[quote=smokepole
Again, it's a local/state issue.
[/quote]
We'll agree to disagree on that Smoke. Wilderness is most definitely NOT a local issue...nor are Monuments for that matter. Case in point is the entire Utah delegation opposed the recent Bears Ear designation, as well their state legislature (which they put to a vote).
If you want to argue that since they are federal lands perhaps it shouldn't BE a local/state issue...okay. That argument has merit...but don't tell me it's a "local" decision because it isn't. It's very much a POLITICAL decision, usually driven by special interest groups...like BHA. I know people like the notion of hunting Wilderness areas in particular, but in Idaho it's the least productive land in the state as far as deer/elk populations. I'm generalizing, but call my bluff on that with a box of bullets wager and I'll show you with IDFG's own data.
I realize that causation/correlation may not be in effect where Wilderness designations occur, but your "management" options become much more limited when you impose the constraints that Wilderness brings. Large-scale fires have changed the landscape of the West in particular. It's hard to put out a huge fire when there is no access to it. Hard to manage wolves when there are no access to them, and they can kill freely with little chance of human predation. It's hard to harvest from beetle-killed forests when you can't get to the trees. Wildlife populations are dynamic and I'm not suggesting Wilderness is mutually exclusive of good hunting, but it definitely can create conditions such that it's counter-productive to good hunting.
That's where groups like the BHA come into the picture. They never met a Wilderness proposal they didn't like. The irony of course, is the chickens are coming home to roost as it were.
Hundreds of miles of trails within the Frank Church in particular are literally being lost from a lack of use and maintenance. Wilderness areas in Colorado might be small enough to be utilized by day-hunters, but for MOST of the trails in Wilderness in Idaho....it simply isn't physically feasible for about 99.9% of the population. To compound the issue, Wilderness designation precludes any type of mechanized equipment being utilized to maintain trails (like chainsaws), the USFS typically throws their hands up and says, "we don't have the budget for maintenance". This in turn has led to vast areas being largely inaccessible to ANYONE because the trails are the only realistic travel corridors.
All of this is exclusively my own opinion (with some facts sprinkled in), so you're welcome to call me an azzhat and draw conclusions otherwise of course.
Dave
