HR 1581 and the RMEF

[shoots-straight]

Just for the record, prior to the wolf explosion and poor elk management by our previous biologist, these areas that you are showing were tremendous elk hunting areas. Their elk density was way beyond what most wilderness areas carry. Multiple use doesn't mean poor elk hunting any more than wilderness guarantees good elk hunting. There are a lot more factors involved.

Just for the record also, The West Fork of the Bitterroot HD 250 is next to the largest Wilderness area's in the lower 48. Bordered on it's entire West Edge. That's also it's downfall. You could wipe out every predator in one year, and the next it would be right back where it was before. The West Fork has thousands of inventoried roadless lands (The Allen Mountain area is just one) that kept the elk hard to get.

The East Fork, up until the Fire's of 2000 had some great cover, and with the Anaconda Pintler , the Big Hole , and the upper Rock Creed elk herds all migrating to HD270 was an outstanding district. The last Bio caused this slide, but he got his ideas and direction from the State Legislature.

 

[Oak]

FYI - RMEF has sent out emails that they officially revoked their support of HR 1581

Here it is.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation today announced it has withdrawn its support for H.R. 1581.

RMEF President and CEO David Allen will respectfully inform the bill’s authors and supporters that RMEF cannot endorse the bill because of its potential negative impacts to roadless areas.

Allen said responses and feedback from RMEF members and a review of the scientific literature led to the withdrawal.

“We strongly believe in managing habitat to its best condition for elk. Along with controlling invasive weeds, managing forests, restoring grasslands and riparian zones, another element of habitat that’s growing in importance is roads. The roadless-area impacts of H.R. 1581 include too many unknown risks for us to remain supportive,” said Allen.

The fundamental concern with H.R. 1581 is its attempt to deal with “inventoried roadless areas” administered by the U.S. Forest Service alongside “wilderness study areas” administered by BLM. The complexities of different land designations—by two different agencies with unique and historic policies on use—prevent a one-size-fits-all approach.

Allen said, “We believe the proponents of H.R. 1581 are well intentioned and have restarted a necessary debate on best designations for public lands. If a parcel is suitable for wilderness, then it’s imperative to designate it as such. If not, then the best science-based land and habitat management practices should be applied. Neither this bill nor the status quo are acceptable paths to resolving the problem. RMEF will revisit these issues with the BLM, Forest Service, Congress and sportsmen for a better solution.”

Federal and state agencies have been gridlocked too long in litigation and lawsuits from special interest groups and environmentalists, with land and habitat suffering the consequences. Allen called on all sportsmen to support a balanced, collaborative approach to management. He said RMEF watched the litigation and court maneuverings with the wolf debate for years, and now sees similar tactics being applied to public land management. RMEF will push for what is best for the land and the habitat.

He added, “RMEF listens to its members and is guided by science. We reversed our original non-stance on wolves four years ago and we’ll always be willing to revisit our positions and processes to do what’s best for our mission. The debate over use of public lands is far from resolved and we will continue to engage the debate for the sake of the future of these lands.”

The mission of RMEF is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat.

 

[Bambistew]

I wouldn't have expected anything less from such a worthless organization. I'm glad I canceled my membership about 15 years ago.

 

[Moosie]

As with all of Buzz's post over the years, he's a d|ckhead..... But he's right, and that's why I love him. Not meaning to leave out the rest of you Yahoots

Carry on internet soldiers !!

 

[tjones]

FYI - RMEF has sent out emails that they officially revoked their support of HR 1581

Thats the power of the RockyDog. Good job Barri!

 

[Ben Long]

I just want to set one thing straight: RMEF DID call me back, after a few days. The COO and I had a lively, but gentlemanly, discussion on the merits of 1581. then I went on vacation. When I returned I learned that RMEF had wised up and turned around on this legislation. Thanks to all.

 

[kansasdad]

In the interest a complete record....... well done for completing the rest of the story.

 

[1_pointer]

BLM ground requires more mechanized treatments because of more soil disturbance from past grazing practices, loss of sagebrush, aspen, etc, road density, weeds, O&G development and drought.

I'd be interested to hear your point of view, 1 pointer, on the necessity for wilderness treatments v/multiple use land treatment.

