I have mixed feelings. There is certainly more wilderness than I can realistically explore in my lifetime - just in Idaho - though I would like to. And there is wilderness outside of Idaho I would like to explore also. Wilderness designation does seem to provide some protection to areas that might indeed get abused otherwise.

What worries me more than the growing wilderness question - is the growing anti gun, anti hunting sentiment (that may not be entirely independent of the wilderness question).

What do you mean by "do we need more wilderness"?
I would like to see as much land as possible set aside and not get developed. It doesn't nessesarily have to be designated wilderness. I have spent a few nights (maybe 20 tops) in a tent in the wilderness. When we camp as a family we usualy go into the regular campgrounds though.

Funny that both you fellas come from a state with mega public land access and lots of wilderness. Come stay on the east coast awhile and see what its like to get to some "unspoiled wilderness". They sure could have set aside a good bit more this way!

hatracked

That is a very valid point on both sides. 2\3 of idaho is public land. Sometimes it gets old when people who don't have any public land tell, people with public land how to use it.

serious hunter brought up a good point. I am seeing more hunting groups getting together with environmental groups to push for more wilderness. Seems like an odd mix. Hunters and anti hunters standing in the same rally.

Hunter 77

can you expand on what you are talking about. Designated wilderness is foot and horse only for over land travel.

tim

"Designated wilderness is foot and horse only for over land travel."
I'm not sure that this part of it is necessary for all new areas. I think some new areas would do good to have a "wilderness" designation but I think you could find more public support if you gave the average Joe the ability to access it (roads or atv/snowmobile trails). Not everybody has the ability to get into the backcountry and if we don't consider them there may be less dollars available to buy up this land.

Is this really an active question? Is anyone anywhere considering designating new areas as wilderness which are not currently designated as wilderness? Or is the question directed to "should we 'decommission' existing wilderness areas and open them to broad access?"

I have spent about 10 nights in wilderness areas over three separate trips. I like wilderness areas because the access rules make it difficult to get in and hence the areas remain . . . wild. If lots of human beings frequent an area this tends to make the area non-wild by definition, doesn't it? I'm likely to spend about 7 more nights in a wilderness area next summer when my son and I take a planned weeklong wilderness backpacking trip.

I think I understand the issues that revolve around this subject. I don't know what the answer is. I think you have unresolvable conflicts involved . . . hence there is no neat answer only compromises. If you "decommission" wilderness area and open it up to ATV/Snowmobile/4WD traffic liter likely accumulates, more people are there, people do not feel they are in the wild -- they are sharing the scene with lots of others in a standing room only situation (sure, that's an exaggeration). At the same time, what about people who are unwilling or unable to lug their own bodies into the wilderness, doesn't that just forclose their enjoyment of this common ground? My response to that is there are lots of other accessible areas, their only shortcoming being . . . everyone else already knows about them and their easy access makes them overcrowded.

I guess I don't see any need to add new lands to wilderness areas; I also don't see any need to 'decommission' any existing wilderness areas and open access to them to ATVs, snowmobiles, 4WD, motorcycles, etc.

Last I checked ... very much YES - active question - people considering MORE!

Tim, what's the latest?

I dont know if i could count on both hands and feet how many new wilderness areas are being considered thru the national forest or congressin idaho. I know of 2 right now before congress. The boulderwhite clouds and the owohee(spelling). I am losing a great long mtn bike ride to the proposed wilderness in long canyon(north idaho).

So yes, in the state of idaho this is an everyday thing. Wilderness areas are awesome and i love going into them. however, there is more and more wilderness areas coming in. What we used to be able to do we can't. to some people that would be boohoo and i understand.

We need to come up with a new designation that allows more use of the land. not abuse. A designatin that stops logging but allows trails to be cleared with a chainsaw. An area that we can fight the fire if we want or don't have to fight the fire. (wilderness let it burn policy) A designation that allows motorized over the snow vehicles but not wheeled motorized vehicles. I can go on and on but i have to get back to work. lol

tim

... well stated.

ttt for another round