Idaho Wilderness facts

[Ithaca 37]

Here's an interesting letter from today's paper:

"Repeated misstatements about wilderness in Idaho were in a recent letter from Montana supporting Rep. Otter´s anti-wilderness bill. Let an Idahoan correct it.

Idaho no longer has the biggest wilderness in the Lower 48 states. California does, in Death Valley. Nor does Idaho have more wilderness than any states in the Lower 48 — California, Arizona and Washington have more wilderness.

The letter writer complains about the role of New Jersey and Connecticut congressional representatives in wilderness legislation. Forty-four states, out of 50, including New Jersey, have congressionally-designated wilderness. In addition, there are active wilderness efforts in 19 states, including Maine, Alabama, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

On public land, all Americans have a say; we live in a democracy, and we are all in this together. Allowing anti-wilderness special interests a way to stop wilderness designations, as Rep. Otter proposes, is not fair.

Idahoans, and others, are working to resolve wilderness issues. For our children and their children and generations to come, I want us to be successful.

Wilderness is a true family value — let´s keep it that way.

John L. Warren, Boise"

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Wilderness is a true family value "?
LOL if you happen to be rich enough to hire an outtfitter to take your whole family in there.
Or happen to own enough pack animal's to pack your own camp and whole family in.
Or wait untill your kid's are big enough to hike on there own and pack there own gear.
Or happen to be one of the greenie type's that get's a bigger kick out of the warm fuzzy (It make's feel good just knowing it's there).

I wonder how many Family's really get to enjoy what we now have? Mom ,Dad,and the kid's?
I also wonder if that guy that wrote that uses what we now have and take's his kid's?
Most outfitter's have a age requirment before taking kid's on a horse,that would leave alot of "family's" out of the loop right there.
Im happy for the wilderness we have ,but enough is enough.
http://www.sawtoothadventures.com/llamatreks.html#treks

How many people can afford to take trip's like these?


I also found
5-day pack trip $1578.00 per person
5-day fishing pack trip #1696.00 per person
Day trips for $163.00 per person.
Im sure when all is said and done these prices are a good deal,but what type of family does it cater to?
We need to have all type's of area's kept open for the wide range of "Family's" that are out there trying to teach family value's in a hand's on way,not creating more area's that will be off limit's to most people raising a family.
No to MORE wilderness

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-11-2003 09:12: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>

 

[Tom]

Isn't Idaho like 60% public land? I never heard what percentages are wilderness. Is that true Death Valley is the biggest now, not the Selway-Bitterroot? Where's a list of all the wilderness areas, anybody know?

 

[1_pointer]

MD- What about the role wilderness plays into society, as far as just knowing its there, or the filtering it plays for the headwaters of MANY of the major waterways and their tributaries, the 'refuge' it can provide for game animals from surrounding National Forests, or the fact that most of the alpine tundra in the lower 48 is in wilderness and is likely to be our biggest indicator of climate change (for warming or cooling)? Put a price tag on that.

WIlderness is free to access and use. All's it takes is two legs and the desire to walk it.

Backpack and camping gear $200+
Fourwheeler and camping stuff $5000+

You ask how many families use the available wilderness? How many visit all the national parks or forests, what about BLM? I bet the numbers are MUCH closer than you'd care to know.

Many wilderness areas allow the driving up to the border and then access to trails from their. How is that different from driving to a trailhead on National Forest?

Can you give me a reason other than the 'cost'(monetary) of experiencing wilderness or lack of access for motorized vehichles as a reason for not having wilderness? You love to do things for your children and grandkids, so what's wrong with placing some of the better wildlands is the highest protection available that still allows the things we love to do...hunt and fish!

 

[Ithaca 37]

Tom, Try this:

http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/default.cfm

1 pointer, Don't hold your breath waiting for answers to those questions from MD!!!

 

[Tom]

Thanks, I bookmarked it.

 

[Lostagain]

Tom== just a sidenote, in MT the scapegoat, the bob marshall, and the great bear wilderness areas count as three but are all in one unit. And before much longer they'll combine in the front on the east side of all that too.

 

[1_pointer]

LA- Do you see the combination as a good thing or a bad one? Just wondering.

