House bill moving forward to allow bikes in Wilderness

[Sytes]

Yep this was taken around Danaher Meadows, pretty cool. IIRC the lines stretch for at least a few miles, nailed to the lodgepoles along the trail.

View attachment 79748
Not sure why it's rotated here vs on my computer.

Regarding trails and bridges, I haven't complained about either, it's still wild country. In the late spring those trails are heavily used by bears. And a bridge comes in handy that time of year, where the alternative is swimming.

I would imagine many do not complain about bridges... However, it does not conform to the intent behind the Wilderness Act. Making exceptions permits exceptions. I like bridges. I like the game poles. Heck, I like the trails however they are permanent human developments... And let's not even begin with the exceptions for Outfitter designated locations...

 

[BuzzH]

I would imagine many do not complain about bridges... However, it does not conform to the intent behind the Wilderness Act. Making exceptions permits exceptions. I like bridges. I like the game poles. Heck, I like the trails however they are permanent human developments... And let's not even begin with the exceptions for Outfitter designated locations...

However if no human print to be present, we *should have abandoned and removed all trace of pre Wilderness Act human developments

Oh bullchit, the intent of the Wilderness Act was never to keep humans out or remove all traces of human development. The Act doesn't say that or even imply it...maybe try reading the Act FIRST, before you make unfounded claims or your wrong interpretations. You're entitled to your own opinion, just not your own set of facts.

There were/are special provision to permitted uses that were already established prior to 1964...see section 4 (d)1-7. Its all there, black and white, crystal clear...all the things you're crying about are permitted uses.

Further, if your argument (of the WRONG variety) is that no humans belong there, then follow your own interpretation, and stay out of all Wilderness areas.

 

[Sytes]

Buzz,

On note of your assumptions: Share with me where I stated no person(s) should enter Wilderness and I'll share with you your own bullchit.
As for earlier laws, acts, regulations: When a law, act, regulation is put into action AFTER the earlier, it superceeds those parts it would otherwise conflict.
Basically your content about humans exempt is, using your word again, bullchit. Your leaping to conclusions.
I do believe the structures built and continually maintained since the act are not in compliance with the Wilderness Act. Does this make anyone's position stated within the Hunt Talk forum as, fact? Haha! Whatever floats your boat, Buzz... I would share as a comparison, if Land Tawney made a statement here on BHA structural organization, that would be, "fact" otherwise... We are all mostly sharing our positions on topics.

Re: the Wilderness Act,

https://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm

Frequently Asked Questions
What is wilderness?
The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, created the National Wilderness Preservation System and recognized wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” The Act further defined wilderness as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions . . . ." (For the complete definition of wilderness, see Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act.)

WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED - STATEMENT OF POLICY

SECTION 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement
and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is
hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future
generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established
a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by the
Congress as "wilderness areas," and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as
to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no
Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a
subsequent Act.
(b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall
continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress.
No appropriation shall be available for payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the
National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for
additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas
solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System.
DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby
recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man
himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent
improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions
and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make
practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological,
geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

 

[El Jason]

Those old phone lines run all the down to Big Prairie. IIRC they went down even further to a cabin I’ve forgotten the name of that burned up in the mid 2000s.

Trails are not a violation of the wilderness act. Nor are structures that were in existence prior to the wilderness act. However, when a cabin burns down it won’t necessarily be replaced.

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes,

How are people to supposed to "use and enjoy" wilderness if, as you wrongly claim, people aren't supposed to be there?

Nice work, your last post proved my point, but you should have kept reading.

Your complete lack of understanding of the wilderness act and its intent is of no surprise...and your bias is showing.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS


(d) The following special provisions are hereby made:


(1) Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measure may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment. Furthermore, in accordance with such program as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress.

(3) (Mineral leases, claims, etc) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, until midnight December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the same extent as applicable prior to the effective date of this Act, extend to those national forest lands designated by this Act as "wilderness areas"; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development and exploration, drilling, and production, and use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, production, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and, in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose. Mining locations lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto; and hereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonably available, and if the timber is cut under sound principles of forest management as defined by the national forest rules and regulations, but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act: Provided, That, unless hereafter specifically authorized, no patent within wilderness areas designated by this Act shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after the effective date of this Act within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this Act shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses covering lands within national forest wilderness areas designated by this Act shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in lands designated by this Act as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto.

