Good News For Wilderness Lovers

cmdionne said:
Colburn has lately been filibustering a whole lot of legislation. He is fundamentally against the way that we are practicing government spending, and is trying to make a point.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with his filibuster but I agree with his point. :thumbup:
 
Great news! Good to know that we can still set aside wilderness. Now if we can figure out a way to protect it from the morons that tear it up and burn it down.
 
Great news indeed!

Good news for some, bad news for all taxpayers. According to the story on Yahoo this bill contains $4 billion in pork.
Click to expand...
Voting against wilderness wouldn't of had any affect on pork; it simply would have been added to some other bill instead.
 
I think this thread has more to do with politics than with anything related to wilderness survival, the wilderness in general, or any kind of skills. My $0.02.
 
LittleHairyApe said:
I think this thread has more to do with politics than with anything related to wilderness survival, the wilderness in general, or any kind of skills. My $0.02.
Click to expand...

I'd hate for this topic to get tossed to the cesspool that is the Political Arena. So I hope we can keep this 'clean'.

Maybe someone who's been to the area of topic could post some camping and hiking pictures?
 
Bob W said:
I'd hate for this topic to get tossed to the cesspool that is the Political Arena. So I hope we can keep this 'clean'.

Maybe someone who's been to the area of topic could post some camping and hiking pictures?
Click to expand...



Sure. I started it and I figured that most of us here would be happy to have more wilderness since it's a wilderness forum.:thumbup:

A LOT of this area here:

Roaring Plains
20061010image0029fb3.jpg
 
LittleHairyApe said:
I think this thread has more to do with politics than with anything related to wilderness survival, the wilderness in general, or any kind of skills. My $0.02.
Click to expand...

Adding that much acreage to the wilderness system has everything to do with wilderness in general. No wilderness means no place to survive, and no place to practice skills. Some of the posts have moved it towards the political.

Back to the topic at hand, the addition of that much acreage is a fantastic win for wilderness proponents. :thumbup: The only thing I don't like about it is none of it was in North Carolina! ;)
 
mapper66 said:
Adding that much acreage to the wilderness system has everything to do with wilderness in general. No wilderness means no place to survive, and no place to practice skills. Some of the posts have moved it towards the political.

Back to the topic at hand, the addition of that much acreage is a fantastic win for wilderness proponents. :thumbup: The only thing I don't like about it is none of it was in North Carolina! ;)
Click to expand...

Hey Mapper! What are the Wilderness areas in NC?

In WV we have Laurel Fork, it's a really long narrow area that follows the LAUREL FORK, CRANBERRY which the southernmost I think and I think it's the largest, DOLLY SODSand to the south attached Roaring Plains will be soon, OTTER CREEK. I think that's it.
 
hollowdweller said:
Hey Mapper! What are the Wilderness areas in NC?
Click to expand...

Thought you would never ask. ;) I feel very fortunate to live right next to the largest Wilderness Area in the state, Shining Rock at about 18,500 acres. Also right next to the Middle Prong Wilderness Area.

How about a map? If you've not seen this site, it is pretty cool:

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=nc&map=ncwestganorth

Main US map, check out WV.

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=map

One of my lifelong goals is to make it to the Gates of the Arctic in Alaska. The area was explored, and protected in large part due to the efforts of Bob Marshall, the founder of the Wilderness Society.

edit - if you go to your state map, look at the top and there is a link that lists all the wilderness areas in your state.
 
Does anyone know what the Omnibus Public Land Management act will do, exactly?

There's a lot of people unhappy about this thing. Motorcyclists, for one, because they believe they're being unfairly banned from these lands without adequate debate. I guess they have a point, although it's been my observation that the motorcyclists and ATV crowd are their own worse enemies. (Mountain bikers too, for that matter.)

My concern is that this turns into an enviro-extremists way to prevent people from accessing these land entirely. If you've got a couple of hundred miles of wilderness, and no motorized vehicles or even horses are allowed back in there, even on forest service roads, then what good are they to all but the most fit survivalists amongst us? I don't know that this is the actual situation, btw, but that's the muttering I've been hearing on other boards.

My understanding is that no logging will be allowed either. Does this mean they'll let wildfires actually burn through these lands, or will they put them out, thereby allowing decades of dead brush to build up until we get a massive firestorm that no one can contain?

I know this bill removes these lands from consideration for development. Does anyone know what other uses will be banned on these lands?
 
I believe this bill also blocks use for our own energy resources. Not that it will ever be needed. :D

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009

As an independent oil and natural gas producer, I am contacting you to express my objection to the “Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.” This legislation is a combination of close to 150 bills that will make it more difficult for America’s independent oil and natural gas producer to operate on federal lands. This bill would reclassify, designate, and regulate areas of public land leaving close to 25 million acres of land off-limits to development of American energy sources.