I wouldn't say BLM ground 'requires' more treatment, I just believe that in many cases proactive management though treatment is a better strategy that a completely hands off approach, which is pretty much what is required in WIlderness. IME, which some here like to point out is somewhat narrow , wilderness can prohibit treatments that can maintain/improve the habitat of an area. I've seen this first hand in looking are rehab efforts inside and adjacent to wilderness/WSA boundaries. It's pretty easy to tell which allowed the use of mechanical means. I do agree that this is not the case everywhere, but where I worked where cheatgrass was a BIG issue it was the case. The same can be said for juniper encroachment. It's much cheaper and easier to find a contractor to treat 1000ac of junipers with a bullhog outside of a wilderness than one to use only axes to do the same work in one...

While I don't discount that the uses you mention have not caused changes to habitat, in many cases I feel that those things can be reversed or at least slowed with proactive management. That management 'toolbox' can be quite small in wilderness areas. I personally believe that habitat/veg. condition (not the same thing BTW) should be a consideration in wilderness designation. I also feel that some exceptions need to be in place in wilderness/wsa to maintain them.

 

[Sytes]

I wouldn't be so quick to crucify RMEF.

In much of the publics view...a WSA sends the message of: we will take the publics land away from them. It is a great way to lock it up and do little with it. No snowmobiles because snowmobiles ruin everything and you suck if you do it. WSAs keep 99% of the population out because most people stay very close to a vehicle. We can let it burn or let it turn into dead fall because dead fall makes great habitat for elk and only stupid hunters hunt in deadfall. Government doesn't want you in wilderness areas so get out. Lock it up and let it rot. Under penalty of such and such stay out or we'll put you in jail and take this and that away from you. This is yours but don't touch. Some New Yorker is telling us what we can and can't do with land in our back yard. etc. There are lots of bad views of WSA in the publics eyes.
Heck, I get all worked up over this crap about needing a filming permit on land you and I own. Don't even get me started.

Filming permit is for commercial use / intent... correct? I support that.
IMO, it is good to have land safe from the mechanized vehicles / devices... Retains an area for those not wanting to hear atv's ripping down some trail... or off the trail as some find fitting.
Snowmobiles - meh, I believe the bad snowmobilers (too many to count) gave a SOLID back eye to those who respect everyones land.
From my perspective - I value our land safe from such and appreciate some land staying as true to form as possible. There is a VAST amount of areas that are abused as it is with people failing to comply with use of our land in areas they are able to ride...
Just my two cents worth. We all have our perspectives.

 

[RockyDog]

1_pointer - I agree with you that mechanized land treatment would be more efficient. However that assumes this magical treatment will be done, 98% of the lands have already been roaded and there are millions of square miles of land near roads that are infested with cheatgrass, knapweed, etc. I dont see anyone clamoring to "manage" the currently roaded areas better. "Better Management" is just an urban myth that people are fooled into believing by people who want oil, gas, timber and motorized use in the last pristine areas.

I have thousands of square miles of multiple use national forest near my home that is a knapweed forest and much of it burns in wildfires every year as does the backcountry. Im less familiar with BLM wilderness but have been in the Breaks areas and there seems to plenty of overgrazed, weedy BLM lands around the roads.

 

[sweetnectar]

I believe BLM's management plan for wilderness has provisions for weed control but they have to use methods that don't disturb or minimize all disturbance and write 43 reports and plan and talk about it for a few years before deciding to spend 10 times the amount of money it would have taken to get her done. By then the knapweed has blown seed everywhere.
Did I mention I hate knapweed? It doesn't take a road to spread it. Wind can carry the seed for miles. Animals can also be carriers. Roads are bad because any disturbed soil makes it easier for any weed to take root. Weed infestations following fires can be a big threat as well as bare soils aid in weed establishment. But like I mentioned I think weed control is in the management rules for BLM wilderness...same with grandfathered things like: old mining, oil/gas, motorized vehicle use on some existing roads, stock tanks, and grazing.

 

[old man]

if those groups are for it, we should all be for it as well. they know more about what it means than most of us do.