(4) (Water resources and grazing) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.

(5) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.

(6) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.

(7) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests.

 

[Sytes]

Buzz, apparently you posted as I added to my post. You are leaping to mega conclusions that are unfounded.

On note of your assumptions, Buzz: share with me where I stated no person(s) should enter Wilderness and I'll share with you your own bullchit.
As for earlier laws, acts, regulations: When a law, act, regulation is put into action AFTER the earlier, it superceeds those parts it would otherwise conflict.
Basically your content about humans exempt is, using your word again, bullchit. Your leaping to conclusions.
I do believe the structures built and continually maintained since the act are not in compliance with the Wilderness Act. Does this make anyone's position stated within the Hunt Talk forum as, fact? Haha! Whatever floats your boat, Buzz... I would share as a comparison, if Land Tawney made a statement here on BHA structural organization, that would be, "fact" otherwise... We are all mostly sharing our positions on topics.

This comes with airports (4 total) and arriving back in Kalispell 11 or so from Good ole Georgia. And of course, as great as phones are... They are a pain to some degree for posting.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Congress established the National Wilderness Preservation System in part to be consistent with the intent for Wilderness to be set aside for the "use and enjoyment of the American people". Initially the Forest Service followed a standard of a pure, virgin, natural wilderness as their "purity" policy, but in the seventies Congress repudiated the "purity" standard and that is what likely was the basis for increased establishment and maintenance of bridges, trails and other such "improvements" for the "use and enjoyment" of the people.

As earlier mentioned, debate is an effective and informative method of discussion, however to quote something while ignoring other factual information which alters or refutes the original assertion is blatantly misleading and dishonest. Furthermore, continuing to pontificate legal and/or historical opinionated contentions after they have been clearly refuted is disingenuous and, as my granddaughter would say, "redumdant".

 

[RobG]

Charles, why do you hate wilderness?

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes,

You're just wrong, that's all there is to it...trails, bridges, airstrips, cabins, all that are NOT in violation of the Wilderness Act...if they were, they wouldn't be there.

There's all the facts you need to know.

I'm still waiting for you to provide even one shred of evidence why bridges, airstrips, cabins, trails, and other man made structures are a violation of the Wilderness Act. Until such time as you provide a legal brief, memo, or anything else to prove those items are in violation, I will continue to call BS...and that's exactly what you're interpretations of the Act are.

Next.

 

[El Jason]

When a law, act, regulation is put into action AFTER the earlier, it superceeds those parts it would otherwise conflict.
Basically your content about humans exempt is, using your word again, bullchit. Your leaping to conclusions.
I do believe the structures built and continually maintained since the act are not in compliance with the Wilderness Act.

I am not sure how to interpret your statement on laws and regulations, but there is a term known as “grandfathered” that is highly relevant to the wilderness act. Any subsequent decisions, alterations, and or modifications to grandfathered uses must be determined to not alter the primitive nature of wilderness.

With respect to structures built and maintained, I would assert you are completely wrong. Exceptions can and are made to allow activities normally prohibited under the wilderness act ( such as aerial landings for research or fire suppression) However, each one is evaluated on its own merits before it is allowed, and is subject to litigation. Therefore, if they are in fact illegal, it must also hold true a number of appellate courts have wrongly interpreted and applied the wilderness act. I find this a little hard to believe.

 

[El Jason]

I would share as a comparison, if Land Tawney made a statement here on BHA structural organization, that would be, "fact" otherwise... We are all mostly sharing our positions on topics.

I have a feeling Land Tawney would be told he is full of shit as well, should he make the same assertion.

 

[Sytes]

Charles, why do you hate wilderness?

Haha! Yes, that is what some would claim... If they only knew...

 

[BuzzH]

Haha! Yes, that is what some would claim... If they only knew...

Know what, that you're planning a trip into the Bob? What does that have to do with your lack of knowledge of the Wilderness Act?

Hope if your organizing the trip you know the rules for that better than you do the Act...just saying.

Oh, and for the record, did you turn in the outfitter you claim was violating the law with the chainsaw, or just turn a blind eye?

