Prairie legacy wilderness

[Captain Ahab]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Apres]

whoa boys... As I understand it these areas have already been inventoried as roadless so that doesn't need to be part of this overall discussion.
As I understand it these proposed areas account for less than 5% of the total LMNG with the other 95% allowed for mineral extraction and the building of roads. Anybody who wants to drive to their hunting spot can pretty much already do that.

bbq-All of the designated areas that have motorized trails including mountain bikes will have new trails built which skirt around the edge of proposed wilderness areas. All existing trails will stay just made into non motorized.

Gst Are you talking about snowmobiling in ND? or elsewhere? I assume you do mean ND I would think that there would be ample areas to continue to do that here. Without this 5%, I honestly didn't think that would be a very big industry here.

The proposal does not include requiring anything (guides)That is a wy state issue. just two or four strong legs to access so why would anyone think ND would. We value tourism dollars here. not as much as oil dollars that's part of this issue
They also made exceptions for wheelchairs. not sure if that would include self-powered or motorized ones.

 

[Obi-Wan]

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.

you will be an old man with a bad knee, hip, or back way sooner than you think which will give you a whole new outlook on things you used to enjoy but because of limitations you no longer can.

 

[DirtyMike]

you will be an old man with a bad knee, hip, or back way sooner than you think which will give you a whole new outlook on things you used to enjoy but because of limitations you no longer can.

is that the rationale for the "bow hunters have all the fun" argument?

 

[Fly Carpin]

you will be an old man with a bad knee, hip, or back way sooner than you think which will give you a whole new outlook on things you used to enjoy but because of limitations you no longer can.

I completely agree, and don't look forward to that day at all. However, I like to think that when I do reach that age where this partially torn meniscus that I already enjoy catches up with me, I will accept it and hunt close to home. But I'm not there yet so I guess I have to give my opinion from my current state.

Apres, sorry for participating in the derailment of your good thread. Seems every discussion about wilderness drives our minds to the west. Having a small percentage of ND that's already roadless remain that way seems like a good idea to me

 

[Obi-Wan]

is that the rationale for the "bow hunters have all the fun" argument?

Thanks for trying to derail the thread with an ignorant comment.

 

[gst]

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.

The Federal govt should generate enough from it's leasing of these lands to pay for the maintnance of ALL the roads in the area after the lumber is logged. Before and during the extraction it should be the responsibility of the logging company IMO.

The simple fact you beleive these roads are "unneeded" shows a bit of a misunderstanding of what is happening all across the west that I have shared numerous links to. The numbers of fires deemed catastrophic has increased since the push to remove access and change the management plans of these Federal agencies from lawsuits brought forth by those that would save the spotted owl and other casues. Mt can not even use state owned helicopters to help battle catastrophic fires on Federal lands becasue of Federal agencies standards for the helicopters they require.

you want to see the result of these ideals driving these federal agencies policies read this link.

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-Budget-Report.pdf

Climate change is the ONLY causation of the increase in catastrophic fires in this report by the Federal agency in charge of these subordinate agencies like the USFS and BLM. There is no mention of the lawsuits and ideological changes to forest management that has impacted the numbers of catastrophic fires as well as increasing the cost of fighting them. (I recently shared a link to a fire currently burning in Mt that a judge had stopped logging on saying the risk of wildfire was minimal) and yet this agency needs more tax payer dollars to fight these fires.

these fires have very REAL impacts on the communities by them. These wilderness designations have very real impacts o the communities that are near them.

So if you would in your support of increasing these wilderness designations here is my question to you. Can you list the impacts felt by the communities of families when these designations are imposed by the stroke of a pen often at the behest of groups like the one listed in the beginning post.

To start you out, how about listing the impacts from the closure of Utahs largest coal find because of a national monument designation.

here's a good link to read.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687607/The-monumental-battle-over-the-West.html

Take the time to actually read it.

Then here my second question you can answer before asking me one. It is derived from this article. Utah has an $8 billion dollar tourist economy.

Where do those dollars come from?

Please allow me to expand a bit, with some information. Tourist dollars are largely service industry dollars. Those dollars are recycled dollars, redistributed wealth. What actually generates those dollars in this nation? Where do they come from? Fritz has spoken to this a number of times.

Those businesses in these tourist communities are not generating wealth they are merely recirculating a finite amount of dollars.

So where do the dollars that build and grow a nation, a state, a community come from to ultimately trickle down so that a tourist has a dollar to spend somewhere?.

from the very things these monument and wilderness designations and the orgs behind them seek to "prohibit or severely restrict" thru the Federal govt management(from the link above....."There is ranching that does occur on BLM or Forest Service allotments, but two-thirds of the 1.35 million acres inside Bears Ears includes wilderness or other land use designations that either prohibit or severely restrict any resource extraction.")

