Good News For Wilderness Lovers

I agree Hollowdweller. Coming to the Wilderness forum to belittle wild places is akin to going into the Traditional forum and saying "Slipjoints suck", it's trolling.
 
I live in an area that was once a very rich vibrant boreal forest. The boreal forest has been treated as a commodity for several decades Today it has been replaced with controled tree farms using methods that first make the land look like it has been hit by an atomic, or rather multiple hydrogen bombs. Then use herbicides and genetically altered seedlings to farm wood fiber followed by tree thinning that leaves less cover for wildlife. These are single tree species type of sterile forests often infected by various tree beetles and become prone to wildfires.

These are not forests, they may look like it from a distance, but they are devoid of most wildlife, and the lakes are unproductive due to runoff from the clearcuts and the use of herbicides to kill off the indigenous species.

Wild refuges bennefit everyone, as they are the lungs and filters for the environment.

I am not opposed to logging, done right with small cuts they can further the forests, but the massive clearcuts are environmental armagedon.
 
My main complaint against logging on public land is that, at least around here where the majority of land is forest it results in private landowners getting less for their timber. Generally speaking the gov't kicks in and helps the logging companies with road building and the price they get for the timber is below the price privately held timber is sold for. So it sort of depresses the price private landowners can get for their timber.

The area I used to deer hunt on all thru my childhood was owned by Westvaco, it was mixed hardwoods. About the time I graduated from college they clearcut the whole thing and planted it back in hybrid pines for quick rotation. They used a whole tree chipper and took all the crowns too. The crown contains 80% of the nutrients.

The newly cut area grew back thick and was great for deer in summer but w/ no acorns or nut bearing trees was not so good in fall.

They owned it so it was their right to do it. But I'm glad I own 85 acres now that nobody can cut out from under me and I'm glad that when they DO log National Forest land here they are not allowed to let the trees grow back in a plantation style.
 
back to the bill.

Here's an article with some pics about Big Draft that is included in the Bill.

http://wvhighlands.org/wv_voice/?p=31

Nick Rahall is MY congressman. With most of my reps I like to talk to them about the issues but when I see Rahall I just shake his hand and say "doing a good job":thumbup:
 
I'm sorry to bust your bubble guys, really I am. I wish it were not so, but this, and other bills like it are land grabs by the Government. The Government passes NO bill that does not profit them personally or help them get re-elected.

You see, they buy up the land (Or TAKE it via eminent domain) and once in control, they can do whatever they want with it. I know... I know, the bill is worded to give the impression that this is a bill meant to "Preserve" the land and be forever part of our "Open space".

I'm sorry to tell you, nothing can stop them from developing it.

They can log it, build a military base on it, sell it to a developer for housing or do anything else they like. All it takes is a phone call and they get a Government variance to do whatever they want.

It is done all the time. National forests are logged as we sit here. National forest land has been sold every year including last year. They can sell it the day after they buy it if they want.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or all of this land is going to be developed, it just means the Government controls it. Just don't think that this land will be "Forever wild" for you to frolic, drop point barkie at your side with your compass in hand and a pocket full of 550 cord, because it just isn't so.
 
Last edited:
PrimitiveMan said:
I'm sorry to bust your bubble guys, really I am. I wish it were not so, but this, and other bills like it are land grabs by the Government. The Government passes NO bill that does not profit them personally or help them get re-elected.

You see, they buy up the land (Or TAKE it via eminent domain) and once in control, they can do whatever they want with it. I know... I know, the bill is worded to give the impression that this is a bill meant to "Preserve" the land and be forever part of our "Open space".

I'm sorry to tell you, nothing can stop them from developing it.

They can log it, build a military base on it, sell it to a developer for housing or do anything else they like. All it takes is a phone call and they get a Government variance to do whatever they want.

It is done all the time. National forests are logged as we sit here. National forest land has been sold every year including last year. They can sell it the day after they buy it if they want.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or all of this land is going to be developed, it just means the Government controls it. Just don't think that this land will be "Forever wild" for you to frolic, drop point barkie at your side with your compass in hand and a pocket full of 550 cord, because it just isn't so.
Click to expand...

PM?

Do you understand the concept of wilderness designation??
 
Back to the subject:

One of the new wilderness areas in WV is Spice Run in Greenbrier County.

According to what I am reading there are not even any established trails there:thumbup:

Besides the location making it one of the closest WV Wilderness areas to where I live (but still couple hours away) the lack of trails should make it a pretty cool area to practice map reading and orienteering:D

In case if anyone is interested I found this topo map of the area I'm going to print out and share:

http://wvgazette.com/images/SpiceRun_HousePassed.pdf
 
PrimitiveMan said:
I'm sorry to bust your bubble guys, really I am. I wish it were not so, but this, and other bills like it are land grabs by the Government. The Government passes NO bill that does not profit them personally or help them get re-elected.

You see, they buy up the land (Or TAKE it via eminent domain) and once in control, they can do whatever they want with it. I know... I know, the bill is worded to give the impression that this is a bill meant to "Preserve" the land and be forever part of our "Open space".

I'm sorry to tell you, nothing can stop them from developing it.

They can log it, build a military base on it, sell it to a developer for housing or do anything else they like. All it takes is a phone call and they get a Government variance to do whatever they want.