 

[Sytes]

I have a feeling Land Tawney would be told he is full of shit as well, should he make the same assertion.

Seems you misunderstood my comment. It is the clarification of "fact" vs HT member's shared positions on subjects discussed. If Land commented on his own organizational structure for BHA, that would be reasonable to consider as, "fact".

As for Helitac & smokejumper crews, emergency response crews - sheesh.. ya, sure... I believe a travois must be fashioned to be dragged behind a horse to med-evac a human from the wilderness, who by Buzz's position, I believe should have never been there in the first place... This is becoming humorous.

Buzz, yet again, you continue to step in your own created mess or as you refer, bullchit. Again, share where I commented I am opposed to humans entering our Wilderness Act protected areas... keep tainting the discussion with such - you will sucker some to believe it.

 

[El Jason]

I noticed you failed to acknowledge the appellate court oversight of the wilderness act, and how that directly contradicts your arguments. Carry on.

 

[Sytes]

Know what, that you're planning a trip into the Bob? What does that have to do with your lack of knowledge of the Wilderness Act?

Hope if your organizing the trip you know the rules for that better than you do the Act...just saying.

Oh, and for the record, did you turn in the outfitter you claim was violating the law with the chainsaw, or just turn a blind eye?

Buzz... Here ya go, to feed your fire. Nope. I didn't report them. By the time we got out of our first route a couple days later and I went back in, many other aspects of the hunt were on our mind by the time the adventure concluded. We pulled to the side with our sleds and let them pass. It is what it is... Care to play your personal attack belittling over this as well? You're a pompus little shit. I'll keep playing with ya though til you get this thread locked. Personal attacks are your style.

If they only knew... Way beyond a simple trip of many. This was / is a personal trip opened for others to join. My time in our beautiful wilderness act protected areas is not only on the personal enjoyment level, it includes federal employment within and private contract employment. Get over yourself...

 

[BuzzH]

Carry on.

 

[Sytes]

I noticed you failed to acknowledge the appellate court oversight of the wilderness act, and how that directly contradicts your arguments. Carry on.

Amidst the volley, I missed content that discussed an appellate ruling regarding oversight of the wilderness act. You may take it as intentional though it was not, care to share? I'm always game to learn of changes to the Wilderness Act... I take it there was or affirmations of the Act itself?

You know, one observation of this... If we were in person, I bet this conversation would have played out MUCH DIFFERENTLY. Say, sitting around a fire bs'ing our views on such. We may agree, we may disagree. We may learn, we may object though the personal presentation of discussing topics where people view the response, the query looks, the questionable assessment of another's point, would reveal much more than false beliefs of intentional misrepresentation...
I would hope, even with Buzz and I chatting in person, there would be a mutual agreement of the awesomeness of our Wilderness and maybe at most we disagree on subjects though not to the extent *perceived emotions are misread within the impersonable forum thread postings. I believe people hold disagreements yet still laugh together a minute later - in person. Hell, the majority of us are mostly on the same side with respect to the value our Wilderness and all our public lands offer.

Just an observation.

 

[El Jason]

I don’t care if it was intentional or not, that isn’t germane to the facts themselves. I can give you example after example of court rulings on the wilderness act. Case in point was when IDFG was ordered to not use data the collected in violation of the wilderness act and their use permit that allowed helicopter landings in the Frank. Their permit was narrow in scope and they worked outside of that. Even though he end result was the same (a helo landing) they were held to the strict exceptions allowed by permit.

How does this relate to structures? It shows how tightly the courts hold anyone to the wilderness act and exceptions granted to it. Further, it reaffirms the ability of anyone to litigate an exception to the act. I can cite you an example of a USFS employee getting in hot water for using a cordless drill in the Bob.

I’ve worked on projects where we had to get approval for fish incubators in a Wilderness. Do you really think it’s honest, in light of the fact we had to make the incubators unobtrusive to the wilderness, that illegal structures and trails abound in violation of the wilderness act?

A campfire may very well change the atmosphere of the discussion, but absent material fact I would will say your argument lacked any merit whatsoever, or in layman’s terms is bullchit.

 

[Sytes]

There are always exceptions. Bullchit exceptions or not. That is something I imagine most everyone would agree.