RMEF retracts support of H.R. 1581

[Elkaholic daWg]

It did not say that current wilderness areas would be developed.  It said that inventoried roadless areas could be...meaning more roads and development in areas that are currently be logged, hunted, and used responsibly.  That's why RMEF pulled support for the bill.  We don't need more roads.  We need responsible managment on the roads we have.

 And THERE ARE ROADS in THESE areas except the greenies in the system re defined roads.

 " Many if not all of the “inventoried roadless areas” were once accessible by road.  When the green movement really got going in the 80's, many of the definitions of "roads" were changed.  No longer were logging roads, historic roads to your mining claims/old mines, or unmaintained forest roads classified as roads.  They suddenly became "trails".  Then suddenly from the political and "green" point of view, there were all of these "roadless areas” that needed saving"

[WAcoyotehunter]

That is sometimes the case.  I struggle with the idea of the FS trying to re open those historic roads and decommissioned road systems.  They don't have the money to maintain the roads they do have.  So, if the roads are already closed, what does the ATV group have to lose, unless they're riding them illegally they're not losing anything by maintaining a roadless area. 

The ATV groups want them opened so they can ride all over hell and gone in our forests, which isn't going to help anything that hunters are interested in.  If the ATV groups would make an organized push for opening open roads for legal ATV operation they would have broad support.  But they haven't done that yet.

This bill is less about recreation than it is about mineral exploration.  I'm not too excited about seeing roads punched into areas for mining or other seriously harmful extraction industries.  Those companies will never pay the true cost of their extraction.  They get rich and leave the locals to deal with heavy metals in the streams/drinking water (Cominco come to mind? Lake Roosevelt is a mess...) they cause massive sediment and destroy native fish spawning habitat (Sullivan Creek??)...The public pays the true cost of this stuff while a handfull of businessmen (in Canada in this example) get rich on our resources. 

It's bad for hunting, bad for the community , bad for our natural resources, and ultimately- bad for the economy.  Just because the NRA likes it doesn't mean it's great for our rural communities.  They're towing a party line.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 The easiest rights to take away are from those who never had them.  I drove my 4x4  (72 Blazers,trucks, even my street automobiles) all over now decommissioned roads that now are in the Wild sky wilderness area. And I fought that one tooth and nail. If they can make unsuitable  (as much of it was and is) land wilderness, what can't they do? I have driven hundreds, hell maybe even thousands of miles of now gated roads in my life and very few of them on an ATV. And if you have never done it,you will NEVER miss it.


 

"The ATV groups want them opened so they can ride all over hell and gone in our forests, which isn't going to help anything that hunters are interested in.  If the ATV groups would make an organized push for opening open roads for legal ATV operation they would have broad support.  But they haven't done that yet."
 
  Many might like to be able to drive their street vehicles on such roads.
And what about the disabled, Which one of my hunting partners is? Aged?  Not just young and fit elete. You will be there some day.

[turbo]

I don't own and ATV or a dirt bike or even a mountain bike (stolen) but I do ride sleds which have ZERO impact on the environment and wild life. Study after study has proven that. This fight for me is about winter recreation. We pay the price when they shut land down to other user groups. Then they squeeze these user groups to confined areas and the impact on the land is exaggerated because of high user numbers in those limited areas. It just strengthens the extremists argument when areas get over-used and abused.

I don't want more mines, logging and development. I  just want to be able to enjoy my limited riding areas and have no problem staying out of wilderness to give those who don't like the noise their peace. We don't need more restrictions, we just need to respect each others views and quit forcing personal agendas because we disagree. There is plenty of land for everyone. Use it, it's yours.

[WAcoyotehunter]

   
  Many might like to be able to drive their street vehicles on such roads.
And what about the disabled, Which one of my hunting partners is? Aged?  Not just young and fit elete. You will be there some day.

Sorry I should have been more clear.  I met that the ATV groups have not made a solid push to get the roads that are currently open to street legal vehicles opened for ATV use.  Which seems strange.  They could open thousands of miles of roads to ATV use if those roads were legal.  And they should be. 
 
I'm trying to get some things for the ATV groups over in NE washington, like a trail that includes all three NE counties, but those things don't happen without some 'deals' including areas that they currently use (illegally) being more protected.  This for that.
 
