Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Apres" data-source="post: 183600" data-attributes="member: 846">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.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA