Locking Up 750,000 Acres in Eastern OR

[Old Soldier]

There was an article about this in Saturdays Stateman Journal. Looks like eastern politicians want to lock up more of the west into wilderness areas.
There are places for wilderness areas and I think each needs to be evaluated on its own merit. But to have a bunch of eastern politicians sponsor a bill does not set well with me.

A couple of quotes from the article:
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. "Said........... protetion, it should "come from the ground up, from local communities working together not from the top down".

The bill would lock up millions of acres.

I am also concerned about the impact on wildlife as 116 species depend on a matrix of different aged forest and only 16 species depend exclusively on old growth. What will the impact me on rural communities?





http://www.greatfallstribune.com/app...704210302/1002

[freespool]

You say it's locked up, I say it's protected from development.
As a native Oregonian, I think we have far to many roads, it's great they are setting aside large tracks of land for our future generations to enjoy.
Set aside, not subdivide.

[ehunter]

Do we know what lands we are talking about is there a map out there.

[loper]

Originally Posted by ehunter

Do we know what lands we are talking about is there a map out there.

this appears to be a viable map of the proposed areas:

http://www.wildrockies.org/nrepa/bro...nrepa_map.html

[BrianMaguire]

I believe this is an attempt to halt drilling in the roadless areas of the Rocky Mtn front. Its real bad what is going on, wells every 40ft in some areas. They issued drilling permits for 1 well every 40 acres on the entire Custer National forest. Before you bash "locked" up think about what they are locking out, Lets see wilderness protection or a well every 40 acres, as a hunter its not a hard choice for me.

It looks like its all the inventoried roadless areas, from the map posted. I would hate to see any new national parks, that is something I will fight against. The map shows the Wallowas as "Park".

[Salmo trutta]

I believe the "Park" you are looking at is the Chief Joseph Park and Preserve. HCPC has been stomping this for years. You can hunt in a Preserve just as in Alaska. Originally they wanted just a park but some HCPC members who were also hunters suggested adding preserve.

[loper]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

It looks like its all the inventoried roadless areas, from the map posted. I would hate to see any new national parks, that is something I will fight against. The map shows the Wallowas as "Park".

The text of the bill states that the purple in Oregon is the proposed "Hells Canyon/Chief Joseph National Preserve"; hunting would be allowed in this area. Commercial logging would not be allowed; grazing allotments would disappear within a 5-year period after establishment of the preserve.

[SeanD]

I dont understand why its locking anyone out. Unless they are too lazy to get out of their truck and hunt. But I dont care about those people. Wilderness is great for the rest of us.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by SeanD

I dont understand why its locking anyone out. Unless they are too lazy to get out of their truck and hunt. But I dont care about those people. Wilderness is great for the rest of us.

I think by locking out, he meant loggers, miners, gas and oil prospectors, and land developers.

[ehunter]

The first thing I thought of when park was mentioned is how will they pay for it. 2nd was the loss of hunting. I don't see it as a big deal in Oregon I think it makes sense I would hate to see huge mines taking off and as close I as can tell by looking at the map these areas are basicaly roadless now so it will keep them that way. I see that a positive. I am not as familar with the other states and the areas.

If we are talking about Oregon what changes would occure? Logging in a lot those areas are probably limited now to helicopter logging any way?

[Hunt'nFish]

Originally Posted by Salmo trutta

I believe the "Park" you are looking at is the Chief Joseph Park and Preserve. HCPC has been stomping this for years. You can hunt in a Preserve just as in Alaska. Originally they wanted just a park but some HCPC members who were also hunters suggested adding preserve.

First, let me say I'm in favor of wilderness protection.........but only if it is a well thought out, discussed, and locally agreed upon designation. I am not in favor of arbitrily designation of small pockets.

What I see for Oregon is expanding the current boundies and conversion of the Eagle Cap & Hells Canyon Wilderness Areas to a Park/Preserve. I'm not sure I understand why it has to redesignated a park/preserve....I like it the way it is. Can any explain to me why it needs to be redesignated a Park/Preserve?? My 1st instinct says NO WAY!

