Backpack in for elk - Roadless area discussion

[BrianMaguire]

I see multiple people (more than 3) who are posting on the backcountry hunting experience (in a positive way) who on a regular basis bash the preservation of roadless areas, i.e. who are pro logging, anti wilderness, anti roadless. You know who you are, what gives? You like it but hate it? It’s OK to log and punch a road in unless it’s your spot? What if it’s my spot and not yours? I am seeing some serious hypocrisy. Suppose it was proposed to punch a road down your drainage, would you be calling me and crying foul? (that has happend with other members - BTW it was too late - need to get active BEFORE its planned-unless you are a federal judge)

[bajadan2000]

What gives Brain is:

Some of us believe that despite our different beliefs on some hunting topics, we believe all hunters should support each other, not start up a special interest group based on hating a user group using a different method of hunting.

Some of us believe the scientific studies that prove logging, thinning and managing our forests provides better food foliage for the game species than if left to age naturally.

Some of us believe there is little difference between roadless areas and areas with roads that are closed to public vehicle traffic, but can be used to manage our forests in a more balanced manner.

Some of us believe that the wonderful experience of backcountry hunting does not need to happen at the expense of jobs and creating an unbalanced ecosystem.

That is what gives Brain, and that is not hypocrisy!!!!

[chromebright]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

What gives Brain is:

Some of us believe that despite our different beliefs on some hunting topics, we believe all hunters should support each other, not start up a special interest group based on hating a user group using a different method of hunting.

Some of us believe the scientific studies that prove logging, thinning and managing our forests provides better food foliage for the game species than if left to age naturally.

Some of us believe there is little difference between roadless areas and areas with roads that are closed to public vehicle traffic, but can be used to manage our forests in a more balanced manner.

Some of us believe that the wonderful experience of backcountry hunting does not need to happen at the expense of jobs and creating an unbalanced ecosystem.

That is what gives Brain, and that is not hypocrisy!!!!

Best hunting of all worlds are areas that support logging, but have road closures during hunting/mating seasons. The logging helps provide food to support more animals. The closed roads provide access to hunters willing to do the leg work, but also provide a means to get animals out in a more timely manner and decreasing the risk of waste. A backcountry experience does not have to mean a wilderness experience.

[Quaka Wacka]

I hadn't posted yet, but I would also fall into that catagory. I do a lot of backcountry and wilderness hunting, but also support modern logging. And would welcome it in my hunting areas that are national forestland. A lot of the roads in my neck of the woods are closed during the hunting season, and i would support tham closing more. It reduces compition, and decreases poaching. I guess I just look at it as a balanced approach rather than hypocrisy. We can all support eachother and our own method.

[uhmw]

Find the logging road that gets closest to the bottem of the ravein. look at a place where the only log roads are on the tops of ridges Then hike to the bottem of the ravine. The trails to the elk safe houses must be blazed prior to the season -use a machety. The bulls heard their cows to the bottem of the thickest raveines for mating. If you take the effort to hike down to a secluded ravein you will find the elk receptive and fairly stupid toward the end of the season.(west side tactics)

[llama77]

Brian,
The lord flat road closures a perfect example. More people than ever because folks think its some kind of nirvana for elk. I would say it is impossible to argue that the wilderness experience has been improved.

Last year people were camped in the middle of the "plateau" area they accused us of driving the elk off of with our trucks. You think the elk stayed ????????????????????????????????

Limited water sources for pack stock means crowded hunting conditions or people camping in prime habitat. DUH

So abiqua, do your research, I honestly wish you the best. but dont be surprised to find someone there first! There aint anyplace you can go that youll be alone.

"Roads dont kill Elk, Cougars and people do!!!"

[scoutdog5]

Boy, maybe it is different where you guys spend your time, but logging has NOT been helpful in the east end of the Ochocos, for a couple of reasons:

1. Roads don't get closed. Even when the plan says they will be closed, they don't get closed. Even when a minimal effort is made by the forest service or logging company to close a new road, the relatively flat terrain makes it easy for people to get around the blockade, and use the rest of the road. End result, the vast majority of the elk in the east end of the Ochocos continue to spend the majority of the year on private land.

2. Clear cutting done in this habitat has been a disaster. I can take you to clearcuts done in 1982 where they have had to replant multiple times, and still do not have a good regrowth occuring. With open roads along all of them, usage by elk has gone to virtually zero. Some of them might have actually benefited deer, but no way to know since there are no deer left on the forest.

The problem we have today is that what our forests need is thinning of tree stands lf less than 12 inches diameter across most of our public forest land. Unfortunately, we are unwilling to pay for that.we are unwilling to pay to have the thinning done that would really improve the habitat. So the forest service designs sales that cut substantial numbers of large trees to generate income, then throws in some thinning projects to justify the sale from a habitat improvement standpoint. I am curently monitoring a sale that included substantial thinning projects, new roads and rebuilt roads, and a large cut of larger commercially viable trees. I was able to negotiate a commitment to close all new or rebuilt roads at the conclusion of the sale. The contractor came in last fall, took out all of the large trees from an easily accessible part of the sale, then was gone. No roads closed, no thinning projects. All of the people with the Forest Service we worked with have been promoted to other districts, and their positions left open. Remaining employees have no clue what was committed to, and no plans to follow through from what I can see. Now, with timber prices in the toilet, I would guess this project is done, and things have been made worse once again.

There was an article in the Bend Bulletin this week where a forest service employee was lamenting the closing of the Gilchrist mill. The reason? The mill closing would keep them from getting enough income from selling large trees to pay for the thinning projects they wanted to do.

One of the great tragedies of the massive bailout was that thinning across all of the national forests in the west was not included. Not only would this have created thousands of jobs that could have been available starting this spring, but it is likely reduced forest fire fighting costs would have recovered most of the cost.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-logging, but the truth is current forest service contract practices are designed to produce income, not improve the habitat for big game. Until the Forest Service acknowledges that their forest plan road densities (normally 3.0/mile or greater) are responsible for elk relocating off of public land, and builds road reduction plans into their logging contracts, I will oppose all future sales in the Ochoco district.

Scoutdog

[chukarchaser]

Originally Posted by llama77

Brian,
The lord flat road closures a perfect example. More people than ever because folks think its some kind of nirvana for elk. I would say it is impossible to argue that the wilderness experience has been improved.

Last year people were camped in the middle of the "plateau" area they accused us of driving the elk off of with our trucks. You think the elk stayed ????????????????????????????????

Limited water sources for pack stock means crowded hunting conditions or people camping in prime habitat. DUH

So abiqua, do your research, I honestly wish you the best. but dont be surprised to find someone there first! There aint anyplace you can go that youll be alone.

