Gov't Seeks End to Gray Wolf Protection

[leftylock]

Buzz, I do tend to get carried away don't I.
The info I kept reading did say that Clintons road initiative would close many areas other than those that were already roadless, and that existing roads in these areas would be restored to a natural state . One arguement was that firefighting in some of these areas would become nearly impossible if this were to take place. Maybe I was guilty of believing what extremists on the other side of the issue were putting out.
I certainly don't want to see roads punched into every existing roadless area. And I don't think I'll run out of places I can get into to hunt or hike in my lifetime.
Although we still disagree on some things, We do share a lot of common ground.
Glad to have your input.Thanks.

 

[BuzzH]

Lefty,

I dont think you get carried away at all. I'd rather see a person take a legitimate stand on an issue. Not many around here do that. They tend to fly off the handle about tree-hugging fern feelers if you dont want to mine, log, drill, graze, or otherwise destroy something.

As to the roadless rule, its a big flap about nothing IMO. All the roadless areas in question were, and currently still are, protected under the various National Forest Plans. Each National Forest is mandated through NFMA (National Forest Management Act) to maintain roadless areas as they are. Clintons rule did nothing but add an extra layer of protection.

Understand that I'm not against a reasonable amount of access. I'm also pretty sympathetic toward older hunters and their limitations, and even allowing them increased access. My grandfather hunted until he was 85 and when he passed away in Sept. of 2000 he had a wallet full of tags he intended to use that fall. The funny thing was though, I never heard him whine about his age, access, or wanting special priveleges. He just hunted where he was able to and enjoyed it.

 

[leftylock]

Ithica, I understand what you are saying regarding nutrients and habitat from the burned trees, but it seems to me that since trees will be cut to meet the demand, it makes sense to take burned trees and save some healthy ones. Is taking those trees and sacrificing their nutrients going to make the soil too sterile for regen.? I realize that a cut leaves a lot of material on the ground for protection and prevents eriosion, while a fire doesn't, but I would think that a lot of nutrients from the smaller stuff and branches that burn are still present.
I can live with your thinking on the wolf population. If ,again, reasonable people can get their act together and work together to accomplish a plan before the population gets out of hand. Extremists (my favorite word) on both sides of the issue will probably screw it up however. One thing is for sure-- they're here and we are going to have to live with them.

 

[leftylock]

Thanks,Buzz
Enjoyed your comments about your grandfather. Sounds like he was a hell of a man. hope I can do half as well.

 

[BuzzH]

Lefty,

Heres a picture you might like.

This was the second to last elk my Grandfather killed, he was 80 then I think. He had a cow permit and I staked out a small herd the night before opening day. The next morning we hiked in the dark for an hour or so. We got set up and right at daylight we found them. Hadnt moved hardly at all. There was about 15 or so in the herd. He rested his 300 winchester over a stump and picked out a calf. The range was about 175 yards, the elk folded at the shot. I managed to kill a spike out of the bunch before they departed.

Theres times hunting season just isnt the same anymore...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Lefty,


You see how this works??? I call people Fat-Assed ATV riders, call for an end to all Grazing on Public Lands by Welfare Ranchers. Insist on more Wilderness in Idaho (the Owyhees, the Boulder-WhiteClouds) etc.... And then, Buzz and Ithica can't be labeled "extremists", as they are actually the Middle of the Road, because if you don't listen to their logic, you are forced to suffer through my extremism.

It makes for a healthy political ecosystem to have extremists in order to be able to measure the mid-points.

 

[leftylock]

That's really cool, Buzz
Know what you mean when you say the season isn't the same anymore. I've lost three of my good friends/fishing buddies in the last two years.
My sympathy.

 

[leftylock]

Elkgunner, Good points! It also makes for some hellacious arguments which can be fun.(if I can keep myself under controll.)

 

[Muledeer4me]

Lefty,great post's ,you get your thought across very well.
While most of us feel like you do ,it has fallen on deaf ear's ,it's clear that if you don't mirror the word's of a few poster's here you are wrong on all account's.
Something we should never forget is how Clinton never admited he was wrong and twisted word's around to fit his need.
A few poster's are willing to do the same thing here to suit there need's.
No one has said we want to see anyone raping the land or riding ATV's off road or trail doing damage .

We have and will stand up for keeping the access we now enjoy, and look forward to getting good uniform restriction's in our national forest.
Im all for the wilderness area's we now have and I'm willing to support placing a little more under that ,I and many like me are not willing to give up LARGE tract's that are now being used .
We do have area's with road's and trail's that are being looked at for placment under the wildness act.
Not marking road's or trail's on the new map's does not make it a roadless area,unless you go back to the Clinton spin rule.

 

[BuzzH]

MD4ME said, "I and many like me are not willing to give up LARGE tract's that are now being used .
We do have area's with road's and trail's that are being looked at for placment under the wildness act.
Not marking road's or trail's on the new map's does not make it a roadless area,unless you go back to the Clinton spin rule."

I'd like to see some proof of this line of BULLSHIT you're yapping about. I'd like to see one area thats being considered for wilderness that has a bunch of roads through it. You're full of crap. If you cant find some PROOF then you're just spinning lies.

I'm becoming more convinced all the time that Ithaca is right, you're as looney as a pet racoon.

Between you and Elkcheese its a toss up on who makes the least amount of sense.

Try educating yourself on the wilderness act, roadless areas, forest planning, the clinton roadless initiative, etc.

That way you wont look like a total moron.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Buzz, We've all made sincere efforts to post facts and links to more info on all those issues for years, now, so MD will have an opportunity to educate herself. She still doesn't even have the slightest idea how any of them are structured, regulated, enforced or anything else about them.

All she has is some looney tune bug in her head that they're all part of some worldwide conspiracy to make her get off her ATV. She wastes all our time by posting outright lies and misinformation that just confuses others who are trying to follow and understand the issues.

After all these years, I'm convinced she must be the dumbest person in Idaho. After all, she claims she moved here from California to get away from the problems there, and all she wants now is to turn Idaho into a copy of that state-----more roads, less wildlife habitat, more developing, less regard for the environment, jobs at any cost, pollution and destruction of everything that makes Idaho unique. How much dumber can anyone be? Unfortunately, there aren't any laws against being stupid, or she'd be in prison for life.

 

[Muledeer4me]

Buzz & Ithaca,
Play all the Clinton word definition games you want to . LOL


["Motorized vehicle roads, or 4WD roads, exist within a gray definition at the managing agencies. Most "Road" definitions relate to a transportation system designed to haul materials, like lumber, or to give the public access to facilities, like campgrounds. Because roads were used for mining, grazing and timber, they were needed as part of the transportation system. Now that the direction of these agencies is shifting, the need for these road systems is gone, and so the roads will also go. Recreational 4WD roads fall between these "passenger vehicle roads" and what many agencies call "Ways".
Today we can continue to use our 4WD roads even after they become part of a Roadless Inventory, or a new Wilderness Study Area because they do not disqualify lands from wilderness proposal. The Closure groups will maintain that our 4WD roads existance in an area does not disqualify it from wilderness study designation due to definitions of maintenance and construction needed to call them roads. But during planning they call for the closure of our 4WD roads due to their impact to the wilderness characteristics of that very same area."