 

[JoseCuervo]

MD4Me,
I have never understood the argument against Wilderness, that you have.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Wilderness is a true family value "?
LOL if you happen to be rich enough to hire an outtfitter to take your whole family in there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take my kids into the Frank Church Wilderness every year, and I do it because I am CHEAP. If we go in with a backpack, the only cost is the gas to get there, and the food, as everything else on my back, and in the pack, I own for hunting. There is nothing elite about backpacking.

When I take my kids down the Main Salmon in a raft, we are "rich" in the experience we have, but our trips are bargains. A week on the Main Salmon costs us $400. Try and book a Jetboat trip into the Polly B or Shep for that figure. I just sold my raft for $2400 and am buying a replacement Cat for $1100 for a Main Salmon trip this year, that does not sound to me like you have to be rich to experience the Frank Church. (And don't think for a minute, that the Frank is a Wilderness. There are roads, motorized vehicles, etc. etc.. all over the place. If you want to be in the Frank, and don't want to walk, there are plenty of options.)

My kids, when they sleep on a beach on the Main Salmon, on a $4 tarp from D&B supply, watching the Meteor showers are truly rich kids. When we pull a raft into an eddy, and silently sit and watch 8 Bighorn Rams eat their lunch, they are truly rich, and I believe we are creating "Family Values".

My guess is the average ATV sells for more than $5k each, and it usually takes 2 of them to even begin to equip a house. I am pretty sure I have no $10k toy budgets, and I think I have enough toys to keep me busy year round.

ATV owners are the rich ones.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Rich is really relative, you don't have to be "rich" to own things; you just have to have nice rich relatives that don’t mind sharing. No I am just kidding, you just have to set your priorities to owning what ever it is you want in this country and do what it takes to get there, my house just appraised at $51K and I am by no means rich, and this is not a fancy house, but I will own it free and clear in less than a year...

 

[Ithaca 37]

The way I look at it, you have to be rich to own ATVs, snowmobiles, color coordinated gas guzzling trucks and trailers to haul them all over with, to be able to take the time and spend the money to keep everything all maintained and running well, and pay the license fees and ins. on all of it.

For some people all that expense seems to be a priority over owning a house, but it means to me they have money to burn.

Using Wilderness is a true bargain. Backpack and hiking boots and anyone can enjoy the beauty, peace and quiet it just as well as some billionaire.

We'll always have people who are just too lazy to get their fat ass off a motorized vehicle and actually walk. That's no justification for allowing them to ride ATVs everywhere they feel like going.

Go out and price a couple of ATVs,
a trailer and a rig big enough to haul them around. Then think about what an extravagance they are if you only use them ten times a year.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-12-2003 09:19: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Muledeer4me]

Elkgunner,Im not against the wilderness areas.
Im just not in agreement that we need MORE.
I am for protection
of areas that need it and limiting or restricting ATV.
Not for closing off large area because some environmentalist doesnt want to see anyone except of foot.
Or the way I see some of these groups that want to force others to enjoy the outdoors in the same way they do it.

We have also done many of the rivers (we have owned three drift boats)that were use for doing whitewater,and all of our friends owned rafts,we liked the drift boat filled with floatation becaue it gave us more options.We also have friends that own jet boats & kayaks.
We never could afford to hire a outfitter for anything,so when we wanted to try something new ,we learned all we could ,then bought what we needed and did it as a family.We started with an old wood rogue river special that we had to repair and had a friend start us on the rogue river through Grants pass. (Our family was sure we were going to kill our son)
I agree being on the river and in the outdoors is one of the best things we can do for our kids.
Our son was raised doing all the same thing as us.
We as a family have hiked,hunted,fished,ran rivers in both rafts and our drift boats,Mt. Biked,owned horses,shot guns & Bows ,motorcycles,ATV,and Four wheel drive's.
We have enjoyed many days in the wilderness area.
I just dont want more.

1Pointer, I dont put going into our national parks and mouments in the same place as being able to access our public lands .
I dont need rick the ranger to point me to the outhouse.
Im am happy we have them,as I know for many people its the only way they feel safe,and it has protected some wonderfull places.
Right now we have something for almost everyone.
Its called multiple use.
While my family has been real lucky to be able to buy and enjoy many different thing's I understand it isnt that easy for everyone.
Not every family can afford back pack gear.
People didnt fight and die for this country so we could lock it up and look at it or give it over to the rich to use as there own private play ground.

With every toy we bought ,we had friends that could not afford to do the same.
They shouldn't be kept out because I or others precieve them as less because we were blessed with alittle more.
We have wilderness now,im in agreement its needed,we have roadless areas I like that,im not in agreement with the Clinton loving clan that wants more.