"Roads dont kill Elk, Cougars and people do!!!"

Agree for the most part but I can't imagine how many hunters and rigs would be in there if that road wasn't closed.

CC

[bigjake_888]

Brian is a highjacker!



highjacker..... highjacker ...highjacker......

[fishinpox]

Originally Posted by llama77

Brian,
The lord flat road closures a perfect example. More people than ever because folks think its some kind of nirvana for elk. I would say it is impossible to argue that the wilderness experience has been improved.

Does this area really get a lot of people in it? It's about 14 miles from where they close the road to Lord Flat. I have a tough time thinking many people are trekking in that far. Am I wrong about that?

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bigjake_888

Brian is a highjacker!

There are folks who like road hunting/ATV hunting and don't give a rat about real hunting, commenting on backcountry hunting. Lets be clear 97% of the state is within 3 miles of a road. That leaves 3% for backpacking, because anything less than 3 miles is probably not a place you are going to pack into. I see so many threads complaining about poaching, lack of game, lack of quality, and the same people who support the reasons hunting is poor clamoring about hunting the few places left that are not messed up. I am not going to let it pass. If it was up to them there would be no backpack hunting (except their spot), they prefer driving the ATV, or truck to carry the big old belly into everywhere. There are not enough backpacking areas to support they guys that don't use ATVs or hike more than 3 miles much less make the tough areas more accesible to people who don't really want to work for a quality hunt, quality simply goes down. IMO, its legit calling out hypocricy and I will do it every time.

[Kalama Fish Doctor]

this is a good one-
thanks.
First off I would agree with many of the points already brought up earlier-
Not sure if I read anywhere that it would be very wise to talk to the area wildlife biologist- I mean it is one reason WE pay their salary. I have had much success when doing so. Thing is it can be difficult getting ahold of the right person. But sometimes you get lucky first time......
And then do your homework based on that information.
If you can afford to scout the more time the better. Learning elk habits in an area are key to success. But keep in mind the weather conditions both for saftey and ethical reasons and dont shoot if you cant get it out w/o spoilage
good luck

[BrianMaguire]

If you want good spots, Roadless and wilderness are your best spots to get away. here is an interactive map of roadless areas. http://roadlessland.org/map.php?state=OR

[llama77]

Fishinpox and chukarchaser,

Since they closed the road it has become more crowded. Before the road closed we never saw other hunters in the woods. We did see a guy and a gal mountain biking once, but no hunters. We now run into hunters and have them try and call bulls we are working. Even a guy from New Jersey last year!

If the road was open it would be just like the last time they reopened it. First year or two a lot of folks. But they would soon get sorted out. Nasty road and tough country to hunt. It would lose its appeal as a wilderness. So intuitively you would think it would be a zoo, but in practice thats not what would happen. We predicted more people and we were right.

As stated, folks are now camping in the middle of the prime areas because water is limited along the road and everyone thinks they wont see any people because its a "closed road". We used mountain bikes and llamas. Now I have horses. A lot of people that used to hunt there from trucks have done the same, plus the influx of new folks into the "wilderness."

So yes, its more crowded. It was a better wilderness when you could drive to lord flat! Get a 1/2 mile from the road and you were Golden. By the way, you can still fly in to lord flat, apparently elk arent bothered by planes, I think thats the next study for starkey.

And Brian maguire and everyone else are telling folks to get into the wilderness, how could it not be more crowded????? I think a big "DUH" is in order.

People are even bypassing good country because they HAVE to get to the wilderness. If you made downtown portland a wilderness, I guarantee youd have guys hiking in from Beaverton to hunt, cause its a "wilderness".

Im not opposed to some roadless areas. People just need to understand that the result may likely not be what they had in mind.

If the science behind it was accurate it would be one thing, but to close it for the sake of the guides and a few folks personal beliefs is another.

Kind of funny, I have a friend thats going in with a guide. They are coming up from the river. Guide told them that us folks on top would push elk down to them. They closed the road because the trucks and quads were pushing the elk down and they were more "subject to predation" down in the hole.. I wonder which it is, is it hunters or trucks pushin the elk? Maybe the bios could splain that one to me!!!

It does seem like theres a few more elk since they closed the road, so maybe I was wrong about that.

On another note, did anyone notice theres fewer spring bear tags in snake river this year? Hey ....wait a minute.... More elk, fewer bears?? I wonder,,,, could there be a connection between fewer bears and more elk??? Probably not, just a coincidence I bet.

See you all in the wilderness!

"Roads dont kill Elk, Cougars and people do!!!"

[ehunter]

I agree that Brian is making a good point.

We had a area that was great we had it to our selves for about 4 years behind a locked gate 3 miles in to start hunting most of it up hill and it was great we saw 2 hunters in the first 2 years. Bam bikes became the thing and every one has a GPS now that area is a freakin zoo it is worthless hunting. Last year Limbhanger saw at least 10 bikers opening morning. So what we are doing now is hunting the areas around the gates less than a mile from the gate because every one is going up on top. Nobody well a few people are hunting low but they are the guys too out of shape to climb the hills so they are not going to hunt that hard down lower either. We did not kill a bull last year but we had several close encounters and next year who knows. I guess the point is you have to adapt for years we had to go futher and hunt harder than any one else well now its a zoo so we are going to hunt where every one else is not. The elk have learned that 2.
I think logging was a good years ago it opened up the forest and gave the deer some browse now with spraying it is just a desert for the first year or 2. I know this if there is a road people will use it period. I like locked gates and road closures and I wish more areas were closed but I am getting up there in age and it will come in a time when those 4 miles seem, like a long ways to go but we will adapt too.

I deer hunt a area in Eastern Oregon that has roads every where but we do ok because we don't road hunt the majority of the hunters drive around and don't walk its fine with me because we find the deer in the 1/2 mile to 1/4 mile in the timber areas and in the crap where no one bothers to go. I would love to hunt WY or Col where I could back pack in for deer but we just don't have the mts like they do so we will adapt. But dang if they closed those roads and it is easy walking I would be backpacking in there and hunting in a heat beat.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by llama77

And Brian maguire and everyone else are telling folks to get into the wilderness, how could it not be more crowded????? I think a big "DUH" is in order.

If the science behind it was accurate it would be one thing, but to close it for the sake of the guides and a few folks personal beliefs is another.

!!"

I am not telling everyone to hunt it, my main advocacy is to not mess up the stuff we have left (mainly roadless). Personally I don't care where people hunt, I just don't want road hunters telling me that its OK to road up areas so they get better access to the backcountry.

