Bitterroot Dispute
Heated Forest Use Meeting Results in Investigation Into Threat
By Courtney Lowery, 1-10-08
A public meeting Wednesday night on the Bitterroot National Forest’s travel management plan—which governs motorized use—got heated enough that local Darby law enforcement is now investigating a threat overheard against one conservationist.
“It was pretty contentious—a lot of tension between the people of the Bitterroot Valley and the Forest Service,” said Shawn Woods, a deputy marshal for the town of Darby.
Woods said when a woman spoke in favor of conservation “there were some boos and things like that,” but he didn’t hear the alleged threat. “If there were threats made we definitely did not hear or witness those,” he said.
“We will be doing an investigation,” he said.
After the meeting, word traveled quickly of the alleged threat, which several people at the meeting said involved something to the effect of “put a bullet in her head.”
Jim Miller, the president of the conservation group Friends of the Bitterroot said when he walked into the meeting, “the atmosphere was just hostile.”
As a regular at such Forest Service meetings, Miller said they tend to get controversial, “but when people start using the F-word …”
“This was the worst I have ever seen,” Miller said.
Miller said most people giving public comment were respectful, but there was a group of people in the back who were heckling and booing other members of the public and the Forest Service employees.
“All of that is absolutely inappropriate behavior,” said Dan Thompson of the Ravalli County Off-Road Users Association, which, along with the Bitterroot Ridgerunners Snowmobile Club, had run a series of ads to encourage motorized use proponents to attend the meeting.
The groups’ intent was to convey to Forest Service officials that many citizens of the valley want them “to relax their closure agenda a little bit,” Thompson said. “Obviously the public wants access to their forest; the fact that 200 people showed up is evidence of that.”
“Unfortunately, there were a few people there”—none associated with Thompson or his group, he said—“that didn’t behave themselves.”
As for the alleged “put a bullet in her head” comment, Thompson didn’t hear it. “I’m not questioning that it happened, but I’m appalled that it did.” He added: “I did hear most of the young woman’s comments and they were good comments.”
Another meeting on the travel plan was scheduled for Thursday night in Stevensville but Forest Service officials cancelled it Thursday afternoon, citing space problems.
Stevensville District Ranger Dan Ritter said a larger-than-expected crown turned out for Wednesday night’s meeting in Darby and that the venue in Stevensville wouldn’t be able safely hold a similar sized audience.
“It’s a facilities issue,” he said, “a fire marshal issue,” and not the result of the confrontational nature of the meeting or the alleged threat.
The next meeting on travel management plans on the Bitterroot is scheduled for January 15th, at the Bitterroot River Inn in Hamilton. The Forest plans to announce the time of the meeting early next week.
After that meeting, the Forest will reassess the need for a third public meeting.
The trouble with loudmouth blowhards is that if they travel in packs and get likkered up in a bar, the hot talk can get super-heated, and if their buddies egg them on, real tragedies can result.
Just cool it.
The fact is that this kind of thing happens all the time at land use meetings, and the agencies in charge of these meetings allow it to happen.
This is the first time I've heard of an attempt to do anything about it.
And the fact is that it isn't just blowhards traveling from bars to the meetings. These kinds of attacks on conservationists are deliberately organized by multiple use groups; the ORV groups are particularly bad about it. The perpetrators may be drunk or half drunk but that doesn't make their actions any more spontaneous.
I'm surprised that law enforcement at the meeting didn't arrest the hecklers for disturbing the peace and public drunkenness, at a minimum.
Robert,
It does not surprise me law enforcement did not act. As with most of the counties the law is usually not natural but slanted toward pro-motor, ag interests, and keeping the ‘enviro’s' in check. I know first hand. I have been involved in many contentious issues revolving around public lands. I happen to leave such a meeting of sportsmen opposed to increased motorized access only to find a Sheriffs car in the parking lot spotlighting and recording license plate numbers of the participants. I have also witnessed this bias behavior in Madison County. Maybe officials in Ravalli County are truely concerned but my experience leaves me skeptical.
Tim
I would have to agree with your assessment. This is a particular problem that conservationists have ignored, hoping the problem will go away. I only see it getting worse here in the West; we are slowly seeing the last vestiges of democratic process slip away. I think in the future that we are going to have to demand that the agencies provide security for these meetings or challenge the refusal of the agencies to do so in court. Failure to secure these meetings is clearly a violation of our civil rights.
Further, I have long argued that conservation in the West is the equivalent of civil rights in the South. What we are dealing with is little different from the KKK. Understanding this would I hope lead to changes in strategies and tactics of conservation.
RH
I kind of said my piece over on the unfiltered part of this story (written by Matthew Koehler).
But Ravalli County will probably take this seriously. It is a different sort of place, and, to me at least, it is one of the New West's cutting edges. I love it, and it was good to me for over fifteen years. It is crowded now with people who have fled other places - I'm not talking about everybody, but a big group-- and those folks have a different way of looking at the world than people who come TO a place, in optimism and in exploration. In that threatening crowd in Darby you will not find exactly what you expect- not the mariginalized poor who want to ride their snowmobiles or ATVs. You will find the extremely well-heeled, who have fled places where their destructive antics are no longer acceptable (California's Desert Protection Act)....you will find the people who have narrowed themselves down into anti-everything in response to the changes in the places they come from..folks whose only defining energy is anger and negativity, and who have found a convenient outlet with the Forest Service, whose employees are forced by their jobs to listen to their rants.
And you will find a Sheriff's Dept that experienced the Cal Greenup siege, the militia threats against Judge Bethel, the plots, etc. They will probably not be "on the side" of white-lipped motorized use advocates who want to threaten and injure those with different opinions. It's not small town enough for that anymore.
Here's to hoping it can be worked out-- the motorized users can find or buy some private land for their "challenge riding" where they can pay fees to mitigate the damage they cause, and for the responsible riders, the thousands of miles of logging roads that are already open can provide endless hours of entertainment. Skalkaho Falls was once a wonderful destination for a long cross country road ski, now it is a wonderful destination for lines of 'bilers...that is okay, we all have to give up something in this world...I could go on forever about the places (Elkhorn Hot Springs and surrounding trails...!) where 'bilers have eclipsed every other use, and I could write a long list of the places I used to hunt where the ATVs drive by all day long now, and the resident elk herds are all moved out, and a big muley buck hasn't been seen in ten years (although hunting reg changes have helped on that one)...the landscape of the US is estimated to be 98% accessible by road and motor. It is bizarre to me that anyone would threaten violence against a person who argues that the last 2% of the public lands without motorized use should be opened to those without the wherewithal or motivation to go there otherwise, when almost the entire world is open to their desires. Rather than adults acting like adolescents, the advocates for more motorized use are adults acting like spoiled three year olds.
Given the current state of the world, as I wrote on the other post, it is not a mystery to me why the motorized folks are so angry, or why they threaten violence. The great mystery is why the non-motorized advocates are so preternaturally peaceful, even as they watch everything they say they love being taken from them once and for all.
And these people wonder WHY such groups as; Earth First, the ELF and so forth are created and ACT!! The Jewish Defense League is such a group on their perspective and Isreal has always be pre-emptive to it's security. Defending one's rights can take many forms - this systemof Gov't was created to attempt to work without violence, but sometimes it doesn't work that way!
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 1-11-08Hal
Civilized people are more peaceful than barbarians. Unfortunately, barbarians usually win unless confronted forcefully. The question is, will the law carry out the confrontation, or will someone else. It seems to me that we are rapidly approaching the latter course.
RH
Two hikers have already been run down. Now talk of bullets in heads. Out on the trail, in the woods, on isolated roads, anonymous (helmets with dark face shields), unstable people on powerful machines are frightening. God help the lone hiker or snowshoer who encounters this man/machine hybrid in this climate of intimidation. The combination--anonymity and transferred power--creates a volatile mix and a truly dangerous situation when the man/machine unit is angry and emboldened. I experienced this first hand when I was harrassed by a six year old boy--that's right, six--wearing a face-concealing shield, on an ATV, as I walked minding my own business on the road I live on. I don't assign evil intent to the child, but he was testing the waters of intimidation--that's for sure--something he never would have had the courage to do had he met me on foot and face to face.
Not all foot travelers are paragons of virtue, and not all motorized users are dangerous creeps. But it's looking like waaay more than "a few bad apples" spoiling this barrel.
The good ol' boy prosecutor in Idaho who failed to pursue charges against the dirt biker, in a wilderness area, who ran over the hiker on purpose after being confronted with his lawbreaking, should be taken to task, and the truth of that situation revealed.
I thought, when that happened, that it was the beginning of something new, that would grow increasingly unpleasant, and that the prosecutor missed a valuable opportunity to draw a line.
