Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Backcountry hunters and anglers. ......???

Don't even start with the fish....

I worked to replace several 8' culverts with concrete bridges because fish won't swim through a culvert.....mind you some of these I've fished for decades both high and low sides of said culverts. The initiative closed a LOT of roads here and solved no problems.

From the article you linked to in the abqjournal, it doesn't sound like the forest wanted to close all roads:

"Gila officials acknowledge they’re proposing a major change from current policy in which the forest is largely open to driving cross-country. Their plan would limit vehicles to designated roads and trails, and restrict vehicle camping to areas along the sides of roads or near them."

Yeah, restricting vehicles from off road would be an impact to folks used to driving cross country but it still seems folks could access the forest by road. It was that way in most of the forests in the areas I'm familiar with. Very limited cross country driving with vehicles of any sort, maybe a short drive (100 yds?) off the side of a road to a flat spot to camp.

How many miles of open roads did they leave, looks like they were considering some options:

"Options range from taking no action, which would leave 4,604 miles of roads open, to implementing a preferred alternative, which would leave 3,323 miles open. Other alternatives range from allowing 2,332 miles to 4,266 miles of open roads"

As for maintenance, yeah in both the areas I live the NF roads in some cases are maintained as county roads because they are designated as such (County rd 273 for example), but some of the side roads are maintained, such as it is, by the FS when budgets are available. With the proposed across the board budget cuts for federal agencies under the new administration I'm guessing the situation is not going to get any better.

This is quite the sticky situation all around the NF system, as your article pointed out Ol' Tricky Dick was one of the first to ask for establishment of rules:

"The concern has been around for decades. President Nixon signed an executive order in 1972 to establish policies to control off-road vehicles on public lands."

I'll be the first to say there needs to be some changes, like maybe a bit more logging with an emphasis on thinning for fire prevention. But the word is logging companies want the big trees too, as that's where the higher profits are. Do that and all the old growth advocates come out protesting, nothing gets done, for profit reasons or legal wrangling and our forests are still full of pecker poles waiting for a match.

Then the burned areas are susceptible to erosion and more roads are closed.

Not to mention FS budgets get sucked off for fire events and they have little left to fund other forest needs.

Wish I had a simple solution, but I'm afraid until we can all meet in the middle a little, life will go one pushing and pulling one way and the other.

Thanks for the links,
Geno

PS, yes, I think the CBD has gone way over what it was intended to address when founded. So have some groups on the user side too. And us folks in the middle ground are the ones to get screwed.

The roads they were gonna "Keep Open" were state highways and county roads that had regular vehicular traffic because they went to another town, or to where people lived. They couldn't close those if they wanted to.

They were going to close all other roads.

I fought that battle in 2011...

The main difference between now, and when the Natl. Forests were actually managed well is not only depleted funds from fighting fires, but lawsuits from organizations like CBD and a dozen others that they pay off.

If the forest were allowed by the environmental terrorist groups to be managed properly, there would be FAR LESS fires to suck the money from the budgets. FAR LESS.

The forests are NOT being managed properly. The radical environmental groups see to it.

The next big difference is upper management to regional management. You used to have older folks with large amounts of common sense running things. Now, as they retire, you get college educated radical environmentalists running things to suit THEIR agenda.

I guess you're saying their "preferred alternative" leaving 3323 miles of road open was ALL state highway and county roads? All in one NF. That's a bunch.

According to the article, if they took no action 4604 miles of road would remain open, which by my calculations means there were only 1300 or so miles of what I'll call "real" forest roads coming off those county and state roads. Wow, your county and state sure had a big interest in getting through and around in that forest. Like 3/4 of all the roads in there were state/county "owned".

I don't know the whole story so I'll go with what you say for now. Just seems a bit implausible.

I'll agree that the forests ARE NOT being managed properly and that a major reason is the lawsuits, they tie up bunches of money, and impact the workers in that they have to be very careful in what they say, what they put in documents and emails, and what rules they might like to establish.

And for sure, the influx of new folks overtaking the old guard has had a major influence also, I saw the results in the USFWS.

Thanks again,

Geno

Yeah, and the same Swiss billionaire who gave CBD at least ten million dollars (anonymously) gives money to BHA.

Go figure. Coincidence?

VD, even the Forest Service Officials couldn't deny what they were trying to do.

Lots of the factual information has dropped off the internet now, but U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce's office would probably be glad to provide further facts for you if interested.

It wasn't a "rancher vs USFS" issue. It was the general public that decried the proposed action. The ranchers could have accessed their permits in any event. It was everyday people and hunters, sportsmen and people that just enjoyed the forest that rallied to the cause.

