Wilderness?

[Tom]

We have wilderness areas here. My question still stands, how far do you have to be from a road to be roadless? If a wilderness area has a road at its border, its still a wilderness area, or does it have to be a certain distance from a road? Plus, they don't call them roadless areas, they call them wilderness areas, so that question still stands too. How far do you have to be from a road to be roadless?

Two seperate questions, no answers yet. Am I supposed to get google to tell me all this stuff or do you guys close by the beloved wilderness and roadless areas know anything to give an answer?

It seems to me, without any other definition as soon as you step off a road, its roadless, i.e. without road. In Texas, I think we have to be like 20 ft off the road, before we're actually into legal hunting. Is there some smart legal definition for being roadless or is it just a dumb idea?

Like say, we're standing on a road looking into a field with no roads? Are guys, saying the field has roads or is roadless? I say its roadless, sober or drunk, no roads, that's roadless, get it Greenhorn?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Try this site Tom

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm

 

[JoseCuervo]

We have wilderness areas here. My question still stands, how far do you have to be from a road to be roadless? If a wilderness area has a road at its border, its still a wilderness area, or does it have to be a certain distance from a road? Plus, they don't call them roadless areas, they call them wilderness areas, so that question still stands too. How far do you have to be from a road to be roadless?

Two seperate questions, no answers yet. Am I supposed to get google to tell me all this stuff or do you guys close by the beloved wilderness and roadless areas know anything to give an answer?

It seems to me, without any other definition as soon as you step off a road, its roadless, i.e. without road. In Texas, I think we have to be like 20 ft off the road, before we're actually into legal hunting. Is there some smart legal definition for being roadless or is it just a dumb idea?

Like say, we're standing on a road looking into a field with no roads? Are guys, saying the field has roads or is roadless? I say its roadless, sober or drunk, no roads, that's roadless, get it Greenhorn?

Tom,

Nobody is discussing "roadless" but you. The rest of us are discussing "Wilderness"....

Do you consider the Gulf of Mexico to be "roadless"? Do you think the Great Salt Lake is "Wilderness" as it has no roads?

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, what a dumb statement this is, "There are 702 actual wilderness areas in the U.S., how many of you have visited even 1/10th or even 1/100th of them for that matter?"

How many wilderness areas anyone chooses to visit is irrelevant. The important thing is that there is wilderness and that the opportunity exists.

As my buddy, a retired FS District Ranger said, "One doesnt need to be physically present in wild country to appreciate it existence."

Apparently a few people on this board are brain dead to intrinsic values.

 

[BillyGoat]

We have wilderness areas here. My question still stands, how far do you have to be from a road to be roadless? If a wilderness area has a road at its border, its still a wilderness area, or does it have to be a certain distance from a road? Plus, they don't call them roadless areas, they call them wilderness areas, so that question still stands too. How far do you have to be from a road to be roadless?

For question #1, Tom, try this exercise. Get our your box of crayons and map of Texas. Pick your favorite color and start coloring in a random shape that is outlined by roads. Try your best not to color outside the lines. After you fill that first shape in, pick a different color and repeat until the whole state is filled in. Now go back and find the largest shape colored. I believe, my friend, that would be the biggest "roadless" area in Texas, which coincidentally you will probably discover is the 60 sq miles of "wilderness" you are so proud of.

For question #2, there are "roadless" areas that are not "wilderness". One such is the Rapid River Roadless Area in Idaho. Another is the White Clouds-Boulder in Idaho, which happens to be the largest "unprotected" in the US at 450,000 acres. I'm sure there are others.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Apparently a few people on this board are brain dead to intrinsic values.

Or to the intrinsic base values that made this country great in the first place

 

[The Hedgehog]

Holy shit-babbling idiots -I can't believe I actually read all that. Cheese.. I thought you had been abducted by dreadlocked treesitters. Hey that's a good idea, NJ needs to set aside some wilderness areas. With 1200 people per square mile that'll be interesting. Might be a little easier to do where there's actually some wild areas that aren't overpopulated yet. Planet earth.

Tom.. Hey my living room is roadless.. how bout yours? What if I stand on the street in front of my house -- is it stilll roadless if I leave the door open and can see my living room from the road? Is your living room roadless? What about your kitchen and bedroom? I suppose it depends on where you put your doors and stand on a road. Do they count our roadless rooms in the roadless acreage you hear about? My 7-year old knows how to use Google. Educate yourself. This was the first link that came up .. http://roadless.fs.fed.us/

 

[ELKCHSR]

Great come back green, and thoughtful to boot .... tsk... tsk...

 

[BuzzH]

Elkcheese said, "the intrinsic base values that made this country great in the first place"

Wilderness and public lands is what made this place great in the first place.

I agree.

 

[ELKCHSR]

How is it your tying the topic of Wilderness designations and that last comment you made together?

The "Wilderness" designations didn't come into passage until 1964 and was tied directly to the fact our economy as a nation being able to support the concept

It isn't cost effective now to keep up the drum beat, nor would it be good for the country as a whole to turn 50% into unusable land...