One example of this onerous legislation is the potential modification to the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) and the changes that could have at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Currently, the BLM follows a “multiple use” approach on most of the land it manages. The intent of this legislation would be to change that approach and instead initiate a policy to “conserve, protect, and restore” many BLM lands that would effectively end any exploration within the NLCS by designating these lands as permanent “wilderness study” areas.



Another section of this legislation would also shut out 1.2 million acres of the Bridger-Teton National Forest from any oil and natural gas exploration activity. Estimates show that the Bridger-Teton National Forest contains up to 4.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. At a time where American citizens are rallying around American energy sources, this is not the appropriate action to take.



It is also worrisome to see the provision of the bill that would move all National Heritage Areas (NHA) under the National Park Service’s (NPS) jurisdiction. Currently, the NPS acts in an advisory role. Any change to this will take away decision making capabilities from the local people and organizations, the same people that have the knowledge to effectively manage the NHA. This decision could possibly make a “one size fits all” federal approach that ignores the realities of each individual area.



These are just a few examples of the burdensome policies that could become reality if this becomes law. Please oppose this misguided legislation and join those that want a more balanced, common-sense approach to meet America’s energy needs.
Click to expand...

http://bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=ipaa&issue=2009_Public_Lands_Bill&parent=IPAA


This has been a hard story to find and follow over the weekend on the real impact this Bill will have.
 
CSG said:
Shuts off even more land except for those young enough and fit enough to get into it. It's discriminatory to the disabled and not needed. Not everyone who wants to use the land wants to do it with a knife and flint.

As far as the ladening with pork, I guess a lot of you don't pay taxes. Is it ever enough?
Click to expand...

Yes, in order to be totally egalitarian, let's make nice paved roads into every wild area, with no inclines that would be a problem for wheelchairs. Let's also heat the roads from underneath for the elderly who don't want to be cold, or for people too economically disadvantaged to afford snow tires.

Also we should probably take every hiking path and cut it down to no more than 1% grade, 8 feet wide, smooth pavement the whole way. If possible, we should have restaurants every mile or so for the hungry, bars every mile for the thirsty, and chocolate swimming pools for the people who are hungry and thirsty at the same time, and also like to swim in their food.

I mean really! Wilderness is widerness...it's not for everybody, deal with it! The world is not a big group hug of egalitarianism.
 
Does anyone know what the Omnibus Public Land Management act will do, exactly?
Click to expand...
Ahem...

I'd hate for this topic to get tossed to the cesspool that is the Political Arena. So I hope we can keep this 'clean'.
Click to expand...

Three... two... one...
 
misanthropist said:
I mean really! Wilderness is widerness...it's not for everybody, deal with it! The world is not a big group hug of egalitarianism.
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm is misplaced.

My point is this: if the feds are going to spend millions upon millions of tax payer money to protect these lands, I want to know that more than .00000001% of the population is going to get some use out of the land. Otherwise, they aren't protecting the land for the benefit of the American people, they're stealing the land from the American people and using our tax dollars to do it too.

It doesn't take a paved highway to open access to these lands for a good portion of the population who enjoy wild places. But if I can't take my pickup truck up a forest service road to within 20 miles of where I might want to be, something's wrong.
 
misanthropist said:
Yes, in order to be totally egalitarian, let's make nice paved roads into every wild area, with no inclines that would be a problem for wheelchairs. Let's also heat the roads from underneath for the elderly who don't want to be cold, or for people too economically disadvantaged to afford snow tires.

Also we should probably take every hiking path and cut it down to no more than 1% grade, 8 feet wide, smooth pavement the whole way. If possible, we should have restaurants every mile or so for the hungry, bars every mile for the thirsty, and chocolate swimming pools for the people who are hungry and thirsty at the same time, and also like to swim in their food.

I mean really! Wilderness is widerness...it's not for everybody, deal with it! The world is not a big group hug of egalitarianism.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, public land is, in fact by definition, for everybody, not just for a private smug-fest of a small, self-marginalizing, elitist minority. Deal with that!

And I will say it once again, I don't think this is the proper place for wrongheaded political gloating. This thread needs to have been started somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Really amazed at some of the responses to this.

Figured most people would be happy about it:rolleyes: Especially the folks on this particular forum given the name:p

Hearing a lot of people complaining that it's bad because you can't drive in????

Coming from this on a non political angle we can all set here and post pics of ourselves using a bowdrill at a developed campsite, and post pics of our guns and knives and stuff and that's cool, but when I think of the terms Wilderness and Survival together I think of being in a wilderness where there are no roads, and when I think of survival the ability to cover ground on foot and navigate using the terrain are at least as important as having a PSK in your truck????
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top