I appreciate your desire to continue the promised multiple usage of these public lands, but you seem willing to ignore the reality of what is actually happening. (all those question marks are only meant to provide you something to think about rather than answer)

Those of us that have followed this issue for years are acutely aware of the changes orgs like the Seirra Club and those like them have gained in the management of these lands and the declarations that are being made that impact them.

Despite fools accusations by a small handful of people on these outdoors sites over the years, people like myself do NOT wish to see a sell off of these lands nor a wholesale raping of them either. I like the tought of wild untouched lands somewhere.

But we live in small communities much like those impacted by these agendas and ideologies. We have friends that have been impacted directly when mills and mines and ranch supply stores shut down as these uses are "prohibited or severely restricted". We see the effects of communities that have to change from independent wealthy communities from commodity production and the revenues those generate to govt dependent welfare cases waiting on payment in lieu of taxes from the govt to fund their schools.

The hippy comes in and tells the rancher you need to get with the times and create a bed and breakfast to house the mountain bikers, those cows are killing the desert tortoise people want to see. The environ comes in and tells the miner you have to get with the times and start a kayak rental instead of pollute the stream with your mine. The activist comes in and tells the logger you need to create a bird watching tour instead of logging these forests destroying habitat and people who for generations BUILT things and CREATED wealth and built communities under the govts encouragement to settle these vast western lands with promises of land usage are now lectured and controlled by those that actually believe it is climate change that causes more forest fires and not the stoppage of management thru logging.

""They all hate drilling, they all hate coal mines and they all hate fossil fuel except for the fact that it runs their air conditioner in the summer and it gets their vehicles to where they are going," he said"

And their dying community is supposed to revive itself with a musical and tourist shops and the rancher is supposed to recite poetry every night at 7 oclock.

From the link I shared"""Monument designation has become a marketing tool that transforms these places, that transforms these communities and people around them in ways that most average citizens don't consider," said Jim Stiles, founder and publisher of the independent newspaper Canyon Country Zephyr................What concerns me about their attitude is that they don't really consider the people who have lived there the last 100 years. They are not interested in helping these rural communities, they are interested in replacing them.""

But hey that is progress. recycle those dollars enough times and everyone is happy right? . Mean while the govt that has "prohibited and severely restricted" mining, logging grazing that create wealth is borrowing more national debt so we have enough dollars to redistribute........

What can go wrong?

Sorry for the novel. Hope it stirs more thought than fools accusations of greed and selling the public land.

- - - Updated - - -

Gst Are you talking about snowmobiling in ND? or elsewhere? I assume you do mean ND I would think that there would be ample areas to continue to do that here. Without this 5%, I honestly didn't think that would be a very big industry here.

That is a response to a bigger picture than just ND and how these designations impact all public lands. If we only want to look at and concern ourselves with what impacts us here in our state, why not have these lands managed by the state?

If not, then the reality is the restrictions placed on these designations are not generated or controlled by North Dakota residents but by groups like the Sierra Club and others in Wash. DC and those that beleive in climate change and unicorns.

- - - Updated - - -

Apres, sorry for participating in the derailment of your good thread. Seems every discussion about wilderness drives our minds to the west. Having a small percentage of ND that's already roadless remain that way seems like a good idea to me

Fly, where do you think the designations on these Federal lands come from, Bismarck? If you wish ot have an honest fact based discussion on the impacts of these designations on federal lands you HAVE to include the background on who and what has driven the ideological changes in the policies behind the designation itself and the Federal agencies that implement them.

- - - Updated - - -

1. 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?

2. So if you would in your support of increasing these wilderness designations here is my question to you. Can you list the impacts felt by the communities of families when these designations are imposed by the stroke of a pen often at the behest of groups like the one listed in the beginning post.

3.But hey that is progress. recycle those dollars enough times and everyone is happy. Mean while the govt that has "prohibited and severely restricted" mining, logging grazing that create wealth is borrowing more national debt so we have enough dollars to redistribute........

What can go wrong?

Fly, if you care to answer the above three questions, I owe you two answers.

- - - Updated - - -

Stumbled across this. Interesting ideas.

https://www.americantrails.org/resources/feds/land/AltWildernessClark.html

- - - Updated - - -

Apres, sorry for participating in the derailment of your good thread. Seems every discussion about wilderness drives our minds to the west. Having a small percentage of ND that's already roadless remain that way seems like a good idea to me

If those of us in ND can direct the management of this designation I would whole heartedly agree.

