Roadless Area Release Act back in the news

[Ben Lamb]

There was a great debate last year on HR 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act on the forum. Following this debate, and a lot of back and forth, RMEF pulled there support for HR 1581 based on the science, and based on a huge volume of input they received against the bill.

In today's Missoulian, there's this article.

Among the backers of HR 1581 are Gun Owners of America, whose local affiliate is Gary Marbut and Montana Shooting Sports Association (AKA - the guys who had over 25 bills that most of us fought), and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.

The opponents: Over 100 Montana businesses, and over 25 local sporting organizations.

My boss, Tim Aldrich, had this op-ed in the Missoulian as well today.

In December, MWF sent a letter requesting a meeting with Congressman Rehberg, a cosponsor of this bill. We recieved a polite reply saying that his staff would try to set something up. We never heard back from them, which is typical.

So, MWF bought some air time and put these ads together:

Valuable

Legacy

We also pulled together some information including several scientific studies to back up our claims that Roadless Areas mean increased hunter harvest and better elk habitat: www.roadlesshunters.org

RMEF's quote at the end of the Missoulian article is something that I think most folks agree with:

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation initially supported the bill, but withdrew its approval last September.
“The roadless-area impacts of H.R. 1581 include too many unknown risks for us to remain supportive,” Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation president David Allen wrote of the decision. But he added “We believe the proponents of H.R. 1581 are well intentioned and have restarted a necessary debate on best designations for public lands. … Neither this bill nor the status quo are acceptable paths to resolving the problem.”

I only take exception that the debate has lagged. There are several efforts underway to deal with the backlog of inventoried lands, WSA's and other issues related to public lands. Efforts such as the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership had been underway for years. The BD Partnership led to new legislation that would release some BLM Wilderness Study Areas, and the RMF effort led to legislation that would protect all existing uses on those pieces of public land.

There are several efforts underway in places like the Scotchman Peaks, Blackfoot Challenge, Missions, Gallatin and other areas where a political stalemate based on partisan politics has replaced honest debate about how to best manage these lands.

I do absolutely agree with RMEF that the status quo and HR 1581 are not acceptable though.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

Ben-
A couple nice looking and effective spots, IMHO. The attempts to erode our public lands seem to be coming from every angle. Glad to see MWF taking a pro-active role on this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks DDD!

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I 'd give them an A+ on those too, DDD!

 

[sreekers]

I don't remember the bill, in short what is it's main point?

 

[shoots-straight]

I don't remember the bill, in short what is it's main point?

It's main point is to open up these lands to all kinds of development. What the rest of the forests look like.

 

[sweetnectar]

I know MWF people don't want to hear this but it is the way I understand it. If this bill goes through then maybe we can snowmobile above Highlite lake again. 5.5 million acres opened up again in Montana alone is a whole lot of land.

 

[shoots-straight]

I know MWF people don't want to hear this but it is the way I understand it. If this bill goes through then maybe we can snowmobile above Highlite lake again. 5.5 million acres opened up again in Montana alone is a whole lot of land.

Sweet, is that what's important to you? That you can snowmobile up to Highlite Lake? I value habitat that it takes to grow big bulls, and big mule deer. Snowmobiling in remote regions is way down my list.

The lands not closed, minds are. The land may be restricted to certain travel types, and thats' a good thing.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That's a +1 S-S

 

[Ben Lamb]

I know MWF people don't want to hear this but it is the way I understand it. If this bill goes through then maybe we can snowmobile above Highlite lake again. 5.5 million acres opened up again in Montana alone is a whole lot of land.

Nectar, I skimmed through the travel plan last night (Gallatin Forest planning isn't something I work on, so I'm not familiar) and couldn't find anything on Roadless Areas being an impediment to snowmobile travel, but rather resource conflict was cited often. I couldn't find the specific passage talking about Highlite lake, do you know what planning district that's in?

Snowmobile use shouldn't be excluded just because it would occur in an Inventoried Roadless Area just as many IRA's have motorized trails in them. If there is a conflict with other uses such as quiet recreation, or wildlife, then the FS usually goes with the cheapest route.

When RARE I and RARE II came out, the concept was to inventory which lands had wilderness qualities, and keep new ROADS from being built. That's morphed over time to include maintaining wilderness quality, but as I've read in several travel plan descriptions, that doesn't mean motorized routes or snowmobiling couldn't continue until congress designates and area as wilderness, or releases it from further consideration.

5.5 million acres is not much to keep whole when you consider that there's already 32,000 miles of roads on FS lands and a $500 million backlog in maintenance.

 

[Drake4]

I know MWF people don't want to hear this but it is the way I understand it. If this bill goes through then maybe we can snowmobile above Highlite lake again. 5.5 million acres opened up again in Montana alone is a whole lot of land.

I doubt that is correct. I believe that area is closed due to the Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan..not the Wilderness Area and Roadless Release Act. Don't think they pertain to one another.
Could be wrong though.

 

[sweetnectar]

Drake-I hear a mad snowmobile crowd that claim the closers have to do with wilderness study areas. They make a strong point when they say something to the effect that big bulls don't live in 7 plus feet of snow. Some of the snowmobilers talk about how they like to go to high mountain lakes and ice fish for part of the day...or at least they used to before areas became WSAs.
My main point is that to blanket millions of acres with the same general management approach makes as much sense as managing Shoots bitterroot area the same as the rest of Montana.

 

[mtlion]

You can snowmobile all you want around Highlight Lake...

It's Hyalite Lake you have to watch out for...

