Post by: overthefalls on August 29, 2025, 08:57:06 AM
You can comment here - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16581/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation-national-forest-system-lands
There are definitely arguments for both sides, but from a hunting/habitat perspective, this seems to be a bad deal. I am also curious where the money for this will come from.
https://dailymontanan.com/2025/08/28/want-more-elk-and-hunting-opportunities-keep-the-roadless-rule/
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/public-lands-and-waters/trump-administration-rolls-back-roadless-area-protections
Post by: timberfaller on August 29, 2025, 12:01:35 PM
Thanks for the link!
Post by: Moose Master on August 31, 2025, 08:33:25 PM
Post by: GeoSwan on September 12, 2025, 12:04:28 AM
Post by: overthefalls on September 12, 2025, 12:14:13 PM
Post by: cjjcb on September 12, 2025, 12:27:25 PM
Thanks for the reminder!
Post by: Sundance on September 12, 2025, 12:46:16 PM
Post by: hunter399 on September 12, 2025, 05:33:43 PM
I know it's important for lots of folks,to have road less areas.
Too many people in my community rely on timber products to make a living. This rule keeps even more folks in the unemployment line or without work. We are one lightning strike from it all burning anyway.
The only habitat we are saving is for predators around the national forest near me. There is a population of wolves in this state,that don't get counted. Take a guess where they hide these wolves,in road less areas.
Post by: overthefalls on September 12, 2025, 07:17:55 PM
1. Roadless areas support better habitat for native vegetation, ungulates, salmon and yes predators. The research is pretty consistent here, you can find exceptions but for the most part less disturbed habitat results in better conditions for wildlife.
2. The justifications given for the repeal of this rule seems disingenuous at best, bordering on deceptive. For example, saying that this will prevent fires flies in the face of of the data we have in fires. Most wildfires are started by humans and within a half mile of roads. Punching roads into more areas will result in higher use and more human caused ignitions.
The counterpoint - "well it will also allow for more thinning, fire prevention and suppression". I will give this point merit when we have adequate thinning and logging along our existing roads within federal land.
3. The existing USFS road system exceeds 265,000 miles and is one of the biggest road systems in the world. At this time it is under maintained and under resources. This creates a host of problems from squatting, illegal resource harvesting, habitat destruction, erosion, etc.. Where is the additional funding to build and maintain these roads going to come from?
A lot of my opinion is also being informed by organizations and outdoorsman that I trust and respect. Trout Unlimited, commercial fishing organizations, Meat eater all have made compelling arguments against the repeal.
If you are in favor of repealing it, I encourage you to comment. Public discourse is super important and I am interested in hearing other perspectives.
Edit: spelling
Post by: cjjcb on September 12, 2025, 10:27:16 PM
That’s pretty much where I’m at, but I could not articulate it nearly as well. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on September 12, 2025, 11:09:25 PM
I support the rollback of the rule. Since the roadless rule has taken effect:
1. Timber industry jobs have been lost and rural economies have been harmed.
2. Money from timber sales that used to fund the USFS is now sent to Canada to buy lumber.
3. Maintenance of forest roads is nearly non-existent due to lack of funds.
4. Forests have overaged, become bug infested, are dieing, and more susceptible to wildfire.
5. Predators have flourished due to a lack of access, to escape, deer and elk are now found in closer proximity to humans causing increased crop damage and vehicle accidents.
6. Aging forests do not provide quality feed for many forms of wildlife, logging does!
7. Lightning strikes are causing more frequent, larger, and harder to access wildfires that frequently burn into human inhabited areas.
8. Due to reduced access increasing numbers of recreationists are forced into smaller areas causing a less desirable outdoor experience for most outdoor recreationists.
In summary, removing this rule will provide jobs, benefit rural economies, improve forest health, result in increased numbers of deer and elk on the landscape, provide needed access for predator and wildfire control, help fund forest road maintenance, and result in more recreational access and less crowded experiences for the bulk of recreationists.
Post by: jackelope on September 13, 2025, 07:34:38 AM
Post by: Tbar on September 13, 2025, 08:02:51 AM
How much accessible forest do we have now that is not being logged?:yeah:
Complete false narrative. Most of the merchantatable timber is in the accessible area, poorly managed but accessible. This will create more wildfire risk and is about exploitation of public lands and will not build small town economies. Mining and energy exploration/privatization is the root.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 13, 2025, 08:03:32 AM
How much accessible forest do we have now that is not being logged?
Just in Washington state I would say 7/8 of the forest service accessible lands that have open roads, or had roads isn’t being utilized.
But there’s a huge problem with the timber, if it’s over 30 inches in diameter most mills can’t mill it, and that’s a lot of what’s in the FS now. Over time the mills have down sized the machines that process the logs. Only two left that I know of in the puget sound that can mill what’s now called oversized logs, Buse and Canyon in Everett.
Post by: hunter399 on September 13, 2025, 12:41:06 PM
All access is turned into pay to play.
So here soon ,we will all be holding hands and sitting on each other's laps,on state and federal land.
The parcel this sign is on, doesn't even come up on there website.
So it's just private,you can't even pay to hunt or it's leased to someone already.
Post by: bearpaw on September 13, 2025, 01:08:41 PM
How much accessible forest do we have now that is not being logged?:yeah:
Complete false narrative. Most of the merchantatable timber is in the accessible area, poorly managed but accessible. This will create more wildfire risk and is about exploitation of public lands and will not build small town economies. Mining and energy exploration/privatization is the root.
I forgot to add that I also support mining and energy production, they are both important to our national and economical welfare.