 

[Muledeer4me]

Damn ,I just found out Im rich

WoooooooHoooooooooooo .
I own a house ,a truck ,a trailer,two ATV,Mt. Bike's,guns,bows,cross country skis,back frames ,oh and the in-line skates.
So big deal ,we have worked our butts off to buy the toys we want.

Does that make us better then anyone else?
Or does that give us the right to force the rest of you into buying the same stuff we like?
No, it makes me no different and gives me no more rights to try to force you to like what I like ,as it gives you the right to try to force me to not have this stuff .
Its all just a choice we make.
But because at this point in my life ,I could afford to hire or buy alot of what I want ,it doesnt give me the right to tell others what they can afford or how they should be living or how they should be having fun.
It's about how much wilderness is enough.
Its about multipal use.
It's about having the right to choose,for me and for those of you that like the more natural PC gronala crunching thing's.

BRB, time to go to Starbucks for my grande double skinny vanilla latte

 

[Ithaca 37]

One of the main things the anti Wilderness crowd doesn't seem to be able to comprehend is that it's not possible to create MORE Wilderness. We've discussed it and explained it many times here in SI. Anyone who still refuses to try to understand the facts, or is incapable of understanding them, and continues to talk about creating "more Wilderness" is spreading misinformation, has no credibility and is irrelevant to the discussion.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-12-2003 11:02: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

MD,

It sounds like we value the same things, it is just somehow when you post them, it sounds like you don't enjoy the wilderness.

We are in agreement, that a day on the river is great for the family, MD says <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I agree being on the river and in the outdoors is one of the best things we can do for our kids <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

And I love to take my kids down the Main Payette. But even better than that, I love to take them down the Cabarton stretch of the North Fork, as it is just one more step removed from the highway, and the experience is a bit "rich"er. And then for a really good time, I take them down Hell's Canyon, which is even more remote. And then even better is the Main Salmon, exceed only by the Middle Fork. I have taken second graders down the Middle Fork, so I don't think there is any concern on having to wait too many years for kids to grow up and be old enough to enjoy Wilderness. (I don't think I would take a kid younger than 2nd grade on much of an ATV ride, so the argument that you have to wait for the Wilderness does not sound that convinicing.)

So we can agree that Wilderness does help build Family Values, and you don't have to be rich to enjoy Wilderness.

I think the disagreement we would have, is in the following MD quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have enjoyed many days in the wilderness area.
I just dont want more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I want many more days to enjoy, and you seem to have had your fill of enjoyable days.

And another way to look at the discussion is, if you have Wilderness designation, and it turns out in 75 years to have been a bad idea, you can reverse it. But, if you log an area, or you build an open pit mine, and it turns out to be a mistake, you are forcing generations beyond you to suffer thru the bad decision.

There is no risk in wilderness, but as Larry Craig refuses to understand, there is huge risk in mining or cutting timber.

Cheers,

er

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-12-2003 12:01: Message edited by: Elkgunner ]</font>

 

[Muledeer4me]

["We have enjoyed many days in the wilderness area.
I just dont want more."]

Elkgunner,what I meant was that im not for placing more areas under the most restrictive designation.

Im not done having more fun LOL Im up for that almost any time.

We also have done the Payette and parts of the south fork,Main Salmon (we spent alot of time in riggins ),Hells canyon,south fork of the boise river.
On year we did a river every week-end through the whole year,gotta love those wet suits.

Our son was riding horses with us at 8 mo. old.
He went to work with me driving an old dump bed truck hauling grain to the elevator when he was 2mo. old.
Our grandkids have been riding on the ATVs with us sence they were about 2 years old.
They love it,they both have fallen asleep while riding with us.
I know you dont have to be rich to have fun and kids can do almost anything with there parents.
I just have a problem with people trying to shove there green-ness up my butt

I think because I have done so many different outdoor things and have friends that are into a wide range of stuff ,I am more open minded when it comes to other people using public lands.
We have always mixed it up,owning horses and motorcycles at the same time.
Boats and horses ,Mt. Bikes and Motorcycles.
We did shuttles with both Mt Bikes and a motorcycle.
No matter what sport we have been in there have always been others that think there mode is the best and only mode for everyone.
I have never bought into that.
We all love the outdoors ,we all want to see it protected ,we just dont all have the same radical agenda and narrow minded view of what's OK and whats not as some people do.
I was one of those float boaters that didnt have a problem with the jet boat's using the river at the same time we were.

