Idaho Wilderness facts

[Dick Reece]

Reading through this thing this AM,here's my two cents. We don't have any "true" wilderness here in WV, with few exceptions.Anyhow,we don't have anything like you boys out West have. If any of you wish to see what the effects of timbering and strip mining are,hell,come right over and I'll show you.I guarantee you,you won't like it! And as Elkgunner said, once you've done it,you can't hardly undo it.It's kinda like the old adage about being careful what you shoot at,cause you can't take the bullet back once it leaves the barrel.I wish they had left things a lot more like they used to be than they are now. A lot of stupid things have been done in the name of progress.

I've got buddies with 4 wheelers who zip all over this state on backtrails in our forests and hills [ I've learned not to call them mountains around you all

].They claim it's great,saying they find all kinds of new areas to hunt.What they fail to realize is,sooner or later because the 4 wheeling community has such easy access,those turkey and deer won't be there anymore,they'll be dang near killed out,in just a matter of years.And to beat it all, it'll be mostly buttheads with 4 wheelers and auto rifles who shoot at running game without even getting off the 4 wheeler doing the killing.I am all for making any hunting property accessible by foot,horse,or bicycle only,we've lost enough of this great country to greedy corporations already.

Elkgunner, you should give serious consideration to writing about the outdoors, you'd be really good at it.You are eloquent,and that ain't an insult.

MD, if you're still paying for all that color coordinated gear, you ain't rich

!!

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While yes I will agree to a large part that the taxpayer should not have to pay for logging and mining, the simple fact of the matter is that we as a people want so many things. Clean every thing, to see areas that have been logged or mined with out a single plant disturbed or rock turned over. But it all is that it comes down to $$$. I don't like seeing a clear-cut or strip mine any more than the next person, but the few things I just mentioned cost major big bucks to implement and fix, that extra cost has to come from somewhere. There is only so much money in raw material and the profit margin on most operations really isn't all that great if it is there at all. I don't personally agree or condone clear cutting, my own experience with the timber industry, shows that one can log an area way more often if selective thinning takes place, than wholesale clear cutting, and over the long haul, more product off of the same ground can be taken if done in this way. But it does cost more to do it this way and be careful not to damage the next upcoming crop, than it does to just come in and strip it. One wouldn't even need to replant as much either, the trees that are left are usually enough to sustain an area (at least the areas I worked in the past). But that is not the rules, the rules are clear cut, prep, replant, lay to bed the roads, make responsible to the logging company for a set amount of years the planted trees set, thin the area over time (2-4 times), build new roads into the area then re-log, after fighting the court systems and doing the paper work (plus labor and a host of other things not mentioned).
I have seen that the areas around the Salmon area on the mining part go to the extreme on making sure the ground is put back to original, except for the lay of the land, the top soil is put back and they even make them put the same species of plants back in the same general location as original (this is on their gold extraction).
What I am saying here is the general public wants a lot of things done and there is only so much money in the raw products. The money for the extras has to come from somewhere. If you buy a car or what ever and have get it as a stripped down version, you only get the car, but if you want a lot of extra’s, the extras might cost more than you paid for the car as a whole. The FS is required to some degree to make sure the raw products of this country are put to use, that is their primary job and the reason they were brought into existence in the first place. I could sit here and type volumes of stuff on this subject and have in the past, and will probably in the future, I just hope that you expand your vision on this subject and look at the whole picture, and not just on what you can visually see. There is a lot to it, not the simple thoughts that come to most people on that which they see thru the windshield of their vehicle as they pass thru an area...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Elkchsr,

Again, my comments were about the distinguished Senior Senator from Idaho, the Honorable Larry Craig,(R-Idaho) and his lack of ability to see the failings of the Mining Act of 1872 and his lack of support for laws passed in his congress.

The foreign company coming to Idahome, creating an EPA Superfund mess, and then leaving the USofA, with no responsibility beyond their $250k bond is un-defensible to me. There is now a beautiful stretch of river that can not be fished, and the last time I archery hunted up in that area, I let a Buck walk, as I could not, in good consciense, feed the meat to my family. At that point, I realized the area below Stibnite was changed forever, and the Senator said it was ok.