They wanted to shut it down. As much as they legally could.

They lost.

Mr. Skinner brings up a good point about BHA even accepting money from donors like that. If you find yourself taking that money, you are kinda tied to their agenda.

Dave, you're the "journalist." Why don't you do what journalists do and figure it out?

Oh yeah, that's right. I'm sure the answer isn't nearly as good as the question for your purposes.

rockinb,

I'm glad the people "won" for now at least.

As a long time user of the NF system, I realize the benefits to the surrounding communities of having road access available.

However, as a long time user of the NF system, I've also seen a lot of damage done, on road and off road, by "a--holes" who have no interest in what's happening after they leave the forest.

One day I hope to explore the Gila ( I need to catch one of those trout for my unofficial life list ) , never really got a chance to when I lived in the Pinetop AZ area. And at my age, the exploring will have to be by vehicle or "rented horse".

Geno

Who is this "nameless" billionaire? and how much did he give to BHA?

Geno

I think the guy's name is Hansjörg Wyss. The Wyss Foundation.

Not sure of the amounts. Dollars have a way of laundering themselves through other spun off organizations that make transparency nearly impossible.

As with all 501-C corporations, (non-profit) the financial statements are required to be released upon demand. That's the law. Perhaps someone should request those?

I can't imagine taking donations that they wouldn't be proud to own...

Maybe someone higher up the food chain of BHA would answer these questions. I doubt local chapters have much to do with anything other than local fund raisers.

We aren't the only ones talking about it...



http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=196037.50

You're quoting the "Liberty News"??

LOL, look at the headline on their home page:


"BREAKING: U.S. Govt. to Simulate Nuke Blast Over Manhattan!"

You guys crack me up. Some people will believe anything they read on the internet, apparently.

I'm simply showing what's out there.

Maybe I could do a better job of vetting...?


The thing is, that when discussion comes up about the funding and donations of BHA, the attacks seem to begin. The sources, and the people quoting the sources... In nearly everything you read about that type discussion.

But, nobody comes forward to deny where they get the money, or the sources of a lot of that money.

The money also seems to be pretty visible in released financial reports the 501-C's are bound by law to release.

The agendas of the donors are also pretty public and well known.

I'm sure not saying BHA doesn't have good intentions. I'm sure they do what they can to help. But, the one thing that keeps us all doing what we do on public lands is the Multiple Use Act.

Upholding the MUA does not seem to be the agenda of the type donors that have evidently propped up BHA in a huge way.

If I'm wrong, please show me.

BTW, I did not do anything other than post another discussion of BHA. That thread is pages long. Take what you want from the entire discussion. As far as I know, I've never been to "Liberty News" website. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Well, if you're going to make the case that donors are somehow influencing the direction of BHA, have at it. I'd love to see you or dave skinner try to make that connection, rather than just toss out innuendo.

Billionaires like to give away their money. If they give their money to an organization I support, I don't really care who they are because it doesn't matter unless their donations somehow corrupt the organization.

I've seen zero evidence of that. Have you?

Those billionaires are not in the habit of giving large sums of money to organizations that oppose their agenda, though.

As I said, BHA may do worlds of good.

But, I can't get behind an organization that is propped up by known enemies.

It's sure a free country, and I fully support you and anyone else that has the freedom to support who you want.

No one is asking you to get behind them. Just deal in facts when you're talking about them instead of innuendo and quotes from the likes of the "Liberty News."

So, can anyone come forward to deny that the funds mentioned in that link came from the sources mentioned?

Whenever these discussions come up, the underlying common denominator seems to be that BHA has ties to radical environmentalists that we all know have done everything they can to do away with the MUA, and take more public lands to create more parks, wilderness areas, and other areas where more regulation and less access to the general public for hunting and other things guaranteed by the MUA.

Care to elaborate on that one? What kind of "ties" are you talking about, specifically?


According to the "Liberty News" you're probably a radical environmentalist.

I find a lot of this interesting and would definitely like to see some sort of definitive proof beyond conjecture and rumors prolifereated on the internet.

Something that always bothers me about these conversations, however, is what seems like a presupposition on the part of many Conservatives that land that isn't having resources actively extricated from it is "worthless".

Should public land be managed for multiple uses? No doubt! Among those uses should be backcountry morotrless wilderness... along with all the others. From my perspective (which is admittedly limited) it is wilderness that is in short supply, not other sorts of land and once wilderness is tossed it is typically left that way.