Links to that story: includes a link to the original Missoulian story
http://blog.hcn.org/goat/2007/09/09/felony-assault-charge-against-off-road-driver-dropped-in-plea-deal/
I hate to be the advocate of a turn to the dark side, but in the Flathead, Jon Stokes and his posse used to bring these kinds of remarks to meetings, and would follow through on things by threatening little old ladies, and giving death threats to organizers. Years ago, they killed drowned a good friend of mine in her own back yard because she was an enviro and a lesbian.
Eventually, a group of aggressively-inclined enviros will begin doing the same kind of subversive cut-throating that eventually led to stokes' downfall. These idiots don't understand that if you try to intimidate people for along time at public meetings, something greater is at stake, and eventually people will swing back a little harder than expected.
You ORV folks in the root... the ones who like to intimidate... it's a real shame for you all to assume all us enviros are pacifistic whimps who only like to bitch at public meetings and then go home to our whimpy liberal dope and hippy beads and lava lamps. Many of us don't fit into this stereotype, and are looking forward to aggresively dealing with these kinds of threats in a way that won't visibly discredit the environmental movement.
It would be most appropriate if the extreme ORVers began to look over their shoulders as much as they want us to.
Thanks NewWest for providing some information about the sad Travel Planning meeting that took place in Darby. It’s very important for the public to know what transpired at that meeting and for everyone to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.
The fact of the matter is that the Forest Service was at the meeting in the full force, including Supervisor Dave Bull. Did Supervisor Bull once rise up during the meeting and call for calm? No. The fact is that law enforcement was at the meeting. Did local law enforcement rise up and call for calm? No.
The fact of the matter is that state Sen. Rick Liable was at the meeting. Did Sen. Liable rise up once and call for calm? No, and according to one of the Forest Service’s own district rangers Sen. Liable’s comments at the meeting served to inflame the situation.
The same can be said for leaders of the new Big Sky Coalition: Environmentalists for Common Sense and numerous off-road users groups in the Bitterroot Valley. Did any of these leaders rise up and call for calm? No.
The reality that many of us in the conservation community have faced for decades and decades is that there is a distinct double standard. When that double standard effectively prevents some from feeling safe about participating in the public process, it’s an issue that we as a community should take very seriously.
Just how bad was the meeting in Darby? Here is what one of Bitterroot NF’s own district rangers (who is relatively new to the Bitterroot Valley) wrote me yesterday, “In 22 years of public service this is the closest I have ever been to this sort of virulent hate mongering. It is shocking to me I have led a sheltered life I guess where all humans are respected and treated with dignity regardless of differing view points. This is just sad.”
Sad indeed. Sad because this type of behavior keeps happening in the Bitterroot Valley and nobody seems to do anything about it.
For more on this, check out this letter written to Supervisor Bull and Darby District Ranger Dan Ritter yesterday by a long-time Bitterroot Valley conservationists (who, in addition to the details provided below, also happens to have numerous bullet holes in his cabins from past attacks.)
From: Larry Campbell [mailto:lcampbell@bitterroot.net]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:45 PM
To: ;
Subject: Darby Travel Plan meeting
Hello Dave and Dan,
I am writing to let you know that I did not speak up at the Darby
meeting because of the intimidation tactics used by many people sitting near and behind me. When I distinctly heard the “Put a bullet in her head” comment behind me, directed at Carol Jahns, I decided not to speak. My decision was in no small way swayed by my past experience with BNF law enforcement. When I had my life threatened and was surrounded by a mob right there at the BNF Supervisor’s Office I received no protection. BNF people stood looking through the windows. There was absolutely no investigation or follow up by the BNF.
I find it very ironic, but not amusing, that a great show of law
enforcement, armed and with flak jackets, was highly visible at the release press conference for the Middle East Fork EIS. That theatrical show was aimed at polite, law abiding conservationists. Then you organize a meeting in Darby, after fanning the flames with op-eds in local papers, and provide a very low profile law enforcement presence that stayed in the background while incredibly rude and illegal behavior occurred.
I am sorry that you, Dave, were so set upon. Maybe the experience will increase your empathy for those of us who have been threatened and actually assaulted over two decades simply for speaking up.
What sort of behavior do you think will happen when those same rowdy, rude people are in the backcountry and are asked to follow regulations and trail etiquette? Turning these people loose with ATVs on public lands is irrational and seems to amount to knowingly aiding and abetting vandalism of public property.
Larry Campbell
The failure of the Forest Service to "integrate" transportation planning into the broader Forest Plan Revision process undercuts the true multiple-use, multiple-values legal framework that must be maintained to resolve conflicts in today's narcissistic culture.
Once the context has been limited to who's use is superior, all other forest values are lost in the controversy. It marginalizes the debate, and the analysis. Motorized transportation is not the only issue the FS has deliberately isolated to avoid fully considering cumulative impacts to important values like water, fish and wildlife habitat. The programmatic, cumulative impacts of oil and gas development and grazing are seldom, if ever, analyzed in an integrated forestwide planning process.
The agency's purpose is clear and simple: Congress funds controversy. Follow the money. As long as it can play monkey-in-the-middle (of warring factions), the money will flow to pay for salaries, equipment (including excessive amounts of motorized toys) and make-work projects.
Same as it ever was. Structural reform of the FS might get everyone agreeing on something for a change.
Actually, this sort of disruption and incivility has good and bad points.
The bad point is it allows discussion of the real issues to be derailed, such as the Missouliar focusing on a mean sound bite rather than the actual numbers of trail miles closed, any documentation of genuine resource damage, a discussion of the difference between use conflict and USER conflict, whether or not facilitated roundtables are truly an effective means of public input and participation.
The good point is these sort of explosions show how utterly dysfunctional things are. Get a big-enough crisis and perhaps the politicians responsible for this mess -- yo, Congress -- will smell the smoke.
At the risk of repetition, I'd like to point out the similarities which have existed for the past quarter century or--actually since the Acting presiden ran and won on the notions--that the enemy was the welfare queens--that the Government was the problem not the solution--that intellectuals were dangerous to common folks trying to get by with common sense--and so on.
In the Munich beer halls putches by bullies led to the rise of Herr Hitler.
In Nevada the Sagebrush Rebels blew up a Forest Ranger's office--and his home.
In Montana the great unwashed--the unemployed lumberjacks aboard their snowmobiles and ATVs are in league with the constabulary crowd to regiment life in the inland empire according to the lights established by Neo-Conservative political thinking...
I think ordinary working people are becoming alarmed at the amount of control of not only our public land, but use of private land has become usurped by special interest, non profit environmental big business....and make no mistake it is definitely big, very big business.
Our state F&G;biologists, forest managers, etc are being stripped of any decision making ability by these corporations that are using high powered lawyers and eastern "friendly" judges to control things they have no business being in control of.
I for one am very concerned. How did these unelected, non representative people get so much control over our lifestyles and our lives?
jedediah, you bring your far-left Boulder perspective to the Montana Bitterroots and attempt to blame a display of raw angry reaction by ATVers on Bush. I know that is in the playbook to do so but it just doesn't grasp the "why." To make you argument you have to insult those Montanans by calling them "the great unwashed." I guess that is how they do things in Boulder? What a load of hooey.
If there were threats, those are unacceptable and should be dealt with. If the organizers did not anticipate and plan for this reaction, well that's a 'horse' on them. Native Montanans do not like outsiders restricting their way of life and enjoyment. There is a volatile few that respond to such a threat with objections delivered to the message carrier. They tend to make their communication to the message carrier very clear and unvarnished. Without question, these people are wrong to do so. HOWEVER, it is very predictable and the organizers should do a far better job of designing the forum structure with appropriate security present to immediately deal with such situations.
Yes, Craig, et al.-- "Native Montanans do not like outsiders restricting their way of life and enjoyment." Just go up to the Flathead Reservation and ask one...
For the rest of you who think someone from Boulder should have no say, remeber it's the Bitterroot NATIONAL Forest.
The disfunction, as noted by Steve Kelly, is part of the purposeful dismantling of the USFS and the other land managment agencies (want to write a Forst Plan and make it categorically excluded from NEPA analysis, anyone?) It's a win-win for the Mountain States Legal Foundation crowd -- either "we" get to handcuff land managers with anti-environmental policies, or we tie them up with years of litigation that, even if we lose, at least has sucked up the budget and time of the agency in the interval. Oh, yeah -- and then we get to cry "analysis paralysis" and call for gutting NEPA.
George, I don't think its possible to misrepresent what I wrote and my point to any greater degree than what you have done.
---Forums should have much better pre-planning given the expective sensitivity of attendees to outsiders.
--Forums should have the right security in place to handle threatening situations.
--Using far left Boulder political logic to blame 'unwashed' Montanan is an insult and misses the problem and the simple fix.