The clean up of this area will now be paid by me, and by you, and by people in Florida, and people in Maine, and those in Texas, while the benefit was reaped by people in another country. You can not convince me that I am unable to see the big picture on this. And I would be incredulous if you or any hunter/taxpayer were in disagreement with this.

And I understand there is a cost to logging in a way that does not violate the law, but we as a society have decided, thru our elected representatives, to pass a law that says you can not kill wild Salmon and Steelhead in Idaho. The law also prevents any agency of the government from doing it. So, we as a society must pay for the costs of the law, if we value it.

I also believe the market will pay more for the timber, if required, based on free market prinicples like Supply and Demand. If somebody in Montana or Canada can cut a log cheaper than somebody in Idaho, who is complying with the law, then my guess is the Market will demand the logs from Montana or Canada.

But, I don't believe it is the Government's job to create Welfare Loggers by subsidizing their costs. That is where I do not want my extra dollars going. I do not think the government is efficient in taking money from my pocket and providing welfare in the form of subsidizing timber cutting in Idahome. And every study I have read, says that most Timber Sales in Idahome do not cover the costs incurred by the Forest Circus, thus creating welfare.

And I appreciate your concern for me being able to eventually see the big picture, but I seem to be going the other way. I just want My Own Private Idaho, where I can pursue Elk to my heart's content, catch Salmon until my Smoker is full, and play Steelhead until my arm is tired.

Cheers,

er

 

[JoseCuervo]

PC Mech,

Thanks for calling me eleoquent. I would have responded quicker, but it took me a couple of hours to find that big word in the Dictionary....

I thought about starting another topic, the other day, on Hunting Magazines, and if anybody subscribes to them, which ones they like. I seem to have cancelled all my subscriptions as the writing has morphed into 4 page long advertisements in most cases.

And I have thought about doing some outdoor writing, as it would be a great way to live, but unfortunately, at this time in my life, I have seemed to become somewhat accustomed to my current standard of living, as I enjoy food on the table.

Last fall, I started to write the story of our Elk hunt, but soon became dissappointed, as I think I was writing in a style of the magazines on the grocery store shelf, where I tried to drop names in the story (Remington 700, Leupold VariX-III, etc..etc..).and then gave up.

I should have just went with:
It is not the hootin' and hollerin' around the fire that is the loudest, it is the unspoken bond of Elk Camp that is most clearly heard.......

If you want some more good outdoor reading, go check out
4 Pages of Fun.....

er

 

[Dick Reece]

heck, you can always do it on the side,even a paragraph a night will get you a small book in a year ? I have often thought about it myself, but don't have enough real life experiences to warrant a book,at least not in the trophy section.

I've often thought of writing fiction though,which in a way would be easier because you could then draw from real life experiences and then add to them. Right now I don't subscribe or buy any magazines, as you say,they are all ads.

I'm really getting into the idea of predator hunting here,there are a lot of bobcats,coyotes and foxes around here.So I've been thinking of subscribing to one of those or joining an organization along the same lines and getting a free mag in the bargain.The nice thing here about predator hunting is that you can do it year round,and the only reason I fish at all is because there were no all year long hunting seasons.

Also,those 4 pages were interesting,where's Moosie putting all his stuff

?

I used to have a blow up doll,I miss her too....one night she farted real loud and flew out the window,hadn't seen her since

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-13-2003 10:22: Message edited by: PC Mechanic ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

I think we are all in agreement on the need for wilderness areas. The real problem is the defacto areas, those areas that are not designated as wilderness but the agencies are treating as such. Don't we all want a chance to comment on these areas? Don't you think with a bit of comment most of us would, in fact MAKE those areas into wilderness?
With the congress and the public's input those areas would then be wilderness and every extractive activity would be not at the whim of envirowacko lawsuits. That is the real problem with folks in the west, the loss of control or reason to the management of these areas. We have no clue what is going to happen at the judicial level, just a bunch of wacko lawyer groups that have figured out how to make a living from us.