Another thing I see is a patchwork addition of wilderness designation, which I do NOT like. In my opinion Wilderness area's should be rather large solid, un-interupted, area's of land. I also think oil and mineral exploitation protection should be handled outside the Wilderness discusion. Using the Wilderness designation process solely to prevent oil & mineral exploitation is a misuse of the intent of the designation. Find another way, don't use & abuse the wilderness designation to do so. Just because we don't want oil & mineral exploitation doesn't mean we don't want logging and vehicle access to these area's.

Don't get me wrong, I like wilderness areas......I just think you need to think out every square mile of additions carefully. Not just start shading area's and crying, "add it, add it".

I will need to do much more reading before I'd say "Yea".
Hunt'nFish

[Salmo trutta]

I don't know why they would want the Eagle Caps as a Park/Preserve and I am not aware of any underlying effort to do it. I am aware of an effort to make the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area a National Park and Preserve. As to the why???......maybe the current administrator of these public lands isn't doing such a great job of managing them?

[Salmo trutta]

Here is a link regarding the Hells canyon Park proposal:

http://www.hellscanyon.org/endorse.htm


I was wrong about the eagle caps I guess it is included.

[johndeeregreen]

Originally Posted by freespool

You say it's locked up, I say it's protected from development.
As a native Oregonian, I think we have far to many roads, it's great they are setting aside large tracks of land for our future generations to enjoy.
Set aside, not subdivide.

Originally Posted by SeanD

I dont understand why its locking anyone out. Unless they are too lazy to get out of their truck and hunt. But I dont care about those people. Wilderness is great for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by freespool

I think by locking out, he meant loggers, miners, gas and oil prospectors, and land developers.

Yadda-yadda-yadda

[SeanD]

:grin: :grin: :grin:

[woolybuggerboy]

I'm all for this EXCEPT for stopping commercial logging. Many forests are very unhealthy due to too much protection from fire in the past, and are quite literaly tinder boxes that would burn uncontrollably if let get out of control. Protecting land from development is important, but if a fire burns down the forest, then whats the point? We need to clean up our forests by removing trees from overstocked stands. Preventing logging won't allow this to happen. Thats my dilemma with this plan.

[Old Soldier]

First I am not a road hunter!! One of the post above implies. I do get out of my rig or at least did up to a month ago when I tore my leg up and working hard to get it back in shape. See the quote from my post below.

"There are places for wilderness areas and I think each needs to be evaluated on its own merit. But to have a bunch of eastern politicians sponsor a bill does not set well with me."

Now lets not get carried away with "Protection". Evaluated each parcel on it own merit. Let the state involved make the decsion with consideration of all the fact and not a bunch of politician back east tell Oregon what to do. I will bet the "Greens" are behind the whole effort without any consideration of the impact on wildlife or conomic impact.

Wilderness and road closure make sense somethimes and sometimes they do not. Some may need protection but I think we whould have a voice in the decision and that is why I put the post up so all of you could read what is going on and be heard other than just this forum. So what I think should now happen is each of us should read the proposal look at the maps and write your legislator and not attack other hunters and call them "to lazy to get out of their vehicles".

[SlyHawk]

:lurk:

[baltz526]

some areas need to be done, others it will never happen

[Salmo trutta]

Originally Posted by Old Soldier

I will bet the "Greens" are behind the whole effort without any consideration of the impact on wildlife or conomic impact.

I don't know about the entire bill that is being introduced by those "crazy east coast liberal political types" but I do know that the Chief Joseph National Park and Preserve proposal has been hashed out, studied to death, have had economic impact statements done, have had public meetings, have had private meetings, have had ongoing academic research done on and about it. Hunters have been part of the process in developing the proposal and I personally know that elk and mule deer migrations and fawning areas have been taken into consideration along with big horn sheep and the impacts of the domestic sheep grazing allotments on the seven devils side of Hells Canyon. The issue with this area is the management of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and the failure of the current management entity to protect the area and follow the HCNRA act of 1975.

[Hunt'nFish]

Funny, first I heard of combining and making the Eagle Cap and Hells Canyon area's a Park/Preserve.
Please point us to information on WHAT needs fixed, WHY, and WHO was involved in these discussions.
I care very much about these area's as they were my backyard growing up and still are my playground today.