The science is behind roadless areas having better elk, Starkey has a myriad of studies on the impact of vehicles (cars and ATV's) that show elk avoid them, even to the detrement of their health. Sure cars don't kill elk but the occupants sure do. Just think how much less poaching there would be with a lower road density. It would even be easier to cach them. There are 3500 miles of road in the Mt. Hood natl forest, apprently we need more, good luck patrolling that or getting caught poaching.

[SandyRiverFisher]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

Sure cars don't kill elk but the occupants sure do. Just think how much less poaching there would be with a lower road density.

[freespool]

Good point Brian, it's always been a mystery to me how folks can be so dedicated to hunting and fishing, and yet they seem to be anti environment.

[Reel Obsession]

Originally Posted by freespool

Good point Brian, it's always been a mystery to me how folks can be so dedicated to hunting and fishing, and yet they seem to be anti environment.

Even with all the retoric that goes along with the aurguments "for" some clearcutting methods, the practices often lack balance or concern for wildlife and the environment. Not saying the timber industry isn't both necessary, and, when solid practices are employed, a potentially valuable land management tool. But that doesn't make it the right tool for every inch of forrest, or that every forrest has to be a checker board and that all land should be easily accessed by roeads, gated or otherwise.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Logging in wilderness areas may be good for big game animals, but not good for all wildlife. Some wilderness areas need to be set aside with not logging at all. We need to think of the ecosystem as a whole and not just about a few big game animals.

[bajadan2000]

The problem is not harvesting existing old growth forests as some here would mislead others to believe, those forests are now fully protected. The problem created by the same lawsuits that protect the old growth forests is they also over protected the productive public logging areas to the point they are now become dead zones for game animals.

If the 95% reduction in logging of public lands is to continue, one of two things needs to happen for the forests to remain usable habitat for the game animals.

1) The logged areas need to be replanted with a type of vegetation, including hardwoods, that will forever produce better food for the game.. The forest have been re-planted to produce timber. This is not a good natural balance for the game animals if the timber is not harvested on a rotating basis. 500 years from now these new old growth forests, with the type of timber now on them, will only produce usable game food half as good as rotating logged areas produced 20 years ago.... .

2) If replanting is not possible, the re-planted areas that will no longer be logged need to be thinned. There are now large areas where it is impossible to hike through because the timber is so thick. These same areas were very productive hunting areas with very good habitat for the game 20 years ago. . These replanted clear cuts have becomes more of an obstacle course that will take hours just to hike one mile, then break out the band aids for all of the leg, face and arm cuts. There are few if any animals, maybe bears, that can live and survive in these conditions. These conditions are forcing the game animals out of these "wilderness in development" areas onto private land that have better food for them.

You can not have it both ways and have the game animals survive in healthy numbers living in a un-balanced public ecosystem...

[Reel Obsession]

I don't disagree with your thoughts at all Baja. However, I think it only serves to validate that historic replanting practices that were designed to be singular in purpose. Planting trees as if they were row crops suitable only for harvest, not for sustainable, multi-purpose forrests lands.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

The problem is not harvesting existing old growth forests as some here would mislead others to believe, those forests are now fully protected. ..

That is so far from true it is stunning, what makes you think that? Just look at the BLM WOPR, which will cut tens of thousands of acres of true old growth, or the 27 miles of road being pushed into the Deadhorse rim roadless areas around Gearhart Mtn Wilderness.

[bajadan2000]

What makes me KNOW this is:

1) The 95% reduction of all logging of public lands for the last (approx.) 20 years.
2) The 100,000+ good paying logging related jobs lost
3) The billions of $$$$ in revenues the logging industry created for public services that are gone forever
4) The non-stop lawsuits every time the govt wants to try and manage the remaining 5% of the forests,
5) The 400% increase in imports of logging related products that once where produced in the NW. Not one tree has been saved, just imported for continued consumption..
6) The reduction of game populations on public lands and the increase of problems caused by game animals on private land.


Brain you have created a problem, now how are you going to fix it??? Replant, thin or what??? Leaving the forests to age naturally is not working!!!!! Open your eyes!!!!! The game are leaving your "wilderness" in big numbers!!!!!

[ORsouthpaw]

Logging practices of yester year were good for the deer and elk. Not so much for the spotted owl or the forest as a whole. Now days logging seems to be much more focused on the environmental impacts and that is a good thing. Logging roads are necessity although allowing access for public use is not. To me, this is simple. Log what you must and then get out and close the roads, Completely! I may get flamed but this should include ALL modes of transportation other than walking (bikes, atv's, horses, 4x4's, etc.) The only exceptions being for a certified disabled hunter. In almost 30 miles of walking in a wilderness area (All Closed Roads) during elk season I never saw another hunter anywhere other than on a open road driving to and from an entry point.

We have made access to the back country too easy for far too long and we all have whined at one time or another about our areas being over populated with road hunters, etc. The fact is, in most areas there are less accessible by roads today than ever before. Hunting for a guy that is willing to do the work is better than it was 30 years ago. The problem is the pecentage of hunters that are willing to put in the miles is continuing to increase. As our total hunting numbers continue to decline we are left with a more dedicated group of die hards that all know the same thing- Get away from (OPEN) roads and your chances of success go way up. The problem isn't the roads nor is it the logging that creates some of those roads. The problem in my mind is that private land is consuming our forests at such an acellerated rate that it is forcing our smaller number of hunters to all flock the same public areas giving us the illusion that we are allowing too much access to public land.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Brain you have created a problem, now how are you going to fix it??? Replant, thin or what??? Leaving the forests to age naturally is not working!!!!! Open your eyes!!!!! The game are leaving your "wilderness" in big numbers!!!!!

I created a problem? - hello - I did not log it, and the green groups have been advocating for thinning for years - Dan your fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate projection is beyond words. The areas are crappy deer/elk habitat because it was logged, not because we stopped logging old growth. How are YOU going to fix it and what the heck is taking so long? Green groups have been working with the USFS to make things better, look at the Siuslaw, look at the Deschutes. In the mean time stop advocating making it worse by roading up what is not already messed up. NO MORE ROADS!

BTW - consider this - lets suppose that the spotted owl critical habitat never happend and we continued at the pace without those pesky greenies, where would the industry be right now? In the exact same spot, becasue they would have taken it all already, it was unsustainable and you know it. The young people who want to be in the industry should blame the industry not the green groups. The prior generation took more than their share now the next generation is paying, blame yourself.

