[yukon222]

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

[Magellan]

[Scrooge]

They've received my chosen alternative:

[MadCapLaughs]

[Slugman]

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!

[Magellan]

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.

[Couvehiker86]

[Couvehiker86]

[jimmymac]

Oh, I'm sure there's a silent majority effect going on here.

[Dale]

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>

[Anna Mae]

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

[Dale]

(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

[Eric]

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.

[HunterConservationist]

[Schroder]

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.