Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
yukon222 Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 Posts: 1894 | TRs | Pics
|
|
yukon222
Member
|
Wed May 06, 2009 4:19 pm
|
|
|
FYI - Latest Forest Service proposal to "protect" grizzlies in NE Washington, Idaho and part of Montana. Under the FS's preferred plan, 325 miles of forest road will be blocked off and 30 miles of trail that currently has motorized use. Snowmobile trails will also be affected as roads could not be used to access the trails in summer when the trails need to be cleared of fallen trees.
Under the 2nd more restrictive plan proposed by the environmental groups who filed the decade's worth of lawsuits, 490 miles of roads would be gated off, 57 miles of motorized trails plus elimination of 22 developed recreation sites (would no longer be accessed by motor vehicles). This would include the day-use area at Roman Nose, a 7,271' peak in Idaho, 6 campgrounds, 3 boat ramps and 3 picnic areas.
All to "protect" the grizzly from human encounters.
Comment period ends June 22, 2009
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009180831_grizzlies06.html
http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/kootenai/projects/planning/documents/forest_plan/amendments/index.shtml
|
Back to top |
|
|
Magellan Brutally Handsome
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics Location: Inexorable descent |
|
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
|
Wed May 06, 2009 5:13 pm
|
|
|
Quote: | ...Barricading as much as 1800 miles of road... |
I'll say it right here. I hate 'environmentalists'. There. Take that. Draining money with lawsuits and eliminating access to our public lands. Go bleep yourself.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scrooge Famous Grouse
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6966 | TRs | Pics Location: wishful thinking |
|
Scrooge
Famous Grouse
|
Wed May 06, 2009 5:20 pm
|
|
|
Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you....... Go and find it. Go!
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadCapLaughs Member
Joined: 05 Jul 2007 Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
|
Magellan wrote: | I hate 'environmentalists'. |
Scrooge wrote: | Let grizzlies adapt or migrate. |
Funny.
In a sad, sickening kinda way.
This loss of access is disturbing (and seems extreme), but those attitudes are even more disturbing.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Slugman It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Wed May 06, 2009 8:30 pm
|
|
|
If the right thing was done in the first place there would be no lawsuits. We need a healthy ecosystem with top predators like grizzly bears more than we need some jackasses roaring around on gas-burning noise machines.
As far as "eliminating access to our public lands", anti-environmentalists have done 1,000 times worse. They have clear-cut 90% of our nations old-growth forest while not replacing a single old-growth tree ever. They chop the tops off of mountains just because it is cheaper to get at the coal underneath that way. They pollute water and air, and build monstrous vacation homes wherever they can get away with it. They don't deny access to the land, they just rape it so thoroughly that no one wants to go there.
It is only progressives who even believe in the concept of "public lands". Those who criticize environmentalists for the most part don't believe in public lands. Just the other day some nutcase wrote this on the Seattle Times website "What is the government doing in the land-owning business anyway?" This was in response to the creation of some new wilderness areas, which the nutjob called a "land grab", even though the government already owned the land. So much for the concept of "property rights". So much for stewardship of the land.
If the rich elitists who raped so much of our country for their own personal gain (while socializing their costs, of course) had left more of the natural world intact, then the decent people of this country wouldn't have to fight so hard to protect the remaining amount. No compromise over the last remnants of the pre-industrial world!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Magellan Brutally Handsome
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics Location: Inexorable descent |
|
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
|
Wed May 06, 2009 10:42 pm
|
|
|
Nice hyperbole Slugo. The roads are already there, either for previous mining or timber extraction. Closing them is just a way to try to keep people from going where they have been going for years. It doesn't have anything to do with bear protection. More than likely it's a way to cut back on maintenance costs they can't afford.
You are right in that not one more old growth tree should be cut. The figure is closer to 95%. I have seen the environmentalists vision of wilderness. It is filled with 2nd generation trees, roads, and private property.
You sound like a militant vegetarian wearing leather shoes. Since you need power for your home, and you need it cheaply, this is the result.
I would like to know how/why so many grizzly have been killed in this area if they are protected.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Couvehiker86 Member
Joined: 28 Mar 2009 Posts: 133 | TRs | Pics Location: *Insert cutesy one-liner here* |
Slugman wrote: | If the right thing was done in the first place there would be no lawsuits. We need a healthy ecosystem with top predators like grizzly bears more than we need some jackasses roaring around on gas-burning noise machines.
As far as "eliminating access to our public lands", anti-environmentalists have done 1,000 times worse. They have clear-cut 90% of our nations old-growth forest while not replacing a single old-growth tree ever. They chop the tops off of mountains just because it is cheaper to get at the coal underneath that way. They pollute water and air, and build monstrous vacation homes wherever they can get away with it. They don't deny access to the land, they just rape it so thoroughly that no one wants to go there.
It is only progressives who even believe in the concept of "public lands". Those who criticize environmentalists for the most part don't believe in public lands. Just the other day some nutcase wrote this on the Seattle Times website "What is the government doing in the land-owning business anyway?" This was in response to the creation of some new wilderness areas, which the nutjob called a "land grab", even though the government already owned the land. So much for the concept of "property rights". So much for stewardship of the land.
If the rich elitists who raped so much of our country for their own personal gain (while socializing their costs, of course) had left more of the natural world intact, then the decent people of this country wouldn't have to fight so hard to protect the remaining amount. No compromise over the last remnants of the pre-industrial world! |
Couldn't have said it better myself. The anger seems to be extremely misguided here sometimes. Doesn't anyone stop to think that if it weren't for " the environmentalists" we wouldn't have half the places we love to hike in Washington? Our three national parks and all of our wilderness areas, from which many beautiful trip reports come, are mainly there thanks to the efforts of environmental groups.
How anyone can perform the logical backflip whereby the people protecting the land are suddenly the enemy of the nature-loving hiker is beyond me.
I will be commenting on the proposal in favor of closing the roads, fwiw. Next time I visit the area, I will enjoy my time a lot more knowing I am hiking in an intact ecosystem, and this enjoyment won't be diminished by the fact that some access has been closed off.
In fact, deeper wilderness and less encounters with motors will probably enhance my experience. I don't understand why that sentiment isn't widely shared here, this being a HIKING forum and all.
I'm really hoping it's just a case of a silent majority or something.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Couvehiker86 Member
Joined: 28 Mar 2009 Posts: 133 | TRs | Pics Location: *Insert cutesy one-liner here* |
Magellan wrote: | Nice hyperbole Slugo. The roads are already there, either for previous mining or timber extraction. Closing them is just a way to try to keep people from going where they have been going for years. It doesn't have anything to do with bear protection. More than likely it's a way to cut back on maintenance costs they can't afford.
You are right in that not one more old growth tree should be cut. The figure is closer to 95%. I have seen the environmentalists vision of wilderness. It is filled with 2nd generation trees, roads, and private property.
You sound like a militant vegetarian wearing leather shoes. Since you need power for your home, and you need it cheaply, this is the result.
I would like to know how/why so many grizzly have been killed in this area if they are protected. |
You sound like an evil environmentalist saying that! :O
|
Back to top |
|
|
jimmymac Zip Lock Bagger
Joined: 14 Nov 2003 Posts: 3704 | TRs | Pics Location: Lake Wittenmyer, WA |
|
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger
|
Wed May 06, 2009 10:53 pm
|
|
|
Oh, I'm sure there's a silent majority effect going on here.
"Profound serenity is the product of unfaltering Trust and heightened vulnerability."
"Profound serenity is the product of unfaltering Trust and heightened vulnerability."
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dale Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2002 Posts: 139 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Dale
Member
|
Wed May 06, 2009 10:54 pm
|
|
|
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931115&slug=1731936
Monday, November 15, 1993
Grizzlies Won't Be Imported To North Cascades - Yet -- Plan Leaves Many Questions About Bringing Back Bears
By Eric Pryne
State and federal agencies today unveiled their draft plan for getting grizzly bears in the North Cascades off the endangered-species list.
What it doesn't say may be more noteworthy than what it does recommend.
The draft recovery plan:
-- Puts off a decision on whether a handful of grizzlies should be imported from British Columbia or the Rocky Mountains to boost the North Cascades population. Grizzly biologists had recommended such a move.
-- Recommends no additional restrictions on logging, road building, grazing or other uses of public lands, saying their effect on grizzlies must be studied more.
-- Rejects an environmentalist plea to expand the area where grizzly recovery efforts will be focused. The southern boundary of the proposed "recovery zone" is Interstate 90. Some environmental groups had asked that it be pushed south to the Columbia River.
<snip>
http://www.conservationnw.org/northcascades/i-90-wildlife-bridges
I-90 Wildlife Bridges Coalition
The I-90 Wildlife Bridges Coalition formed in 2004 to ensure high-quality wildlife passage north to south across Interstate 90 in the Central Cascades.