Sounds like a pipe dream with no sound footing

 

[Calif. Hunter]

This really getting good! I was laughing so hard I had to shut my office door....

 

[ELKCHSR]

Get some help to redo your last post Buzz???... LOL...

 

[Big Fin]

Especially those who are against the extraction industries

I come from a family of loggers and miners, so I would hardly qualfiy as anti-extraction. Yet, I am all for wilderness designations.

Most if not all who are against these industries, whine (even if not heard by others) about the rising costs of every thing these days

No whining from me. Get rid of subsidy and watch the price shoot up. Then watch consumption come back down to where it should be.

Unfortunately, this is because we are far too dependent on other countries to meet our needs and in the end are held hostage to the price whims for us to have those services or products

We are dependent because we have chickensht politicians who cannot provide incentives to get us off dependency of low-cost resource producers. Instead, they provide subsidies to companies that try to compete with low-cost foreign producers, bring our activites down to the lowest common demonimator. Sorry, I ain't supporting that one.

If the government got out of the business of subsidizing energy companies, energy prices would skyrocket for a while. Alternatives would become very attractive and capital would flow to those markets. Within a period of time, current energy producers would be sucking for air, and we would be export the energy technology we developed as a response to price increases in a market not manipulated by government (via those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo).

Are we dependent? Yes, but for obvious reasons other than those you state.

Until I see any here doing with out to ensure the stability of the nation so they can have the luxuries of mass non used land, then they are just talking out both sides of their mouths and are an evil to what makes this country great or even keeps us from being taken over by a country that wouldn’t have any problem utilizing every thing

I would argue that what makes this country great is the fact that we value other aspects of life, beyond profits. Don't agree, look to the conservation models of Russia and China. Hardly an example of a place any of us would consider "wise use" of resources. I have zero concern about being taken over by any one of the "world powers," unless we contine to act more like them, which we seem to be doing a good job of these days.

Each state should be required to supply (percentage of landmass per state) the same amount of wilderness as any other state

I'm on board with that idea. Lets say we start with 5% and work our way up from there.

If Montana, Alaska, Colorado, Wyoming, etc... have 5% of it's land tied up in "Wilderness" or like designations, all the rest need to follow suit before more is "TAKEN" away from those who already have quite a bit sitting fallow in such designations

Sign me up for that one also.

Heck, there is a number of states that don’t have any wilderness designations at all and I’m betting they were very wild at one time and could be brought back to their original state (Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island)

If they want to live in places without wildnerness, fine with me. Just don't #uck with the wilderness areas I hunt here in MT.

There are 702 actual wilderness areas in the U.S., how many of you have visited even 1/10th or even 1/100th of them for that matter?

I haven't counted, but I have hunted a lot of them. Probably getting close to 10%, or maybe even more.

For those of you who want more, use what you have first then come back with a larger request

Is this a comment pointed toward guys who hunt wilderness areas, or those who ruin landscapes withe government approval and subsidy?

There’ve been 12 new wilderness areas created since 2006, how many of these have you “proponents for wilderness” visited since inception?

They are:
Bald Mountain Wilderness, Becky Peak Wilderness, Bristlecone Wilderness, Goshute Canyon Wilderness, Government Peak Wilderness, High Schells Wilderness, Highland Ridge Wilderness, Mount Grafton Wilderness, Red Mountain Wilderness, Shellback Wilderness, South Egan Range Wilderness, White Pine Range Wilderness

I'm a non-resident, and I have been to almost half of them since 2005. I know they weren't passed until 2006. If NV will give me another tag, I will add another one to my list. I have spent over 35 days hunting/scouting northern and eastern NV in the last three years, and as much of it as possible in those areas you mention.

Including any and all on this board (I’m betting only a couple/few on this board have even seen more than a few weeks total in these areas)...

Over thirty days in just the last two hunting seasons. Let's see, NM, AK, MT, ID, UT, AZ. Hopefully CO this year. I would hunt WY wilderness areas, if not for their outfitter welfare law.

50% of the usable forests utilized by maybe ½ % of the population if not less...

Where did this % come from? My family of loggers knows that very little of the wilderness country is "harvestable" timber from a profit standpoint, without huge government investment (read subsidy). If it were econcomically feasible, it would have been logged at least once by now, and not have any wilderness designation. Where did the 50% number come from? I call B.S.

That is the epitome of elitists, especially since non of them or even the group as a whole is willing to fork over the $$$ to make up the difference of what would be lost...

I am willing to pay more. I certainly don't think I should piss away every thing I have enjoyed and let it be ruined by my generation just to keep the price artificially low, so demand can be artificially high. I want to provide similar experiences to my kids and grandkids. Just because in a world econonmy, some dumbass Ruskie or dipshit Chinaman wants to destroy everything in his country so he can be the low cost producer, doesn't mean we have to.