Specifically, what are the problems, what is the USFS not doing that they are supposed to be doing.
And how is this Park/Preserve designation supposed to fix any of it?

Ignorance is bliss until you know the facts, please help us with the facts.
Please do not interpret this as an attack, it's not meant to be. Just trying to seek out the issues behind the scenes, and the parties involved. Because I'm not sure they represent all OUR feelings at all.....or at least I'm skeptical. I'm always skeptical when animal rights folks and tree huggers team up to push something forward.
Hunt'nFish

[rob allen]

"Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. "Said........... protetion, it should "come from the ground up, from local communities working together not from the top down".


I disagree with this statement because local governments get corrupted by business interests and they accomplish things that ought not to be done..

I think all remaining lands should be protected because we have already destroyed enough.. it should be the local community that demonstarates how the land could be used without destroying it's natural qualities..
in short a federal mandate managed by local government..

[SlyHawk]

I think more wilderness is good.

[Salmo trutta]

More info on this issue:

Idaho Statesman (Editorial)
April 24, 2007

Our View: Wilderness debate calls for local solutions
- Idaho Statesman

Since the early 1990s, wilderness backers have gone after the big score: a multimillion-acre Western wilderness behemoth.

They were at it again Friday with a new - and still unwieldy - bill to create 23 million acres of new wilderness, 9.5 million acres in Idaho alone.

As Westerners, we can fuss and foam and fret about an out-of-the- region vision of Big Wilderness; the bill's lead sponsors are Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn. But it isn't enough just to say no. It's more important, and more persuasive, to unite and say yes to workable, consensus-based wilderness bills developed close to home.

While the 23-million-acre Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act remains an overreaching legislative long shot, the bill has a bit of political momentum on its side. With Democrats in control on Capitol Hill, this bill has some powerful allies.

In addition to Maloney and Shays, the bill has 72 co-sponsors, roughly one-sixth of the House. One co-sponsor is West Virginia Democrat Nick Rahall, who now chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has not co- sponsored this bill, but she has backed previous versions.

It helps to have friends in high places.

The Northern Rockies bill continues to get no political support in the Northern Rockies - from either political party.

In an Associated Press interview, Wyoming Republican Rep. Barbara Cubin called the bill "an absolutely offensive attempt by East Coast liberals" to lock up Western public lands. Dan Whiting, a spokesman for Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, plugged multiple use over mega- wilderness. "Responsible use can include everything from hiking and mountain biking to development of timber, mining and cattle," he told the AP.

Given Craig's long-standing ties to resource industries and off-road vehicle users, it's politically safe for him to dismiss a bill that would prohibit logging, mining and motorized use across nearly 18 percent of Idaho's land mass. We'd rather he venture out of his political comfort zone and get behind locally produced bills to protect some of Idaho's most special places- and, in the process, weaken the case for a larger wilderness grab. Late last year, Craig opted not to stand in the way of Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson's bill to create 312,000 acres of wilderness in Central Idaho's Boulder- White Clouds region - less-than-ringing support for a bill that stalled in the last days of the GOP-led 109th Congress.

With a new party in charge in the 110th Congress, Craig and other Idahoans need to show they're willing to support common-sense, focused wilderness bills.

These lands are the region's backyard; that's why a 23-million-acre "solution" makes many Westerners suspicious and angry. But these lands belong to all Americans; that's why these kind of big-score bills resurface every congressional session. Westerners should view the latest version of this bills not as a threat, but instead as a call to local action.

[loper]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

Please point us to information on WHAT needs fixed, WHY, and WHO was involved in these discussions.
Hunt'nFish

This is a possible starting point for one side of the issue:
http://www.wildrockies.org/nrepa/

[D3smartie]

looks like a good thing to me.

to those of you that dont like it, why not do it? what is bad about this designation?

[B-RUN STEELIE]

Its a Very.. very good thing. Some people cry about being locked out of land because of land owners. One thing that will happen that has been great in Idaho is that they define the land the land owner owns. Many if not most only own a parcel of land and the rest is simply a grazing allotment. Somewhere along the way they have asserted that they can lock you out of that grazing allotment. In the end, they them selves get kicked off that land, and you and I get it back. Also gets rid of any problems with Quads which I feel have pretty much ruined mule deer hunting. The only people this affects are road hunters, and land owners that have huge parcells of land tied up.