Many people do not realize that larger logs make the best peelers for plywood, mills swap small logs and large logs back and forth for what their mill is best suited. Additionally entrepreneurs will retool mills or create new mills when the resources are available to support such financial endeavors, that is how capitalism works. It is true there are roaded areas that need logged, and under the Trump administration that is beginning to happen again. With a loosening of the rope around the neck of our natural resources this country will begin to flourish again. Additionally, it is in our national security to be as self-supporting as we can as a country. Just as Trump has proven that Obama was wrong about not being able to wave his magic wand regarding jobs, Trump's actions will also make this country more self supporting and secure as a result. I'm not suggesting that we take bulldozers into all our wilderness areas, but I am supporting removing the 2001 roadless rule and dialing the environmentalism back a couple decades to more reasonable levels. They just went too far with the green movement and it's hurting this country! Instead of shipping trainloads of money to Canada to buy foreign lumber I would rather see us shipping trainloads of logs and lumber to other countries instead of inhaling the smoke and watching those logs burn in forest fires that are in many cases caused by the lack of forest management.
Post by: baldopepper on September 13, 2025, 01:53:39 PM
Post by: jackelope on September 13, 2025, 02:33:51 PM
With my personal use by date well past, I don't suspect I'll be around to see the actual results of this decision. I am quite skeptical,however, that the much touted forest and logging improvements are the true motivating factors. Lumber prices are currently in steep decline and the major players have all stated no interest in increasing output or investment. The areas that are of interest for mineral extraction make up a very small portion of the areas to be opened. The idea of opening more area for easier access for outdoor recreation might be ok I guess, but more human intrusion has not proven to be a healthy thing for many of our wild areas. Guess future generations will be the ultimate judges.
Bingo.
Post by: hunter399 on September 13, 2025, 06:00:00 PM
It's another spot to walk in.
They could only target marketable timber.
Leaving over grown stock.
There are low impact ways to go about things.
But with that said.....lol
E bikes and sxs be around that gate in no time,or pin cut.
At one time I was a huge supporter of wild places/animals that live in the wild. Already seeing how technology and advancement in hunting process has changed over the years.
I say punch roads ,take all the marketable timber. Leave the road open for all the next generation to enjoy.
The guys that walk ,ride,get far enough from the new roads can still enjoy a wilderness area.
Post by: bearpaw on September 13, 2025, 07:48:56 PM
With my personal use by date well past, I don't suspect I'll be around to see the actual results of this decision. I am quite skeptical,however, that the much touted forest and logging improvements are the true motivating factors. Lumber prices are currently in steep decline and the major players have all stated no interest in increasing output or investment. The areas that are of interest for mineral extraction make up a very small portion of the areas to be opened. The idea of opening more area for easier access for outdoor recreation might be ok I guess, but more human intrusion has not proven to be a healthy thing for many of our wild areas. Guess future generations will be the ultimate judges.
I appreciate your concern and hope that you are here to see how it all works out. I’m lucky because I’ve spent my life in the outdoors and there are few things I care more about than our great outdoors. But I have seen too many negative results from the current environmental overreach in recent decades. Rolling protections back a couple decades is an opportunity to correct some of that overreach and some of the harm that has resulted. Perhaps we will find middle ground in which we have enough environmental protections, yet our country, its residents, and all our wildlife flourish. With the over abundance of predators our moose are disappearing at an alarming rate. Caribou have been exterminated from the lower 48 by wolves. Wilderness used to support our greatest herds of ungulates, now those herds are our most endangered herds., most At 10% to 30% of previous numbers. Hunters and trappers can help resolve this trend with more access to manage predators and herds will flourish with the new growth created by logging and wise forest management. All the while our rural areas and our entire country will benefit from a return to more balanced resource management rather than extreme resource preservation.
Post by: baldopepper on September 13, 2025, 09:30:28 PM
With my personal use by date well past, I don't suspect I'll be around to see the actual results of this decision. I am quite skeptical,however, that the much touted forest and logging improvements are the true motivating factors. Lumber prices are currently in steep decline and the major players have all stated no interest in increasing output or investment. The areas that are of interest for mineral extraction make up a very small portion of the areas to be opened. The idea of opening more area for easier access for outdoor recreation might be ok I guess, but more human intrusion has not proven to be a healthy thing for many of our wild areas. Guess future generations will be the ultimate judges.
I appreciate your concern and hope that you are here to see how it all works out. I’m lucky because I’ve spent my life in the outdoors and there are few things I care more about than our great outdoors. But I have seen too many negative results from the current environmental overreach in recent decades. Rolling protections back a couple decades is an opportunity to correct some of that overreach and some of the harm that has resulted. Perhaps we will find middle ground in which we have enough environmental protections, yet our country, its residents, and all our wildlife flourish. With the over abundance of predators our moose are disappearing at an alarming rate. Caribou have been exterminated from the lower 48 by wolves. Wilderness used to support our greatest herds of ungulates, now those herds are our most endangered herds., most At 10% to 30% of previous numbers. Hunters and trappers can help resolve this trend with more access to manage predators and herds will flourish with the new growth created by logging and wise forest management. All the while our rural areas and our entire country will benefit from a return to more balanced resource management rather than extreme resource preservation.
[/quote
I appreciate your sentiment and where you're coming from. Realistically I think we both agree on the eventual outcome of some of the changes, but perhaps we disagree a bit on the path to get there. I think I can get a few more trips out of this old body and hopefully hang around to at least see some successful progress made
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2025, 07:48:42 AM
With my personal use by date well past, I don't suspect I'll be around to see the actual results of this decision. I am quite skeptical,however, that the much touted forest and logging improvements are the true motivating factors. Lumber prices are currently in steep decline and the major players have all stated no interest in increasing output or investment. The areas that are of interest for mineral extraction make up a very small portion of the areas to be opened. The idea of opening more area for easier access for outdoor recreation might be ok I guess, but more human intrusion has not proven to be a healthy thing for many of our wild areas. Guess future generations will be the ultimate judges.
