderness.
 
I agree with you (theox)as this should be troubling to a lot more people. Anytime the federal government starts doing things that it isn't entitle to do, we should all be up in arms. This issue is far too big to explain in simple terms, but a little bit of research and people can understand it much better. In particular, Utah has every right to express concern over the BLM's actions. Designating something as being or having "wild" like characteristics when it is already criss-crossed with endless roads will not make the area any more wild. If road closures are needed than close down some roads but labeling it something which it is not makes no sense unless there is an underlying reason for that designation. You (theox) and I happen to see this for what it is, a land grab by a few that will effect all. Wilderness has its place and we do reap the benefits of protecting true "wilderness"; however, calling something that isn't "wild" doesn't make it so.
 
Protected Wilderness areas on national forests in Wyoming encompass ~3.1 million acres. This amounts to 5% of the state, or about 33% of Wyoming's National Forests. 32% of Wyoming's National Forests are multiple use.

This seems like plenty wilderness to me.

Montana
U.S. Forest Service 16,893,000 total acreage
U.S. Forest Service 3,372,503 wilderness acreage

1 in 5 acres of FS land in Montana is designated wilderness, sounds like a good mix to me as well.

As far as BLM managed acreage in MT, most of it wouldn't be what I would consider very good wilderness area material.

Just my thoughts, take em or leave em.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom