So you are telling me you think it is a good idea for the federal government to increase its land holdings, exert more control over those holdings and limit people more in their use of those holdings?
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'd just like to see the land that's public now and roadless now (not necessarily designated wilderness) stay that way. Because as I said, that's where the best hunting and fishing is.
True story, one of my favorite places to hunt used to be non-motorized access only. It has a small stream that holds cutthroats. A few years ago you could walk in 3 miles on an easy trail and catch lots of 13-14 inch fish in a few scattered plunge pools. Then they opened it up to motorbikes. I went in last year and was lucky to catch a few small fish. I did get to pick up some cigarette butts and styrofoam worm cartons though.
Originally Posted by Tarkio
Wilderness areas are an anathema to most local communities they are in proximity to.
I'd like to see your data that backs up your assertion there. Because I don't believe it's necessarily true, especially in areas that draw a lot of non-resident hunters and fishermen. Hotels, stores, restaurants, outfitters and other rural businesses in this state depend on visitors to make their living, and the visitors want unspoiled vistas. Wilderness areas are a big draw.
