Wilderness rules restored for public lands

[300UltraMagShooter]

These ARE federal lands- so the federal government already has control.   

 It is Fed land within a states borders.  

Your right though, and many are waking up to find out just what a disaster it is to sell off their lands to the Federal gvt.  

Some states have sold off huge amounts of their lands to the fed.    Translation:  Some states have sold off huge amounts of their freedoms to the fed.

 

[Elkaholic daWg]

OK, so if they already have some old logging/mining roads, get rid of the roads! Simple. Less roads means less hunting pressure and less poaching, and more animals.

For ELF, ALF, HSUS, DOW, Wilderness Soc., Wolf Lover's to protect from all of US

 And WHO Cares what or how the "Locals" feel!

 While we're at it,should we talk about "budget deficits"

 Also....see thread below......

[logger]

I think it's total *censored*, the feds are the worst land managers in the united states, I have to deal with these people on a regular basis and I can assure you it has nothing to do with making it better for wildlife, it all comes down to people control. The old saying goes give them an inch, they take a mile. This time it's blm, next time it will be forest service.

[wolfbait]

The Wildlands Project
http://www.uhuh.com/1calfraud/stacks/judymusin.htm
 
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm
 
The problem as I see it, is hunters and outdoorsmen can NOT see past their likes and dislikes, in order to see the BIG picture. While everyone is arguing about how they don't like this or that your government is bending you over the swamp cooler.
 
 Bobcat thinks it will improve wildlife habitat! Are you forgetting the wolf introduction Bobcat and the management that has followed? Have you looked at the states that were first in line with the Candadian wolf introduction? How has that gone in your opinion?
 
"These ARE federal lands- so the federal government already has control." You haven't even seen control yet Bobcat but you are about to. When all is said and done you will see it has nothing to do with wildlife, that is just the hook to reel you in with.
 
Bigtex, this is just one step of many, the USFS and USFWS are by far worse than the BLM in land control. Through the conservancy, the USFS, and the USFWS has been buying up many private lands, the conservancey being the middle man for these trasactions. Special parcels that surround other lands.
 
While everyone is devided the wolves are moving in for the kill.

[bobcat]

Wolfbait,

I don't believe I said it would improve wildlife habitat. If I did, that is not what I meant. What a lack of roads WILL do is to allow deer and elk to survive, in good numbers. Look at the Colockum and how poorly deer and elk are doing in there. A large part of that is due to the poaching by indians and others because they are able to drive throughout the entire area. If the roads did not exist and motorized vehicles were not allowed, just think of what a great deer and elk area it COULD be.

But as I said, I am not familiar with any of the specific areas the original post in the thread was referring to, so I really cannot comment on whether it is good or bad. But just in general, less roads is ALWAYS a benefit for wildlife.

[ICEMAN]

I am not convinced less roads is always a benefit for wildlife. Roads= logging = increased food/carrying capacity for game. I seldom find game living exclusively in black timber. Aren't road systems  and clearings often the food cooridor that many large game species rely on? Roads and logging equal sunlight to the earth and resluting browse...

[logger]

Amen iceman, you hit perfectly, the forest service ground is proof of that, I have some blm ground pretty close to where I have a house in tonasket and it's about 3 sections surrounded by private ground, pretty much sage brush country, It gets hunted pretty hard and there is no roads in it at all. Which I agree is good for the wildlife in this instance.

[bobcat]

In wilderness you have fires which does the same for deer/elk habitat as logging, except better.

[JimmyHoffa]

I sort of agree with something in between of what bobcat and iceman are saying.  Yes, the roads can act as food corridors and help provide browse for animals in areas lacking clearings.  But roads increase the presence of man.  Man can remove animals faster than the land can grow them.  Kind of why closing gates seems to be effective for helping the herds.  Similarly, there are elk habitat projects in a few places on the westside.  The builders thinned out parts of the forest to allow more undergrowth to get light, thereby increasing the food available.  A lot like what would be done for roads.  These elk spots are a ways from the road though, to keep people away from them so the elk have little in the way of human predation.

[logger]

In wilderness you have fires which does the same for deer/elk habitat as logging, except better.

This is true except for when was the last wildfire of any signifinance in say the gifford pinchot, fires occur quite regulary on the eastside but not always where it would be the most beneficial. Sometimes a fire burns to hot and takes years and years to recover. I like the idea of fires but your relying on mother nature to light one where you need it most.

[Humptulips]

I don't think some of you get it. Wilderness designation is not about habitat. It is about keeping you out. The roads don't just close. They get made impassable to even walking and trails, well no money for trail maintenence. Roadless designation hasn't helped here and widerness will make it worse. ONP tries to tell you no camping in any but designated camping areas since they got Wilderness desination. They can do that anywhere. Make it tough to get in and out, no camping and you can't use your land even if there is game there. But with predators protected and running rampant there won't be any game anyway so you can stay home and play video games.

[Houndhunter]

In wilderness you have fires which does the same for deer/elk habitat as logging, except better.

if they would let them burn maybe, when was the last time we had a substantial forest fire on the west side?

i wish they were still burning the clear cuts, but that prob wont happen. i hunt alot of old growth forest's and when i am in a spot where its all trees for miles, theres no big game period. logging is the only reason we have the amount of game we do today, on the west side atleast. the areas i hunt have severly suffered because logging being shut down(and higher number of predators), i would hate to see anymore land turned into a wilderness that will never be able to be used for anything

[bobcat]

None of these proposed wilderness areas are in western Washington.

[Houndhunter]

for now

[logger]

I get it just fine, I don't care if it's on the east or westside or this state for that matter, I don't believe it to be a good idea.