The simple fact is we do not.

The truth is we as a state have very little say in the issue.

I do not have an issue with a roadless designation of 5% of the LMNG.....I have issues with the orgs behind the designation and the ideologies they push. And it is my opinion that ALL sportsmen should as well.

- - - Updated - - -

My publisist says this constitutes a mini novel.

 

[DirtyMike]

Thanks for trying to derail the thread with an ignorant comment.

I wasn't derailin anything. It's the same argument you make time and time again. You can't do it so let's change the rules. Sounds like something a millennial would say.

 

[dank]

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?
.

Wildfires are not worse because we don't have enough roads to access and fight them. Wildfires are worse because we've so aggressively suppressed fire since the 1960's that we have built the fuel load in our forests to a relatively high level. Fire suppression, which is what you're advocating more of, is the precise reason why we have these "catastrophic" fires as you like to refer to them. Your short solution simply increases long term risk.

 

[dblkluk]

you will be an old man with a bad knee, hip, or back way sooner than you think which will give you a whole new outlook on things you used to enjoy but because of limitations you no longer can.

and thats why you should get out and do them while you can instead of making excuses of why you cant.

 

[gst]

Wildfires are not worse because we don't have enough roads to access and fight them. Wildfires are worse because we've so aggressively suppressed fire since the 1960's that we have built the fuel load in our forests to a relatively high level. Fire suppression, which is what you're advocating more of, is the precise reason why we have these "catastrophic" fires as you like to refer to them. Your short solution simply increases long term risk.

So which came first the chicken or the egg.

If you do not manage forest health by logging, the fires that are not suppressed become catastrophic.

The reference "catastrophic" is not my term, it is one used in fire and forest management circles. I have simply shared links to discussions by those professionals that use the term to describe levels of impact from these fires.

Those same people have suggested wilderness designations which include access closures have indeed impacted the ability ot fight fires. The Mt legislature has at the request of those people in charge and others voted to implement a study into the impacts of the road closures on public lands in their state.

- - - Updated - - -

Here are the two sides to the issue.

One believes management and lawsuits from environmentalists is causing the increase in forest fires and the other claims it is global warming. (note, the second group are the same people that think cow farts are causing storms like hurricane Harvey..................)


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16396-burning-up-the-west-feds-greens-cause-catastrophic-fires



https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather/Wildfires.aspx

- - - Updated - - -

Remember not all these Federal lands impacted by these fires are forested.

An interesting read...

http://www.ag.utah.gov/documents/CatFireFinalReport120213.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Once again the mantra of those pushing the agendas not contributing any causation to the agenda......global warming is the devil.

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3343

[FONT=&quot]Fires in western forests began [/FONT]increasing abruptly in the 1980s[FONT=&quot], as measured by area burned, the number of large fires, and length of the fire season. The increases have continued, and recently scientists and public officials have in part [/FONT]blamed human-influenced climate change[FONT=&quot]. The new study is perhaps the first to quantify that assertion. “A lot of people are throwing around the words climate change and fire—specifically, last year fire chiefs and the governor of California started calling this the ‘new normal,’ ” said lead author John Abatzoglou, a professor of geography at the University of Idaho. “We wanted to put some numbers on it.”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
funny though .............[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The study does not cover western grasslands. These have seen more fires too, but there is little evidence that climate plays a role there, said Abatzoglou; rather, the spread of highly flammable invasive grasses appears to be the main driver.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
It is not climate change.........but still no mention of policy managment changes since the 80s impacting anything..........[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

- - - Updated - - -

This is why I do not trust the people and orgs behind the agenda pushing these designations.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Dank you are absolutely right. We learn as we go, but sometimes a few people don't. Smoky the Bear was a real bad idea. Now that we have applied a little more forest ecology to our brain we understand that the idea promoted by Smoky was destructive in the long run. Same with the fools in California that pass laws for building houses and tell you the habitat surrounding the intended build can't be disturbed. Then they wonder why so many houses burn when they have a wild fire.

 

[Apres]

Gst- I appreciate your viewpoint and believe you add a lot to this conversation. I don't believe that what's right for other states is always what's best for North Dakota.So let's not talk about them right now let's try to keep this about North Dakota. And what's best for it and us. I agree with you that the pen can cause issues. This particular issue was not started on a national level but right here by people who care about ND.
-I believe that this group truly has ND's best interest at heart and this is a true citizen's of ND proposal. The Alliance might be based in Bismarck but the group are avid users of the badlands and seem to have a group get together once a month out there to utilize the very areas they are trying to preserve. They commissioned a third party to evaluate and write the proposal for the least impact and best possible outcome. If I recall they could have included almost double the land but understand that by asking for a reasonable amount of area they can preserve some small but important tracts and open the rest to development as seen fit.
-So as I understand it you would support this as long as the people of ND can oversee the designation? I think that's purpose enough to join and go to the meetings?