If there were 'outsider' federal officials delivering the message that may trigger raw, unvarnished reaction, I would have federal law enforcement officials present and have one of them present to address the crowd before the meeting reminding people of their likelyhood to be arrested and charged with a federal felony for threatening or inciting violence. Then, carry through if there is a situation.
George, remember, an 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' It's not any harder than that. Blaming Bush is a distraction for political purposes only.
George, one more thing I see a 'Native Montanan' everytime I look in a mirror.
Comment By Jay, 1-13-08The leadership of Big Sky Coalition is focusing on its declared mission, Matthew. Nothing more. We don't have a dog in the travel management hunt.
Besides, it isn't our place to "stand up and call for calm" at a public meeting to which we were not even a party. That's up to law enforcement and good breeding. Good luck with the second part.
I concur that some people in this valley could use better manners, not to mention more respect and tolerance for the other person's viewpoint.
Jay
http://www.bigskycoalition.org
MORION - the ORDINARY working man DOESN'T have to right to do what they please on land that isn't THEIRS!! Go buy your OWN land - then TRASH it!
Comment By Marion, 1-13-08Trashing the land depends on your point of view. Unfortunately the stuck in time 2year old think anyone who would share with them are depriving them. There is no more evidence that using the wilderness as an outdoor latrine is any less damaging that using motor vehicles. Roads will grow over disease and ifnections can live in the ground for years. On the other hand, I'm sure it is much more difficult to grow drugs if there are people around.
There is no excuse for anyone to exercise violence, nor threaten it, by the same token it si time for the newcomers to share with those of us who have lived our lives out here.
Morion: Ha, so now everyone who doesn't see things YOUR way is growing drugs on Federal Lands. How does looking to the FUTURE (do you know what that word means) put someone stuck in time? Also - STOP mixing issues; apples/oranges!! If you think that evhicles and feces have NO harm ; how about I come to your lawn with my truck and use it as a bathroom? Certain acts of TRASH aren't a matter of perspective!
Comment By mw, 1-13-08Marion, your point of using wilderness areas as a latines is well taken & as any first grader should know, human waste should be buried & then it rapadily decomposes. However new technologies are a double edged sword--they cut both ways-- they can be used rationally or irrationaly. Just because someone gets a new "toy" doesn't mean they should have a "green light" to use it a irresponsible manner. So Marion when your parents or grand parents were growing up they did not have ATV's or super snowmobiles so how does all this "technological junk become a "way of life"?
We are now a nation of 300 million humans and expected to grow in the next 40 years by another 100 million. Ever increasing human number will require ever increasing regulations & laws. Otherwise the land will become so polluted & degraded that it will support no one. Yes, I would prefer Montana as my great great grand parents found it: full of open spaces and clean air & water & full of promise but this is not to be. Unless you are a native American, you have no "beef" with the newcomers as you or your ancesters were once newcomers. As Wendell Berry wrote: "everyone eventually becomes a "redskin". And for better or for worse the one contant in life is "change".. What this world does need is more civility & ethics!!!!!
mw, my concern is not about how the land is used as much as it is by the obvious class warfare of those who are allowed to use it. Environmentalism has become the rallying cry of those who feel only they are good enough to use public lands. The name doesn't matter, it is the same theory, they do not want to share, and really feel others are beneath them and not entitled to use the land, only to pay to maintain for those good enough.
Look at the names enviros use for those they want to lock out of "their" land, rednecks, hoodlums, lazy bums, greedy ranchers, on and on. They think of themselves as caring and deserving of free access, while the others do not pay enough.
You and I both know that most folks do not bury and burn their waste, and I agree, that would be ideal, unfortunately that is not what they do most times. However those same people do not feel it is a problem for them since they are jsut one person, but when you multiply that by the millions who are tromping around out there, it becomes pretty significant. I read an article once about how Half Dome reeks from all of the people climbing and using it for a bathroom. That is shameful, but no one seems concerned because it is environmentalists who are using it that way so it is fine.
My concern with lacking the majority of people out of public land is not "just" the ATVs, and snowmachines, it is all motorized access.
Local working families are shut out of a Sunday afternoon picnic or fishing area because all of the roads have been closed to accommodate those who feel they should not be bothered by other people.
Those who feel others are not "good enough" to share the land feel others are not paying enough for any use they may be allowed, but that environmentalists are entitled to free access.
Again this is far more about what is best for the land, of course there have to be some controls, but the land must be shared for all use.
Jay, You're welcome to state, "The leadership of Big Sky Coalition is focusing on its declared mission, Matthew. Nothing more. We don't have a dog in the travel management hunt."
However, the fact of the matter is that state Sen. Rick Liable is a Big Sky Coalition board member. According to a first-hand account from one of the Forest Service’s own district rangers Sen. Liable’s comments at the meeting served to inflame the situation. The same was said about the comments of Tom Robak, who is the founder of the Big Sky Coalition. Seems like the Big Sky Coalition leadership was well represented at the Darby meeting.
Matthew,
Senator Laible (not spelled liable) is clearly his own man, an elected representative with duties that don't necessarily include the Big Sky Coalition agenda, such as serving his constituents.
This meeting, and Senator Laible's presence, had zero to do with our organization. Furthermore, Tom Robak was simply exercising his right to free speech. His comment about road closures was apropos given the meeting context. Only you seem to have a problem with this, which is odd given your predilection to inflame and entrench.
A single inflammatory outburst (an aside, really) does not a war make. Nor do comments from civic leaders and elected officials. If you need to blame anyone, blame the overheated chap who let his temper get the better of him.
Naturally, the leadership of Big Sky Coalition condemns threatening, unruly behavior at public meetings by anyone in Montana, be they common-sense environmentalists or not.
But more to the point of this comment, we won't attempt to undermine the reputations of the leaders of the WildWest Institute or other organizations in public fora because it is counterproductive to our stated focus on forest management solutions and maintaining a working dialog with all stakeholders.
And truth be told, it would be in poor taste. If we are to create a better world, someone needs to rise above the mud-slinging party and get to work creating it. Best way to do this is to keep one's head down and never sling any.
Jay
http://www.bigskycoalition.org
Jay, I thought this statement was interesting, "Naturally, the leadership of Big Sky Coalition condemns threatening, unruly behavior at public meetings by anyone in Montana, be they common-sense environmentalists or not."
That certainly good to heaer. However, how do you explain the fact right now on the Big Sky Coalition website (http://www.bigskycoalition.org/2007/10/letters-of-support.html) you have a letter of support from the Western Institute?
This is the same Western Institute that on December 10, 2007 wrote an article stating, "[Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell] also has promoted, not canceled, the whoofoo program, and deliberately burned down millions of acres of forest in her own Region in her very first year. That kind of malice aforethought with no regrets afterwards is pure evil, treason, and certainly a hanging offense, in my opinion. Gail Kimbell should be indicted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for the rest of her natural life, if not put to death by lethal injection, in my opinion."
This is the same Western Institute that on December 9, 2007 wrote an article that stated, "By fascist, authoritarian, non-democratic fiat Gail Kimbell has declared war on the private property owners of America. Who does that FASCIST PIG think she is?"
Furthermore, you're website has other information and articles and letters of support in which inflamed rhetoric such as "radical environmentalists," "extremists," and "extreme environmentalists" is used.
My point in bringing this information to light is to highlight that the Big Sky Coalition is making some pretty bizarre connections with people and organizations, all the while saying they want to bring people together to find common ground and solutions. How the Big Sky Coalition brings people together when their site has articles and letters of support that call us "radical environmentalists" and "environmental extremists" and when they highlight a letter of support from an organization that has called for the chief of the Forest Service to be put to death is a real mystery.
Certainly doesn't appear to me that the BS Coalition is "maintaining a working dialog with all stakeholders."
Marion - or is it Morion! You keep thinking (or are you) that ALL that have ABSOLUTE Equal rights to everything; it doesn't work that way in reality! Some folks behave so badly - that simply have to be banned from the public facilities! I agree with Herber that you keep mixing issues and this helps NONE of your arguements. One pt. you keep harping on are Free Loaders - do YOU use ANYTHING in your town, county or State that you completely own and pauid for in FULL - I know you haven't paid for all public facilities that you use and State/Federal tax and fee money have been used to provide the service/facility to you; SO your pt. is MUTE!!
As for how the land is used; this is being determined by HARD Science and NOT selfishness, arogance or how it "use" to be. Several people in this blog have mentioned the simple fact that "IF" majority rule of ALL the nation were the law - YOU wouldn't like it. As long as you see these issues as; "Just Me's - Environmentalists or whatever "other" group" you choose to name - there will be NO winners to the issues and the LAND itself Suffers the Physical and Quality harm! So - name calling aside; it isn't a matter of "good enough", but one's respect for the GREATER good of ALL and that requires Compromise, so some people will NOT be completely satisfied. There also comes a pt. where compromise NO LONGER works and an absolute must be drawn!