I appreciate your concern and hope that you are here to see how it all works out. I’m lucky because I’ve spent my life in the outdoors and there are few things I care more about than our great outdoors. But I have seen too many negative results from the current environmental overreach in recent decades. Rolling protections back a couple decades is an opportunity to correct some of that overreach and some of the harm that has resulted. Perhaps we will find middle ground in which we have enough environmental protections, yet our country, its residents, and all our wildlife flourish. With the over abundance of predators our moose are disappearing at an alarming rate. Caribou have been exterminated from the lower 48 by wolves. Wilderness used to support our greatest herds of ungulates, now those herds are our most endangered herds., most At 10% to 30% of previous numbers. Hunters and trappers can help resolve this trend with more access to manage predators and herds will flourish with the new growth created by logging and wise forest management. All the while our rural areas :tup:and our entire country will benefit from a return to more balanced resource management rather than extreme resource preservation.
[/quote
I appreciate your sentiment and where you're coming from. Realistically I think we both agree on the eventual outcome of some of the changes, but perhaps we disagree a bit on the path to get there. I think I can get a few more trips out of this old body and hopefully hang around to at least see some successful progress made
I sure hope you do! Have a great weekend! :tup:
Post by: overthefalls on September 14, 2025, 02:50:36 PM
Here are two certainties that are supported by consensus of research:
1. Habitat degradation and reduction of animal populations - More roads will result in more erosion, more invasive plants and decreased opportunities for native species. In particular, species like mule deer that have ingrained migration patterns will suffer as a result of more roads and fragmentation. More roads also impact watershed quality and this will have a negative impact on fish populations, especially in western Washington and Southeast Alaska.
2. More roads will result in more fires. 84% of fire ignitions are human caused. There is no reason to believe the equation is suddenly going to shift give the current state of the wild land fire infrastructure in the US.
I am in agreement with previous posters that this repeal is a smokescreen for resource extraction and possibly another attempt at privatization of public lands. We have seen how these situations play out and a lot of money/ resources ends up in the hands of a few. We have the opportunity to preserve opportunities and resources for future generations, I plan to follow that ethic.
Post by: EnglishSetter on September 14, 2025, 09:06:00 PM
I’ve also hunted areas with roads, but smaller roads were closed around/during hunting season. I thought that was a good solution. You could walk those without getting dusted out by 4x4’s.
Every wildfire seems to get stopped at a road.
Post by: GeoSwan on September 14, 2025, 09:28:50 PM
Can’t say as I’ve experienced a lot of WA, but a couple areas in CA used to recreate became roadless in 2001(?). That sucked. The young crowd liked it for awhile as they had it to their self, but that waned as the roads, became paths, became jungle.
I’ve also hunted areas with roads, but smaller roads were closed around/during hunting season. I thought that was a good solution. You could walk those without getting dusted out by 4x4’s.
Every wildfire seems to get stopped at a road.
And that jungle provides the habitat that game animals need to maintain healthy populations. The jungle is where we as hunters have to go to get the big boys. The places where not many people go are where the hunting is the best. I sympathize with those who can't physically swing it, but I'm also happy to keep people out who aren't willing to go back there. I'd like to keep it that way.
The vast majority of fires are started by humans (about 85%). More human encroachment = more fire.
Post by: jackelope on September 14, 2025, 10:04:24 PM
Every wildfire seems to get stopped at a road.
True.
It’s just a different road from the road where they started at.
Post by: kentrek on September 14, 2025, 10:41:30 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2025, 06:27:25 AM
Every wildfire seems to get stopped at a road.
True.
It’s just a different road from the road where they started at.
There is some truth to that and yet some fallacy. It depends geographically how fires are more frequently started. If you are talking about areas with human population then your statement is more accurate. When talking about wilderness areas and large forested areas its very often lightning that causes more fires and those fires often turn into huge unstoppable fires that burn until milder weather in the fall stop them.
Rescinding the roadless rule has no impact on the man caused fires in human populated areas, but it could have a very positive impact on fires caused by lightning in current roadless areas if there were to become some access into those roadless areas and if logging operations were ramped up significantly to manage those forests.
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2025, 06:35:32 AM
Can’t say as I’ve experienced a lot of WA, but a couple areas in CA used to recreate became roadless in 2001(?). That sucked. The young crowd liked it for awhile as they had it to their self, but that waned as the roads, became paths, became jungle.
I’ve also hunted areas with roads, but smaller roads were closed around/during hunting season. I thought that was a good solution. You could walk those without getting dusted out by 4x4’s.
Every wildfire seems to get stopped at a road.
And that jungle provides the habitat that game animals need to maintain healthy populations. The jungle is where we as hunters have to go to get the big boys. The places where not many people go are where the hunting is the best. I sympathize with those who can't physically swing it, but I'm also happy to keep people out who aren't willing to go back there. I'd like to keep it that way.
The vast majority of fires are started by humans (about 85%). More human encroachment = more fire.
Regarding fires please see my previous post.
Please do not take this personally, I just want to point out that this is not accurate. These "jungles" of unhealthy forests actually have little nutritional value to many species of wildlife and as they are left to mature and die they become little more than giant forest fires waiting to happen. You can look at any wilderness area and that is where hunters and trappers are unable to manage predators, these extreme predator populations wipe out the smaller game herds that try to survive in these roadless areas. Let me point out some FACTS!
DEER
Unit 121 - Huckleberry is the top producing deer unit in the state of Washington, in spite of the fact there are dozens of large mostly roadless GMU's in Washington, 121 a heavily roaded unit with almost no roadless area that is mostly agriculture and privately owned and heavily logged forests, has the largest deer herd in the state. Its not just whitetail, 121 also has some of the better mule deer numbers in northeast WA. Please look at the harvest by GMU for yourself and compare with roadless units: https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2024/deer-combo#dist-17
ELK
652 - PUYALLUP is the top producing elk unit in the state of Washington, in spite of the fact there are many other mostly roadless GMU's in Washington, 652 with a heavily human population is the most productive elk GMU in the state. Please I invite you to look at the stats for every GMU in the state, it will be an eye opener for many: https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2024/elk-combo#dist-17
MOOSE
Unit 121 - Huckleberry is the top producing moose unit in the state of Washington. There are very basic reasons for this, there is very little public land and the forests in this GMU are heavily logged which creates much better forage for moose as well as deer and elk. Yes, 121 is also the top producing elk unit in northeast Washington.
