HR 1581 and the RMEF

[Oak]

Pardon me if I am a little skeptical of the Federal land agencies' ability or desire to protect wildife interests in the face of pressure from extractive industries

The following is a map of BLM lands where I work (yellow), overlayed with "mule deer critical winter range" (purple) as mapped by the CDOW for the purposes of development planning. The red dots indicate natural gas wells.

Here is the same aerial with the layers removed:

Is that what you want your mule deer critical winter range to look like? BTW, there are several WSAs within 20 miles of here.

 

[BuzzH]

Blackhills take a look at this map, in the area I've spent all summer working in.

Tell me how far from a road or motorized trail I can get?

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/f...00&position=Feature*&ttype=detail&pname=Boise National Forest- Maps & Publications

Next look at the Medicine Bow NF, then try the Bitterroot NF, tell me all about the road densities in the black hills?

Hows the OTC general elk hunting in the Black hills these days? Just curious?

 

[Black Hills]

Buzz my man,

I am not the lone ranger on here. I am more blunt than some others but you are not reading my friend. Also, what the heck are you smoking by stating

"You're trying to make a feeble attempt to blame the "enviros' for these areas not being designated. Why would an environmentalist stall the process to get them included in wilderness, something they've wanted since RAREII?"

I am saying the exact opposite. The enviros love this scenario along with you. Again you are injecting your liberal bias relative to the bill's sponsors. This bill should it make it out of the House (and it is likely nothing will make it out of Congress for the rest of this year) will go to the Senate where it will get amended or killed, etc...........the point is it is time to do something about this process and get on with it. You keep over reaching with Wilderness designations and you will regret what the public does about it.

The pro wolf folks got greedy and see where it got them. The same thing is going to happen here if you don't wake up.

I have never claimed wilderness is crap (again your reading skills). I said wilderness is not always the best hunting habitat and that is a fact.

 

[BuzzH]

Why would the enviro's love a scenerio, like is being propsed by 1581 and the RMEF, that has the potential to destroy whats left of the very little roadless areas we have?

I'm just thinking that they would much prefer whats left to be secured for future generations via wilderness designation...I'd even walk the ragged edge and say they wish it already was.

Where are all these crap wilderness areas you've hunted? Just curious as I've ventured into a "few" wilderness areas in my day.

Also, since less than 4% of the land mass in the United States is designated wildereness...how is asking for those areas already defined as same under RAREII "over-reaching".

I'd say thats far from "over-reaching"...matter of fact I'd call it a pitance.

 

[Black Hills]

Buzz,

The last time I will explain for you..........the enviros would not like 1581..........they are just like you. Wow man, you cannot read.

Again, if the land is approved wilderness worthy, then let's designate it so.........if not then let's move on........

 

[Rat Fink]

Does that mean your best hunting is in real wilderness or forest service land that was once logged or protected from fire or had a road cut into it or close to it that now is closed to motored vehicles so the hunting is good for you?

And....TJones, that is just the tip of the iceberg on public opinion of WSA.

I hunt in and around a WSA that is roadless USFS land. I don't know what it was 50 years ago as that was long before my time. I do know that between Tester's bill and HR 1581, I stand to lose the limited access that makes the area I hunt so good for elk.

For the public land hunter, I don't necessarily believe that wilderness areas offer the best hunting, but any roadless area that limits access to only those willing to work for it does offer better hunting than roaded areas. And by default private lands that limit access do as well. That's why many of the best elk are killed on private lands now. Open up the access to everyone like HR1581 is trying to do by allowing motorized access, atv's, roads etc, and that excellent elk hunting and habitat goes away. More people = less elk.

 

[BuzzH]

More access=less everything and more regulations.

Blackhills, you havent answered many questions...and those areas are already defined as worthy of wilderness designation. WTF do you think RAREII was for?

Why do we need to confuse the process thats already defined them as wilderness worthy? Thats all HR1581 is doing, stripping wilderness designation...the name of the bill says it all "release of wilderness study areas"...that doesnt sound like conservation.

Further, why would the RMEF be in favor of such a ridiculous piece of legislation that will negatively impact whats left of our roadless areas?

 

[Rat Fink]

More access=less everything and more regulations.

Very True!

I have no problem with people accessing their public lands. It's yours just as much as it is mine. It's the type of access that creates the problems. Motorized is bad, end of story. We all have feet, it's about time some people learn how to use them again.

 

[BuzzH]

Amen brother, amen....

 

[Ben Long]

Black hills: I'm afraid I'm not the one making factual errors on this one. (Though i have made my share
RMEF says:
• H.R. 1581 is a bill in Congress specifically affecting “wilderness study areas” administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and “inventoried roadless areas” administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Congress set aside these lands up to 30 years ago for further evaluation and possible addition into the National Wilderness Preservation System.
I say: Not true. The state and national processes to protect roadless areas took place since 2001, under both R and D administrations. Roadless protection has zero to do with wilderness.
• RMEF says:H.R. 1581 serves to begin the public input process and officially designate specific parcels as either wilderness or other appropriate designation, such as multiple-use.
•*I say, false. Roadless lands 1581 would "release" are multiple use. You can often ride an ATV there. You can hunt/fish/camp and do other "multiple" uses in roadless.. the agency can use helicopters for logging or other work, chainsaws, just not bulldozers. RMEF's statement is either ignorant or misleading.

