Heavily Used Wilderness is it a Myth

[Wade]

Gotta ask your self some questions. What percentage of National Forest is "special"?

Today, there are around 192 million acres of NF. 36 Million are Wilderness.
So, does 20% sound fair? Maybe to some people.

Now ask yourself, what percentage of high altitude NF is "special"?
Those numbers are a lot harder to come up with. But, if you look at a map, you'll notice that the 20% of wilderness is primarily snowmobile country. So, would it be fair to say, 50% of snowmobile terrain is Wilderness? Probably.

Now, look at the Roadless Act, 58.5 Million acres, at least 52 million of that is in the National Forest, on top of Wilderness. That's another 27% of "special" designation.

Then throw National Scenic Areas, National Recreation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Monuments, Wilderness Study Areas, and "others". All together, they add another ~8.5 Million Acres of National Forest.

Let's see, that's 50% of our National Forests are "special". Wow, every kid is special in our class.

BTW, rivers don't have to be pretected as Wilderness, they can be protect under Wild and Scenic Rivers designation.

It's nice to know that Wilderness gets a lot of use along the rivers. Maybe we could just open all the wilderness back up, and make wilderness corridors along the rivers.

 

[Wade]

Got these numbers from a BLM webpage, the Forest Service numbers are very close to the same.


Forest Service 192,764,673 acres Total.

Wilderness on FS 32,352,798 acres.
National Senic Areas FS 199,705 acres.
National Recreation Areas FS 2,258,250 acres
Wild and Senic Rivers FS 604,110 acres
Others Areas FS 2,021,534 acres
National Monuments FS 366,284 acres
Wilderness Study Areas FS 3,227,819 acres
Roadless Areas FS 52,934,355 acres

Total Designated Areas 93,964,855 acres.

Percentage of FS with special designations: 48.7% Geeze.

My point here, is if Roadless turns into the monster that the Wilderness Nuts are quietly hoping it will, you could look at 75% of riding area gone.

In Idaho for example, we already have about 4.1 million acres of wilderness, and 9.3 million acres of Roadless, but only 20 million acres of National Forest. 75% closed, and almost all the snowmobile rideable terrain. It's actually difficult to find anywhere in Idaho, that will be left open for riding. BTW, that's only if the Idaho Roadless rule gets thrown out in court, greenies filed a lawsuit last month.

 

[The Fourth Wolf]

Wilderness designation may have once been a means of protecting selected unique or biologically significant habitats but it has since been controverted from it's original purpose to serve a narrow political agenda. Having said that, I ride but I also like wilderness areas...with in reason, because they serve a legitimate public purpose.

The problem is our public land management agencies are now run by anti-people activists. The NFS, BLM and NPS are filthy with people who believe it is their duty to manipulate the rule of law (or bureaucratic regulation) in order to effect their vision of wringing the public out of public lands.

So, they use the broadest interpretation of what constitutes unique and/or special in order to reclassify as much multi-use land as possible into wilderness. Bureaucratically it's easy for them since they get virtually no resistance from senior management within their own agencies, and politically it's not too difficult to sell the public the lie of "Protecting the environment and animals from the evil motorheads/hunters/ranchers" after all the public's notion of how these things interact comes mostly from Disney movies.

We are our own worst enemy. We complain here and on other online forums, but mostly to each other. Preaching to our own choirs instead of writing our Congressmen and state representatives. We spend small fortunes on mods for our sleds but then balk at the idea of joining the local or state sled org with their outrageous $35 a year dues. We(some anyway) boast of poaching rides in closed areas as some way of sticking it to the man! Yeah!! But when there's a public meeting to discuss the next land use plan the hippies outnumber us 5, 6, 8, 10, 20 to 1. That's not constructive, it just reinforces their stereotyping of us as a bunch of goons who don't care.

I belong to my local club (granted I'm nipping at the heels of old fogeydom) and we donate hundreds of hours every summer performing trail clearing and maintenance on State Park lands. We have worked hard to foster a postive relationship with the rangers and managers and have even taken the park's Director out on a ride. He was not a snowmobiler but admitted he 1) came away with a different idea of snowmobilers as a user group and 2) that he had a blast riding with us.

We continue to pony up the sweat equity and this particular park manager has kept his promise to ensure we suffer no net loss of riding areas.

My point is that we need to do a better job of directly engaging the decision makers. We have to identify those who are nuetral and/or undecided and then make positive overtures to introduce them to our sport while making the pitch that riding on top of 10, 15, 20 feet of snow near the treeline has virtually zero impact on wildlife. The big critters have migrated to their winter range on the flats and the little ones are hibernating.