Matt,
That was a fine job of dredging for out-of-context dirt. For those of you that want to get the full context of the Western Institute for Study of the Environment, you can pop on this link which will take you to the Gail Kimbell item Matt cribbed from.
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/category/federal-forests/page/2/
As for you, Jay, don't you dare say it ain't your dog in the fight. You guys want to build coalitions, don't sit back when your potential allies in promoting forestry, responsible motorheads that like green forests, are having their heads served up. Your dog is involved, and when it comes time to pull the sled, it'll be easier the more dogs you can lash up.
You don't need "Bullet" the mean dog, but there are good dogs out there. I suggest you sniff around and find them.
That said, I don't support over-the-top "bullet in head" commentary, especially in public where such rhetoric usually derails impressionable journalistas from the real story; nor do I appreciate rhetorical flourishes posted to the Net where kids like Matt can twist them beyond recognition, the sick fact is that people don't usually behave like that unless they are seriously unhappy.
The guy that runs WISE is a fine forester, passionate about the landscape and its history, AND its future. The policy he's ranting about is about USFS's "open space" program, where the agency, which is utterly screwing up its own ground, hopes to create a new role as advisors for owners of private "wildlands" using the ideologically laden themes of conservation biology to create "linkages" and whatnot.
I would prefer the agency get its own house in order first, and then consider other pathways. That it has gone this direction merely underscores how feeble the leadership is....all the way up to President Bush.
You sat next to Al Capone in a bar once. This makes you a gangster?
Only if your name is Straw Man.
I won't rebut your points because this isn't the place and, more importantly, it isn't our fight despite how many words you put in our mouths.
If others reading this are gullible enough to take the bait without reading the full article, I can't help that. But I hope they do because the fiction you are cobbling together here is patently ridiculous.
There's little bandwidth to have a working dialog because you're hogging the mic and overlaying the trail management meeting discussion here with a slurry of interrogatory and innuendo about our organization. Stop the attacks, will you? The very thing you claim to abhor is the thing you are doing.
You've been at it all weekend via email and comment board.
Are you drunk on endless double mocha lattes?
Perhaps what you fear most is being ignored.
Last post was for Matthew.
Dave, thanks for the insights. Right on. We do have a dog in the hunt, just not on this particular outing. Sounds like quite the stir, wish I'd have been there.
We know the value of good dogs...but we're definitely treading carefully because we're the new pup in the pack.
Anyone ever spent any time in Darby? Strange freakin' community, so I'm not surprised about the meeting. Most of those making the noise and threats are hollow-minded pussies who only bark. They have no bite.
I have a dirt bike and a backpack. I prefer the backpack. There are enough ORV trails in the BRoot. There are enough open roads in the BRoot.
Yes, sir. And it is a pack that has been advocating violence and trying to win through intimidation what it cannot win through argument. I think you understand that very well.
Not far from where I live, in Loma, Mt. there is a big "motor ranch" where people can pay a small fee to raise hell in the gumbo, and have a great time riding every kind of ATV. I think it is one of the best ideas I've seen in a long time. Bitterroot Valley riders who want to "challenge ride" could band together and buy a property and set up a similar recreation area. If they just want to ride, there are thousands of miles of logging roads open to them.
But to ask for new public land areas- beyond the mazes of logging roads already open, and the areas like Camus Peak where real snowmobile challenge riding is available, where you can avalanche yourself, high mark, do it all, (I can name a half dozen other high country places open to snowmiobile challnge riding- and I'm glad they are open, hard core snowmobiling is great, difficult, wild, there should be places open for it on public lands) is just asking too much. It does not matter that you have all of these industries making and selling all this gear, behind you, or that you do or do not encourage the kind of displays of intimidation that everybody who has ever been to a public meeting on this issue has seen, first hand. You cannnot say you are not a part of it. You are a part of it, and so are the manufacturers of these expensive toys.
You are just asking for too much as far as the public lands go. Your use is too exclusive -- too much impact on other uses, from hunting to watershed and weed control and hiking. And you are never, ever satisfied. Ever notice that? No amount of land open to riding is ever enough.
Snowmobiliers totally dominate a drainage when they are challenge riding, especially. That is fine with me. But you are asking for too many of the drainages. Skiers don't have near the impact, no noise, no trash, etc. But its no fun to ski a drainage that is cut up by bilers, and roaring with the noise of their engines from cirque to cirque. You pretend that you have no impacts, but that is not true, and anybody who has tried to share the woods with you knows it. For you to have what you want, too many other people have to give up what they want.
I've always valued the freedom offered by the public lands, and I have never wanted to see more regulations placed on those of us who use them almost every day. But what you are asking for takes away my freedom. And I've already lost hunting places, skiing places, hiking places, fishing places to NEW motorized use. Twenty years ago, nobody rode there. Nobody I knew ever had the money to buy these expensive toys, most of them still don't. You have a real bad image problem, based on the trash I've seen, the chainsaws we had stolen from our work camp by 'bilers, the wrecking of good game country by people on ATVs, and on and on. Maybe there are responsible riders out there, but I don't see them. And every time a responsible rider advocates for more use for him/her and their responsible friends, all I see is a new place open to the riders that I am very familiar with, and they are NOT responsible. We lost the use of the state land behind my house in Corvallis to them (you should drive up and see it). The list of places lost on the public lands is long, sir.
I do not mind sharing the public lands. But you cannot have them for your exclusive use, to ride to every lake, high mark every peak, spread weeds and beer cans and toilet paper on every trail, shoot every mule deer buck and be home for supper. You are asking too much. I think that is obvious, and I think that is why your followers, or whatever they are, are so belligerent at the public meetings.
My comments above are addressed to "Jay" and other spokespersons for groups of motorized use advocates.
thanks,
Hal
Hey Short Hair/Dumb @$$, et cetera derogatory Spanish catchall,
I'd love to see you say "Darby is full of hollow-minded pussies" in Darby, in public. That'll go over smooooooooooth, I bet. Of course, you'll probably whine about feeling, um, "intimidated" afterwards.
Keep up the good work.
And you "morion" types, oh, THAT'S real civil. If you people want to be insulting, let's see a little less hollowmindedness and a skosh more creativity and a larger thesaurus, okay?
Hal,
How come your "sharing" never includes "sharing" the good stuff? How come nobody ever raises, as I did fifteen long years ago, the idea of rotating closures on even/odd or five-year cycles as a means of mitigating conflicts while still allowing access and multiple use? Rest-rotation in a fluid manner across the landscape is a fundament of good land stewardship yet nobody ever seems to get it, or is afraid to recognize it. What a shame.
I find the argument "I support multiple use, just not HERE, and HERE, and THERE, and OVER THERE, and back UP HERE" to be specious.
Skinny,
Your quotes are incorrect, except for the "hollow-minded" pussy part. You apparently have no problem with that one.
Nobody in Darby intimidates me, except for the owner's daughter at the Sawmill. But I like that.
Hal, I'm not a spokesperson for groups of motorized use advocates. I'm simply a humble volunteer webmaster defending the good name of our organization, that's it.
Good observations otherwise though. After shaming a couple of ruffian ATVers out of where they should never have been, tearing around in the wilderness near where I live, I concur.
A few bad apples...
Dave, you ever wonder what the critter 'thesaurus' looked like? I wonder if the 'thesaurus' was like Lucy, the first human from which all others came from according to a leaky boneologist. Perhaps it will all make sense when they find the B-root 'yeti eddie' and his fossilized carbon prints and discover whether he had been chomping on this, that, and the other sauruses. IF the trails to the digs are closed to mechanized travel perhaps the ologists could parachute in like smokejumpers before taking up positions like Theophilus Thistle, the merry thistle sifter, sifting a sifter full of unsifted thistles.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 1-14-08I just got an email that pretty much sums up the real issue under snark on this page:
"The environmental movement has been waging war on rural residents of the West for years. It's about time they realized the animosity building up. People are tired of having their homes, properties, forests, and watersheds incinerated. Tired of wolves stalking their children. Tired of their economies and livelihoods undermined. Tired of extremists who sue to kill.
So they are getting some negative feedback re all that. They shouldn't be all that surprised."
I don't listen to Rush, but ditto.
PJ,
If you ever said what you said in public, a lot of people in Darby would do their best to intimidate you. And you better keep your crush secret now. Bad move. No PJ for you.
Jay, I agree about the ruffians, done it myself. They belong in the pound with Bullet.
and Craig, thanks for the belly laugh. I needed one. Leaky. I get it. Snrk.
