House bill moving forward to allow bikes in Wilderness

[JLS]

PM’s, emails, “private support” and “underground conversations” about other HT guys?

Weird stuff right there. Good luck Fin.

It’s the deep state.

 

[BuzzH]

Sytes,

The only one continuing to debate is you...the act speaks for itself.

Permanent structures, bridges, trails, even water development structures, mining, grazing, aircraft, motor boat use, were all grandfathered in as part of the special provisions.

Its funny that you claim to "read and read, and research", yet you fail to acknowledge those facts. At that point, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, you are no longer trying to learn anything.

Here, for your continued education on wilderness:

Little Creek guard station, in the middle of the Frank.

Across the middlefork of the Salmon, which you cross via a very nice bridge you'll find an airstrip where airplanes land all the time.

Airplane just downstream of little creek maybe 8-9 miles, on the Mahoney Airstrip:

Another head scratcher and violation according to you? Cold Meadows, also in the middle of the Frank:

Cold meadows Guard Station:

Telephone booth, predates the wilderness act, also grandfathered headwaters of Trapper Creek at Coyote Springs middle of the Frank...another violation? Don't think so.

Water mill that generates electricity upstream of little creek at a private lodge in the middle of the Frank:

You're just flat wrong about your interpretation but continue to fight a losing battle, you're making yourself look foolish.

We live in a time and place where lawsuits are a dime a dozen, even the most hard core wilderness advocates realize and comprehend the special provisions found in 4 (d) 1-7...its all there. Exactly why places like little creek, cold meadows, big prairie, all have permanent structures. Why grazing and mining are still allowed. Why airstrips are still being used. Why bridges are still there. And also why the wilderness advocates aren't rushing to the nearest federal court to file lawsuits on those grandfathered special provisions.

You're in denial of the facts with the most perfect misunderstanding of the Wilderness Act...and your interpretation is just wrong.

It happens, just admit it and move on...if you can.

 

[Sytes]

Buzz, it is clear trails, structures and bridges exist. I never questioned such was/is present. I do question whether the modern structures, bridges SHOULD exist. I was not aware airplanes and landing strips were permitted until digging further. I disagree with that as well.
Many threads here deal with acts, regulations and laws that we may disagree with. It's part of discussing such topics. Learning more on such topics and debating such topics.

I've worked the Wilderness in your neck of the woods. I've stayed at several FS cabins such as Hawks Rest, etc... I've built a few small bridges, cut many a deadfall with crosscuts and mostly enforced griz regulations with Outfitter and private camps within the Wilderness.
Heck, come to think of it, I won an 870 shotgun from Dubois Outfitter Assoc. However amidst all that, I never read the Wilderness Act until a few years ago and that was the simple Bullchit version of untrammeled by humans, undeveloped and primeval...
However, the bike crap got the thoughts going on this and here we are discussing the "developed" lands, learning so developed that airplanes and airstrips are an exception... Not for emergency use only however for the casual "primitive" landing of Cessnas with our Wilderness protected lands.

It is what it is... I get that though people often find disagreements with laws... Such as corner crossing. It's a horsechit trespass law or Rob's Crazy Mountain trek along a legal trail to our land.

You find it fine flying and landing on our Wilderness protected land as it fits with humans conforming to the primeval natural status of such. Hey, it's a protected Act therefore it must be right...

 

[tjones]

It’s the deep state.

Or 8th grade girls.

 

[Straight Arrow]

There are the breast pocket versions of the Wilderness Act and the US Constitution, with narrow personal literal interpretations for which folks are willing to "go to the mat" in defending ... then there are the more defined, refined, historically, and judicially interpreted and firmly established real versions to which most of the world adheres. I submit to you that if you adamantly advocate for the former, then you are in for continuously disappointing realizations which firmly establish the latter.

 

[Sytes]

There are the breast pocket versions of the Wilderness Act and the US Constitution, with narrow personal literal interpretations for which folks are willing to "go to the mat" in defending ... then there are the more defined, refined, historically, and judicially interpreted and firmly established real versions to which most of the world adheres. I submit to you that if you adamantly advocate for the former, then you are in for continuously disappointing realizations which firmly establish the latter.