I know that my day is coming when I can't get around.  My body has been abused pretty badly.  There are loads of easy low country hunts that I'll be enjoying when I can't hike all over.  We need to face the fact the the woods are not necessarily ADA accessible.  It's not elitism, it's the truth.  We can't have trails and roads leading up every drainage, open to everyone, and expect wildlife populations to remain at sustainable numbers. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

I don't own and ATV or a dirt bike or even a mountain bike (stolen) but I do ride sleds which have ZERO impact on the environment and wild life. Study after study has proven that. This fight for me is about winter recreation. We pay the price when they shut land down to other user groups. Then they squeeze these user groups to confined areas and the impact on the land is exaggerated because of high user numbers in those limited areas. It just strengthens the extremists argument when areas get over-used and abused.

I don't want more mines, logging and development. I  just want to be able to enjoy my limited riding areas and have no problem staying out of wilderness to give those who don't like the noise their peace. We don't need more restrictions, we just need to respect each others views and quit forcing personal agendas because we disagree. There is plenty of land for everyone. Use it, it's yours.

 "This kind of thing decides where my Support will go. NRA =yes
 
While HR 1581 and RMEF=No"  (from my post on " Hunters May be double taxed" thread")

[grundy53]

It doesn't have anything to do with wolves.  This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill.  RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support.  This bill is not good for wildlife.  Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap-  we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.

BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness.  They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen.  Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone.  There are enough roads already.

Until all of the timber grows up and chokes out the feed. Then the animal population plumits... Logging gives deer, elk, and bear their best mix of habitats and feed. logged off areas provide feed, reprod areas provide cover, and stands of timber provide travel routes. Once an area is designated a wildernous area you just hurt your wildlife not helped. Like was said before. You have plenty wilderness areas already. Quit screwing other people over and enjoy the vast areas you already have.

[grundy53]

Not too mention the jobs that get killed....

[DBHAWTHORNE]

It's OUR RIGHT to have a relaxing day in the woods without disruption from ATVs, vehicles, mines, oil exploration... I believe this bill is infringing on those RIGHTS and I am going to oppose it.  If you guys would rather hunt around a bunch of development, go hunt the suburbs.  I want to keep wild places wild.

I am torn on this issue. However, I would likely have to side with supporting the bill. The fact is our right to be in the "woods without disruption" does not supersede the right of other taxpayers who chose to ride ATV's etc. Now I do agree that there are some areas that need closing for the wildlife. However the roadless initiative proposed by Clinton does violate our rights. What RMEF is supporting is the continued loss of road access. This creates other issues. One being the fact that those other user groups (ATV riders for example) are then pushed onto smaller and smaller amounts of land. This ultimately concentrates use and does an extreme amount of damage to the environment....ultimately giving the anti's even more fuel to get areas banned due to erosion etc. 15+ years ago I did see people riding where they weren't supposed to in the national forest...however, I never seen it as bad as the past few years..... surprisingly the amount of illegal riding has seemed to increase as the roads have closed.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

It did not say that current wilderness areas would be developed.  It said that inventoried roadless areas could be...meaning more roads and development in areas that are currently be logged, hunted, and used responsibly.  That's why RMEF pulled support for the bill.  We don't need more roads.  We need responsible managment on the roads we have.

How many people put in for the watershed unit in the blues?  It's a premier hunt and one that is truely special for the tagholder. I've helped two guys get elk there and the thing that always amazes more then any other is the absolute lack of human use.  There are no stumps, no roads, no blazed trees or ribbon...it's awesome.  We have enough land to add some acreage to that category.  It's possible to have increased logging and wilderness that can provide a special hunting opportunity.

"We don't need more roads.  We need responsible managment on the roads we have."

I can agree with that. So lets stop blocking off all the roads and reopen most of the ones that we have closed for no good reason in the past 10-15 years.

[bradslam]

I haven't studied the bill, so I cannot take a definite side, but I would like to comment on a couple of things.  To those that talk about the increase in the amount of wilderness areas: Those increases pale in comparison to the amount of habitat that is being destroyed through development.  I used to hunt pronghorn near Pinedale, WY.  Take a look at that area on Google Earth to see what has happened to it. 