To top it off 121 also produces some of the largest trophies in the state. You can look at other states too, you will find that the greatest game numbers and best trophies are often in units with much human activity like logging, farming, and ranching. Look at Idaho, Montana, or others.
REASONING
Wildlife distribution has changed somewhat over the last two to three decades as predator numbers have become unchecked in roadless areas and logging has been nearly halted on public lands, the game herds in those areas have dropped dramatically. At the same time game is flourishing in GMU's with more human activity, especially logging, agriculture, and private lands for escapement. If you don't believe me even after viewing harvest statistics, I invite anyone to please prove me wrong?
Post by: bearpaw on September 15, 2025, 06:42:11 AM
Roads let wolves cover alot of ground
This is true until they find a trapper's set!
Now Washington is another story, I doubt there will ever be any wolf management in WA, but in other states wolves are being managed, and in units with access wolf hunting and trapping, also hound hunting and bear baiting is helping game herds. Access is a necessity for this predator management.
Post by: Sundance on September 15, 2025, 08:17:09 AM
Roads let wolves cover alot of ground
This is true until they find a trapper's set!
Now Washington is another story, I doubt there will ever be any wolf management in WA, but in other states wolves are being managed, and in units with access wolf hunting and trapping, also hound hunting and bear baiting is helping game herds. Access is a necessity for this predator management.
Bearpaw- if you believe that Washington will never have meaningful predator management (especially with wolves), do you still feel that punching in more roads would be a greater benefit to the wildlife then leaving it status quo?
Post by: jackelope on September 15, 2025, 09:06:57 AM
Every wildfire seems to get stopped at a road.
True.
It’s just a different road from the road where they started at.
There is some truth to that and yet some fallacy. It depends geographically how fires are more frequently started. If you are talking about areas with human population then your statement is more accurate. When talking about wilderness areas and large forested areas its very often lightning that causes more fires and those fires often turn into huge unstoppable fires that burn until milder weather in the fall stop them.
Rescinding the roadless rule has no impact on the man caused fires in human populated areas, but it could have a very positive impact on fires caused by lightning in current roadless areas if there were to become some access into those roadless areas and if logging operations were ramped up significantly to manage those forests.
My thought process is very basic. Something like 85% of wildfires are human caused. If there are more roads, there are more humans. Where there are more humans, there will be more human caused wildfires.
Source:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm#:~:text=Humans%20and%20Wildfire,Nature%20and%20Wildfire
Post by: baldopepper on September 15, 2025, 09:19:00 AM
Post by: Mtnwalker on September 15, 2025, 10:09:18 AM
Post by: cjjcb on September 15, 2025, 01:23:24 PM
https://www.themeateater.com/listen/cals-week-in-review/ep-415-roadless-today-jobless-tomorrow-with-chris-wood-of-trout-unlimited
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2025, 06:56:20 AM
Roads let wolves cover alot of ground
This is true until they find a trapper's set!
Now Washington is another story, I doubt there will ever be any wolf management in WA, but in other states wolves are being managed, and in units with access wolf hunting and trapping, also hound hunting and bear baiting is helping game herds. Access is a necessity for this predator management.
Bearpaw- if you believe that Washington will never have meaningful predator management (especially with wolves), do you still feel that punching in more roads would be a greater benefit to the wildlife then leaving it status quo?
Absolutely, for all the other reasons I mentioned in my replies. Just to be clear, this is federal, the removal of the rule will help us with predator management in the other states.
WA also has a lion problem and they will likely never allow meaningful management there either. At least as long as democrats keep getting elected as governor. However, its actually and easy fix, elect Republicans and wildlife management will get fixed.
Post by: cjjcb on September 18, 2025, 08:43:33 AM
Public comment period ends Friday 9/19 (tomorrow).
Link for comment - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16581/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation-national-forest-system-lands
Post by: steeleywhopper on September 18, 2025, 10:54:38 AM
Sent
Post by: overthefalls on September 23, 2025, 07:22:42 AM
Post by: EnglishSetter on September 23, 2025, 10:21:40 AM
Roads let wolves cover alot of ground
This is true until they find a trapper's set!
Now Washington is another story, I doubt there will ever be any wolf management in WA, but in other states wolves are being managed, and in units with access wolf hunting and trapping, also hound hunting and bear baiting is helping game herds. Access is a necessity for this predator management.
Bearpaw- if you believe that Washington will never have meaningful predator management (especially with wolves), do you still feel that punching in more roads would be a greater benefit to the wildlife then leaving it status quo?
Not specific to wolves, but Which statue quo? Pre - 1980 when logging got shut down? Pre - 2K when roadless got a foothold?
I haven’t witnessed game production increases in those 4-5 decades.
Post by: bearpaw on September 23, 2025, 11:21:03 AM
Roads let wolves cover alot of ground
This is true until they find a trapper's set!
Now Washington is another story, I doubt there will ever be any wolf management in WA, but in other states wolves are being managed, and in units with access wolf hunting and trapping, also hound hunting and bear baiting is helping game herds. Access is a necessity for this predator management.
Bearpaw- if you believe that Washington will never have meaningful predator management (especially with wolves), do you still feel that punching in more roads would be a greater benefit to the wildlife then leaving it status quo?
Not specific to wolves, but Which statue quo? Pre - 1980 when logging got shut down? Pre - 2K when roadless got a foothold?
I haven’t witnessed game production increases in those 4-5 decades.