I'm enjoying the research after finding what you describe above as almost absolute truth. There is a great deal of content behind the general quotes for the Wilderness Act. A certain lesson learned, indeed. It's a fascinating subject that a few people and I have dug in and basically began "chasing the rabbit..."

Take for example, Wilderness Watch v. Mainella.

in Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, a case involving the use of motor vehicles
to transport tourists across a wilderness area in order to provide access to historic sites,
the Eleventh Circuit rejected the National Park Service's argument that the reference to
"historical use" in the Wilderness Act establishes the preservation of historical structures as
a goal of the Wilderness Act. 375 F.3d 1085, 1091 (11th Cir.2004). The Eleventh Circuit
noted that the mention of "historical use" in Section 4(c) came at the end of a list that also
referred to "recreational, scenic, scientific, 1073*1073 educational, [and] conservation"
uses. Id. at 1092.

On the Circuit's reading, this list related back to the prior definition of
wilderness areas in Section 2(c), which describes "an area of undeveloped Federal land
retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation" that "may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value." Id. The Circuit concluded that "given the consistent
evocation [in the Wilderness Act] of `untrammeled' and `natural' areas, the previous pairing
of `historical' with `ecological' and `geological' features, and the explicit prohibition on
structures, the only reasonable reading of `historical use' in the Wilderness Act refers to
natural, rather than man-made, features." Id. (emphasis added)
.
The Eleventh Circuit's reasoning on this issue was cited approvingly by this District in
Olympic Park Associates v. Mainella, a 2005 case involving the question of whether the
National Park Service violated the Wilderness Act when it decided to replace two collapsed
trail structures in the Olympic Wilderness. 2005 WL 1871114 at *1. The Park Service had
built replica structures outside of the wilderness, and planned to airlift them into the
wilderness with helicopters. Id. The Park Service argued that its decision was justified
because replacing the shelters would advance the "purposes of cultural resource
protection" in wilderness, and because the shelters were eligible for listing on the National
Register for Historic Places. Id. at **5-6. In rejecting these rationales, this court found
"persuasive" the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, and rejected
the Park Service's argument that placing a man-made structure in wilderness advanced
"cultural resource protection," stating that:

While the former structures may have been found to have met the requirements for historic preservation, that conclusion is one that is applied to a man-made shelter in the context of their original construction and use in the Olympic National Park. Once the Olympic Wilderness was designated, a different perspective on the land is required. Regarding the Olympic Wilderness, that perspective means `land retaining its primitive character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.'
Id. at *6 (citing 16 U.S.C § 1131(c)).

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm enjoying the research after finding what you describe above as almost absolute truth.

Once again you are misinterpreting / misstating language. I can only guess that what you refer to as "absolute truth" is what is above-referred to as "firmly established real versions" or, in a word, reality. Your consistently narrow personal interpretation of the written language of the Act is what is sending you down the rabbit hole "chasing the rabbit ... ". Everyone has to be somewhere all the time ... so I strongly support your right and privilege to be digging in whatever hole you deem worthy of effort. Double-shovel carry on.

 

[onpoint]

Some folks can get very comfortable in a hole....

Some guys convince others to help dig the hole....

lot's of people are fascinated by watching a hole get dug....

Gotta' just laff sometimes.......................

 

[Gr8bawana]

Carry on...

 

[Sytes]

Onpoint, I stock value at your time spent digging out pics etc... I'll save you time and give you a heads up when I reach China. A pat on your back as well. Cheers to ya.

Straight Arrow, seems we are viewing this from different perspectives. I'll double shovel away towards the interesting aspects regarding untrammeled and undeveloped within our Wilderness or as various litigation and court rulings present the overreach for human interest over primitive Wilderness.
I respect we disagree. It is after all an internet forum where someone's always wrong. And if I'm that person to you and other vocal members here, more power to you and those of like mind.

 

[tjones]

 

[Gr8bawana]

 

[Ben Lamb]

 

[onpoint]

View attachment 79848

Winner!

I spent 33.7 seconds digging up the photos - I am an interwebnet expert.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I respect we disagree.

Me too ... and concede that often disagreement and ensuing discussion is healthy. However, excessiveness often leads to problems. I'm pretty sure we have agreement in opposing bikes in the wilderness, so it's not a case of polar opposition. It seems to me most of this contentious back and forth boils down to ideology versus reality.