Take that ridiculous economic argument to its final concluson. Someday, maybe not in our lives, all the low-cost producers have ruined everything they have for the sake of making a few bucks today. What will they have then? Nothing. No resources, a wasteland. Your argument implies that we should follow that path. I disagree.


Chaser - Not trying to pick anything with you, but I have heard this line of logic many times. Call me a skeptic, but those who do not value wilderness and wild areas, usually are trying to get me to change my value system for their short-term economic gain, or to maintain the status quo that is benefiting them in some manner.

They wrap it in the veil of economic or energy dependence. Well, if we weren't subsidizing all these industries the way we are, the costs would be at the price the markets dictate. A much higher price. We would then be using a whole lot less of that resource or heaven forbid, we develop better and lower-cost alternatives. And we would be a lot less dependent on other countries for it. Example: 2004, Congress passed $60 Billion of tax subsidies to six big oil companies in the name of keeping prices lower. What happened? Gas here isn't any cheaper.

If those dumb ass foreign countries want to destroy everything that adds to what I consider quality of life, let them. Import the chit if they are that stupid to do it. I, for one, am not willing to sell my child's future down the tubes for the sake of lower resource costs.


Let the markets set the price and get the government the hell out of it. Only then will we see less consumption.

To use these economic arguments as a reason to be against wilderness areas, is not supported by econcomic principles.

It makes the argument that profits and lower costs are the only basis on which value is measured.

It implies that anyone who values something for other than a dollar, is wrong. Well, if it is wrong to value wilderness and quality of life, then just carve on my headstone, "Here lies Mr. Wrong."

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Honest question - how much more value is added to the average American's quality of life by wilderness areas?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Fin...

Good statement and to the point... Thanks...

I'm not going line by line as you did, takes to long

A post I made a while back asked the question "What is it that makes a country wealthy"

Or some thing close to

I'm not sure what economic arguments or points you’re referring to, but there is only one real answer to the question above

You would be the exception to statements made (there’s almost always an exception to a rule), and being this is your first post to this thread I would assume you already understand this

That being said, I don't think you have the trillions it would take to equal 'fair share' over the long haul nor would you be willing to donate any thing near "actual fair share"

Any way, I'm honestly happy that you’re one of the rare individuals who get to experience the wilds of America; close to all don't for what ever reason

 

[ELKCHSR]

I will add a little more trivia to this topic...

The total sq ml of designated wilderness land for the U.S. is 20,347.84

This doesn't count those areas that are pending...

Maybe as overall land mass of the U.S. is concerned, this doesn't amount to a heck of a lot, but as I sit here as an individual, that's a lot of country to explore!!!

 

[BillyGoat]

Texas is made up of 268,820 square miles, yet only has about 60 square miles of "wilderness." That's 0.02%
Montana is made of 147,165 square miles, and has 5,100 square miles of "wilderness." A whopping 3.46%

As a hunter, which model is best to follow?

Whichever has better opportunity to hunt these of course...

 

[BuzzH]

Of that 20,000 square miles...how many are in AK?

Either way, it isnt enough.

More wilderness is always the best bet.

 

[Big Fin]

Honest question - how much more value is added to the average American's quality of life by wilderness areas?

Cali:

I really don't know. For those who are not close by, probably not much.

For those of us in close proximity, a lot.

For me, I would not live somewhere without wilderness and the hunting it provides. I am not just talking about the actual chasing of critters in wilderness.

I am including that fact that our wilderness areas harbor herds that, when combined with other motorized travel restrctions, allow us to enjoy a 6 week archery general season, followed by a 5 week general rifle season, while maintaining herd quality.

How do you put a value on that?

I don't know, but I spend most of my time hunting and fishing with folks in MT, WY, ID, and other places, who could be making small fortunes in the bigger cities or more populated states. So, they are paying a lot for wilderness attributes. They sure aren't living here for the weather.

Here is how much I value it. When I moved here from Reno in 1990, I took a 50% pay cut and my wife, who was making a lot more money than I was at the time, went from $45K per year, with unbelievable fringes to a job that paid $7.00 per hour. The pay was so pitiful, that five years later, she folded up her briefcase and has since been Domestic Engineer - First Class.

That is how much we value wilderness and the opportunities provided by such. I am sure others have a much lower number and would think we are off our rockers, which we very well may be.

But, we are happy. Dumb and happy. Just the way we like it. hump

 

[BuzzH]

Cali Hunter,

Its tough to quanitify. How do you quantify your quality of life with clean air to breath and clean water to drink?

I mean, slightly polluted water and air probably wouldnt make that big of a difference to the average Americans quality of life. Yet, we dont allow drinking water to be even slightly polluted, have standards on air pollution, etc.

Whether or not clean air or water impacts my quality of life is debateable. What isnt debatable is that I'm real glad that there are standards and that I have those things.

Same with wilderness, I dont know how much wilderness impacts my quality of life. But I'm glad it exists and I'd be happier knowing there is more of it.

BigFin did a pretty darn good job of explaining it.