[shorthair]

And here I wasn't going to chime in on this one but the comment on "real hunting" just frosts me how about giving a guy a break not all but some of the roadies you are complaining about are disabled & cannot HIKE several miles from the gate are you suggesting that they not be allowed to hunt as best they can or do they not deserve access to the same Prime cover as the healthy & able ?

[CW59]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

27 miles of road being pushed into the Deadhorse rim roadless areas around Gearhart Mtn Wilderness.

Brian are they doing this road so they can remove all the bettle infested tree's??? I saw a pic of this forest dying and wondering if this is why there putting the road in to log it?? If this is why I think it would be a good idea before the whole forest dies off!

CW

[Silver One]

Funny, I don't get in these tiffs anymore cause it's like arguing about religion.....oh wait.....it is arguing about religion.....environmental religion. Funny how those itching for a rumble are the same self righteous ones who are constantly moving from one issue (roads, wolves, logging, mining, cougars, dams, , blah, blah, blah) to another....but I digress.

Back to the latest rumble, and I'll qualify my opinions by saying first that I hunt almost exclusively in either wildernesses or road closure areas. I have done so for 28 years and would match my boot miles with anyone and do so carrying a stick and string. I am blessed to have my health and an unquenchable desire to be as far away from other hunters as humanly possible. But, that is just me. Unfortunately my encounters with the ungulates that are my obsessive intentions are on the slide.

Why? Because of to many roads? Because of to many ATV's? Because of to much logging? NO, NO and NO! Now I know those who seek the elimination of MAN from the natural environment will disagree because their information (or lack of) mirrors certain outdoor WRITERS and certain newspapers, but I digress again. Here in southern Oregon biologists admit that elk populations are encountering some challenging times. Admittedly predation is a factor but our forests, being largely government land, have had little logging going on for nearly two decades. As a result two of my favorite haunts, the Sky Lakes Wilderness and the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness are experiencing substantial reductions in Elk usage. But, don't take my word for it, I attended an Oregon Hunters meeting where ODFW biologists confirmed this.....elk that summer in the high country winter in the intermediate elevations on national forest land. Browse quality diminishes as sunlight and moisture availability disappears in an aging logging site.

While I still hunt these areas my excursions have become largely long uninterrupted (unintended) walks in the woods. My solution would be log, log, log, but call me selfish because I' de like to see an elk once in a while on those walks. Oh, and by the way, I joined Backcountry Hunters just to see what they were up to and believe me when I say if they had their way we' de never harvest another natural resource or build another road on public land.......but then it's a religious issue with them don't you know? "

"You know who you are, what gives?"

I' de be an American and public land is owned by all of us and it was historically designated as providing multiple uses by congress. Your problem isn't with us it's with what our ancestors gave us....a land of immense beauty to be used for multiple purposes including harvesting natural resources and yes riding ATV's if one chooses....you are for free choice aren't you Brian?

[cubsfan]

To tell you the truth, we can have both. I love quiet, untouched woods as much as the next granola does, but I find all my deer in logged areas with closed gates.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by shorthair

And here I wasn't going to chime in on this one but the comment on "real hunting" just frosts me how about giving a guy a break not all but some of the roadies you are complaining about are disabled & cannot HIKE several miles from the gate are you suggesting that they not be allowed to hunt as best they can or do they not deserve access to the same Prime cover as the healthy & able ?

I don't get what you are suggesting? Build more roads, access to existing roads, or access to roads that existed when they were able?

[elkhuntr28]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

That is so far from true it is stunning, what makes you think that? Just look at the BLM WOPR, which will cut tens of thousands of acres of true old growth, or the 27 miles of road being pushed into the Deadhorse rim roadless areas around Gearhart Mtn Wilderness.

Brian,
I am curious what you would propose to do with the Beetle kill area around Dead Horse Rim. I assume you have actually come down here and looked at the damage. I don't believe they are proposing to punch any roads into the Gearhart Wilderness, but maybe you know something I don't.

Nathan

[bajadan2000]

Brain, The projections you do not like are not mine, I do not do "deliberate projection".

Here is the "projection" you do not like from a University in OR and a projection by a University in WA. Both schools agree, and prove your theories wrong...

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by elkhuntr28

Brian,
I am curious what you would propose to do with the Beetle kill area around Dead Horse Rim. I assume you have actually come down here and looked at the damage. I don't believe they are proposing to punch any roads into the Gearhart Wilderness, but maybe you know something I don't.

Nathan

The beetle kill is due to lack of fire and possibly climate change. Lodgepole is meant to burn, its not just Deadhorse is the entire eastern side of the Cascades (the entire west for that matter), there is not much you can do, but certainly cutting the trees down that survive is not a good idea (inverse Darwinism). The dead lodgepole is not really worth anything, it will rot out at the base fairly quickly and fall to the forest floor, so the salvage argument is usually centered around making money, you don't get that with case hardened lodgepole, so you cut the live trees to pay for it. Its a real tangle, we suppresed fires for so long to preserve the trees so we could cut them and it backfired in a big way.

The same was said about the Spruce budworm out break we had in the late 80's. I can't tell it ever happend 20 years later, I suspect the same will be true in 20 years with the beetle kill.

No they are not punching roads into the wilderness, it can't be done, its near the wilderness area.

What are your thoughts on what we should or can do?

[BrianMaguire]

Dan you presented the same stuff before - Clear cuts are good for 15 years suck royally for the next 25, and then are ok for the next 600. Whats your point? Its the industries fault we are in that "suck for 25 years", not mine. If you had had it your way we would have no OK stuff left.

BTW - by projection I mean taking your agruments faults and making them mine, i.e. saying that roadless area advocacy is somehow I created a problem with dense reprod.

[bajadan2000]

No Brian, they suck forever if left to mature naturally, get it yet??? Half as good 500 years from now does not work!!!!... How can you keep ignoring science????????

[WildernessHunter]

This is a tight rope issue in my opinion. To venture to far on the wilderness/forest/old growth/roadless preservation side is to add fuel to the antis (not just anti-hunting groups but anti-logging groups also) fire. They love to sight hunters and outdoor enthusiast's remarks on what we are doing wrong, as long as they line up with their agendas. Remember how many "hunters" were anti-hound hunting? (Not a hijack, please do not comment). The statements they made fueled testimony that caused a loss of a priviledged tradition.

On the other hand, the one thing we have as a group, are people who are willing to debate these issues who have experience, knowledge and education in the facts. That is something anti groups tend not to have. The majority (as they have highly intelligent and experienced people working for them also) latch on to an idea and they almost protest it like they have been brainwashed. (Watch a PETA rally on Youtube, you'll be amazed at the carziness).