One of the things wrong with this country is that people have become so divided that they refuse to work together on areas that could be common ground.  If you think we will win out in the end by continually fighting each other, you are seriously wrong.  You simply make more enemies and everyone digs their heels in.  If other groups can see that we are willing to support things that are good for wildlife, such as preserving habitat, they will be more willing to support our causes.  Yes, there are always going to be extremists on either end, but any political battle is won in the middle and they are the ones who are ultimately going to determine our hunting rights. 

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I haven't studied the bill, so I cannot take a definite side, but I would like to comment on a couple of things.  To those that talk about the increase in the amount of wilderness areas: Those increases pale in comparison to the amount of habitat that is being destroyed through development.  I used to hunt pronghorn near Pinedale, WY.  Take a look at that area on Google Earth to see what has happened to it. 

One of the things wrong with this country is that people have become so divided that they refuse to work together on areas that could be common ground.  If you think we will win out in the end by continually fighting each other, you are seriously wrong.  You simply make more enemies and everyone digs their heels in.  If other groups can see that we are willing to support things that are good for wildlife, such as preserving habitat, they will be more willing to support our causes.  Yes, there are always going to be extremists on either end, but any political battle is won in the middle and they are the ones who are ultimately going to determine our hunting rights.

The reason we dig in our heels is because fellow citizens constantly stand ready and willing to give up our rights. There is not a person on this forum who doesn't enjoy the peace and tranquility of getting away from it all. We certainly need to protect some areas from development and I don't think anyone would argue against that. However, giving up our rights to the government is a one-way trip. Just because I personally don't like to recreationally ride OVHs on these roads doesn't mean I should further limit others right to do so simply because I don't like the sound of a little noise. I think it is important to remember things like wilderness designations and blocking road access takes away rights and privileges of other users on land that is maintained by tax dollars.

I am always against giving up our rights...it doesn't matter that I personally prefer roadless areas. I would never push or support such regulations.

[silverdalesauer]

I haven't read this whole thread - too long. But simply, I grew up in Maine where thousands of acres of land were available for hunting, fishing, etc.

Then, in the last 10 or so years, environmentalists and millionaires bought up thousands of acres of land from struggling paper and timber companies. Now, there is a push from these people, to give that land to the Federal Gov't to create a national park - of 5 to 10 Million Acres of Land! Each state is fighting this same battle.

See here for more info:
   The Dark Side of This Problem - http://www.restore.org/index_noflash.html

It seems to me that we need to start reaching out to each state in the union to build forums and networks (like the NRA-ILA) to keep our lands secure. Or one day - we will have nothing. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

 And the Dark side agenda has more in common with....

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/anti_hunter_quotes.shtml

 than they ever will have with  hunters.

[WAcoyotehunter]

It doesn't have anything to do with wolves.  This is more about resource extraction than wildlife for the people proposing the bill.  RMEF is interested in preserving quality wildlife habitat, that's why they retracted their original support.  This bill is not good for wildlife.  Hunters and conservationists should oppose this kind of crap-  we don't need more land development, we need places that provide a quality outdoor experience.

BTW- inventoried roadless areas can meet the requirements for wilderness.  They can also be the most productive hunting areas and valuable for outfitters, boot hunters, hikers, horseman, and fishermen.  Just becasue they're not designated wilderness does not mean they should have roads all over hell and gone.  There are enough roads already.

Until all of the timber grows up and chokes out the feed. Then the animal population plumits... Logging gives deer, elk, and bear their best mix of habitats and feed. logged off areas provide feed, reprod areas provide cover, and stands of timber provide travel routes. Once an area is designated a wildernous area you just hurt your wildlife not helped. Like was said before. You have plenty wilderness areas already. Quit screwing other people over and enjoy the vast areas you already have.

You're confusing IRA's with wilderness.  They're different.  IRA's are still actively managed and are the most productive hunting areas for deer/elk/moose becuase of the monotypic brush and tree stands created by harvest.
 
I disagree that Wilderness is some kind of wildlife 'void'.  It's not.  There are all kinds of animals there- just because it's not loaded with deer/elk does not mean it's a biological desert.  Black bears, wolverines, lynx, lions, mule deer, sheep, goats, griz, fisher, marten... those species love the protection of older stands of trees and the 'rock and ice' that is often found in wilderness.
 
BTW- how much wildnerness is found east of the Cascades?  We have VERY LITTLE over here and could use some more.  So for you to tell me to quit " screwing other people" is totally inappropriate.  Come on over sometime and we can hike across this "vast" area in one day....