Definitely
Obama trying to lock up millions of acres of public land
- Thread starter JohnCushman
- Start date
Definitely
JoseCuervo
New member
How so? What harm would come of it?
wyomuledeer
New member
Ya you can have to much wilderness. What about for the people like me who snowmobile because it is a hobby. Not cause I'm "fat assed" cause I see the exact same country I snowmobile in the fall on foot and horse back. What about for the elderly who hunt off a atv, utv, or motorcycle. I believe some people abuse there rights, but some people do it cause the physically can't hunt in the back country anymore.
That wilderness bill would of put a lot of cabin owners into wilderness. That isn't right. The assholes that come up with these bills likely don't even use these public lands and probably never will.
That wilderness bill would of put a lot of cabin owners into wilderness. That isn't right. The assholes that come up with these bills likely don't even use these public lands and probably never will.
JoseCuervo
New member
I didn't read anything about them putting a fence around these proposed areas, nor any type of no access rules.
There is unlimited access to National Forest areas that are already roadless. Where do you get the idea that any access is being restricted?
How many millions of acres do "people like" you need to snowmobile? Aren't there already millions of acres for you? Do you really need to have your hobby permitted everywhere?
Are you really trying to convince people that it is ok to to hunt off of ATV's if you are elderly? Where does anybody have a "right" to be allowed to hunt if they aren't physically able to? What about people who want to visit areas "untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain"? It would seem like their rights would be more important than the right of a bunch of elderly people with guns screaming up and down trails on their Devastator 800 UTVs.....
Restrict was probably the wrong word to use.
Some of the specific areas they are proposing as wilderness would create unrealistic access issues in order to hunt within these areas. Multi-mile hikes in order to even get to current National Forest boundaries. One wilderness proposed area would keep us from getting to our elk camp, where the wall tent has been in the same place for over 35 years. This National Forest area I am speaking of is already roadless.
Some of the specific areas they are proposing as wilderness would create unrealistic access issues in order to hunt within these areas. Multi-mile hikes in order to even get to current National Forest boundaries. One wilderness proposed area would keep us from getting to our elk camp, where the wall tent has been in the same place for over 35 years. This National Forest area I am speaking of is already roadless.
wyomuledeer
New member
They should have to stay on the already designated roads. There needs to be more enforcement on that. And there should be some roads closed to motor vehicles, but not all of them. It needs to be far for both sides.
But I'm wondering how does an over the snow vehicle if it is a snowmobile or atv with tracks cause any harm? And yeah that bill would of eliminated the whole north west corner of wyoming where people come from all over the state and country to snowmobile.
But I'm wondering how does an over the snow vehicle if it is a snowmobile or atv with tracks cause any harm? And yeah that bill would of eliminated the whole north west corner of wyoming where people come from all over the state and country to snowmobile.
sweetnectar
New member
Wilderness is just an excuse to do nothing with the land and let it go to crap. I'd argue over all the game numbers in Montana' wilderness could be greatly improved if they would do something with the land.
Now I know we would all like to do yoga and hear a pan flute playing as we sit on a beautiful ridge overlooking a lush wilderness valley. The reality is the wilderness starts looking like crap when it doesn't get taken care of. Beetles, weeds, fire,...
I hope this monument idea doesn't breed the same kind of thing.
Now I know we would all like to do yoga and hear a pan flute playing as we sit on a beautiful ridge overlooking a lush wilderness valley. The reality is the wilderness starts looking like crap when it doesn't get taken care of. Beetles, weeds, fire,...
I hope this monument idea doesn't breed the same kind of thing.
wyomuledeer
New member
Ya that would be exactly the same where I hunt. It would be an additional 10 mile hike or horse back ride to get to the trail head where we camp. Already there is limited roads for trucks, atv, etc. Which I think is good.
JohnCushman
Well-known member
I think alot of the land is to shut off mining and future use for possible resourses....forcing the Obama administrations's 'Green' policies and ideas....if we have lands that we can't mine and use the resourse from it, then we have to go to the wind turbines and solar stuff that they are pushing for so hard because what we would be able to use would be protected and not usable. Plus, I think that since alot of the administration is anti gun and anti hunting, this might be a way to possibly take lands away.
Just my two cents
Just my two cents
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Nothing wrong with reneable energy, but we are far from being albe to depend on it to power cities and towns and everything else. What Obama is trying to do is force the issue and that will put the country further into debt for studies and building and whatnot for something that isn't a viable possibility in the near future. Obama is more concerned with making history than doing what's best for the country, in my personal opinion.We have to be able to use our coal and mining and natural gas and oil that's available to us now, not have it blocked away from us to increase dependancy from other countries
Last edited:
Management options, in my limited experience, are much more open on monuments than wilderness areas. In one in UT, they've killed hundreds of acres of encroached juniper. That is something that is quite hard to get done in Wilderness IME. But I have seen firsthand and seen examples shown of how removing management options don't always allow and area to be 'secured'. For instance, during the inventory of a recently designated National Park (this was in the '60s) a scientist commented that a specfic area needed work because of the small presence of an invasive, annual plant. No dice as the Park rules prohibited it. The area burnt a few years later and has been dominanted by that invasive, annual plant since then. A wilderness area in No. UT is prone to frequent fires from lightening strikes, yet about the only stabilization/rehabilitation than can be practiced is aerial seeding of native species. The success of this is highly variable and more often than not, doesn't work in this area. Some areas outside the Wilderness boundary are in much better condition than those in because the more aggressive stabilization/rehabilitation methods that were applied. It still has wilderness characteristics, but the vegetation will probably never become anything even resembling natural. I was a bit shocked to know that vegetation characteristics have little/no bearing on the determination of wilderness characteristics. My point is that even if an area is given a stricter management designation does not neccessarily mean that it will be "protected"...
We're getting way off topic here, but I just gotta disagree with you. Not to sound corny, but the future is right now. We've been sitting on the technology for decades picking our noses. At some point we need to take the plunge and completely overturn our energy grid, and the sooner we start the better off we'll be.
JoseCuervo
New member
So the lightning has only started striking Nor Utah in the last few years? It never struck there in the prior 100,000 years?
Isn't the point of "wilderness" not to artificially stop the forces of nature? Isn't erosion, fire, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, mudslides, blowouts, etc all parts of "nature"?
Who was out there "stabilizing" or "rehabilitating" when the dinosaurs were running around?
JoseCuervo
New member
Do you live under a rock? Obama, last week, just guaranteed $8 billion in loans on a nuclear plant.
Moosie
Grand poopa
If someone was, maybe they'd still be around ?
Wyodeerhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
- Messages
- 2,150
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Last edited:
Where were the invasive plant species from another continent when the dinosaurs were running around? I'll put this smilie here:
so you know that I know you're making a lame attempt at trying to confuse the point I made. You're purposefully not addressing the it and you know what it is.
Wyodeerhunter
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
- Messages
- 2,150