Brian, stirring the pot is fine. It creates creative thinking but almost always leads to argumentation. These arguments are the seeds that grow to internal discontent between all of us hunters. Should we not try to creativly craft ideas that can mutually benifit all of us through discussion, and not argument? We need to bring all hunters together, not segments of us who like to hunt backcountry/roads/with ATVs/on horseback/public land/private land/out of state/in state....I could go on forever.

The best hunters I know adapt to any of their surroundings to successfully harvest their quarry, as we as a group need to adapt to save the things we love.

Be careful what you wish for Brian, someday you might realize that dream....

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

BTW - consider this - lets suppose that the spotted owl critical habitat never happend and we continued at the pace without those pesky greenies, where would the industry be right now? In the exact same spot, becasue they would have taken it all already, it was unsustainable and you know it. The young people who want to be in the industry should blame the industry not the green groups. The prior generation took more than their share now the next generation is paying, blame yourself.

I largely agree with what you are saying here, except I blame the government.

It wasn't the greenies who were responsible for unsustainable logging practices in the late 70's and early 80's, it was the government greed to finance to many projects with revenue generated from logging Northwest forest. Once the USFS finally convinced Congress and the Senate that logging practices were not sustainable and now required years to rebuild depleted forest, the spotted owl issue magically appeared. Instead of thousands of unemployed loggers blaming the government for shutting down logging (and selling to much timber) on national forest, the attention was diverted to tree huggers and the spotted owl debate......a pawn orchestrated to perfection.

In the end, we were all losers; elk, deer, loggers, hunters, local government, schools and generations that came after. Sound sustainable forest management practices is the only answer to creating an ideal balance for everyone and everything.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Silver One

I joined Backcountry Hunters just to see what they were up to and believe me when I say if they had their way we' de never harvest another natural resource or build another road on public land.......but then it's a religious issue with them don't you know? "
....you are for free choice aren't you Brian?

To say BHA would support never harvesting another natural resource is plain false, we are huge advocates for thinning native forests, to help fix what we hosed up by active management, and reprod, to never build another road you are dead on. Free choice also entails those of us who are owners of our national forests who choose not to have the entire thing managed for resource extraction. When is it appropriate to say: save what we have. Apprently never, roadless areas are the last remnants, and there are concerted efforts to make only already designated wilderness the only stronghold for the way things have always been.

This thread is interesting, I suppose you have your honey holes, and apprently don't mind if a road is put into it and logged. Some of us choose the opposite as our free choice. Just don't ask me to let anyone force their will upon me by roading my honey holes or riding their ATV in them. Apprently its not a two way street, I have to let roads in and my hunting spots changed forever to allow free choice, but by advocating for them not to be touched I am against free choice .. hmmmm.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hookset

I largely agree with what you are saying here, except I blame the government.

It wasn't the greenies who were responsible for unsustainable logging practices in the late 70's and early 80's, it was the government greed to finance to many projects with revenue generated from logging Northwest forest. Once the USFS finally convinced Congress and the Senate that logging practices were not sustainable and now required years to rebuild depleted forest, the spotted owl issue magically appeared. Instead of thousands of unemployed loggers blaming the government for shutting down logging (and selling to much timber) on national forest, the attention was diverted to tree huggers and the spotted owl debate......a pawn orchestrated to perfection.

In the end, we were all losers; elk, deer, loggers, hunters, local government, schools and generations that came after. Sound sustainable forest management practices is the only answer to creating an ideal balance for everyone and everything.

Yep, and right now we are in the pain phase, at least now that some of the reprod stands need thinning and that thinning can be commercial there is light. There is so much work to be done everyone can win.

[Tilla]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

No Brian, they suck forever if left to mature naturally, get it yet??? Half as good 500 years from now does not work!!!!... How can you keep ignoring science????????

Not new science.
Clue: It's a C Y C L E. Naural one at that. Beetle infestations are a result of fire suppression, the forest is sick. And now we have a ticking bomb.
It's not an opinion, it's unpopular fact.

Interesting to hear how poor regrowth occurs after harvest.....maybe because the forest duff layer is too thick. These studies were done over 50 years ago.

[bajadan2000]

Non of the studies, including all additional very recent studies, mention the forest duff layer being too thick creating the poor forage. Also, no mention of problems with beetle infestation cycles as the primary cause.

All studies, including the very recent studies, make the point that the re-planted clear cuts receive plenty of sun light to help the growth of edible forage for the first 10-15 years. Then the timber grows tall enough combined with being planted so thickly that a canopy develops. This results in cutting off all sunlight. The edible forage is killed and disappears in a very short time.

Areas that held very good edible forage one year can be dead zones the next. Thinning can re-open the canopy and allow sun light in to encourage new forage growth, however, this is only temporary. When the timber gets to a certain height, a second thinning would be required to allow enough light in for proper edible forage growth.

If you are not going to cycle log, the best answer for long term edible forage is to replant the forest with more diverse forage. To let clear cuts mature naturally will severely lower game populations. Hardwoods and good forage are the reasons that the deer populations are so great in the highly populated east coast states. The poor forage here on the west coast has created much lower deer population densities then the rest of the country. This is very evident when you compare the NW low human population combined with huge undeveloped areas, to the east coast states very high human population, lack of large undeveloped areas, yet have very high deer populations. . Oh.. lack of apex predators also helps..

[llama77]

Brian,
My issue is MY honey hole as well as many others that used it was closed due to selfishness and false science. Many people incuding MY SON have been excluded by closing a road. It has had ZERO benefit to elk or the wilderness experience.
I havent had the resources to get my son and extra equipment in there.

Im not an advocate of endless roads. But clearly you have to admit that the lord flat closure was a not needed. the road never killed ONE elk. The increase in hunters and preditors has killed thousands!!

When you join me in insisting on valid science, call it bad science when it clearly is, then I promise I willl be on your side!
But your insistence on Roadless roadless roadless restricts access to those that cant walk that far, cant bike that far, or cant afford thousands in horses trailers and tack!

[BrianMaguire]

I admit, I don't know jack about the snake area. Like everyone else here we have our traditional spots, that our dads took us to, that we saw change over the years, I also developed my own or modified my fathers. NE Oregon is not one of them. For me to speak about that closure would relegate me to the two times I have driven the road, much less hunted it, in other words, I simply don't know.

In general, as the Starkey studies have proven, less vehicle pressure is good for elk. How that applies to Lord flat, you got me.

I'll talk Cascades, Steens, Ochcoco and Coast range all day long, but NE, well I simply don't know.