It is done all the time. National forests are logged as we sit here. National forest land has been sold every year including last year. They can sell it the day after they buy it if they want.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or all of this land is going to be developed, it just means the Government controls it. Just don't think that this land will be "Forever wild" for you to frolic, drop point barkie at your side with your compass in hand and a pocket full of 550 cord, because it just isn't so.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. Your summary was intelligent, informed, and accurate. What I hate is when land is set aside this way to manipulate energy or other commodities as pay back to foreign gov'ts for monies received from said gov't. It's illegal, but it's rampant. No point naming names. Both parties do it, which is why this is a discussion best kept in the political forums. :mad: The unsmiley is for our elected unleaders/blatant crooks. :mad:
 
I'm sorry to bust your bubble guys, really I am. I wish it were not so, but this, and other bills like it are land grabs by the Government. The Government passes NO bill that does not profit them personally or help them get re-elected.
Click to expand...
It was already public land; the Wilderness Bill didn't "grab" anything.

Oddly enough, yesterday you seemed to be lamenting the lack of wild places. What's your point, just to be contrary?

Sorry, that's just how it is.
Click to expand...
Not without an act of Congress, which is why it's important for outdoor enthusiasts to vote. Why not take it to the Political Arena if you wish to discuss that aspect?

Besides the location making it one of the closest WV Wilderness areas to where I live (but still couple hours away) the lack of trails should make it a pretty cool area to practice map reading and orienteering
Click to expand...
Great news!

There are some trails in Wilderness Areas, but in most cases new trails won't be built. The Ozark Highlands Trail passes through a Wilderness Area for example, but the trail was there first.
 
There are many different levels of protection that may be applied to public lands. For land managed by USFS, BLM, NPS, et al, sometimes sales are done and land manipulated for various reasons.

That is the great thing about a Wilderness designation. It takes an act of Congress to protect land as Wilderness, and an act of Congress to remove it. A 'call' won't do it. I'm having a hard time finding any land of significant size that has been removed from Wilderness designation. If anyone knows of any, please share. And please make sure it is land that was protected as Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964, not just public lands managed by one of the agencies.
 
mapper66 said:
There are many different levels of protection that may be applied to public lands. For land managed by USFS, BLM, NPS, et al, sometimes sales are done and land manipulated for various reasons.

That is the great thing about a Wilderness designation. It takes an act of Congress to protect land as Wilderness, and an act of Congress to remove it. A 'call' won't do it. I'm having a hard time finding any land of significant size that has been removed from Wilderness designation. If anyone knows of any, please share. And please make sure it is land that was protected as Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964, not just public lands managed by one of the agencies.
Click to expand...

Right. National forest in WV has gas wells on it, pipelines, has been timbered, and is coal mined.

National forest is managed by a multiple use concept.

However like Mapper says once it's designated Wilderness it is not open to new roads, timbering, strip mining, or oil and gas exploration.

Should all National Forest be Wilderness? No. National forests are managed to benefit all citizens not just backpackers and survivalists. Should certain areas that have special features be designated? Yes.


But to get back to the subject I'm really excited about having 2 new areas and a couple more expanded.
 
Bob W.

Not sure what discussion you are referring to with my "Lamenting the lack of wild places" The more wild places the better.

I'm certainly not just trying to be contrary. I have personally seen open space land sold to a developer to buld a chain drug store. The web has several examples of National Forest land being sold, developed and timbered. From 2000 - 2004 the National Forest Service sold over 13,000 acres and in 2006 200,000 acres were targeted to be sold over the next few years. I will leave it to the individual to do their own search.

I am not saying this land will be immediately sold to a strip mining company. My point is, just because land is obtained, does not necessarily mean it will remain "Wild". I sincerely hope in this case it does.

If you think "Wilderness Designation" will protect the land....I think you are being optimistic, but I hope you are correct.
 
Bob W.
Not sure what discussion you are referring to with my "Lamenting the lack of wild places" The more wild places the better.
Click to expand...
In yesterday's topic you were lamenting on the inability to live like Dick Proenneke.

Today you seemed to poo-poo the very idea of designated wilderness areas. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

I cannot stress enough the importance of cataloging and protecting as much eligible wilderness as possible. It's necessary so that our descendants can have even a taste of what the United States was like before mass-suburbanization.
 
I completely agree. While the Government selling of the land sickens me on those occaisions that it does happen, that is certainly no reason not to increase the National, State or even local forest and do our best to preserve it.

I am all for designated wilderness areas and think the rules should allow proenneke like existence in some of them.

I am sorry if I did not explain properly in the other thread. I just doubted whether someone could legally go build a cabin in no-mans land nowadays. It seems every time you turn around there are more restrictions.
 
It seems every time you turn around there are more restrictions.
Click to expand...

There are also three-hundred-million of us who now have to equally share the limited remaining natural resources. So I don't see any alternative or reversal of the regulatory trend in the near future.
 
Bob W said:
There are also three-hundred-million of us who now have to equally share the limited remaining natural resources. So I don't see any alternative or reversal of the regulatory trend in the near future.
Click to expand...

True. The bigger and more urban the area you live the more regs you have. Also more heavily used wilderness areas seem to have more restrictions also. Most of the place I go as long as you are not camping within 200' of the road you are good to go. But I've seen some places in other states you had to pay a fee or obtain a permit just to backpack and camp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top