BTW, 1== these three true wilderness areas MIGHT be better managemed as one unit instead of three. The problem then would be public perception of "this great big wilderness area", and that might be worth benefits.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-13-2003 13:18: Message edited by: Lostagain ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

Well Gunner, while well stated about the "Welfare loggers", the logging part is not what is being subsidized as you are lumping the moneys tax payers are paying towards the logging end of things, as I alluded to before, the extra money's paid, are moneys for the extra things, the accessories if you please, that are made necessary for the job to be completed to the exacting standards that have been set by writ or mandate. These are the things that I keep mentioning that have made it so that the extraction end of things can be accomplished, logging on it’s own with a few things added in can pay for itself, but non of this can sustain itself in the current market and with all the added frills...
The governing body looks at more things than just what they have to pay out, they look at the tax dollars brought in by the work that is being done and that is never added to the whole picture...
How much is the state making by having the sale in the first place, by the taxes paid for equipment, fuel, labor, housing, clothing, fees etc...
These costs never (I would tend to believe unless shown other wise) are added into what the state say's it pay's out, this would if done, bring the pay-out of the government down, and probably show a net profit in the end. Other wise there would be no money to do this stuff in the first place...
I also would add, that if people in Fl. or NY. wants to help dictate rules in the individual states that these resources reside, then they should be required to help foot what ever the bill on any extra's that have been added to the equation. Now if beuaroctrats that are in charge of the decisions go on their own and let things slip thru the cracks like this over pollution of the Salmon River, then they should be held personally accountable, either with jail time, fines, or by the ballot box…

 

[Lostagain]

tht's true that the REAL TOTAL costs and real total revenues aren't figured in what the agencies' say what they "lose" on their programs.

 

[1_pointer]

What would be your opinion to the gov. doing the logging, ranching, etc on public lands? All profits would go for further management or other needs of the agency in charge.

 

[ELKCHSR]

That would be a total farce, it is well known and documented that what ever the gov touches costs way more than if private enterprise does it...

 

[tmsander]

Since, according to MD4M's logic, wilderness areas force the "Blue Ribbon Coalition-type" people to behave in accordance with how the "green" group wants them to, than wouldn't it be true that all the non-wilderness areas force the "green" groups to enjoy the land as the "Blue Ribbon Coalition-types" dictate? To be fair, then, shouldn't the wilderness/non-wilderness percentage mimick the atv/hike population percentage? Guess we need a LOT more wilderness, then.

 

[Ithaca 37]

tm, Good point!!!

How about 26,000 welfare ranchers forcing all the rest of us to contend with piles of cow shit all over BLM?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-14-2003 08:10: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

I am proud of the fact that our country can afford to protect the wilderness that we have. Speaking as a minority member of the U. S. population that actually enjoys using our wilderness, we may want to consider leaving well enough alone. Wilderness is wilderness only because the land is not economically feasable to use any other way. With new technology, increased demand, and decreasing supply, this land may become economically feasable in the future. I sure don't want to lose it. How can we lose it? If the majority of Americans become upset with the enviromental extremist who only want more and more wilderness. If enough Americans become unemployed and see the remaining wilderness as opportunity we could lose. Let's be thankful for what we have, and work hard to keep it protected for ever. Balance is the key. Trying to hold up in court timber harvests or other land uses, simply because it is adjacent to wilderness areas is not balance, and is not give and take, and will someday jeopordize the wilderness we hope to protect. My .02 cents.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- Are you afraid that groups working toward more wilderness designations are 'crying wolf' (pun intended) too often?

Though I can see your point, I think it may be better to designate as much wilderness as possible while it is possible. It is not irreversible, yet may offer protection to some lands while it is still possible. It is my belief that we are at a unique time in human history where we have the luxury of preserving/conserving land without degrading our standard of living. This has definitely not always been the case and may not be in the future.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Good points, I don't think I would try and mention to get more Tyler, there just doesn't seem to be the funds to manage what we have now. But to presurve what is already there is alway's an excellent idea!!!

 

[Oak]

Does it cost more to manage wilderness or non-wilderness? How much "managing" does wilderness need?

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

Elkgunner, great replies! Its nice to see someone who has a grasp on reality.