:yeah: While many people think roadless means more wildlife it actually means less wildlife, especially due to unchecked predator numbers. A patchwork of logging cuts of various age timber stands will provide for the best game populations. It definitely helps if there are road closures, but total roadlessness is not the answer if you want the best game populations. Another massively important factor, the more roadless there is the more human congestion there is in the areas that are still accessible. Unfortunately, many people do not realize these things!
DEER
Unit 121 - Huckleberry is the top producing deer unit in the state of Washington, in spite of the fact there are dozens of large mostly roadless GMU's in Washington, 121 a heavily roaded unit with almost no roadless area that is mostly agriculture and privately owned and heavily logged forests, has the largest deer herd in the state. Its not just whitetail, 121 also has some of the better mule deer numbers in northeast WA. Please look at the harvest by GMU for yourself and compare with roadless units: https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2024/deer-combo#dist-17
ELK
652 - PUYALLUP is the top producing elk unit in the state of Washington, in spite of the fact there are many other mostly roadless GMU's in Washington, PUYALLUP 652 with a heavily human population is the most productive elk GMU in the state. Please verify, look at the stats for every GMU in the state, it will be an eye opener for many: https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/management/game-harvest/2024/elk-combo#dist-17
MOOSE
Unit 121 - Huckleberry is the top producing moose unit in the state of Washington. There are very basic reasons for this, there is very little public land and the forests in this GMU are heavily logged which creates much better forage for moose as well as deer and elk. Yes, 121 is also the top producing elk unit in northeast Washington.
To top it off 121 also produces some of the largest trophies in the state. You can look at other states too, you will find that the greatest game numbers and best trophies are often in units with much human activity like logging, farming, and ranching. Look at Idaho, Montana, or others.
REASONING
Wildlife distribution has changed somewhat over the last two to three decades as predator numbers have become unchecked in roadless areas and logging has been nearly halted on public lands, the game herds in those areas have dropped dramatically. At the same time game is flourishing in GMU's with more human activity, especially logging, agriculture, and private lands for escapement. If you don't believe me even after viewing harvest statistics, I invite anyone to please prove me wrong?
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2025, 12:03:08 PM
Post by: EnglishSetter on September 23, 2025, 02:59:49 PM
Is it odd that Montana fwp said this will negatively impact 90% of their elk herds critical habitat on one way or another. The word we received from them was broad opposition. Blind support and topics with myopic viewpoints seems way to normal from both sides of the political spectrum.
I haven't seen their argument or what they back it up with, but.........
I've seen more than enough book taught bios have no answer to what happened to Sacramento Valley pheasants. Refuges that used to kill 700 birds opening day are now lucky to shoot 7 all season. Then......I had a long talk with an old skul bio at Yolo refuge (the only refuge in the area with a stable population of birds). I asked him "how do you have birds and no one else does?". Predators, habitat (very similar with plenty of shelter), turkey infiltration (the refuges are now littered with turkey)? He told me it's all about the water. Where and when you place it, so that you drown vermin, have the right bugs and plants at the right time for the chicks. So I proceeded to ask "have you told the powers in Sacto?". He said "yeh, but it goes in one ear and out the other...cuz they all read a book".
Now I'm no game management expert or even a bio, but when I get to talk to a guy who's had success (in any field) while everyone else is struggling, I'm gonna put down the collective's book and listen to what he has to say. I'd put Bearpaw in that category.
I'll just add that when I was in Jellystone a few years back the Ranger was telling me how WONDERFUL it was to have wolves back. And when we were fighting MPA's, I had to listen to PhD "scientists" blather on about how salmon trolling had significant impact (incidental catch) on rockfish stocks.
Post by: bearpaw on September 23, 2025, 03:40:24 PM
Is it odd that Montana fwp said this will negatively impact 90% of their elk herds critical habitat on one way or another. The word we received from them was broad opposition. Blind support and topics with myopic viewpoints seems way to normal from both sides of the political spectrum.
Regarding Montana:
Does that change the fact that all of the best producing units in Montana have significant amounts of farming and ranching?
Does it change the fact that the biggest wilderness in Montana has had its elk herd wiped out by predators?
Look at any one of the top producing elk units in Montana and then find the neighboring unit with the least roads and elk harvest will be less than half and sometimes less than 25%. I cannot put much worth in those who say roadless areas hold more animals, the harvest stats just do not support that belief! However, I would fully agree that seasonal road closures in logging areas are a good thing, game animals thrive in logging areas. Another beneficial thing are the farmers and ranchers who do not allow hunting, those are great reservoirs for game to flourish on the agriculture and then spread into other areas where they can be hunted.
Montana's highest producing elk units all have large amounts of private property that are farmed, ranched, have human activity, and thousands of cattle on the landscape. I outfit in one of these units and the best elk hunting in that unit is on private ranch lands with cattle, humans checking the cows on atv's or horses, agricultural crops, and far fewer predators.
Unit 410 - 950 elk
Unit 380 - 795 elk
Unit 411 - 700 elk
Unit 314 - 658 elk
Unit 393 - 565 elk
Unit 360 - 533 elk
The largest wilderness in Montana is the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Together, the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scapegoat Wildernesses form the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, an area of more than 1.5 million acres. Here's the elk Harvest in the most roadless units within the Bob Marshal Complex, according to many people this roadless area should be full of elk! I know outfitters, guides, and hunters who hunt these units, there are many hunts that not one elk is seen during the hunt.
Unit 141 - 4 elk
Unit 280 - 17 elk
Unit 424 - 33 elk
Unit 150 - 50 elk
Unit 442 - 103 elk
These wilderness areas could be better hunting again if arial predator management was allowed (there are no roads for other types of predator management). Wildfires do create good habitat, but too many predators prevent herds from recovering. We all enjoy a wilderness experience, and I would never want to see our wildernesses eliminated, but wilderness hunting is simply not as good as it was 50 years ago before the predator craze took over our government agencies.