When I hike I dont have a problem seeing ATVs or motorcycles (as long as they are with-in the law.)
I know I can get away from them if I dont want to see that at all.
Im still able to use all that great wilderness we have in Idaho.
I still like having the choice to ride into some area's on my ATV or MT. bike and leave the truck in camp.

 

[JoseCuervo]

MD,
Thanks for clearing that up.... I thought maybe you were tired of enjoyable days. I didn't know if Prozac might help or not...

 

[1_pointer]

MD- I never mentions parks or monuments, I was referring to National Forests. BTW, you can still ride in either depending on the charter under which it is formed.

Gunner summed up my feelings to a T as to why I support more wilderness designations:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And another way to look at the discussion is, if you have Wilderness designation, and it turns out in 75 years to have been a bad idea, you can reverse it. But, if you log an area, or you build an open pit mine, and it turns out to be a mistake, you are forcing generations beyond you to suffer thru the bad decision.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The designation of a wilderness area can be removed in a day it the resources are needed or society values something different then. A landscape cannot heal as fast, period. Many wildlands are still suffering the effects of mismanagement or lack of knowledge used in management from my when they were first settled! I think the future of our hobby/sport/way of life would be better served protecting as much area as possible so as to give future generations the choice of how different areas are managed. Rather than just forcing them to live with our decisions! I think gunner is right on with those statements!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-12-2003 21:57: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There is no risk in wilderness, but as Larry Craig refuses to understand, there is huge risk in mining or cutting timber. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So does this mean you are for no cutting of timber at all, or any mining?
I don't know you, nore have I ever been to your house, but have you any idea of the amount of "THINGS" in your life that fully depend on the use of these two trades that I am guessing you take for granted in your life and so despise? You can dislike this type of industry all you want, but DO NOT be hypicritacal about those you dislike when you owe I would bet-almost your entire life and breath to!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Elkchsr,

I live in a "glass house", so the timber/mining argument doesn't apply, but I do have to be careful, not to throw rocks.....

Actually, I know there has to be timber cutting and mining, as both products are required for my lifestyle, as is drilling for petroleum.

And, I will give credit to the logging industry, for making progress, although it is begruding, in the methods being used. I am sure it has been a fight, tooth and nail, but the logging practices of today are a big step forward from 30 years ago, in terms of impact on the environment. My comments on Senator Craig are in respect to his lack of acceptance/acknowledment that this change so far has been good, or even been warranted.

And on mining, there is a mine up at Stibnite, that is now being proposed as an EPA SuperFund site, that was owned by a Canadian company. When they walked away, they forfeited their $250,000 bond, and now the US Citizens (you and me) are left to clean up a SuperFund site ($50million?) for the foreign company. Craig's comments? --The Mining Act of 1872 is still effective and relevant, no changes needed.--

Even in my short lifetime, the Stibnite mine in Idaho changed an area where I used to hunt and fish into one I can't enjoy anymore. And I take it personally, as my family has property and history in the area downstream from Stibnite, close to Yellow Pine. I used to eat smoked salmon on my grandpa's knee, caught out of the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River, downstream from the mine area.

I personally feel logging can be done, in a manner without impact to Idaho's few remaining Salmon and Steelhead. I also believe it can be done without costing the Forest Circus any money (since I am a Taxpayer, that is actually my money.)

Mining is a bit tougher, as I have seen no examples of mining that don't impact the watersheds in a negative way. I believe ALL the major EPA Super Fund sites in Idaho are mining related, except for the INEEL and Mt Home Air Base. (Keeping in mind, my limited view of the world as someone who only hunts Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, Alaska, and soon Nevada and Arizona, and only spends 30+ nights per year in a sleeping bag).

I posted on another topic, one time, if there was some sort of acceptance of mining, in Wyoming and Montana, that was different than the prevailing attitude in Idaho, based on more reliance of mining for $$$ in Wy and Montana. Nobody commented, so I don't know. Just a theory....

You can log or mine all you want, just don't kill a single Salmon or Steelhead of mine, or cost me a single $ to subsidize your activity, and I will probably be fine with the activity. It seems simple, but our Senior Senator from Idaho struggles with the idea.

Cheers,

er