Prairie legacy wilderness

[Apres]

After hearing about the recent court decision to not allow roads to be built in designated roadless areas inside the Little MO national grasslands I brushed up on some current badlands issues and found out about the Prairie Legacy Wilderness. I get that it would suck for ranchers that are using the grazing even though it looks like they will be made an exception to allow motorized vehicles.
It looks as though they wouldn't be able to drill for oil due to some federal rule anyway so why do we need roads there. Sure the state has the right to build on section lines when it comes to private ownership. But the feds gave them the land to start so don't they have the final say?

I am in full support of getting a wilderness designation and having these areas open to non-motorized travel only. Any reason I shouldn't join the Badlands Conservation Alliance and support this movement?

 

[Fly Carpin]

Brace yourselves fellas.

 

[fnznfwl]

Brace yourselves fellas.

GST novel in 3...2...1..

 

[Fritz the Cat]

It's not a bad idea to look at the make up of the board before joining. What kind of people are they?

http://www.badlandsconservationalliance.org/board-staff/

The first one listed is Laura Anhalt. She may be a nice lady but she is married to Tracey Potter. A loser who is always trying to get a government agency manager job. He almost made it with the Northern Plains Heritage Area. But got caught spending federal taxpayers money (a grant to the Abraham Lincoln Foundation) to purchase plane tickets so he could fly to Washington to lobby for even more taxpayer dollars.

The last person on the board is Sen. Connie Triplett.

https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/gerald-groenwold/

The University of North Dakota has placed Gerald Groenwold, the Director of the Energy and Environmental Research Center, on administrative leave.
Groenwold is the husband of Democrat State Senator Connie Triplett. Accordign to Grand Forks Herald reporter John Hageman, Senator Triplett is saying she and her husband don’t know the reason behind the suspension.




It’s been a rough year for Senator Triplett.
Last May, Senator Triplett was reprimanded by the North Dakota Supreme Court for stiffing a client, something Triplett said happened because she was depressed. During the Legislative session last year Senator Triplett was reprimanded for verbally attacking fellow state Senator Margaret Sitte, and forced the Senator chamber to grind to a halt in the middle of a pro-life vote when she stormed out of the Senate chamber without leave.

Earlier this year Senator Triplett berated a state contractor in committee demanding the contractor turn over a draft report about oil impacts.
And then there’s this:

Groenewold pleaded guilty in 2008 to a misdemeanor assault charge for an incident involving his wife, state Sen. Connie Triplett. He was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to complete 30 hours of community service.
​

 

[gst]

I am in full support of getting a wilderness designation and having these areas open to non-motorized travel only. Any reason I shouldn't join the Badlands Conservation Alliance and support this movement?

So if I am a rancher living by the wilderness areas with no motor vehicle access and I lobby to support it and support those orgs seeking ot implement it by joining and I have a pack string business charging people to help pack out their elk.......am I a "greedy" rancher?

Undoubtedly restricting motorized access (4 wheelers and snowmobiles) will limit access for certain people to these public lands.

Why is that restriction of the publics use of their lands okay?

- - - Updated - - -

Tried to keep it short story length.

 

[LBrandt]

^^^^^^^^ I am so proud of you.:;:thumbsup

 

[Account Deleted]

Wilderness designations have cons for hunters as well. I'm not saying having a road to everything is a good thing but I can't even access Wyoming wilderness without a guide and it's bullshit. Look into it further before you support it.

 

[BBQBluesMan]

I'm not a fan of blazing new roads through areas such as the grasslands; however, completely eliminating motor vehicle travel is not all that great either. I am young and fit enough to hoof it in and out of roadless/non-motorized areas, but there are many who cannot. And someday I will be one of those who cant hike 5-10+ miles in a day. One of the best things about hunting is sharing those experiences with your hunting buddies, and for me its those who taught me to hunt 20 some years ago and no longer can walk like they used to.

Restrictions on motor vehicle travel limits those that can access public land, and that is not what public lands should be about. But also I don't think we should be building a bunch of new roads throughout the grasslands either.