 

[Ben Long]

Let me go on...
•*RMEF says: H.R. 1581 would allow for habitat management in areas where it’s needed.
I say, false. Again, on the tens of millions of acres of roadless land this bill would 'release' there is already active habitat management, just not roads. My favorite mountain on the Kootenai, for example. The USFS has used helicopters and fire-pellets to burn winter range. Trails are cleared with chainsaws and helicopters.
• RMEF says: Nowhere in H.R. 1581 are there any provisions to allow energy companies to explore any of the affected lands.
I say: half true. The bill drafters are smart enough not to include loopholes specifically for oil and gas, but it does peel away one important protection on 10s of millions of acres of national forests: The roadless rules that both Ds and Rs have drafted, both nationally and state by state.

 

[sweetnectar]

Rat- Can areas be off limits to motorized vehicles a month before and during the hunting season or must it be declared wilderness? I know that land that is not classified as wilderness can be managed to say increase elk numbers and health, or managed for grizzlies, or mule deer, etc. but once it is classified as wilderness then the management style is do nothing with it. This works well for those who believe that the do nothing approach with nature is good....nature takes care of itself. Others believe that you and I have to take care of it....otherwise it turns into a patch of knapweed, or dead fall, or burns to the ground....that nature is inherently out of balance already and needs some tending too.
Whatever the philosophy one decides is right in their mind tends to steer their view of wilderness.

I still have to wonder about oil and gas development on WSA. The WSA that I'm familiar with in Montana have igneous rock and pose little to no threat of oil and gas development. (shales, limestones, or sedimentary rocks do not lie under ingenious or metamorphic rocks and therefor no oil or gas)
What is the geology of the WSA in Wyoming or what kids of rock are you guys seeing when your hunting or are you looking for elk and not rocks?
The WSA that I hunted last year had been managed as regular FS land in the past and had a road that at least got me close to it. I have to believe the habitat of the WSA I hunted had been improved by the past forestry management plans that helped make it what it was. I also figured I had an advantage in hunting that area because of lack of pressure from motorized vehicles. Even though I found more elk on the regular FS I did find some elk in the WSA.

 

[Ben Long]

Let's get to the bottom of it: the bill is sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy. He represents southern California. Not much elk habitat there, but lots of oil rigs. His website brags his district produces more oil than all of Oklahoma. He has taken tens of thousands of dollars from oil and gas company PACs for his campaigns, according to opensecrets.org. The bill's mouthpiece is Melissa SImpson. I'm sure she's a nice person and perhaps a skilled hunter, but she worked for the oil and gas companies to recruit hunters/anglers to "open up" public lands as a lobbyist for PacWest, a DC lobby firm. Funny how she never mentioned that when she testified for HR 1581. I prefer to stand with blue-collar, hard-working Montana elk hunters who know habitat. That's who built RMEF. I'm afraid that's not who is behind the wheel now.

 

[Ben Long]

sweet nectar. I'm no geologist, but I do have a memory. I'm sure you're aware of the Elkhorns, HD 380, one of the most highly prized areas to hunt elk in North America. Elkhorns have two big wild chunks in their heart (a good place to look for big bulls hiding during hunting season, if you're lucky enough to draw.) One is a Forest Service roadless area, the other is a Wilderness Study Area administered by the BLM. Oil and gas companies wanted to lease (read develop and drill) the Elkhorns in the 1980s and 1990s. Hunters said no way, and now the range is managed for wildlife and primitive recreation. Make no mistake: HR 1581 would weaken significant protections for this part of the Elkhorns. Why would we want to go that direction? Even if it's not the end of the world, it's a big step in the wrong direction.

 

[RockyDog]

Here are some googleearth shots of our "multiple use" ares in the bitterroot. Now if we can only get RMEFs assistance makeing our roadless forests look like this, we will be in elk heaven!

#1 is southeast of Hamilton, MT
#2 is southern West Fork Bitterroot near Painted Rocks, MT
#3 west of Florence, MT

 

[BuzzH]

thats what a vast majority of FS "multiple use" lands look like, a vast majority.

The BLM is even worse...

 

[Ben Long]

Plenty 'o access there. For sure.

 

[BuzzH]

Just what the elk and RMEF like.

 

[onpoint]

I just got in from a 5 day hitch in the back country, designated wilderness area. I'm gettin a charge reading this thread. I spend a lot of time dinking around with these "battles". My "dinking around" has led me to let my longtime relationship with the RMEF go away in the last year - a once great outfit which now seems to be taking a different direction. Gotta agree with "we all have feet, we need to learn to use em." I'm damn near fifty and still go on 5 day backpack stints, when I can't do it no more - I don't need a road to get me there. Back country needs to be there for the next generation - of foot soldiers and horsemen who can and will use it - not the whiners who want to slog their sorry asses up into it on a Yamaha. I'll be at 10000 ft again in two weeks....If outfits like RMEF see ANY wilderness protection as a bad idea, they can kiss my sweat soaked hiney at about noon on August 26. By the way, wapiti up the yingyang...........That was fun..........

 

[DavidKeenan]

Bummer, what to do if you are a life member?

I agree with you on life member. If so, and they continue to support different bills or any other thing that goes against what they are supposed to be there for.. I hope they really arent on board for this bill. I to am a life member and was planning to donate more on the corporate level at a later date. :W: May have to back up and think about it now. I know Im a eastener
but I still hunt the west and east.
There have been a few time that I have been like . I wish there was a oad to get this out but then I say no im glad there wasnt. I would never had that experience if there was a road. Either the game would not have been there or my work for it would have been a whole lot different. We have a lot of problems in the east also with to many roads or different things keeping you out of certian areas that we used to hunt. Mining, logging, oil, gas . river RATS I love the west and wish I had moved there a long time ago. Any thing I can do to help keep that the way it is intended to be I will do when I can. Land Of The Free ARE WE?

In a nutshell RMEF has my support. but if they keep doing things against there intentions I will tell Them I no longer want to be associtated. I Hope it doesnt come to that.