 

[Big Fin]

My main point is that to blanket millions of acres with the same general management approach makes as much sense as managing Shoots bitterroot area the same as the rest of Montana.

Sweet - I am confused. It happens often, so bare with me.

Are you saying that a blanket approach makes no sense when it applies to the 10%< roadless areas, or a blanket approach makes no sense when it applies to the >90% of areas currently open to motorized travel?

 

[sweetnectar]

What I'm trying to say is that I feel that each area requires different management whether that means closing some roads and leaving major arteries open so as to encourage access and use of public lands to allowing snowmobilers where snows get deep enough to shove wildlife out of those areas to have logging in some areas, to having atv trails, to having vegetative improvements, to installing water systems, to have maintained hiking trails, to whatever increases and improves the landscape and encourages public use, etc.

When I ask around the snowmobile crowd, MWF is getting blame or credit for closing areas to snowmobilers and one case I heard was that of area above Highlite lake being closed to snowmobiler but can be used by cross country skiers...except for only a handful of skiers would have the ability to even get in only part of the way a snowmobiler could and bla bla bla wine and some more bla bla bla.

Now I have a hard time thinking that MWF has enough clout to get that done but based on the amount of squaking that takes place from the few hunt talkers that are big MWF people I suppose it is possible??? But back to the main point of land management.

Seems both sides are trying to manage land and both sides will protect public interests and not everyone is going to agree 100% how this is to be done. Where they differ is the management techneques. I'm hopping for something that takes an active approach and allows for getting things done. Where the money will come for it is beyond me.

 

[Big Fin]

Got it. Thanks.

Here is where Judge Malloy took a break from the wolf issue to rule that Gallatin NF had to change their travel management plan for the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn WSA. He ruled that snowmobiling is not allowed under the Montana Wilderness Act of 1977 and the associated WSAs formed between then and 1884.

http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/article_4d7c3e48-ad81-11de-bb61-001cc4c03286.html

Here are groups that are mad that snowmobiling is still allowed in these wilderness study areas under the TMPs many of the National Forest in Montana have adopted. They will continue to bring suit against the Forests for any plan that has snowmobiling, now that Malloy has ruled snowmobiling does not allow the area to maintain the Wilderness aspects. Don't think MWF is one of these groups.

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/blog/gallatin-national-forest-protects-wilderness-study-area

Here is where the Gallatin NF is back to the drawing board with their Travel Management Plan. They will go through the same process, gather the same data, and come up with a new plan that will be litigated by one side or the other.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gallatin/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5352977

Sounds like more gridlock. The Gallatin has tried to work with the motorized access groups, but when they did, they got sued for not following an Act of Congress - The Montana Wilderness Act of 1997.

I expect this to be mired in courts longer than the wolf issue was. Probably not the only forest in the USFS system having the same struggles with travel management plans.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What I'm trying to say is that I feel that each area requires different management whether that means closing some roads and leaving major arteries open so as to encourage access and use of public lands to allowing snowmobilers where snows get deep enough to shove wildlife out of those areas to have logging in some areas, to having atv trails, to having vegetative improvements, to installing water systems, to have maintained hiking trails, to whatever increases and improves the landscape and encourages public use, etc.

When I ask around the snowmobile crowd, MWF is getting blame or credit for closing areas to snowmobilers and one case I heard was that of area above Highlite lake being closed to snowmobiler but can be used by cross country skiers...except for only a handful of skiers would have the ability to even get in only part of the way a snowmobiler could and bla bla bla wine and some more bla bla bla.

Now I have a hard time thinking that MWF has enough clout to get that done but based on the amount of squaking that takes place from the few hunt talkers that are big MWF people I suppose it is possible??? But back to the main point of land management.

Seems both sides are trying to manage land and both sides will protect public interests and not everyone is going to agree 100% how this is to be done. Where they differ is the management techneques. I'm hopping for something that takes an active approach and allows for getting things done. Where the money will come for it is beyond me.

MWF was not a part of the lawsuit on Hyalite WSA. In fact, MWF rarely engages in legal action and we have a strenuous process where the entire board (all 24 affiliated clubs plus the other directors) have to weigh in.

We typically haven't been engaged in travel planning because we have limited staff capacity (I'm the only issues staff). Between the federal issues such as the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (which maintains current snowmobile use), Land and Water Conservation Fund, etc and the State issues like wolves, bison, season setting, FWP oversight, there's just no time left to get involved. The only travel plans that I've worked on in the last few years were the Badger-Two Medicine Travel plan and the Blackfoot winter use plan.WE supported opening some old logging roads as access points, but shutting down a maze of roads that created a bad hunting situation. In the Badger, we were supportive of reduced motorized use due to wildlife issues specifically with elk and mule deer, illegal user created trails, over abundance of trails, and lack of enforcement capabilities.

MWF gets the blame for a lot of crap. CRP lawsuits, wolves, motorized, etc. It's flattering to think that we're that powerful. If only it were true.

What I'm trying to say is that I feel that each area requires different management whether that means closing some roads and leaving major arteries open so as to encourage access and use of public lands to allowing snowmobilers where snows get deep enough to shove wildlife out of those areas to have logging in some areas, to having atv trails, to having vegetative improvements, to installing water systems, to have maintained hiking trails, to whatever increases and improves the landscape and encourages public use, etc.

Agree 100%. The issue then becomes how to achieve that. You can do all of those things in Inventoried Roadless. The real problem with managing public lands comes down to budgets, and litigation. I'm hopeful that the new forest planning rules help streamline the process and eliminate a lot of the senseless litigation.