Awhile back the USFS wanted to eliminate many hundreds of miles motorized trails throughout the badlands. While it may sound good on the outside, their little proposal would have cut off access to a lot of public land for many people. Few would have benefited. A lot of my family and friends commented on the proposal, urging them not to. We are still hunting the lands together that we have hunted for many decades.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/new...ttle-missouri-grasslands-warrants-closer-look

- - - Updated - - -

Wilderness designations have cons for hunters as well. I'm not saying having a road to everything is a good thing but I can't even access Wyoming wilderness without a guide and it's bullshit. Look into it further before you support it.

And there is also that!

 

[gst]

It is interesting ot see those involved i ideologies and how they start.

http://nwri.org/the-wildlands-project/

- - - Updated - - -

https://wildlandsnetwork.org/wildways/

- - - Updated - - -

https://wildlandsnetwork.org/our-vision/

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds great...............the devil is in the details.

 

[Kurtr]

Wilderness designations have cons for hunters as well. I'm not saying having a road to everything is a good thing but I can't even access Wyoming wilderness without a guide and it's bullshit. Look into it further before you support it.

you beat me to it. There is more than meets they eye with alot of the stuff.

 

[Davey Crockett]

How long before the poll ends ? It might take a few bowls of popcorn to make up my mind on this one.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I had voted yes, but BBQBluesman and Ghost may have swayed me the other direction. I do think I want one of these shirts that are selling in many places now. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LXDHJCT/?tag=nodakangler10-20

Edit: The shirt is a good reminder to the bunny huggers that we own this land too. The shirt is also a good reminder to the people who support selling the land. It's out land you greedy *&^%*&^%&*.

 

[1bigfokker]

Hi Jack

 

[Apres]

I appreciate all responses to the subject and want to have a well-balanced discussion on the subject as I feel this is an important decision that would affect the badlands for a long time to come whether it goes through or doesn't.

The poll will not end as I feel that until a permanent decision is made one way or another this will be a relevant topic to discuss.

I am of the Hunting and Fishing party as long as the individuals are on board with the issues I have at heart I could care less about what happens in their personal or political life. But I will have to look a little better at that in the future and decide whether the choices they've made would hurt the cause. Thanks

If the market supports a rancher becoming an outfitter or leading a pack train and all the rules and regulations are followed there should not be any problem with that. Horses would be a great way to help ease accessibility issues.

Can't even hunt big game in Canada without an outfitter I think??, Wyoming has huge wilderness areas I think. They might have a legitimate concern for losing people. also, they are favoring the residents which every state seems too. aside from one state closing wilderness areas off what about the rest. aren't most open to hunting by nonres? to me, I would rather travel to a state that wants's my money.

As I understood it these areas don't already have roads and that's the way they are trying to keep it. To preserve the areas that aren't already "wrecked". I don't want to get hung up on it but overall these are such small areas I think one is like 3 x 6 miles which mean you really don't have to walk that far if you want to see most of that area.

I will take a look at the links and do a little more research about things when I have a few more mins.

 

[Fly Carpin]

I had voted yes, but BBQBluesman and Ghost may have swayed me the other direction. I do think I want one of these shirts that are selling in many places now. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LXDHJCT/?tag=nodakangler10-20

Edit: The shirt is a good reminder to the bunny huggers that we own this land too. The shirt is also a good reminder to the people who support selling the land. It's out land you greedy *&^%*&^%&*.

Holy crap. Do you reread these posts before you fling them into cyberspace, or is your internet presence some sort of weird stream of consciousness experiment?

Designating wilderness always has accepted uses that are grandfathered in. Airstrips in Frank Church, vehicle access for cattle, etc. But requiring permits and guides to access wilderness is bunk. Also I believe existing multiple uses agreements must be maintained.

And as for the closing roads complaint, who should pay for upkeep? Oft times out west a road is built for a timber sale. When the specified quantity/area has been logged, the road is no longer needed. So it gets closed.

Finally, the argument that everyone has the right to access the most remote areas of this country is entitled crap. There are many people, several on this website in fact, who work their asses off all year to maintain a level of fitness required to not only access, but enjoy these remote back country areas. If you're too fat, too broken, or smoke too many darts to be able to get back into these remote areas, that's on you and it's too bad. There are plenty of amazingly good hunting areas with roads that you can drive to.

 

[dblkluk]

Wilderness designations have cons for hunters as well. I'm not saying having a road to everything is a good thing but I can't even access Wyoming wilderness without a guide and it's bullshit. Look into it further before you support it.

And that's a state law, not federal.

 

[ndlongshot]

The Wyoming wilderness requiring a guide is probably a topic big enough for a separate thread. Its BS that federal taxpayers, (landowners), can't access the land they are required to pay to maintain. It's just a good lobby effort to funnel non res hunters through the guiding industry. Think of it as economic development. Bunch of crap. I dont care if they guide there, but dont close it down.

Anyways, in regards to North Dakota, like others have said...it all depends on the details. I believe in the 70's much of the badlands qualified for wilderness status and now a very small amount does due to roads and energy development. Everything needs balance. Everything in moderation. I dont want roads on every section, but areas need to be able to have legitimate access points...and yes, honor the multiple use. As we have seen in other threads thats where things get sticky.

 

[BBQBluesMan]

To clarify my original comment, I was speaking specifically about the LMNG here in North Dakota and the proposal to close trails that have been in existence for more than most of us have graced this fine earth. I have limited experience hunting in other states so I cannot speak on wilderness areas too much, although from what I hear, they are some issues when it comes down to management (i.e. timber harvesting/prescribed fire/noxious weeds) and access. I am mainly torn on wilderness designations because it typically means there will be limited access to traditional use of public lands. Which there can be positives to that, but as others mentioned need to be careful what is wished for. No management is bad management for public lands.

As far as upkeep on grassland trails, there has been very little to no up keep on the trails in the LMNG from what I have seen (other areas that I don’t hunt may be different), so there are little costs associated with keeping them open. I also think that closing trails would congregate hunters as there would be fewer areas to access lands with non-motorized use.

In 2010, the USFS proposed to close 700+miles of trails, but not reclaim them. There is no good reason to close pre-existing trails and not reclaim them, other than that it restricts access to public lands. The USFS is notorious for not enforcing rules they already have, there was no reason to add more. The plan was poorly written and was inconsistent. There are instances where limiting travel to grasslands can be good (i.e. off-trail or building new roads/trails), however, access to public land needs be maintained in the process so it can be reasonably enjoyed by all.

I agree that not everyone should have the means to access the most remote areas of this country. My point is that everyone should have reasonable access lands to that have had pre-existing access points or trails for many moons.

 

[gst]

Holy crap. Do you reread these posts before you fling them into cyberspace, or is your internet presence some sort of weird stream of consciousness experiment?

Designating wilderness always has accepted uses that are grandfathered in. Airstrips in Frank Church, vehicle access for cattle, etc. But requiring permits and guides to access wilderness is bunk. Also I believe existing multiple uses agreements must be maintained.

And as for the closing roads complaint, who should pay for upkeep? Oft times out west a road is built for a timber sale. When the specified quantity/area has been logged, the road is no longer needed. So it gets closed.

Finally, the argument that everyone has the right to access the most remote areas of this country is entitled crap. There are many people, several on this website in fact, who work their asses off all year to maintain a level of fitness required to not only access, but enjoy these remote back country areas. If you're too fat, too broken, or smoke too many darts to be able to get back into these remote areas, that's on you and it's too bad. There are plenty of amazingly good hunting areas with roads that you can drive to.

Glad to see you care little about those that do not meet YOUR requirements for public access. The simple fact is off roading is a "multiple usage" under recreation most times it has nothing ot do with hunting. Snowmobiling these areas that are being designated wilderness is a pretty big deal many communities in the winter months after the hunters go home.

do a little research into what is happening next door in Mt regarding catastrophic fires and the closure of access roads some times thru wilderness designations that are impacting the ability to fight these fires.

Not all designations grand father motor vehicle usage in. On ocassion even hunting has been limited. Wilderness designations pretty much stop logging and mining so how do you rectify that contradiction?
.

 

[Fly Carpin]

I'll gladly answer your question and pursue a cordial discussion, if only you answer my question first. Quid pro quo, Mr. T. A road system is built to access a timber lease. Once the predetermined board foot amount or area logged is achieved, and the contract is complete, who is supposed to pay for the maintenance of these roads that are now unneeded, according to the contract under which they were built? It's a simple question.