Call me a romantic but some of these areas are just plain neato and I would love to be able for my grandkid's grandkids to be able to visit them someday on foot away from the sound of vehicles or oil wells and be able to imagine what the area was like before settlement. To have these areas preserved in a natural state not dug up and polluted with chemicals or logged off every twenty some years.

As far as I am concerned at this point the only people this is affecting is the ranchers that graze the land or live near these areas, and the oil companies that want to build roads and destroy a last remaining piece of what used to be.

I really don't feel qualified to talk about wild fires but here are my two cents. I honestly can't say how fires in and around these areas would affect the local residents or the area overall.
Fires are good for the ecosystem and something that needs to happen from time to time. For instance in order for pines to grow. Logging can be good but fires are needed to keep the true ecosystem in balance. It's really a mute point though these areas haven't been and won't ever be logged as it's currently written.

If you've ever held on to an antique or something old and wondered the value this is exactly like that. This land is an antique that needs to tell a story about the past and increase in value forever. While true wilderness can only be decreased and really never increased. It should stay as it is Not subject to a boom and bust. What's the value when they're gone? In a hundred years you can tell people about what was here but they aren't really going to get it or even care because they can't hold it in their hands or see it with their eyes.

Is anybody familiar with Oak Savanna's? Oak Savanna was the most common landscape in the midwest but today is highly endangered and is one of the rarest plant communities on earth. With only 30000 acres remaining. The proposed Sheyenne wilderness area is 5410 acres and is made up of two endangered plant communities Tall grass prairie and oak savanna. If you've never visited an Oak Savanna you should it's a pretty cool they were noted for their beauty right before we cut the trees and plowed the fields. Also of note, That area is home to ND's only registered "waterfall" I think it's truly worth the 2-mile hike just to experience the area. The "waterfall" is a nice picnic spot for a family but I wouldn't go invest in any new camera equipment.

 

[gst]

Dank you are absolutely right. We learn as we go, but sometimes a few people don't. Smoky the Bear was a real bad idea. Now that we have applied a little more forest ecology to our brain we understand that the idea promoted by Smoky was destructive in the long run.

Encouraging people to be careful with matches and fires while in the woods was a "real bad idea"??????????????????????????????;:;banghead

First the confederate statues.........now Smokey the Bear has got to go........

 

[dank]

So which came first the chicken or the egg.

This is an easy chicken or egg question. Increased fire suppression created higher fuel loads which in turn causes more aggressive fires. Done. This hasn't been a linear trajectory either. The giant tracts of single aged timber stands created by human intervention became veritable petri dishes for pests to thrive in, thus the rise of the western pine beetle which in turn very rapidly turned millions of acres and trillions of board feet of living forest into match sticks in a matter of a decade.

As a hunter, I wish there was significantly more logging. Hunting old burns and old logged areas is fantastic. Unfortunately, even if the feds didn't impose any of the early 90's regulations that industry would have still faced the challenges it ended up facing. It was not the government that put logging towns out of business, it was economics and technology. Mills got bigger and more efficient, equipment improved over time, cheap Canadian lumber hampered markets, significant production transition from western public lands to eastern private production, etc. From the 1950's to the 1990's, eastern timber growers more than doubled their production efficiency per acre. We simply can't log our forests into health as the economics will not allow it. The nation can't build enough houses or make enough coffee tables to allow for enough logs to be harvested to transform the forest.

I go back to the statement that I think that logging for the most part is a great addition to the multiple use of our western lands. But we have to accept the limitations of the market. Your assertion that the feds disinterest in multiple use is to blame for wildfires is at best a hollow argument.

 

[gst]

Apres, if you can, please share with us EXACTLY how we as residents can impact the regulations involved in a wilderness designation on Federal lands and I will certainly be interested in see if it can be done. (public comment periods have been proven to be ignored on these issues time and again)

There are "local" groups all over the nation just like the one here you mention that are advocates for what I am not completely opposed to in protecting these lands.

But as some of the links I have shared on this site and others show, those local entities end up taking a back seat to the realities of these Federal designations in most every case.