Dave S. - whoever sent you that e-mail with the comments about Rural Folks getting fed up; I can see ALOT of what they say and feel , but can't agree with them much. Especially when someone makes such RIDICULOUS comments about "Wolves Stalking their Kids" - come on folks!! The days of Little Red Riding Hood are OVER!!
If these Rural residence don't wake up and see the Long term future - they will be Pushed out by the Developers (just like the Indians were starting 150 yers ago) and not the recreationist/enviro's!
Dave,
I'm not completely clear on what you are saying, there.
But "multiple use" is no longer a term that means anything. It's like the term "conservative" as used by Tom Delay.
Commodities become more valuable as they get more scarce, is an obvious rule of economics.
I just feel strongly that there is an enormous preponderance of real "multiple use" from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border, from the Atlanstic to the Pacific, and we have been blessed to have these last unroaded landscapes, in the public domain, and they are extrememly valuable- priceless even- because of those facts. Motorized use dominates an estimated 90-someodd percent, some say 98%- of the modern American landscape. Is it unreasonable, given what any one of us can see happening in the world today- India, China, Atlanta, Seattle, Missoula, etc etc etc,
to say that motorized users already have enough? And that for them to ask for this, too, is just too much?
You know, Dave, I never thought I'd live as long as I have. And I never thought that my country would be like it is. I think that I have simply outlived my time-that I live now in a time when most older people don't value any place where they can't get back to the air conditioning in a half hour or so. And the younger ones just see the place as a canvas for their "extreme" antics, a wooded skateboard park without rules. Where people who love the wilderness and the freedom of it, or of any place where you have to really struggle to get to-- are considered idiots and wimps, goofballs to kick around. I remember when it was the opposite of that, and where the folks who had to have motors carry them everywhere were considered weak, or not worthy of the big deer or elk.
I also remember a time when things were not so polarized, when I was sawing or planting south of Darby and we didn't talk much about enviros while drinking at the Sawmill (and renting a room upstairs). Or when my buddies and I could come down from skiing Trapper or Tin Cup in the spring and have a hellraising time at the same bar, talking to people who didn't ski, but didn't hate us because we did. We shared a knowledge of and love of the country from the Blue Joint all the way to Johnson Peak and up to Mud Creek Saddle or the upper Lost Horse, or the strange no-mans-land of the Overwhich. Now, for the most part, the skiers and the climbers and the hikers pass on through the town without stopping.
I think it was better when you could hike up to the saddle on Jew Mountain and check to see if the elk herds were moving through there, without having a half dozen ATVs buzzing through the saddle while you were standing there, all sweated up, and looking at the emptiness. I know, I know, "look at that bonehead who walked all the way up here! Doesn't he know we pushed the elk out of here a week ago? He must not be much of an elk hunter!"
It just ain't as much fun anymore. That's a loss, isn't it?
Jay, sorry I misunderstood your position, there.
This whole thing has kind of left me depressed.
Hal
I think my kind of people are in decline. Maybe we didn't have enough children, or we let them watch too much television, or we simply got outnumbered by the throngs of citizens who just don't much of a s**** about anything. Except their "rights" to dominate a meeting or threaten people or rip around like little punk kids on dirt bikes though the last of the wild country.
Dave,
They might be angry, but that still don't mean they are right.
Sorry about that last paragraph above- I thought I had deleted it, but guess I didn't. I was trying to be evenhanded in deleting it.
Hal
Hang in there Hal. Everyday we wake up we are blessed with the opportunity to take another run at our challenges and make the new day better than the last. If not today then try again tomorrow after a good nights sleep. Perhaps a little roll in the hay might just unleash some fresh perspective.
http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/CLIPS/Tarzan.wav
That ought to stampede the ATV's out of the mountains.
Why does it always seem like the LIBERAL AGENDA is trying to stop the american public from exercising their rights and FREEDOM to persue their right to happiness .My idea of happiness is taking my 4 wheeler to different places on the river and fly fishing for the day or weekend ... in the winter i enjoy snowmobileing , why would you people try to stop me from enjoying myself, if you dont like what i do ,.... dont look ,...just ignore me as i go by ,ill do the same to you , but forcing others to comply to your views is UNAMERICAN , COMMUNIST, and a form of TERRORISM , you terrorize us with your lawyers , lawsuits and your coalitions to stop people from doing as they please, how about just doing your OWN THING and leaving other people alone to live their lives as they see fit , if i was trying to stop you from doing your FAVORITE THING wouldnt you be pissed at me ?
Comment By C. S., 1-14-08Sledhead - why don't the Jews just accept the Nazis; why don't the parents of children just accept the pedophiles; why don't art museums just allow cigars/boomboxes in the them AND Why can't certain people see that THEIR so called Pursuit of Happiness is just crapping on the MAJORITY of the American Publics??
Some things will NEVER be compatable, so segregation will happen; since compromise doesn't work: Buffalo Pass,CO - Snow Range,WY- Rabbit Ear Pass,CO + Hundreds of other places!
We Can't and WON't ignore you; you stink too MUCH and are TOO LOUD. You DO stop me from doing what I want/like/love; have Peace and QUIET in the Mountains! Does this help you see your point from MY perspective?
A rich lady from California, who was a tree hugger and a vociferous anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timber land in the bitterroot valley. There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted to get a good view of her land so she started to climb the big tree.
As she neared the top, she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her. In her haste to escape, the lady slid down the tree to the ground and got many splinters in her private parts.
In considerable pain, she hurried to the nearest country doctor. Being a hunter himself, the doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to go into the examining room and he would see if he could help her.
She sat and waited for three hours before the doctor reappeared.
The angry lady demanded, "What took you so long?"
He smiled and then told her, "Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a recreational area and I'm sorry, but they all turned me down."
Hi Everyone,
Just a reminder that we do employ a civility policy around here, so keep this discussion respectful and civil.
If you're not able do to so, be prepared to have your comments removed from the forum.
And, if you think someone is out of line, don't hesitate to let me know.
Just a reminder...
c.s. i see that your psycho arrogant and wrong you just compaired a walk/ride into the forrest with genocide , and pedophelia , and by the way YOU ARE NOT THE MAJORITY , you just have nothing better to do than sue the goverment evry time they dont see it your way and id like to introduce you to a place called WILDERNESS this is a place i think you will enjoy ,....... a place kept unspoiled by roads , engines ... crowds of people , and the hustle and bustle of the masses i go there often on my horses and its pure enjoyment .... you should try it .... really ... in the mean time when im not riding my horses in the wilderness ,... im gonna ride my quad , jeep, snowmobile mountain bike and dirt bike in the places where its legal to ride P.S. i think you missed the point i was trying to make which is with out raping children or removing an entire race from exzistance , i dont think distroying roads and trails , or even limiting their use is a good idea ,...and ill fight it with evry recourse i have
Comment By bob onit, 1-14-08Quote by C.S.
We Can't and WON't ignore you; you stink too MUCH and are TOO LOUD. You DO stop me from doing what I want/like/love; have Peace and QUIET in the Mountains! Does this help you see your point from MY perspective?
Go Grow your weed in a different forest and Take your hippie a$$ back to California
what bothers me the most about this is the fact that ,...YOU the LIBERAL thinks that you need to govern the ENTIRE forrest and that the MOTOR ENTHUSIAST has got to fight for SIMPLE RIGHTS . I do believe in conservation ,.. but not to the over blown point many conservationalists and liberals do .... this is OUR PLANET ,...MINE AND YOURS ......so we DO HAVE TO GET ALONG AND COMPRIMISE so if you think im too loud ,...or stink too much which is such BOLOGNA (cant you come up with something real) then stay off the roads and trails .... according to you the area by the roads and trails are already ruined any way ,...... see you say i stop you from enjoying the forrest ,...but its really you sitting on the trail pouting you didnt get your way as i drive by ,..... you must be the type of person who buys the house near the airport ,...and then complains about the noise
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-14-08At one point in my checkered past I tended bar at night. I learned when a bar fight was about to break out. There would be an abundance of fighting words tossed around. I suggest genltemen that you return to your stools and contemplate the zen of goldie cox and the three beers running wild and free in the B-roots. After all I've seen some hotheads drink moose drool when whipped into a frenzie. They were spitting mad too.
Comment By Charles Malen, 1-14-08Hal Hering has said it all. Amen and thank you Mr. Herring
Comment By A sledhead, 1-14-08craig ,....if that was aimed at me ,....i dont drink ....and im more curious than mad ....so far . I was right next to the guys who were mad at the meeting the other night ,.. these people feel like their being attacked and robbed ,..that their way of life is being tampered with ,... THEY ARE NOT HAPPY ,.... and i dont blame them , if someone attacked me id fight back , i might even make the 1st move if i was sure it was comming , one thing i will agree with is some people dont express themselves in the most effective way , thats a shame because what they had to say is real and true ,... they just needed to tone it down a notch ,.... P.S. moose drool?