[BrianMaguire]

Dan are we talking around ourselves? You post states letting a reprod forest grow to maturity without thinning is a bad Idea. In a human lifetime I would agree, niether I, nor anyone with even a little bit of knowledge (including what you would call radical enviros) supports no thinning, enviros have been clamoring for over a decade to do that, however the industry wants to log the more $ old growth. The industry is greedy and lost the credibility to do the right thing, profit is a bigger motive than the right thing, even if the right thing is profitable Everyone knows that, the problem is thinning is not occuring as much as it should, I say have at it. However over the longer term, 80+ years a non thinned stand can provide good forage, take the tillamook, AFAIK it was never thinned after replanting, now 80 years later the more mature sections provide very good habitat.

If the tillamook was thinned 20 years ago would it be better, I think it would have been, in fact most of the logging in the tillamook is aimed at that, creating a more natural multi aged forest vs. a single aged monoculture.

Now where I have a real problem and I 100% have science on my side is a natural Old growth forest, with a mix of ages, from seedlings to trees over 1000 years old, this type of forest called old growth 100% provides good habitat, and has long before humans walked the earth.

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Non of the studies, including all additional very recent studies, mention the forest duff layer being too thick creating the poor forage. Also, no mention of problems with beetle infestation cycles as the primary cause.

All studies, including the very recent studies, make the point that the re-planted clear cuts receive plenty of sun light to help the growth of edible forage for the first 10-15 years. Then the timber grows tall enough combined with being planted so thickly that a canopy develops. This results in cutting off all sunlight. The edible forage is killed and disappears in a very short time.

Areas that held very good edible forage one year can be dead zones the next. Thinning can re-open the canopy and allow sun light in to encourage new forage growth, however, this is only temporary. When the timber gets to a certain height, a second thinning would be required to allow enough light in for proper edible forage growth.

If you are not going to cycle log, the best answer for long term edible forage is to replant the forest with more diverse forage. To let clear cuts mature naturally will severely lower game populations. Hardwoods and good forage are the reasons that the deer populations are so great in the highly populated east coast states. The poor forage here on the west coast has created much lower deer population densities then the rest of the country. This is very evident when you compare the NW low human population combined with huge undeveloped areas, to the east coast states very high human population, lack of large undeveloped areas, yet have very high deer populations. . Oh.. lack of apex predators also helps..

[bajadan2000]

Much of the money to pay for the thinning comes from logging public lands. Many of these projects are being delayed by appeals and lawsuits by the same enviros who claim to want thinning, but are stopping it with their legal actions. The enviros say one thing, but do something else.

The enviros want complete control of the entire ecosystem. They are not working with any agency, but dictating to them. I am tired of it and will continue to expose their false shady dealings.

Even your Sen. Ron Wyden has announced that he is working on legislation to overcome gridlock in the national forest logging projects..

As far as your making up the 1,000 year figure. How are the game animals supposed to survive on poor forage for 1,000 years??

[RedneckFishin]

i couldnt agree with you more. that 1,000 year figure is kinda funny. clear cuts help make for a heck of a fireline, thinning areas and harvesting mature timber is what keeps our forest floors clean. if the enviro's had there way, we would all be out of the woods.....timber would get old, fuel would pile up, and we would have another tillamook burn. bet it wouldnt even take 1,000 years for that to happen. lol

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by RedneckFishin

clear cuts help make for a heck of a fireline,

Really, Ever been on a fire when it hits a 10+ year old reprod unit, if that is a fire line you are mistaken, imho. Thats a nightmare.

[BrianMaguire]

I am going to leave this, its not worth it.

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Much of the money to pay for the thinning comes from logging public lands. Many of these projects are being delayed by appeals and lawsuits by the same enviros who claim to want thinning, but are stopping it with their legal actions. The enviros say one thing, but do something else.

The enviros want complete control of the entire ecosystem. They are not working with any agency, but dictating to them. I am tired of it and will continue to expose their false shady dealings.

Even your Sen. Ron Wyden has announced that he is working on legislation to overcome gridlock in the national forest logging projects..

As far as your making up the 1,000 year figure. How are the game animals supposed to survive on poor forage for 1,000 years??

[hilclimber]

Do you work for the FS on the Ochoco? SOunds like classic NEPA getting lost when the TS contract was put together...and BS KV projects taking the funds over the projects that really needed and were 'promised'.

[hilclimber]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

The problem is not harvesting existing old growth forests as some here would mislead others to believe, those forests are now fully protected. The problem created by the same lawsuits that protect the old growth forests is they also over protected the productive public logging areas to the point they are now become dead zones for game animals.

If the 95% reduction in logging of public lands is to continue, one of two things needs to happen for the forests to remain usable habitat for the game animals.

1) The logged areas need to be replanted with a type of vegetation, including hardwoods, that will forever produce better food for the game.. The forest have been re-planted to produce timber. This is not a good natural balance for the game animals if the timber is not harvested on a rotating basis. 500 years from now these new old growth forests, with the type of timber now on them, will only produce usable game food half as good as rotating logged areas produced 20 years ago.... .

2) If replanting is not possible, the re-planted areas that will no longer be logged need to be thinned. There are now large areas where it is impossible to hike through because the timber is so thick. These same areas were very productive hunting areas with very good habitat for the game 20 years ago. . These replanted clear cuts have becomes more of an obstacle course that will take hours just to hike one mile, then break out the band aids for all of the leg, face and arm cuts. There are few if any animals, maybe bears, that can live and survive in these conditions. These conditions are forcing the game animals out of these "wilderness in development" areas onto private land that have better food for them.

You can not have it both ways and have the game animals survive in healthy numbers living in a un-balanced public ecosystem...

I agree with much that you have to say. Old growth harvest is not the issue.

THere are two points that I take exception too..though they may be minor. First, on federal land replanting is rarely done, due to the fact that clearcut or 'regen' harvest doesn't occur any longer. We see 'commercial thin' with some openings, or small gaps, that may be replanted with forage species or nothing at all.

Second...it doesn't take 500 years for oldgrowth to establish...except maybe in a juniper stand...and there are very few if any places in the PNW where the fire return interval is 500 years...and on all public land we continually get closer to allowing fire to retake its place...where it isn't allowed, we see biscuit type events whether we want them or not...and those events reshape the land in a 'natural' way with or without our help. On federal land, the 'clearcut' mentality as it pertains to large ungulates is split even among biologists with some for, some against, and some mixed. I know on the UMPQUA NF, we hear all the time that there are no elk anymore, or deer due to the decline in harvest. At Cottage grove, we have a few thousand acres of commercial thin under contract...and just wating for the market to pickup so it occurs. I know personally, that there may not be as many critters as there could be with more open ground, but if anybody doubts that elk are doing just fine, check out my posts on the trailcam page. THe animals are there, the brush may be thick, but that just keeps the people out of where the elk hide.