 

[1_pointer]

RD- I don't disagree with you. All I was trying to relate, is that Wilderness/WSA designation can inhibit certain types of management and that sometimes those options could have prevented or mitigated a problem. Regarding weed control specifically, I know where I worked if an area wasn't accessible by a truck/atv odds are it didn't recieve much, if any, attention. Knapweeds a tough nut as it generally takes multiple years of treatment to even keep it from spreading, let alone get rid of it. Actually, the best way we were able to get ahead of it was, if possible, to burn it and then drill seed more desireable species. On years where the weather allowed good establishment this worked better than I would have thought.

SN- Yes, weed control can be done in wilderness areas on BLM, but the agency still has to follow the travel/mechanical guidelines. An exception can be granted, as is sometimes done for fire suppresion, but IME most managers are reluctant to do so. They didn't want to set a precendent that the public would follow. Regarding paperwork for weed control, where I worked the whole field office, all 3.2million acres, was covered under 1 NEPA document that was done annually. Once completed all weed control methods spelled out could then be applied immediately to any infestation. Problem was having the $$ and manpower to get to all of them in a timely manner...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Problem was having the $$ and manpower to get to all of them in a timely manner...

The 8th sister.

I've always looked at the issuance of exceptions in Wilderness areas differently than a lot of other folks in that the Act provides for the flexibility, so why not take it when absolutely applicable?

There has been a push by the FS to treat weeds in wilderness areas, but they've been met with litigation. Not sure where that is now.

I wouldn't say BLM ground 'requires' more treatment, I just believe that in many cases proactive management though treatment is a better strategy that a completely hands off approach, which is pretty much what is required in WIlderness. IME, which some here like to point out is somewhat narrow , wilderness can prohibit treatments that can maintain/improve the habitat of an area. I've seen this first hand in looking are rehab efforts inside and adjacent to wilderness/WSA boundaries. It's pretty easy to tell which allowed the use of mechanical means. I do agree that this is not the case everywhere, but where I worked where cheatgrass was a BIG issue it was the case. The same can be said for juniper encroachment. It's much cheaper and easier to find a contractor to treat 1000ac of junipers with a bullhog outside of a wilderness than one to use only axes to do the same work in one...

In regardst o wilderness, the entire concept is to let nature be the "judge" for lack of a better word. Weeds in wilderness are a problem in certain areas, but I also don't think the problem is as wide spread as it is on private or BLM/state lands due to the inherent difficulty in putting too many people in a confined space. My mileage is certainly varied from yours. Interesting observations.

What's the overall cost per acre on mechanical treatment vs fire/wilderness management? I've always understood wilderness to be the cheapest form of land management in a broad sense.

 

[1_pointer]

Ben-

I agree that if the flexibility is given it could/should be exercised. I didn't get to make that decision and it wasn't, I think in part due to fear of litigation. I agree, that weeds probably aren't as widespread in many areas, but I worked on three WSAs (one is new designated) that are highly impacted by cheatgrass. As you are well aware, fires in areas with cheatgrass can often result in a monoculture of the stuff. No wilderness characteristics are affected by the vegetational change, but the habitat goes in the tank. Some areas outside these WSAs are in great shape due to stabilization/rehabilitation efforts that can be more than aerial broadcast seeding and hope. That mileage is much different than what I've seen in the Frank Church.

Wilderness is the cheapest form of land "management" (I have a hard time considering doing nothing management ), I'd guess. In some areas, I think that type of management works great! I know of some non wilderness areas that it works well on as well. But, in areas with vegetational/habitat problems it can be an issue and IMO cause more harm than good.

Just the ramblings of a has been...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I always try to learn from my betters.

Have you seen anything from DOI or USDA on changing the way that weeds can be managed in wilderness/WMA's? I've been trying to track down as much info as possible, but seem to be running in to the federal gov'ts version of a chinese finger trap, i.e. their websites.

 

[1_pointer]

I haven't seen anything or knew of anything coming down the pike prior to my leaving BLM. I'm not longer in a position to hear about those things. I'd call the BLM state office and talk to their weed specialist.

I've long said, that the agencies would be further ahead to higher someone from the porn website industry to advise them on how to set up a website!