One question though, who the hell is voting for Larry Craig in Idaho? I think the election is rigged! I bet he's a suscriber to the Limbaugh letter and is a frequent "incognito" phone personality on the EIB network.

Oak, great point, wilderness is dirt cheap to manage compared to areas of high use (logging, grazing, etc.) Take a look at any FS budget and you'll see very little of the total budget is used for wilderness management.

I'm also all in favor of having all the areas described in the initial round of the wilderness bill designated wilderness. The fact is all the areas defined in the RARE I and RARE II studies are (basically) being managed as wilderness anyway under the current Forest Plans, so why not just designate them?

Also, one other point I'd argue is that the FS has done a great job of securing the best rock and ice and high elevation areas (most wilderness areas), but has done a poor job of designating grasslands, shrublands, and lower elevation areas. In my opinion wilderness areas should cover a wide spectrum of areas including wetlands, grasslands, forests, shrublands, etc. etc. Also, the BLM has done a POOR job of designating any wilderness areas.

What has been preserved under wilderness for the most part is areas that were considered "worthless" or unprofitable for extractive resources. Another case study in the amount of influence that politics and extraction industries have in shaping resource management and land management decisions.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 04-14-2003 16:40: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also, one other point I'd argue is that the FS has done a great job of securing the best rock and ice and high elevation areas (most wilderness areas), but has done a poor job of designating grasslands, shrublands, and lower elevation areas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Buzz, could that be because little to none of the lower elevation areas adhere to the spirit of the Act by being 'untouched by the hand of man'?

 

[BuzzH]

1-pointer, sure thats one of the main reasons. Another reason is because when the original wilderness bill passed the wilderness advocates compromised with extractive users and cut a large portion of the original wilderness acreage out of the act...should have never compromised that, IMO.

In 1964 there was a lot more areas that were "untouched" by human influence.

I believe that there are still viable areas on BLM lands that could be, and probably should be, designated. But again, thats just my opinion.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

Thanks for the comments.

I wonder if the people who are against Wilderness have actually ever been in a designated Wilderness. Is there some sort of "mystique" about Wilderness, that scares people away?

To some ways, the Bob Marshall is "worthless" to me, as I am not allowed in there. Somebody (and I think it is the Commerical Outfitters) thinks I am unsafe, and might get eatin' by a bear... So, I would be against expansion of the Bob, but I am for more additions to the Frank Church.

And if you think about this HT board, 10% of us live "close" to wilderness (I am just pulling these numbers out of my A$$, but let's pretend like they are facts) and 90% live "far away", like Florida.

Then, if we take the 10% (Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming) residents, my guess is only 1/4 have ever been in the Wilderness. Another 1/4 would consider a trip to the Wilderness, but are a bit unsure. and then there is a 1/4 don't go outside (let's call them apathetic), and the final 1/4 have pre-disposed hatred of the Wilderness (ie.. they own ATV's

).

So, within the walls of HuntTalk, the battle for public opinion (and support, and legislation, etc..) relies on the 90% who live far away, plus the 2.5% who Consider going, plus the 2.5% who are apathetic.

This is a long way of saying that intelligent posts, ones that show the Wilderness is truly accessible, and not locked up, exclusive, or elitist will help build support.

There is no sense trying to convince an ATV'er to change their mind, as that is their constitutional right, 8th Ammendmant, which guarantees "all citizens the right to hunt from an ATV." The real value is the other 90%+, who read these threads.

But there is value to showing people that the Wilderness is accessible, and valuable.

My guess is, if I lived in Texas, at some point I would get pi$$ed at paying somebody to allow me to private land hunt Whitetails or free ranging Goats and Chickens, and eventually I would want to start spending the same money on a self guided Elk hunt in Idaho, each year. And for a bit of gas money, and $500, I think a non-resident could come up and try and whack an elk or mulie, every year. And thanks to the Wilderness, it is affordable, and high quality.

I need to get a scanner, and then I could put pictures of my kids in the Wilderness, having the time of their lives. Truly a place for family values.

As for your questions on Craig, that is a long thread, but I think the best answer is the School systems of Idaho are no longer funded adequately, so we are now raising a less intelligent electorate, which results in Craig getting re-elected....

er