That is largely the reason I support states having more control over the management of these public lands. Like I said, I am not opposed to these areas being preserved but the realities have shown us what happens. That said, there is a significant difference in ideologies behind the administrations choice to head the Dept of the Interior than there has been in the past. Zinke has stated that states and local entities should have more say in the management and impact of these designations so perhaps something might change.

Just like the swamp has proven hard to drain, the lobbying behind the groups that have drug us where we are is hard to change as well, so I will believe it when it happens.

 

[Allen]

I wonder who logged these areas and fought the fires before the white dude came upon the scene?

 

[Apres]

Does anybody have any other concerns about this proposal that haven't already been brought up or otherwise derailed that should be considered?

 

[gst]

This is an easy chicken or egg question. Increased fire suppression created higher fuel loads which in turn causes more aggressive fires. Done. This hasn't been a linear trajectory either. The giant tracts of single aged timber stands created by human intervention became veritable petri dishes for pests to thrive in, thus the rise of the western pine beetle which in turn very rapidly turned millions of acres and trillions of board feet of living forest into match sticks in a matter of a decade.

As a hunter, I wish there was significantly more logging. Hunting old burns and old logged areas is fantastic. Unfortunately, even if the feds didn't impose any of the early 90's regulations that industry would have still faced the challenges it ended up facing. It was not the government that put logging towns out of business, it was economics and technology. Mills got bigger and more efficient, equipment improved over time, cheap Canadian lumber hampered markets, significant production transition from western public lands to eastern private production, etc. From the 1950's to the 1990's, eastern timber growers more than doubled their production efficiency per acre. We simply can't log our forests into health as the economics will not allow it. The nation can't build enough houses or make enough coffee tables to allow for enough logs to be harvested to transform the forest.

I go back to the statement that I think that logging for the most part is a great addition to the multiple use of our western lands. But we have to accept the limitations of the market. Your assertion that the feds disinterest in multiple use is to blame for wildfires is at best a hollow argument.

So does a decrease in logging due ot policy and lawsuit changes have ANYTHING to do with increased fuel loads?

Did the banning of the use of pesticies and fungicides do to lawsuits and lobbying have anything to do with increased fuel loads?

Indeed cheaper Canadian lumber impacted significantly the economics of logging here.........why was logging cheaper in Canada?

Without lumber from Canada becasue it is "cheaper" (through Canadian govt subsidizing the industry) would the demand for US lumber keep pace with building?

In a previous thread I shared the history of the changes that have occured in the management of our forests and what drove them. It was a factual timeline with policy changes tied to lawsuits and lobbying.

Did you bother to read the links I shared? Perhaps it is easier just to blame global warming and climate change than acknowledge actual real impacting factors.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder who logged these areas and fought the fires before the white dude came upon the scene?

Ah come on allen, really?? who managed the wild game before the white dude came on the scene. Why do we need to now?

you are starting to sound a bit like these folks allen.


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

- - - Updated - - -

https://wildlandsnetwork.org/wildways/

- - - Updated - - -

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

hell maybe if we just closed these schools like someone mentioned here in another thread and packed these folks off to Billings and Portland we could just let those fires burn......like they did 500 years ago.

"What concerns me about their attitude is that they don't really consider the people who have lived there the last 100 years. They are not interested in helping these rural communities, they are interested in replacing them."

 

[Apres]

Apres, if you can, please share with us EXACTLY how we as residents can impact the regulations involved in a wilderness designation on Federal lands and I will certainly be interested in see if it can be done. (public comment periods have been proven to be ignored on these issues time and again)

I think that's kind of the point of bringing this subject up. Once it's done, made into a wilderness area, or roaded and mined for oil. It can't be undone. So right now is the only way we can change it. If we decide as resident's of ND to support this and turn it into a wilderness area. We have to accept the designation and what comes with it (federal regulations). Same likewise, If we choose to allow the land to become segmented and developed for natural resources we have to accept that these natural areas will forever be changed by our hands and future generations won't be able to experience them as they once were. That's why I think this decision is a very important one, either way, something will change and if we do nothing we still have made a choice. I am not asking to change how things are done in the big picture, just if we can live with the results of washing our hands of it and allowing someone else to make those decisions, either the feds or the natural resource extractors.


I agree that Public comments are bullshit they still do whatever they want. However, we still need to use them to the best of our ability especially if that's the only way our voices can be heard, and even if it never changes anything.

I think we agree States should have more control of the lands inside of their state. However, they can't be trusted with ownership. As I stated before what's good for one state might be bad for another. local Economy, access issues, firefighting, etc. Blanket regulations don't work for everyone the same.