Comment By jedediah, 1-14-08It is certainly pretty clear to me that the two opposing points of view are defined not only by ideology; but, as well, by intellectuality.
There was a group active during the thirties who were studying how lesser mentalities might have been eliminated by selective breeding.
Perhaps it is not so much that there are just too many people precisely--as that there has just been too much indiscriminate breeding...
Hey Bob,
Next time you stumble onto a patch in the Roots, tell me where it is, I'll get off my Darby barstool where I would be contemplating just exactly what a "goldie cox" is (because I'd already know what a loudmouth sledneck is), I'll walk away from my Moose Drool, and I'll go remove it for you. Happily. On foot. And I'll be singing some kind of hippy song, maybe CSN. I might throw a little Y in my CSN. I dunno yet. And I'll be wearing tie-dye. And my hair will be long. I'll have some kind of dog named after a mountain, too. And I'll definitely stink like an incense shop. Or is it patch-ooly-ooly But no worries, I'll get er dun for ya.
Because everyone that doesn't ride some kind of ORV in the mountains is a hippy, right Bob?
Isn't every pendejo guarded by two hippies putting on the squeeze?
Comment By bob onit, 1-14-08Hey pendejo if yer a tree hugger thats kewl jus don't try to have me huggin trees that you do or closin off our forest to me jus so you and your dog can have all to yourself and if you are from Darby I will bet yer the talk of the town ..right!...you can find me there any nite partner
Comment By A sledhead, 1-14-08??????????????????? loud mouth????????????
Comment By bob onit, 1-14-08wiktionary
pectiniculus
[edit] Noun
pendejo m.
1. A pubic hair
2. (pejorative) A stupid person; a dumbass; creep.
3. (Argentina, Uruguay) punk (an adolescent who presumes to be an adult).
Bob, you looked in the wrong book. Now who can answer this question from the B-rooters tooter coalition: A tutor who tooted the flute tried to tutor two tooters to toot. Said the two to their tutor: "Is it harder to toot, or to tutor two tooters to toot?"
Comment By C.S., 1-14-08Sledhead - as usual - YOU are beyond wrong!! Never done any kind of illegal drugs; how old were YOU when had your first illegal alcoholic beverage/ I'm not fron CA or have never been there - Native of Casper,WY! So again - you can't move beyond you're narrow mind - even with you're own view pt.!!
The several DOZEN surveys done acroos the WHOLE Nation - has ALWAYS has over 65-70% of the WHOLE US pop. against what you do in the THEIR lands!!
So- again - I won't ignore you, but now I know i can't work with you; so I WILL work AGAINST You!! I hope veryone thanks YOU for another middle of the roader - driven to the LEFT by YOU!!
Ya know, I was feeling just plum depressed like Hal, but toward the end I got all miffed again.
JDiah, way to show us your real heart. Had you been around in the thirties, I suppose you would support eugenics programs or their bastard offspring, Aryanization. After all, yer so smart and good lookin and well edjoocated you'll never be affected.
As for CS, the problem was, the Jews DID accept the Nazis until it was too late for them. That's a lousy bulwark for your argument, which is factually feeble considering that in terms of recreation, about two percent of USFS RVD's are non-motorized, and a fair number of THOSE are hunters.
Finally, Hal's 98 percent might be true nationally, but we're talking the Bitterroot. Or western Montana. Over HALF the Flathead National Forest is full-blown wilderness, contiguous with 98 percent wilderness-managed Glacier National Park. You really want balance, then look to other landscapes to "rewild."
CS,.. no dear ,....im beyond you ,...i never mentioned california ,...or drugs ....but from the looks of your typing you seem to be tipping a few ,... or maybe even passing the bong ,....which,.. if you are , is fine with me ,/..... i dont make a practice of telling others what they should be doing with their lives ,... and i dont know where you get your survey info ,.... maybe on the back of a frozen veggie burger box .... or maybe a granola box ,..and as i said before sweets ..its MY LANDS,. and middle of the roaders never believe in anything long enough to vote on it anyway . PS. i moved here from cody wy ....whats your point ?
Comment By A sledhead, 1-14-08thanks dave for the real info ,.... you are an intelligent man
Comment By Hal Herring, 1-14-08So, Dave, no consideration for what is happening in the rest of the world, or the rest of the US? Chunk out the unroaded-lands-as -scarce-commodity theory?
Open up the last of the non-motorized lands to the owners of these new toys, because in a strictly local sense, there's plenty of room left, in this one small place, for them to play, and have their impacts, and make it like everywhere else?
That seems like such small thinking, and it seems so sad, the idea that no place is ever unique, or protected, from anything. It seems so greedy.
Even though a whole lot of what we're talking about-the non-wilderness areas- the logging roads, the many trails, are already open to the desires of this one group? We should all, from coast to coast, just say "shucks" and give up the last of the non-motorized use places? Even though the land is publically owned?
I just really think that there is already huge opportunity for those who want to snowmobile and ride ATVs on the public lands. Challenge riders, hill climbers, etc, should do their thing on private land where they can help bear the costs of their sport.
Bilers have a good argument- alot of the high country is public, and that's where the great high marking places are. So the bilers get a few good canyons and cirques to rage in. They've got that, I think (I'm not positive- some of the B'roots, alot of the Pioneers?). They should arrange for their own Search and Rescue, perhaps, so we don't get a repeat of the Copper Creek tragedy down by Lincoln, with all that public manpower being brought to bear (not that anybody who went out there to help ever complained) on a situation where some folks had just decided to slap the tiger and keep on slapping him.
But to get all furious about not being allowed to ride ATVs and snowmachines everywhere on public land, in this day and age, just seems incredibly infantile to me.
But like I said, I think I'm a minority.
hal ...... im not trying to gain MORE access to public land with machines ,... although it would be nice ,...im just trying to make sure what we do have stays in place,.. however if more people are useing motorized vechiels in the forrest than before it does seem smart to open at least a few more roads . maybe even alternate open roads in 3-5 year slots ,...open some over here for 3 years close some over there for 3 years ,...ofcourse some of us ,..... like penderjo, jed and cs could get confused ... we may need to use crayons and send them a letter explaining which roads are closed and open ,... what seems greedy to me is people trying to close roads ...for their own agenda then useing the inviornment and solitude as their shield and sword ,.. evryone knows these roads and trails have been used for a hundred years ,... what if i hooked up one of my covered wagons and drove it in the forrest wit a team of mules .......where do you stand on that?
Comment By jedediah, 1-14-08Perhaps Mr. Skinner missed my comparison of advocates for ATV and the bullies who participated in beerhall putsches in Munich; but, in any event, I am becoming more and more convinced that mechanical access to USFS land, like the second amendment, should be rigorously controlled by rational people...
Comment By Timothy Border, 1-14-08Interesting comments about sledheads and the timber worker both should be reassured in the Beaverhead/Deerlodge Forest where the Montana Wilderness Association and National Wildlife Federation are now doing the bidding for them.
Comment By Marion, 1-14-08I think it is more than evident that the enviros have pushed the common man just about as far as he can be pushed. The enviros have already shut off tremendous tracts of land. In the Big Horns, they cut down trees to close off the roads as demanded by the big business environmental groups. I don't believe anyone is fighting for MORE access, it is that the enviros want us shut out of the forests entirely so we don't disturb them. Besides someone has to be working and paying the taxes to support the extra costs of firefighting etc in the dreamer managed wildlands. We were here when the enviros came and we will be here when they make a mess like wherever they come from, and we'll clean it back up. A few will march back to take credit of course from where ever they are messing up someplace else.
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-14-08Unlike jedidiah, I don't see rational decision making by rational people on the wilderness issue. It makes NO sense to me to bar quiet bicycles or game carts by hunters. Without rational results I tend to lean against blanket support of the elite decision makers who come up with such stinky stuff. It's this sort of irrationality that leads to distrust and a bowed back.
Take the human powered game cart. They are used in the fall when grasses have gone dormant. They cause far less harm then dragging the animal or even using horses as carts do not tear through the surface, but merely roll over it. When I begin to see examples of rational shared use and rational decisions about human powered devices like bicycles and game carts I might moderate my judgment.
I think that the mules and wagons would be okay, but they'd be a tight fit on most of the trails. Read Tough Trip through Paradise and see how it worked for Garcia and Inwholise, up in the Sapphires. The numbers of
people who want to do that are small, and your impact would be less. You hit the nail on the head, sledhead. In days gone by, there were no ATVs and powerful sleds..there were horsemen and wagon handlers, and they had to know what they were doing. There weren't thousands of people sitting on ATVs ready to ride into the forest, park in the hunting country, fish out the last isolated creeks, do hill climbs on the alpine tundra. What worries land managers is the numbers of people that are using the public lands as their private playground, without regard for the impacts. Do you know how much money it would take to "open some here, close some there" ? and how contentious that would be? Why would the taxpayer in say, Kansas, want to have their money go to pay Forest Service employees to manage all that motorized use, when they could just say, "No, we don't want the motorized use on the public lands. It causes too many other problems."