2024 Harvest Verified Here: https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/harvestReports
Post by: LongBomb on September 23, 2025, 04:54:39 PM
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2025, 07:19:04 PM
Critical habitat is not necessarily where harvest occurs and there is concerted efforts to kill elk in conflict zones throughout the west. Carrying capacity in the interface is set artificially low to accommodate social Carrying capacity which I am sure you at aware and are also a beneficiary through tag allocation. It would be a much different story if the limited untouched habitat were fragmented. Time will tell but it seems very short sighted to not recognize the multiple benefits of these(very limited) areas throughout the west. The benefits will be to very few and the impacts very broad.Is it odd that Montana fwp said this will negatively impact 90% of their elk herds critical habitat on one way or another. The word we received from them was broad opposition. Blind support and topics with myopic viewpoints seems way to normal from both sides of the political spectrum.
Regarding Montana:
Does that change the fact that all of the best producing units in Montana have significant amounts of farming and ranching?
Does it change the fact that the biggest wilderness in Montana has had its elk herd wiped out by predators?
Look at any one of the top producing elk units in Montana and then find the neighboring unit with the least roads and elk harvest will be less than half and sometimes less than 25%. I cannot put much worth in those who say roadless areas hold more animals, the harvest stats just do not support that belief! However, I would fully agree that seasonal road closures in logging areas are a good thing, game animals thrive in logging areas. Another beneficial thing are the farmers and ranchers who do not allow hunting, those are great reservoirs for game to flourish on the agriculture and then spread into other areas where they can be hunted.
Montana's highest producing elk units all have large amounts of private property that are farmed, ranched, have human activity, and thousands of cattle on the landscape. I outfit in one of these units and the best elk hunting in that unit is on private ranch lands with cattle, humans checking the cows on atv's or horses, agricultural crops, and far fewer predators.
Unit 410 - 950 elk
Unit 380 - 795 elk
Unit 411 - 700 elk
Unit 314 - 658 elk
Unit 393 - 565 elk
Unit 360 - 533 elk
The largest wilderness in Montana is the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Together, the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scapegoat Wildernesses form the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, an area of more than 1.5 million acres. Here's the elk Harvest in the most roadless units within the Bob Marshal Complex, according to many people this roadless area should be full of elk! I know outfitters, guides, and hunters who hunt these units, there are many hunts that not one elk is seen during the hunt.
Unit 141 - 4 elk
Unit 280 - 17 elk
Unit 424 - 33 elk
Unit 150 - 50 elk
Unit 442 - 103 elk
These wilderness areas could be better hunting again if arial predator management was allowed (there are no roads for other types of predator management). Wildfires do create good habitat, but too many predators prevent herds from recovering. We all enjoy a wilderness experience, and I would never want to see our wildernesses eliminated, but wilderness hunting is simply not as good as it was 50 years ago before the predator craze took over our government agencies.
2024 Harvest Verified Here: https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/harvestReports
Side note, did you follow the pebble mine? I only ask because it was the potential devastation of a pristine area and what could potentially occur throughout the west.
I put a high value on these places and acknowledge the mismanagement that is so prevalent in the current roaded areas. There is potential to improve without repealing the roadless rule.
Post by: jackelope on September 23, 2025, 07:38:11 PM
Post by: Tbar on September 23, 2025, 08:18:36 PM
It’s probably fair to say that hunting is almost always better on private ground, isn’t it? Aka farm land out here in the west? I mean it’s like a gigantic food plot.I don't disagree but it's dangerous to depend solely on private ground. Another consideration is alpine species like mountain goats and others. Those environments are almost exclusively in the roadless area and are proven to be very fragile. Fragmentation alone can threaten certain species, industrialization could be catastrophic (pebble mine).
Post by: hunter399 on September 23, 2025, 08:24:36 PM
It’s probably fair to say that hunting is almost always better on private ground, isn’t it? Aka farm land out here in the west? I mean it’s like a gigantic food plot.Heck ya it is .....lol
I'd bet there is a very high percentage statewide.
If I had to put a number on my area ,I'd say 80 percent of big game animals live on private.
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2025, 10:12:03 PM
Critical habitat is not necessarily where harvest occurs and there is concerted efforts to kill elk in conflict zones throughout the west. Carrying capacity in the interface is set artificially low to accommodate social Carrying capacity which I am sure you at aware and are also a beneficiary through tag allocation. It would be a much different story if the limited untouched habitat were fragmented. Time will tell but it seems very short sighted to not recognize the multiple benefits of these(very limited) areas throughout the west. The benefits will be to very few and the impacts very broad.Is it odd that Montana fwp said this will negatively impact 90% of their elk herds critical habitat on one way or another. The word we received from them was broad opposition. Blind support and topics with myopic viewpoints seems way to normal from both sides of the political spectrum.
Regarding Montana:
Does that change the fact that all of the best producing units in Montana have significant amounts of farming and ranching?
Does it change the fact that the biggest wilderness in Montana has had its elk herd wiped out by predators?
Look at any one of the top producing elk units in Montana and then find the neighboring unit with the least roads and elk harvest will be less than half and sometimes less than 25%. I cannot put much worth in those who say roadless areas hold more animals, the harvest stats just do not support that belief! However, I would fully agree that seasonal road closures in logging areas are a good thing, game animals thrive in logging areas. Another beneficial thing are the farmers and ranchers who do not allow hunting, those are great reservoirs for game to flourish on the agriculture and then spread into other areas where they can be hunted.
Montana's highest producing elk units all have large amounts of private property that are farmed, ranched, have human activity, and thousands of cattle on the landscape. I outfit in one of these units and the best elk hunting in that unit is on private ranch lands with cattle, humans checking the cows on atv's or horses, agricultural crops, and far fewer predators.
Unit 410 - 950 elk
Unit 380 - 795 elk
Unit 411 - 700 elk
Unit 314 - 658 elk
Unit 393 - 565 elk
Unit 360 - 533 elk
The largest wilderness in Montana is the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Together, the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scapegoat Wildernesses form the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, an area of more than 1.5 million acres. Here's the elk Harvest in the most roadless units within the Bob Marshal Complex, according to many people this roadless area should be full of elk! I know outfitters, guides, and hunters who hunt these units, there are many hunts that not one elk is seen during the hunt.