We also have to do a better job of policing ourselves--
-not trashing parking areas and trailheads
-not leaving empty oil bottles and effing beer cans wherever (pack that crap out dammit)
-not tear-assing through town, or city parks or school yards, or private property or anyplace where riding is not allowed. Sure, you can probably get away with it and no, the cop cars can't catch sleds but why give everyone who rides a black eye just because you have the right to be an a$$h*!e.

I'm not some paragon of virtue or anything, and I am guilty of having done stupid sh** in my life, just like everyone else, but I'm at a point in my life where I want to help perpetuate the things I believe in. Riding is just one of things and it's about the single best reason for living in a place with winter. I want to keep doing it for as long as I'm able. Not only for myself but for those who will ride for the first time this season, and next season, and in 20, 30, 50 years from today. Without a steady influx of new riders we are dead and without places to ride there's no incentive to start in the first place. Of course the left already knows this which is why new wilderness areas are proposed every time Congress is in session.

We need to think about tomorow because our enemies already do.

[/soapbox]

 

[2XM3]

well heres one problem I see when u try as hard as possible to participate...FS meeting 500 for opening roads...3 treehuggers want roads shut....well guess who is ruled in favor of....the 3 ...and thats what pisses me off to no end....we need to make national forrests STATE forrests and do what the people want not some ******* from washington !!

 

[CleElum Sledhead]

well heres one problem I see when u try as hard as possible to participate...FS meeting 500 for opening roads...3 treehuggers want roads shut....well guess who is ruled in favor of....the 3 ...and thats what pisses me off to no end....we need to make national forrests STATE forrests and do what the people want not some ******* from washington !!

Unfortunately you may not get what you want if the national forests became state forests either, but at least you could argue that whatever happened, it happened from local input.

Recall that the people of Montana voted in US Senator Jon Tester. Is he a friend of multiple-use? Nope. He is just trying to add another approximately 670,000 acres of wilderness in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo and Kootenai National Forests in western Montana.

 

[Raff_9001M]

Does roadless automatically mean no snowmobiles?

 

[Wade]

Does roadless automatically mean no snowmobiles?

Nope. There are three types of Roadless. Lets see, Primitive, Semi-Primitive - Non Motorized and Semi-Primitive - Motorized. We only get the last one. No one is exactly sure what areas are under what classification, because that info has never been released, as far as we can tell. But, I can guarantee you, all the beautiful places, that are high altitude, will be closed.

If you want to get a feeling for it, look at the 20 Wilderness Groups that sued to get the Roadless Rule reinstated, look at the 4 motorized groups that fought it. Which side do you think we should support? I could easily see 20 to 40 million acres being closed, slowly, using the Forest Service Travel Planning process.

If you want, I can find a map for your state. Just imagine 2/3 rd of that closed.

 

[Swami]

really wild

Spindrifter -
What 'legitimate public purpose' is served by your approved wilderness areas?

 

[The Fourth Wolf]

Swami,
Large blocks of habitat for wildlife, primarily.

I do support having some places designated wilderness areas. Some, not the entire NF system. The irony in this is that most of the acreage converted to wilderness areas in recent years is not utilized by wildlife during the winter.

Allowing sledders into the alpine during winter would have virtually no impact on deer and elk herds.

 

[Wade]

Swami,
Large blocks of habitat for wildlife, primarily.

I do support having some places designated wilderness areas. Some, not the entire NF system. The irony in this is that most of the acreage converted to wilderness areas in recent years is not utilized by wildlife during the winter.

Allowing sledders into the alpine during winter would have virtually no impact on deer and elk herds.

There's a lot of people that have brought up that very point. You obivously have a good grasp on this subject.

I think most people (I know I do), support some wilderness. But, 109.5 million acres is too much. It should half that size 10% of the NF. Then if they want to protect some from development, then by all means create a designation that includes all recreation, say 40%. Recreation is the not the destroyer of wilderness. Snowmobiles leave a very light foot print on our National Forests.