Motorized users have gained a huge amount of land- or have started using new areas-- in the past ten years- I don't have to look at the maps, I have seen it with my own eyes, as I have been run from one elk hunting spot after another.
Where I stand is that people like yourself, and like myself, should count our blessings-all of us who hunt and wander the public lands, something you can't do anywhere else I know of in this world. I would ask motorized users to recognize how much is open to them, and accept road and trail closures to protect isolated places for big game security, and wilderness and non-motor values, and so that land managers don't have to spend taxpayer money monitoring motorized impacts to creeks and hunting and timber stands, and fire, weeds, rare species, etc. Accept some limits, knowing that you and all the rest of us are getting to enjoy the last of the last of it on this whole planet, that generations to come might look back in awe that you got to ride all those logging roads, high mark some of those peaks, without paying a single solitary dime. Without signing your life away, or being fingerprinted or whatever. We've got it all right now, and the hollers for more more more-no rollbacks, never give an inch, are going to kill it for sure.
To make sure it goes on, man, there has to be limits to motorized use. And if there is currently a real rollback, it is because there has been a big roll forward in motorized use in the past ten years. like I said, I've been there. It's been in my country, which is also your country.
Argue over closures, but pick your arguments carefully, not just out of anger or spite, look at what other people might want, or might stand to lose-protect walk-in access to creeks and rivers, to excellent big game and cat hunting country. Recognize that it's not any fun for skiers to follow highmarkers, or for horsepackers to get back into Piquett Creek and have somebody drive by on a four wheeler, waving hello at seven in the morning, scattering the elk.
Recognize that sleds can pollute the snowpack and have an impact that skiers and snowshoers never will. And that users are responsible for that- where is the non or less-polluting sled, the sled that is quieter? I know alot of people who feel like things are being taken away from them-and they are, all kinds of freedoms, being lost every day, and one of those freedoms for me, is to have country to roam in, where it takes some effort to get to, where there aren't that many people who want to put that effort out, where there's good hunting and blue grouse in the trees that would have been killed off long time ago if there were more access. Gullible cutthroats still in the creeks, silence, selfsufficiency without a motorized escape route if it gets dicey.
And it does not cost any money. It's available to everybody, poor or not. And it is lost when the ATVs start coming in.
That's what I'm asking, is that you walk a little bit in somebody else's shoes, and think about why somebody might ask for some of these closures. This whole thing has degenerated into some kind of low grade war, and one of the results is that the people who want to get rid of the public lands are going to use it to justify a great big sell-off. That is something to consider in all of these arguments. Then, you and I will both be paying top dollar, or going without, something priceless that we have now for nothing. Ask Ted Turner or Roxanne Quimby if you can high mark on their property. I'll call them and ask if I can hunt. We can meet back here and see whether we got what we asked for.
In the meantime, let's try to work this thing out in a civil manner. It can be done.
Hal, you make some good points. Let me point out, it is not only motorized use that is limited or banned but mechanical devices like bicycles and game carts in wilderness, near-wilderness, could be wilderness, or any lands governed by the mechanical device ban. To sum up the two sides as simply motorized versus bipedal or quadruped doesn't get to the heart of the extreme restrictions, or lack thereof, that people recoil from.
Both sides have an all or nothing attitude about use. Even the 'coalition' groups are built from like kind thinking people. If the coalitions had opposing thought members then their measures would be more moderate and inclusive of the diverse interests. Polarization = gridlock. Both sides have valid points but tend not to recognize those other points. Rather, each merely dwell on the rhetoric that paints the other side as a (your choice) demeaning pejorative. Not a formula for moving forward. Both sides require some validation and flexibility from the other so that rational and meaningful compromises can be sought.
What are the valid points on the ATV side..?
Comment By Marion, 1-15-08Bingo, jed, you just demonstrated the "my way or the highway" mindset.
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-15-08Valid points by ATV users:
=The mechanical device itself is neither a plus nor a negative to the environment on existing developed roads and trails. Harm emanates from the mind set and actions of reckless users.
=Exploring and enjoying wild, public lands is about personal freedom.
=ATV users don't have just one eye in the middle of their forehead and drool on themselves.
=ATV extremists are no different than green tree spikes or arsonists. Extremism is shared burden on both sides.
Anyone who doesn't know the true and widely held meaning of 'pendejo' AND has to resort to the lowest of all research forms, ie wikipedia, has 1) obviously never been to Mexico (or even the southwest US) AND 2) also probably didn't finish high school (maybe because they were out tearing up the forest on ORV's).
Comment By Jay J, 1-15-08I just want to THANK everyone who has contributed to this comment section; my journalism students haven't stopped laughing for days on end. This site is great for the Future Reports/Witers of the FACTS/TRUTH to see how distorted things get by people who barely have a 4th. grade reading level.
One student asked when MT will secede from the Union and start the NEXT Civil War - obviously the MT Militia didn't do too well?!
Please keep going and teach these folks how the "common" mind works!
We try real hard to be entertaining, Jay J.
That "common" mind stuff is cool, too. Be sure to teach the students that they are the elite, reporting on the idiotic passions of us backcountry boneheads, then rendering their judgements at the end of the day over a nice soy-milk latte.
That will make them the real valuable kind of journalists, the ones that really "understand" the issues, based on that knee-jerk smart set urban concensus that is a carefully nurtured balance of pure cynicism and abysmal ignorance.
Or they can study what they think is the "common" mind, using our comments, pattern themselves after it, eat a bunch of lead paint, and make good money "reporting" for Fox.
A brilliant future awaits, either way.
Good points, Craig.
I guess that's what snarls me most about this all, is the loss of freedom on public lands...or even on Plum Creek after the HCP was implemented. I remember being able to explore....without a map, it was a wonderful thing. Priceless. Gone.
Unless I'm hunting or bushwhacking into some fishing (not so much that any more since everything got fished out in the early 1980s), I'm not interested in hiking. I like the exercise, but I can get exercise skiing or on a motorcycle. Lots of exercise. I can get home at the end of the day a shuddering pulp, cover a lot of ground, see a lot of things, and not leave a mark. The level of concentration needed to avoid injury or worse also has a certain way to clear the mind of detritus.
Hiking for its own sake is boring, stultifyingly so. I'll hike for getting a photo angle, or to get into game, whatever, but just to hike and commune with nature (hmmm, maybe that explains the political driver behind environmentalism) drives me kooky. It doesn't relax me at all, just bores me. I usually end up thinking of work and business. Ick!
I'm not alone. America is a movement society. And all the USFS studies show an increase in demand for mechanized with relatively flat "quiet" use, if you don't believe me look up the NVUM survey on the USFS website. Fascinating data about the uses and their nature and their demographics.
PJ, I'm not in the least interested in Mexico. It's a corrupt country that can't seem to get its act together, hot, far away, that doesn't allow guns, has a feeble rule of law and lots of crime. I like their food and chiles, tho. But I prefer America, especially the West and its people. There's plenty here to hold my interest. And in America...we speak English. It's good we have people like you with a sweeping command of Spanish to help new immigrants learn the language and assimilate. Or did you stop when you got the Seven Dirty Words el Espanol?
Finally, Jay J.'s comment makes me sad. I guess you teach in an urban district that isn't Montana. I can't wait until your victims start stringing distortive, stereotyped items out into the leftstream media. That'll be REAL helpful for civilized discourse. What a pro.
By jedediah, 1-15-08
What are the valid points on the ATV side..?
By Marion, 1-15-08
Bingo, jed, you just demonstrated the "my way or the highway" mindset.
No Marion. What I did was ask a question. You provided the mindset...
And apparently nobody can answer truthfully, either...
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-15-08Points on the environmental side:
=Populations are growing and humanity is sprawling. Unless some parts of nature are protected they will be overrun.
=There is value is maintaing 'wild' state as close as possible so that future generations can see it, touch it, and smell it. It connects the past to our present and has lessons for the future.
=Nature is fragile.
=Nature is beautifu.
=Nature gives us solace and peace away from our neighbors to provide the opportunity for clear thinking
=Nature is unable to protect itself.
Jed, I gave you truthful answers. Did you bother to read?
Comment By Jay J, 1-15-08Here again, the class is laughing! No one asked where I am, where I teach, what grade level or anything else. Just assumptions that make the writer look foolish. Again , several of the students said; If someone doesn't agree with YOUR pt. of view or has EXACTLY the SAME experience as YOU; that person knows NOTHING??
