Originally Posted by toad
Originally Posted by Tarkio

Reality is, this group promotes control over lands and management over public lands far away from the lands and the end user. I do not think this is a model I support because it does give far more credence and import to the deep-pocket guys. Just as TOM tried to scare everyone that corporations are closing off access to our public lands, the reality is deep pocket corporate types like Chouinard are doing just that. Limiting the multiple use of OUR (they are mine too) public lands.

Wilderness areas are an anathema to most local communities they are in proximity to. You guys only see 1 aspect, "I hate hearing or seeing 4-wheelers" but the reality is, these areas create a lot of problems not the least of which are weeds and fire danger.




I look out my window on the AB wilderness area, and you have no clue. the weed problem is centered around the trailheads (yes motorized vehicles). I'm not sayin' trailheads are bad, but don't blame the wilderness for problems caused by motor vehicles.

the wilderness i've seen is not really very valuable as timber sales (and yes, I've spent a good chunk of my life on a log skidder). too steep and low grade timber stands. the timber sales are not as much of a boost as they used to be because insurance has forced the loggers to mechanized logging shows where large companys that can afford tree shears and processors employ very few people to harvest incredible amounts of timber. again, not a bad thing because it is safer, but it reduces the number of people making money from those sales.

fire danger? well, I've seen far more fires start on private land and burn onto wilderness than vice versa (and yes, i've been a wildland firefighter for years). roads to access fires? forest fires are attacked from the air and followed up by hand crews for the most part. dozers and fire engines are generally utilized to protect structures and other improvements in the interface.

the wilderness greatly helps the surrounding landowners via hunting rights. not a bad thing in itself, but creates other issues. one is reducing public access to the elk herds during general rifle season so elk numbers cannot be managed very well. another problem is the surrounding landowners are fighting tooth and nail to close any public access they possibly can to so they can have more control the game herds on wilderness behind their property.

"the deep pocket guys" have much more influence at the local level.

so, I've voted republican since I could vote, I've owned ranches in Montana, been a logger, wildland firefighter and hunter, and I'm a member of the BHA.



I have no clue? I have fought weeds on wilderness areas for years. Yes some weeds are introduced by motorized vehicles, but the designation makes it nearly impossible to really fight the problem. Once there are weeds there, simply the exclusion of vehicles doesn't magically make them go away. Restrictions on access, control typ both essentially make most weed control efforts futile. Look at the CMR. Unbelievable canada and now knapweed. I don't give a [bleep] where they started. The fact you cannot spray only creates more damn weeds. A lot of the canada if ound on the lakeshore. Pretty damn certain there aren't motorized vehicles driving the beaches of ft peck.

And selectively choose my words and ignore others. I never said all wilderness negatively impacte logging. Certainly a fair amount of the areas in our area are affected. The second part of my point was land managers inability to manage FUEL leads to sever problems. I never said fires start in wilderness areas exclusively and those cause problems. Damn, you need to maybe visit www.RIF.ORG.

Tell me what does happen when a fore starts on wilderness areas or on a study area. Can you race in with your ranch outfit and put it out? Will the feds dispatch crews to cut lines right away? No. This combined with excess fuels because of limited managment is what I am saying about them contributing to fire issues.

I fail to follow your attempt at a point where you say wilderness helps landowners via hunting rights? But creates access problems> So it helps landowners but hurts hunters. And then you say surrounding landowners shut public access?? And yet as hunters, many on here are extolling the virtue of wilderness. I am missing something here and I am not being a smarta$$. I simply don't follow your comment.


Montana MOFO