As to the original intent of the post, i read once that there is only one place in the lower 48 that is 20 miles from a road...and that is a little tiny piece of wyoming. I have had the pleasure of having killed 5 bulls, several cows and a few bucks, and all have been less than a half mile from a road. Sure, the elk avoid the heavily traveled roads...but i have observed elk in MT, bedded in large numbers overlooking a well traveled thoroughfare, where nobody stopped to notice them for several hours and a cow hunt was on (i chose to wait for a branch bull and had tag soup) in that area, but nobody looked up the hill! Pressure is pressure, whether it be horseback riders, atv, pickups etc, and the animals will respond.

My favorite piece of elk country is near Sumpter, and has roads below it...but i stay away from them and enjoy all the time i spend in there, whether I am in a 'roadless' area, between roads, or in the NorthFOrk Johnday.

Just my

[hilclimber]

Originally Posted by ORsouthpaw

Logging practices of yester year were good for the deer and elk. Not so much for the spotted owl or the forest as a whole. Now days logging seems to be much more focused on the environmental impacts and that is a good thing. Logging roads are necessity although allowing access for public use is not. To me, this is simple. Log what you must and then get out and close the roads, Completely! I may get flamed but this should include ALL modes of transportation other than walking (bikes, atv's, horses, 4x4's, etc.) The only exceptions being for a certified disabled hunter. In almost 30 miles of walking in a wilderness area (All Closed Roads) during elk season I never saw another hunter anywhere other than on a open road driving to and from an entry point.

We have made access to the back country too easy for far too long and we all have whined at one time or another about our areas being over populated with road hunters, etc. The fact is, in most areas there are less accessible by roads today than ever before. Hunting for a guy that is willing to do the work is better than it was 30 years ago. The problem is the pecentage of hunters that are willing to put in the miles is continuing to increase. As our total hunting numbers continue to decline we are left with a more dedicated group of die hards that all know the same thing- Get away from (OPEN) roads and your chances of success go way up. The problem isn't the roads nor is it the logging that creates some of those roads. The problem in my mind is that private land is consuming our forests at such an acellerated rate that it is forcing our smaller number of hunters to all flock the same public areas giving us the illusion that we are allowing too much access to public land.

Well Said!!! I just have one question...where did you hunt in OR with out seeing people? I have always seen people...though sometimes only cause my shot brought them to me...but that includes deep in the Eagle Caps, and NR John day.

I used to be in the camp of keep all the roads open, they are our 'god given right ' to be driven etc. But after the last several years seeing all of the abuse i have had to deal with as a hunter with atv's cross country, and blown stalks with pickups screaming down 2 tracks, i am in favor of closing all those roads we can! Access should be earned to our back country! I was talking one day to a 'disabled' hunter a few years ago. I put up the quotations, because he explained to me how with his status he can shoot cows and does during season, yet as we talked, he told me places he had visited that season that I had been to. They were all pretty decent Hike in hunts. So I was confused...if he can hike in to these remote basins....he needs a 'disabled' permit for....

Most of the sales i work on, the roads get inactivated after harvest other than the mainline gravel roads. This means the culverts are pulled, and the roads are basically unusable other than walking...it grows back too fast and too steep for atv's after a couple years. And, if future harvest is necessary, or a wildland fire situation, the road can be put back to use in a fairly quick manner. THis is a balanced approach, and follows the science/economics tightrope....

[baltz526]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

That is so far from true it is stunning, what makes you think that? Just look at the BLM WOPR, which will cut tens of thousands of acres of true old growth, or the 27 miles of road being pushed into the Deadhorse rim roadless areas around Gearhart Mtn Wilderness.

you need to come down this spring and we can go up to the gearhart and take a look. pine beatle has killed 90% of the trees in some areas. two bad choices, allow it to burn (and it will soon) or log it. it will burn so hot, it will turn it into a moonscape

[hilclimber]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

To say BHA would support never harvesting another natural resource is plain false, we are huge advocates for thinning native forests, to help fix what we hosed up by active management, and reprod, to never build another road you are dead on. Free choice also entails those of us who are owners of our national forests who choose not to have the entire thing managed for resource extraction. When is it appropriate to say: save what we have. Apprently never, roadless areas are the last remnants, and there are concerted efforts to make only already designated wilderness the only stronghold for the way things have always been.

This thread is interesting, I suppose you have your honey holes, and apprently don't mind if a road is put into it and logged. Some of us choose the opposite as our free choice. Just don't ask me to let anyone force their will upon me by roading my honey holes or riding their ATV in them. Apprently its not a two way street, I have to let roads in and my hunting spots changed forever to allow free choice, but by advocating for them not to be touched I am against free choice .. hmmmm.

Brian, where do you hunt? Or rather a better question as that can be quite personal and private, what forest/forests are you on when you talk about road building? I only ask, because current logging practices, and NEPA/public involvement have curtailed new road building almost completely on the forest I work on. If we even propose 1/2 mile of Temorary road that will be obbliterated and unnoticeable 5 years post harvest, it is so hotly contested we rarely even suggest it, but rely on old temp roads that we obliterate after harvest, current system roads on Helicopter logging. ANd this is in an area with a high mileage of roads per/section. I realize that other areas have less roads, but also have more ground based loggins sytems due to the lack of salmon/owls/slope concerns. From my own narrow scope of view, road building in current roadless areas is a dead issue...at least on FS land in the Northwest. Feel free to correct me if i am wrong though.

[hilclimber]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Much of the money to pay for the thinning comes from logging public lands. Many of these projects are being delayed by appeals and lawsuits by the same enviros who claim to want thinning, but are stopping it with their legal actions. The enviros say one thing, but do something else.

The enviros want complete control of the entire ecosystem. They are not working with any agency, but dictating to them. I am tired of it and will continue to expose their false shady dealings.

Even your Sen. Ron Wyden has announced that he is working on legislation to overcome gridlock in the national forest logging projects..

As far as your making up the 1,000 year figure. How are the game animals supposed to survive on poor forage for 1,000 years??

Well said...and is there any truly 1000 year old stands...that aren't fragmented by fires.....