Endorsing safer passage for people and wildlife
Connecting habitat in the Cascades means making sure that large mammals can roam more freely north to south within Washington. The I-90 Wildlife Bridges Coalition, administered by Conservation Northwest, is bridging the barrier that Interstate 90 presents to animals by promoting wildlife passage as part of the I-90 project. This highway project will improve a major passage along the Interstate 90 between Hyak and Easton, an area busy with traffic and much frequented by wildlife.
<snip>
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=289
In the Seattle Times, January 12, 1994
Gore's intentions sound, but his solutions aren't
by John A. Baden, Ph.D. and Tim O’Brien
<snip>
Unfortunately, although he gets many facts straight, his proposed reforms are likely to be genuinely harmful; he has learned little from history. Gore sees the problem as evil and ignorant people and insufficient government management. His approach to environmental bliss is naive - place good, intelligent people in positions of authority and empower them to pursue rational, publicly beneficial policies. He assumes that political bureaucracies can consistently promote environmental ends. While this may work at the community level, it normally fails at the national level as both ecological sensitivity and economic efficiency are trumped by politics.
Gore's policy inclinations are right in the trivial sense that many environmental problems could easily be dealt with if we could "rewire" people and produce a new environmental man. This creature would enthusiastically support programs that improved the quality of the environment, even if they implied significant personal costs. Environmental man's self interest is subservient to ecology. But this is as unrealistic as the Soviet's efforts to create a "new socialist man," another altruistic creature. And like the Soviet's efforts, rewiring - or in this case repainting people a new shade of green - will fail, causing much environmental mischief and fostering political opportunism.
<snip>
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anna Mae or may not
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 Posts: 239 | TRs | Pics Location: vacillating |
|
Anna Mae
or may not
|
Thu May 07, 2009 4:32 am
|
|
|
Nice summation, Dale (except for the irrelevant bit on Gore). First there were no bear; then they imported a few bear; now we've got to get out of the bears' territory. ???
Anna Mae Barf
Against stupidity ...... the gods themselves ...... contend in vain.
Against stupidity ...... the gods themselves ...... contend in vain.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dale Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2002 Posts: 139 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Dale
Member
|
Thu May 07, 2009 6:10 am
|
|
|
(except for the irrelevant bit on Gore).
Anna, that was for The Slugman.
In many of his posts he implies that government employees have evolved to the higher stage where they will work to their maximum ability and only use what they need without the rewards of private property.
I was a government employee a very long time ago and this was not my observation.
And since then, for sure I have not evolved, and I doubt that The Slugman has either. Dale
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eric Peak Geek
Joined: 21 Oct 2002 Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics Location: In Travel Status |
|
Eric
Peak Geek
|
Thu May 07, 2009 8:18 am
|
|
|
As far as closed roads, does any one have a list of roads or GIS file or map? I did not see a map in a quick skim of the PDF. Just stating road mileage totals doesn't really mean much either way given the thousands and thousands of miles in FS inventory of which many are logging spurs that are of no use if they are not logging. Of course, there are plenty that are of use but I'd like to see what is proposed before jumping to a conclusion either way.
|
Back to top |
|
|
HunterConservationist Member
Joined: 31 Jul 2008 Posts: 663 | TRs | Pics Location: Renton, WA, USA |
yukon222 wrote: | FYI - Latest Forest Service proposal to "protect" grizzlies in NE Washington, Idaho and part of Montana. Under the FS's preferred plan, 325 miles of forest road will be blocked off and 30 miles of trail that currently has motorized use. Snowmobile trails will also be affected as roads could not be used to access the trails in summer when the trails need to be cleared of fallen trees.
Under the 2nd more restrictive plan proposed by the environmental groups who filed the decade's worth of lawsuits, 490 miles of roads would be gated off, 57 miles of motorized trails plus elimination of 22 developed recreation sites (would no longer be accessed by motor vehicles). This would include the day-use area at Roman Nose, a 7,271' peak in Idaho, 6 campgrounds, 3 boat ramps and 3 picnic areas. |
Pretty lousy bureaucratic maneuver. Basically they're creating a new wilderness area without bothering with a Congressional vote.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Schroder Member
Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 6747 | TRs | Pics Location: on the beach |
|
Schroder
Member
|
Thu May 07, 2009 8:45 am
|
|
|
Have the biologists that come up with these plans ever seen a grizzly?
These bears don't disappear because of the presence of people. You don't have to go very far in Alaska to find that out. They're gone because they were hunted to extinction and/or they ran out of food in that area. What will closing a road accomplish other than to reduce poaching, which is another issue entirely.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|