[Old Soldier]

If you think this is a good thing you need to take a hard look at the map Loper posted. It shows a large part of NE Oregon as a Park/Preserve. I read that as no hunting. I am not against closing roads that make sense or wilderness areas that make sense. I am opposed to "environmentalist" and "anti hunting" organizations locking up public land.

Had a long talk on the phone yesterday with a very knowledable guy in Enterprise about this and he said he opposed it last time around and will this time. He like I love wilderness areas and areas where you do not have to worry about a "Road Hunter" or ATV being misused running over you. There is a place for roads and there is a place for ATV. So do not thing I am anti ATV or want all the roads closed. There is a balance a little research will tell you this bill being proposed is not balanced and does not support what we as hunters want to see happen to Eastern Oregon.

Many member of OHA helped stop the destination resort in southwest Oregon that was to be built in a critical habitat area.

I choice the title of this post to get attention and it did and that is great. The main thing I wanted to do was make hunters aware of the proposed bill then let them become knowledable of the proposal and be involved.

[Salmo trutta]

Old Soldier:

To wit:

Hunting IS allowed in a Preserve.

Just as in Denali in Alaska.

[B-RUN STEELIE]

You will be able to hunt. There will be no developement or new roads. The ones that exist for the most part will remain open. It will be open for everything except motorized vehicles. Like the Frank Church here in Idaho. Its a very good thing for you and your state. Its bad news for big money and developers

[baltz526]

it is bad news for the anti wolf lobby. more wilderness equals more wolves. more park/reserve equals more wolves. zero wolves in oregon is the perfect solution

[Hunt'nFish]

Thanks Salmo Trutta for the links, much appreciated.
And after much reading, I'd have to agree with the majority here.
Making 75% of Wallowa County a Park/Preserve is a bad idea IMHO.

All it takes is a rule change & a stroke of the pen by some National Parks official and our hunting rights to the "Park", that encompasses Wallowa Co, are gone. I'm not in favor of the risk, even if there are benefits. I can hunt a mismanaged Wilderness, but I can't hunt a well managed Park.

Looking at many of the names and faces of some of the folks from these differant organizations, you, Brian and a handful of others are about the only ones I trust. I see a lot of over educated "we know what's best" types. Please keep feeding me info and links that come your way, as I would like to be informed about the issues that need fixed.
Hunt'nFish

[ehunter]

So what is the difference between a wilderness and a Preserve?

[Old Soldier]

As we say in the Army "I say again" the map says "Park/Preserve". I do not know of many parks where you can hunt Danai is an exception.

When the source in Enterprise who is a back country hunter and very knowledgable person says it was a bad deal the first time that would make me take a hard look at the bill.

[BaseCamp]

Any designation other than Wilderness is a precursor to losing your ability to hunt that area. The words "Park" and "preserve" are bad news in my opinion. We have already lost way to much public land access with the designation of many National "Monuments". I would have to see in writing the precept of being able to hunt and access these lands without a doubt and a by your leave.

[Salmo trutta]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

Thanks Salmo Trutta for the links, much appreciated.
And after much reading, I'd have to agree with the majority here.
Making 75% of Wallowa County a Park/Preserve is a bad idea IMHO.

All it takes is a rule change & a stroke of the pen by some National Parks official and our hunting rights to the "Park", that encompasses Wallowa Co, are gone. I'm not in favor of the risk, even if there are benefits. I can hunt a mismanaged Wilderness, but I can't hunt a well managed Park.

Looking at many of the names and faces of some of the folks from these differant organizations, you, Brian and a handful of others are about the only ones I trust. I see a lot of over educated "we know what's best" types. Please keep feeding me info and links that come your way, as I would like to be informed about the issues that need fixed.
Hunt'nFish

I really am trying to keep an open mind on the "preserve" idea. I just wish that the USFS would uphold and manage the HCNRA as the act of 1975 dictates.

[Salmo trutta]

Also HnF if more hunters would get involved in these groups we could do a little bit of reverse educating. You would be surprised to know how little these green groups know about hunters and how we feel....and believe it or not they do respect our views and opinions when we can refrain from being combative and offensive.