Unit 141 - 4 elk
Unit 280 - 17 elk
Unit 424 - 33 elk
Unit 150 - 50 elk
Unit 442 - 103 elk
These wilderness areas could be better hunting again if arial predator management was allowed (there are no roads for other types of predator management). Wildfires do create good habitat, but too many predators prevent herds from recovering. We all enjoy a wilderness experience, and I would never want to see our wildernesses eliminated, but wilderness hunting is simply not as good as it was 50 years ago before the predator craze took over our government agencies.
2024 Harvest Verified Here: https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/harvestReports
Side note, did you follow the pebble mine? I only ask because it was the potential devastation of a pristine area and what could potentially occur throughout the west.
I put a high value on these places and acknowledge the mismanagement that is so prevalent in the current roaded areas. There is potential to improve without repealing the roadless rule.
While I totally agree that areas for escapement are needed there are ways other than the roadless rule to accomplish that. No matter what arguments you may try, the fact is proven that units with logging, farming, and ranching support more game, and result in more game harvested, it's just a fact.
Look up any wilderness or large roadless area that has no logging, agriculture, or ranching, the herds are smaller than game management units that have logging, agriculture, or ranching. The more you look at the stats and where the herds are actually strongest, the more it proves my point. Go ahead, please prove me wrong?
I won't argue that we need to maintain some wilderness areas for the sake of having wilderness. But don't try to say wilderness supports larger game herds, it simply doesn't.
If hunters want more game, support logging, agriculture, predator management, and by all means demand that there are at least seasonal road closures to provide escapement for wildlife. The trend of diminishing herds can be reversed! But this mistaken idea that untouched land with overage forests is the holy grail of wildlife management is just patently false! That misplaced idealism is what has reduced our game herds and will continue to do so if not reversed!
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2025, 11:36:01 PM
- Create a citizen advisory board within each USFS National Forest to maximize the underlined criteria. (one person as recommended by and representing each interest group: USFS, DNR, F&G, Conservation, Logging, Mining, Recreation, Hunting, Ranching)
- Require checkerboard or wagon wheel style timber sales on 6% to 8% of non-wilderness National Forest lands annually for first 5 years
- Reassess and adjust: the percentage of annual timber harvest to maximize the core criteria and asses the need and number of USFS employees every 5 years.
- Require 5 to 20 trees per acre in timber harvest areas to be left for natural reseeding.
- Implement various types of road closures after timber harvest.
- Designate 25% of timber sale proceeds for road maintenance and recreational facilities.
Post by: Tbar on September 25, 2025, 01:42:54 PM
How much does the roadless rule constrict the landscape that the USFS manages? Could an amended LSR map accomplish more? Where did I say anything is the holy grail of anything, the reality is conservation is incredibly difficult on a settled landscape and each element has an increased value largely due to their limited nature.Critical habitat is not necessarily where harvest occurs and there is concerted efforts to kill elk in conflict zones throughout the west. Carrying capacity in the interface is set artificially low to accommodate social Carrying capacity which I am sure you at aware and are also a beneficiary through tag allocation. It would be a much different story if the limited untouched habitat were fragmented. Time will tell but it seems very short sighted to not recognize the multiple benefits of these(very limited) areas throughout the west. The benefits will be to very few and the impacts very broad.Is it odd that Montana fwp said this will negatively impact 90% of their elk herds critical habitat on one way or another. The word we received from them was broad opposition. Blind support and topics with myopic viewpoints seems way to normal from both sides of the political spectrum.
Regarding Montana:
Does that change the fact that all of the best producing units in Montana have significant amounts of farming and ranching?
Does it change the fact that the biggest wilderness in Montana has had its elk herd wiped out by predators?
Look at any one of the top producing elk units in Montana and then find the neighboring unit with the least roads and elk harvest will be less than half and sometimes less than 25%. I cannot put much worth in those who say roadless areas hold more animals, the harvest stats just do not support that belief! However, I would fully agree that seasonal road closures in logging areas are a good thing, game animals thrive in logging areas. Another beneficial thing are the farmers and ranchers who do not allow hunting, those are great reservoirs for game to flourish on the agriculture and then spread into other areas where they can be hunted.
Montana's highest producing elk units all have large amounts of private property that are farmed, ranched, have human activity, and thousands of cattle on the landscape. I outfit in one of these units and the best elk hunting in that unit is on private ranch lands with cattle, humans checking the cows on atv's or horses, agricultural crops, and far fewer predators.
Unit 410 - 950 elk
Unit 380 - 795 elk
Unit 411 - 700 elk
Unit 314 - 658 elk
Unit 393 - 565 elk
Unit 360 - 533 elk
The largest wilderness in Montana is the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Together, the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scapegoat Wildernesses form the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, an area of more than 1.5 million acres. Here's the elk Harvest in the most roadless units within the Bob Marshal Complex, according to many people this roadless area should be full of elk! I know outfitters, guides, and hunters who hunt these units, there are many hunts that not one elk is seen during the hunt.
Unit 141 - 4 elk
Unit 280 - 17 elk
Unit 424 - 33 elk
Unit 150 - 50 elk
Unit 442 - 103 elk
These wilderness areas could be better hunting again if arial predator management was allowed (there are no roads for other types of predator management). Wildfires do create good habitat, but too many predators prevent herds from recovering. We all enjoy a wilderness experience, and I would never want to see our wildernesses eliminated, but wilderness hunting is simply not as good as it was 50 years ago before the predator craze took over our government agencies.
2024 Harvest Verified Here: https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/harvestReports
Side note, did you follow the pebble mine? I only ask because it was the potential devastation of a pristine area and what could potentially occur throughout the west.
I put a high value on these places and acknowledge the mismanagement that is so prevalent in the current roaded areas. There is potential to improve without repealing the roadless rule.
While I totally agree that areas for escapement are needed there are ways other than the roadless rule to accomplish that. No matter what arguments you may try, the fact is proven that units with logging, farming, and ranching support more game, and result in more game harvested, it's just a fact.
Look up any wilderness or large roadless area that has no logging, agriculture, or ranching, the herds are smaller than game management units that have logging, agriculture, or ranching. The more you look at the stats and where the herds are actually strongest, the more it proves my point. Go ahead, please prove me wrong?
I won't argue that we need to maintain some wilderness areas for the sake of having wilderness. But don't try to say wilderness supports larger game herds, it simply doesn't.
If hunters want more game, support logging, agriculture, predator management, and by all means demand that there are at least seasonal road closures to provide escapement for wildlife. The trend of diminishing herds can be reversed! But this mistaken idea that untouched land with overage forests is the holy grail of wildlife management is just patently false! That misplaced idealism is what has reduced our game herds and will continue to do so if not reversed!
Is hunting best under high fence? Why limit it to private? I can tell you I've been on multiple high fence operations and it's damn good hunting, fact.
Post by: bearpaw on October 01, 2025, 07:02:46 AM
How much does the roadless rule constrict the landscape that the USFS manages? Could an amended LSR map accomplish more? Where did I say anything is the holy grail of anything, the reality is conservation is incredibly difficult on a settled landscape and each element has an increased value largely due to their limited nature.Critical habitat is not necessarily where harvest occurs and there is concerted efforts to kill elk in conflict zones throughout the west. Carrying capacity in the interface is set artificially low to accommodate social Carrying capacity which I am sure you at aware and are also a beneficiary through tag allocation. It would be a much different story if the limited untouched habitat were fragmented. Time will tell but it seems very short sighted to not recognize the multiple benefits of these(very limited) areas throughout the west. The benefits will be to very few and the impacts very broad.Is it odd that Montana fwp said this will negatively impact 90% of their elk herds critical habitat on one way or another. The word we received from them was broad opposition. Blind support and topics with myopic viewpoints seems way to normal from both sides of the political spectrum.
Regarding Montana:
Does that change the fact that all of the best producing units in Montana have significant amounts of farming and ranching?
Does it change the fact that the biggest wilderness in Montana has had its elk herd wiped out by predators?
Look at any one of the top producing elk units in Montana and then find the neighboring unit with the least roads and elk harvest will be less than half and sometimes less than 25%. I cannot put much worth in those who say roadless areas hold more animals, the harvest stats just do not support that belief! However, I would fully agree that seasonal road closures in logging areas are a good thing, game animals thrive in logging areas. Another beneficial thing are the farmers and ranchers who do not allow hunting, those are great reservoirs for game to flourish on the agriculture and then spread into other areas where they can be hunted.
Montana's highest producing elk units all have large amounts of private property that are farmed, ranched, have human activity, and thousands of cattle on the landscape. I outfit in one of these units and the best elk hunting in that unit is on private ranch lands with cattle, humans checking the cows on atv's or horses, agricultural crops, and far fewer predators.
Unit 410 - 950 elk
Unit 380 - 795 elk
Unit 411 - 700 elk
Unit 314 - 658 elk
Unit 393 - 565 elk
Unit 360 - 533 elk
The largest wilderness in Montana is the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Together, the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scapegoat Wildernesses form the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, an area of more than 1.5 million acres. Here's the elk Harvest in the most roadless units within the Bob Marshal Complex, according to many people this roadless area should be full of elk! I know outfitters, guides, and hunters who hunt these units, there are many hunts that not one elk is seen during the hunt.
Unit 141 - 4 elk
Unit 280 - 17 elk
Unit 424 - 33 elk
Unit 150 - 50 elk
Unit 442 - 103 elk
These wilderness areas could be better hunting again if arial predator management was allowed (there are no roads for other types of predator management). Wildfires do create good habitat, but too many predators prevent herds from recovering. We all enjoy a wilderness experience, and I would never want to see our wildernesses eliminated, but wilderness hunting is simply not as good as it was 50 years ago before the predator craze took over our government agencies.
2024 Harvest Verified Here: https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/harvestReports
Side note, did you follow the pebble mine? I only ask because it was the potential devastation of a pristine area and what could potentially occur throughout the west.
I put a high value on these places and acknowledge the mismanagement that is so prevalent in the current roaded areas. There is potential to improve without repealing the roadless rule.
While I totally agree that areas for escapement are needed there are ways other than the roadless rule to accomplish that. No matter what arguments you may try, the fact is proven that units with logging, farming, and ranching support more game, and result in more game harvested, it's just a fact.
Look up any wilderness or large roadless area that has no logging, agriculture, or ranching, the herds are smaller than game management units that have logging, agriculture, or ranching. The more you look at the stats and where the herds are actually strongest, the more it proves my point. Go ahead, please prove me wrong?
I won't argue that we need to maintain some wilderness areas for the sake of having wilderness. But don't try to say wilderness supports larger game herds, it simply doesn't.
If hunters want more game, support logging, agriculture, predator management, and by all means demand that there are at least seasonal road closures to provide escapement for wildlife. The trend of diminishing herds can be reversed! But this mistaken idea that untouched land with overage forests is the holy grail of wildlife management is just patently false! That misplaced idealism is what has reduced our game herds and will continue to do so if not reversed!
Is hunting best under high fence? Why limit it to private? I can tell you I've been on multiple high fence operations and it's damn good hunting, fact.
The roadless rule in and of itself is limiting, a simple truth.
Didn't accuse you personally of saying "holy grail", simply said "this mistaken idea that untouched land with overage forests is the holy grail of wildlife management is just patently false!".
I believe high fence has its place, I have also done it, but that's a completely separate issue and discussion, I suspect there is 0% support for that on public lands.