[hilclimber]

Originally Posted by baltz526

you need to come down this spring and we can go up to the gearhart and take a look. pine beatle has killed 90% of the trees in some areas. two bad choices, allow it to burn (and it will soon) or log it. it will burn so hot, it will turn it into a moonscape

baltz526...beatles are a natural cycle...and will occur in the absence of stand replacement fire in lodgepole every 80-200 years. Not familiar with the Gearhart...but believe it is lodgepole. A new concept going around the fire/fuels community is that there is no such thing as a 'devestating, or catastrophic' wildfire. There are just fires big and small. Those terms have been used by the media. THe earth has had bad fires since its conception (By whatever means you believe in). And it has healed. THe only variable is time. Haveing been on many fires that created the moonscape you refer to, I have been pleasantly suprised in lodgepole communities when visiting them 5-10 years later as they are some of the fastest healers. THere was a great study started by a gentleman on the Wallowa Whitman by the name of Johnson about 20 or so years ago. He took photo points and plots all over the WW, Umatilla and Malheur (and parts of the adjacent Idaho forests) in their natural state. Many of them had fires, and even several fires come through in the study period. I have seen his slides of desolation, turn into the green carpet yellowstone has turned into within 10-15 years post fire. Just my bias, but i hesitate to be too upset when nature tries to restore the balance that we are unable, or unwilling to mimic.

[scoutdog5]

This has been an excellent thread, with lots of good comments. I would like to suggest that everyone start off by stating what part of the state their comments refer to. Oregon is a very diverse state, and what is true in some areas is absolutely not true in others. I would guess that some of the things that appear to be disagreements are more likely differences in the type of forest/habitat that the comments are based on.

In my case, all of my comments are related to Ponderosa pine forests, such as the Ochoco and Malheur national forests. In particular, I have spent more than 40 years using the Rager District of the Ochoco National Forest, my grandparents ranched in that area before WW2, my grandfather worked for the Forest Service, stationed at Rager in the 50's and early 60's. That is country I have observed and know.

First, Hillclimber, we really need you to transfer to the Rager District on the Ochoco. The people who are currently there are clueless when it comes to the negative impacts of an excessive road system on elk usage of public land. Please?

As to clear cuts, we were lucky enough to have a forester from the coast transfer to Rager in the late 70's. He planned an executed a number of clear cuts. What a disaster. Many of them have been replanted multiple times, at least 5 in one case I know of. 25-30 years later, and many are still mostly bare, although a few are finally growing up. I drive by forests on the westside that were cut 15 years later, and am amazed at the difference. Clearcutting in a Ponderosa Pine forest does not provide increased forage for big game, eliminates valuable cover that will be difficult to replace and increases erosion and damage to riparian areas. Anyone who doubts the truth of that statement, I will be happy to take you on a tour this summer of clearcuts that were done more than 25 years ago, and let you judge for yourself.

The cutback in logging had nothing to do with the decrease in mule deer populations in the Ochoco unit. In fact, the decline started at about the same time logging was ramping up. By the 80's, when logging reached it's peak, mule deer were in a full blown crash on the Rager District, that continues to this day. Logging contributed to the decline, in my view, by excessive road building, with roads remaining open, allowing hunters much easier access, which led to a very serious reduction in the mature bucks available for breeding after the hunting season. The two primary factors, however, were the elimination of poisoning of coyotes in the late 60's (not sure if that date is right), and the failure of ODFW to reduce antlerless tags when deer numbers were dropping.

Although I can't back this up with any facts, I believe that Cougars are a minor factor in reduced mule deer populations within the Rager District at the present time. This is mostly due to the fact that there are not enough deer left to support a viable Cougar population. Cougars are the primary limiting factor in the growth of the elk herd, which in spite of good habitat, herd dynamics and reduced harvest, has stayed level at around 4,500 elk for the past 10 years.

Finally, habitat is absolutely no factor in current population levels for deer and elk within the Rager District. Does this mean that the habitat is wonderful in all areas? Of course not. The sad truth is, however, that the current low populations don't require that. It seems to me that there is a very simple method to determine whether or not habitat is a limiting factor in your area. Go out in the spring and observe the animals. Do they appear to be malnourished, or find carcasses? In early summer, walk the winter range. Can you see where animals have over-grazed winter shrubs, reached high into trees to obtain nourishment? Last year was the first heavy snow year on winter range in the Ochoco's for 15 years. I asked the biologist for the area now many winter kill carcasses he found in his district. The answer was zero. In my view, habitat will not become a factor until deer and elk populations are considerably larger than they are now. I hope to see that day, but I am getting old, and am not optimistic.

Scoutdog

[Bow Kill]

Originally Posted by wildernesshunter

this is a tight rope issue in my opinion. To venture to far on the wilderness/forest/old growth/roadless preservation side is to add fuel to the antis (not just anti-hunting groups but anti-logging groups also) fire. They love to sight hunters and outdoor enthusiast's remarks on what we are doing wrong, as long as they line up with their agendas. Remember how many "hunters" were anti-hound hunting? (not a hijack, please do not comment). The statements they made fueled testimony that caused a loss of a priviledged tradition.
On the other hand, the one thing we have as a group, are people who are willing to debate these issues who have experience, knowledge and education in the facts. That is something anti groups tend not to have. The majority (as they have highly intelligent and experienced people working for them also) latch on to an idea and they almost protest it like they have been brainwashed. (watch a peta rally on youtube, you'll be amazed at the carziness).

Brian, stirring the pot is fine. It creates creative thinking but almost always leads to argumentation. These arguments are the seeds that grow to internal discontent between all of us hunters. Should we not try to creativly craft ideas that can mutually benifit all of us through discussion, and not argument? We need to bring all hunters together, not segments of us who like to hunt backcountry/roads/with atvs/on horseback/public land/private land/out of state/in state....i could go on forever.

The best hunters i know adapt to any of their surroundings to successfully harvest their quarry, as we as a group need to adapt to save the things we love.

Be careful what you wish for brian, someday you might realize that dream....

well said wilderness hunter

[Bow Kill]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t wilderness a noun that carries a few definitions?

I don’t think we have a true wilderness area in the USA but again correct me if I am wrong. I think what we have now days is evolved wilderness areas and therefore the true definition of wilderness has morphed into what we have imbedded in our minds.

[huntinfool]

Logging is a win-win for everybody. I grew up on the south coast in the late 70's through the 80's. Logging was huge. Schools had ALL the money they needed because they got a huge chunk of money from the timber sales. We had all kinds of programs like Outdoor Education and many other electives. Our parents did'nt have to send us to school with money to pay for sports.

If we started up the logging industry right now I'll bet our economy would boom and our budget shortfalls would be non-existent.

And if they logged areas that were logged when our parents were kids, the road beds are already there, just grown over so there would be no need to build a bunch of new roads. We would'nt have to punch new roads into the wilderness.

Logging creates jobs
Logging state and federal land creates money for schools
Logging opens up the forest and creates food for big game