21 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Palmer Ak
Joined: 03/23/2007
Posts: 131
wilderness, do we need more?

depends on what you mean seems like when we talk about wilderness what were really saying is lets shut people out of more land in the west, now if you want to even things out ,you know make half to three fourths of your state wilderness or at least public land then you have my sopport,but until half the east coast is public land parks or wilderness forget about any more burden on states that have already been screwed by the feds.

Offline
Location: Washington
Joined: 03/11/2006
Posts: 80
YES

I think the wilderness areas are a nice way to get away from the vehicle/four wheeler crowd cruising the skid roads with their rifle hanging out the window. I like the tough areas to access and the rank forest due to not logging. I'm not saying we need to quit logging, but give a few areas a break. It's good for the wildlife. And nice for us that use horses to get in.
The biggest difference in the wilderness area and the forest service/ state land is the enforcement. They actually close the trails to motorized vehicles and enforce it. The state and forest service put up a sign and a tank trap and their roads still look like go-cart tracks Brick Wall,)

Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
wilderness, do we need more?

I support more wilderness. As a sole Wilderness hunter, Wilderness areas are the only place I can be guaranteed a vehicle free experience. Whereas hunters who choose to utilize ATV's or other vehicles have the rest of the forest. Do you really have to have motor vehicle access to the entire forest? You can access the other 90% (or whatever the number is) of our national forest lands with your vehicle. So why insist on motor vehicle access to this minority of public lands?

Quote:
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

We already have them they are called national recreation areas. Recreation areas offer a backcountry experience ( no clearcuts ) and yet allow limited motorized access, such as the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. ( This is off topic, but we do fight fire in Wilderness areas. Last year I was on the Geroge Lake and Elk Lake fires in Oregon, both of which were in the Three Sisters Wilderness.)

I do understand that in Idaho and Alaska there is an enormous amount of Wilderness, that limits access for Idaho or Alaska residents. But we are talking about National lands not state lands. It isn't just about Idaho residents. I understand where you are coming from, but sometimes the individual has to sacrifice for the greater good of the group.

tim
Offline
Location: north idaho
Joined: 06/11/2004
Posts: 611
wilderness, do we need more?

solo hunter

what state do you reside in and have you walked all the wilderness in that state? I fully understand getting away from the atv's. I personally will never be able to explore all the designated wilderness areas in the state of idaho. Lots of land and not as much time.

I also love to mountain bike, and that is an illlegal activity in wilderness areas.

Have you heard of the usfs region one area. The latest out of this office is that all proposed wilderness lands will be managed as wilderness lands. In effect creating defacto wilderness without congressional approval. This one thing affects alot of people in montana, idaho, etc.

Offline
Joined: 02/25/2007
Posts: 53
wilderness, do we need more?

I'm in Oregon and of course I haven't covered all the wilderness here, though I am working on it. Again, I understand your predicament as an Idaho resident. But the idea of preserving national forest lands isn't just about the residents of the concerned states. It's about preserving a national treasure, for all Americans and our posterity.

I too enjoy mountain biking and pretty much every square inch of the forest except the wilderness is open to mountain biking. My question to you Tim is, have you explored all of the federal lands open to access ,motorized or otherwise, in your state?

Are you aware that in the the Sawtooth National Forest, 715,000 acres are designated as National Recreation Area where roads allow motor vehicle access (ATV's, trucks, snowmobiles, etc.) as well as stock, foot and bike access to the backcountry. Have you explored all of this?

Kepper's picture
Offline
Location: NW Pennsylvania
Joined: 06/02/2011
Posts: 4
I would like to see more

I would like to see more wilderness areas in places.  In the east there are way too many roads in the forest.  Many are left over from past logging and oil/gas exploration.  I'd like to see some of these areas become more restricted and eliminate atv access. 

In the west I have mixed feelings.  There is a tremendous amount of acerage to access and much of it is difficult to get into.  I think a ban on new roads would be as effective as designating an area "wilderness".  If you can't drive there, it will stay wild. 

 

 

Offline
Location: Palmer Ak
Joined: 03/23/2007
Posts: 131
All states should be treated

All states should be treated equally ,the only way to do that is set aside equal amounts by percent in all the states , that would still make Alaska the largest widerness area in the US. What I hear Solo saying is some must sacrafice ,as long as it doesn't hurt him.Try to remember when your talking about more wilderness, the only areas that can be set aside are areas the federal gov already controls, that leaves only a few western states to take it in the back again,especialy Alaska.The federal gov controls 222,ooo,ooo acres thats 222 million acres of Alaska. To give that a little perspective, if you took Nevada, Utah, & Oregon together you still would have to come up with another 38 million or so acres to equal what the feds control here.The people in Utah can understand, since the feds control almost 85 % of[ their ?] state.So if you want more wilderness OK take it from the 10 states lowest in fed lands . the lowest is .4% fed land and the top of that list is a whoping 1.8%. For those on the East coast, thats approx. like the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida, with Pa, Va, and W. Va thrown in. Want more wilderness get it someplace else.

Alex

Critter's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!Moderator
Location: Western Colorado
Joined: 03/26/2009
Posts: 4083
The trouble with wilderness

The trouble with wilderness weather it is from Alaska or Road Island, once it is wilderness it is gone from 90% of the public forever. 

BikerRN's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 05/23/2011
Posts: 714
NO MORE WILDERNESS!

Critter wrote:

The trouble with wilderness weather it is from Alaska or Road Island, once it is wilderness it is gone from 90% of the public forever. 

hunter25's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Colorado western slope
Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 3023
I don't see the need for more

I don't see the need for more wilderness at all. At least out west here where we have a lot already that never gets used by most other than outfitters. In some states you must have an outfitter to hunt wilderness so it would just cut the rest of us off even more. I don't know the land situation back east so I can't comment on that situation. Merely closing off some of the old roads and preventing the creation af new ones would be enough to manage the lands we have better. Limited access is fine and should be reasonable.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like