As was stated earlier by someone; Many of the statements here aren't engendering allies, but opponents to the various causes and yet these people just go on and on with their rants! One thing an Intelligent person does is, look at their opponents pt. of view and construct a response to THAT statement; NOT just call a town or person a name or PRESUME the persons origins and habits! Some of you here need to be careful about mixing; facts, satements, peoples view pts. or attacking their typing skills!!??
Jay J., you may not be aware that some of that laughter may be directed to you rather than with you as you stroke your own ego at other's expense.
If there is anything you are anxious to tell us about yourself, please do and start with your full name. You last name has more that one letter I presume. Perhaps you could write you resume as a limerick. Make it a class project and report back.
Craig Moore - I just got back to catch up on things here. From some of J.J.'s comments; I see you've made his pt.!
Comment By Hal Herring, 1-15-08Thank you, Craig. Excellent points.
Can I add:
Mechanized use has quantifiable impacts to public lands that require an employee to be paid to monitor them
Employees must be paid to draw up 'travel plans" etc, to deal with mechanized use and its impacts. No mechanized use means less public money spent, or required to address this impact.
Mechanized use impacts soils, plants, wildlife, watersheds, etc. in ways that non-mechanized use does not. Undeveloped public lands are often some of the last redoubts of wildlife and plants, and mechanized use endangers that refuge of biodiversity through destruction, and introduction of invasive weeds.
Watershed protection, from drinking water and irrigation, all the way to sufficient quantities of water for shipping has been one of the reasons for National Forest designation from the beginning. Increased mechanized use increases impacts on the watershed, and roads and trails cut by mechanized users erode into tributary creeks and change and erode the natural delivery qualities of the system. This can be mitigated with- good, paid employees to monitor and mitigate these impacts. Money again. But mechanized users on public land don't pay anything to offset their added impacts and requirements for mitigation.
Increased mechanized use results in loss of hunting opportunities, and a degradation of the trophy animal resource, as well as less quantifiable aspects like "solitude" or "experience" that many hunters cite as reasons why they hunt in the backcountry. Over time, people quit hunting, or reduce the importance of hunting, reducing game department revenues. I know that many will argue that ATV access increases hunting revenues...in my opinion that is not true, but I understand the argument.
Mechanized access results in degradation of fisheries (as Dave calls it "fished out"). More public money is needed to stock, or to monitor, or to accept as loss in revenues from the people who used to buy licenses and tackle, etc.
And is it not as plain as the nose on our faces that more mechanized use results in more people, and more impact, and more needs for mitigation, on the last un-mechanized public lands, in a world where these things are the absolute norm?
Some of the mechanized advocates here act as if there was some lost golden age, where they rode free and wild on the public lands, and the goal is to recapture it. I am here as a witness to tell you that the ATV boom on public lands is less than a decade old. And the impacts, new and increasing, cannot be ignored. That is why there are now 88 comments on this story.
There are a million arguments, pro and con for mechanized use on public lands. I know that. But the advocates of mechanized use choose to ignore the multitudinous and valid arguments against what they want. That is the problem. It's a common one, but no less troublesome for being so.
And Dave, I am sorry that walking is boring to you. But if you want to argue for increased mechanized use on public lands, and for the taxpayers to pay for its impacts, because so many Americans are too weak and bored to walk around, well that is just too pathetic to contemplate. Times will change, perhaps, and the current iPod, Doritos, Grand Theft Auto game, carry-me-everywhere (ever watched the movie "Idiocracy"?") culture will give way to a more self sufficient, aware, physically fit culture, maybe in response to war, or to economic troubles, something. but we are not always going to be sliding down into flabby puddles of apathetic TV addicts, and when we wake up, we are going to need some unroaded public land to roam around and notice all the stuff that actually makes the world work, and that you can't see from behind a tinted visor, and that you can't hear over the roar of a motor. The worship of machines is part of the great abstraction of modern culture, and at some point there is going to have to be at least a small return to consciousness-where does clean water come from? How do you kill an elk? How do you travel from point A to point B under your own steam? How much food do I need to walk all day and be in a safe place by dark? This kind of knowledge, to me, is the key to freedom. This is the kind of knowledge that mechanized use ignores and erodes. There have to be some places left where it can be pursued. And if it means that we all save money, and we don't have to have a trout stream full of silt, and an endless knapweed field with starving elk munching at it, and that part of the woods is silent enough that we can hear the wind in the tops of the trees, or the distant roar of meltwater coming down off the high country, wouldn't that be okay?
CS, what point would that be? I offered no assumtions or judgements, but mere conjecture about the laughter, last name having more than one letter, an observation of JJ's 8 seconds of ego stroking coming at others' expense, a request for him to post his CV, and a suggestion for a class project. Which of these are JJ's point?
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-15-08Hal, thanks for getting back on track. I believe analyzing the 4 wheel iron horse must be in comparison to other means of transprotation. Horses cause some of the same environmental degradation as their mechanical counterparts. Horses don't care where they let go and foul a stream or care if their sharp hooves cut through the surface. Also, there are bicycles. Then all such transprotation should be evaluated on established roads and trails versus virgin grass.
Comment By jedediah, 1-15-08By Craig Moore, 1-15-08
Jed, I gave you truthful answers. Did you bother to read?
This is your truth, Craig?
Surely you jest?
By Craig Moore, 1-15-08
Valid points by ATV users:
=The mechanical device itself is neither a plus nor a negative to the environment on existing developed roads and trails. Harm emanates from the mind set and actions of reckless users.
The presence of internal combustion engines is Anathema--anti-natural. Operation by irresponsible thugs simply adds insult to injury
=Exploring and enjoying wild, public lands is about personal freedom.
Not on an ATV. Then it is an active and irresponsible affront to public lands.
=ATV users don't have just one eye in the middle of their forehead and drool on themselves.
<i>The presence of an internal combustion engine on public lands is an act of desecration. ATV users may well be mild-manner milqutoasts in their la-z-boys; but in the saddle of an ATV they are malignant destroyers of the environment.
=ATV extremists are no different than green tree spikes or arsonists. Extremism is shared burden on both sides.
That is just what I've been saying
No jesting Jed, just truth. Rejecting such truth is your right. Now, how about showing a bit of flexibility and validation?
Comment By jedediah, 1-15-08The aborigines were very willing to be flexible--and to validate the Europeans, Craig. Look where it has led them..!
Comment By Craig Moore, 1-15-08I find no correlation for those situations. I do fear that if cooperation is not sought and compromise achieved, paralysis will continue and much will be lost in protecting wild lands against expanding humanity. AuH2O proved that extremism was a non-starter. It still is and has very limited, narrow appeal.
Comment By jedediah, 1-15-08I see very vivid and honest correlations.
Co-operate with Europeans--end up in concentration camps.
Co-operate with ATV thugs--end up with no no natural landscapes...
Jed, it was 1960 when I happened to be back East visiting relatives. We went to Radio City Music Hall and saw the movie "Pollyanna." There was a scene where she was talking to this grumpy naysayer type when she said words to the effect, "If you expect to find the worst in someone, you will always find it."
There are calm rational people, both ATVer's and naturists, that will work towards comprehensive solutions so long as the threats from name calling and polarization, 'my way or the highway' are put aside. Each has to accept the other as a partner and respect their perspecitves.
That is a kinda pollyanna perspective, Craig...
Comment By Marion, 1-15-08The whole issue of environmentalists dictating all land use in the west is leading to increasing polarization. There needs to be some compromise while it is still possible. It is already dissolving into name calling. I think some of this is promoted by the environmental groups who depend on donations, lots of them to survive. After all some of the things they promote are downright harmful, and some are depriving locals of things they consider a part of their lifestyle, such as the access situation in this thread.
I think most people care for others and would be uncomfortable causing them harm. Thus the big groups have had to promote the idea that those who are going to lose something have to be bad. If they are not bad, what would that say about those causing a loss to those people?
The fact is motorized use of the forests in a responsible manner is probably no more harmful than hiking. Certainly we have no good long term information on damage caused by folks in the back country leaving their waste behind, tons of it every year. The expense of cleaning up wilderness area campsites, hauling trash left behind etc has to run into a lot of money.
Perhaps leaving the present roads intact, restricting new roads except for specific purposes would be a help. Perhaps it would be good to limit some of the wilderness to only professional management uses, this would provide more protection for some land rather than continuing to ask only one group to sacrifice. It would also give researchers a chance to compare the effects of hiking use compared to actual wilderness designation.
In other words give a little to everyone and prevent a back lash against all you want.
If any of you have read the Billings Gazette today, and saw the following article about environmental groups bragging about preventing coal powered electric plants. It is getting pretty evident that folks are fed up with people who have nothing invested and no responsibility insisting on having all of the control.