 

[TIM]

i floated the middle fork of the salmon a few weeks back and yes 10,000 people do go down the river every year, but the restrictions on the river are insane. the only thing you can leave on the river is your piss. before goin on that trip i thought wilderness was stupid, but i never thought id see the day when i thought that there shouldnt be motorized vehicles in wilderness. but after 7 days on the river i was disapointed to see cars drivin up and down the road.

i dont know everyone elses situations but i dont want to see this get covered in four wheeler trails
View attachment 74194View attachment 74195View attachment 74196

I hear you. the frank church is pretty awesome, i will be going back there in november for a deer, elk hunt. The river rules are veryt strict but, i have found that you follow those same rules on other rivers, even if you don't have to. When we did the selway, we had all the same equipment. It just gets in your head to pick up micro trash. Nothing wrong with trying to show you care about the area. I too don't believe 4 wheelers should be allowed to have free reign. We don't need roads into every drainage out there. We do need wilderness, just not anymore wilderness. The funny thing, is that the ones that rant and rave about existing wilderness and how we don't need it are typically to lazy to go out there and enjoy it anyway.

tim

 

[2XM3]

Unfortunately you may not get what you want if the national forests became state forests either, but at least you could argue that whatever happened, it happened from local input.

Recall that the people of Montana voted in US Senator Jon Tester. Is he a friend of multiple-use? Nope. He is just trying to add another approximately 670,000 acres of wilderness in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lolo and Kootenai National Forests in western Montana.

sadly true,but Tester in not very popular anymore......I would say around here if the state ran it ANY attempt to create more wilderness would be political disaster ...every fs meeting i attended was about 500 to 1 aganist any new regs. It was so bad at a few they (fs) stopped the meeting . They just dont listen at all...very sad

 

[Wade]

sadly true,but Tester in not very popular anymore......I would say around here if the state ran it ANY attempt to create more wilderness would be political disaster ...every fs meeting i attended was about 500 to 1 aganist any new regs. It was so bad at a few they (fs) stopped the meeting . They just dont listen at all...very sad

You guys have got to keep up the pressure. Having citizens show up mad is about the only communication that politicians understand. There's hope, for no change.

 

[suitcase]

When it comes down to it, wheather or not what the green groups do is right or fair. To them what they do and want is all that maters. There groups have more money than ares will ever have. There seams to be more of them than there are of us. Our groups don't have the funding the green groups do. If you start digging and find out where the green group, that is a thorn in your side gets funded you might not want to drink that type of beer anymore, Or think twice about donating money to your favriote sportsmen group. The list is long and the money to these people that fund the green groups is penny's to them. That is why it seams to be a up hill battle all the time and seams, we get know were. Lets keep on fighting, We are stonger than they are. Thanks for your support.

Just my two penny's

 

[ripitup]

People showing up at the meeting angry and demanding answers is good. The politicians might start to get the point.

Wilderness is good, we have enough now....however the difference between those of us that figure we have enough and its a good thing are the ones that will strap on a back pack and head out into it for a few days. Even a good long day hike ( with use of headlamps) can get you into some good wilderness. BUt the peeps who scream and hollar about noisy motors and scared wildlife are the ones who step out of their prius, granola bar in hand along with an Evian, walk MAYBE a half hour and think it should be silent and they completely alone. They dont get what real wilderness is........

AND they have no idea that where snowmobiles go.....there is no wildlife or very little.. they dont understand that the animals cant survive in 7 feet of snow anymore then a human can. ( and 7feet is down low)
Not to mention the animals are more frightened by a human walking, skiing, or snow shoeing thru the woods then a sled. They hear the sled coming, know where its at, and that it wont bother them........and once again this at extreme lower levels....sno parks..not in the alpine.

I was on the SAWS website today and was shocked to see they have a membership of only 2200 people........they charge nothing for membership and need the numbers ( donations welcome

We have to continually make ourselves heard.........

 

[Wade]

The good news is that the greenies have a hard time turning out people to help. They have a lot of memberships, and magazines, and such, but even they have to resort to pre-formatted letters to get anyone to respond. And, the forest service doesn't take those any more.

The problem is groups like the PEW Charitable trusts, that have seven billion dollars in the bank. If they give a greenie group a couple hundred thousand, they've got 10 times the money of and snowmobile organization.

Why doesn't some billionaire leave all his money to motorized sports support.

What's amazing is that with all that money, they didn't close everything in a year. The public really isn't against us, and I don't believe there's really that many greenies.

Heck, some pot smoker told me he was being paid to be at a meeting. He had no idea what we where talking about.

 

[Funoutfitters.com]

I agree with all of you!!

Josh Zieske

 

[offroadmatt]

Agreed its not just snowmobiles thats do the impact, however that is where the finger gets pointed, and why? The only thing I can come up with, is that snowmobiles are one of the few users to have such organized Groups. Its like they want to target groups rather than individuals. Its easier and looks better for there argument to say those guys (group) rather than that guy, are hurting the land. The numbers look bigger as a group, I guess is there thinking.

 

[TIM]

heading in to the frank church on friday. Should be good hunt. Got my elk, deer and wolf tag ready to be punched.