• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

There goes western Montana - thanks for nothing Senator Tester

Thread Rating
5.00 star(s)
W
Nov 2, 2001
3,460
279
83
Boise, Id
Found a nice list of everything that's being closed by Tester. Lifted from NewWest Article. Jeeze, it's mind boggling. Don't you think 109.5 Million Acres of wilderness was already enough? Get a load of all the area that will be wilderness, but even more will be closed to off trail riding. NRA, national recreation area, don't allow snowmobiling off trail. WSA's probably won't either. A lot of the promises still have to meet National rules and endangered species requirement. Any logging can be shut down due to Grizzles, for example. Don't get the impression that there won't be any lawsuits, just because you got a promise.


Designates the following Wilderness Areas (609,000 acres total) on national forest land.All new Wilderness Areas are currently congressionally mandated Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) or Inventoried Roadless Areas:

Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness Additions. 56,680 acres of contiguous roadless land added to the existing Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness

East Pioneers Wilderness. 75,775 acres just west of Dillon, significantly down from the 87,500-acre Wilderness called for in the draft legislation written two years ago by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership (BDP). The bill reduced the proposed Wilderness by about 10,000 acres on the north end of the East Pioneers because the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) official forest plan didn’t recommend this area for Wilderness, and the bill’s drafters gave preference to the FS plan over the BDP recommendations.

Dolus Lake Wilderness. 9,367 acres in the Flint Creek Range west of Deer Lodge, up from an 8,500-acre Wilderness proposed in the draft BDP legislation.

Electric Peak Wilderness. 4,653 acres southeast of Deer Lodge encompassed within the 22,037-acre Thunderbolt National Recreation Area (NRA), also created by the bill. The draft BDP legislation called for a 9,200-acre Wilderness.

Lee Metcalf Wilderness Additions. 18,950 acres of contiguous roadless land added to the existing Lee Metcalf Wilderness.

Highlands Wilderness. 20,392 acres south of Butte.

Italian Peaks Wilderness. 29,508 acres in the far southwest corner of Montana.

Lima Peaks Wilderness. 35,150 acres in the far southwest corner of Montana.

Lost Cabin Wilderness. 5,223 acres east of Dillon.

Mount Jefferson Wilderness. 4,465 acres just west of Yellowstone National Park (YNP).

Quigg Peak Wilderness. 8,388 acres east of Hamilton.

Sapphire Wilderness. 53,327 acres east of Hamilton. About half of the Sapphire WSA (51,000 acres), which is in the Bitterroot National Forest, is omitted from the bill, but will remain as a WSA and managed for wilderness suitability until Congress decides otherwise. The bill’s drafters increased the size of the Sapphire Wilderness over what was proposed in the draft BDP legislation, which called for a 43,500-acre Wilderness. Not all of the WSA on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge was proposed for wilderness in the bill, As a concession to the local snowmobile club, about 5,000 acres was withdrawn, but the bill’s drafters added 5,000 acres of non-WSA forestland to substitute for the withdrawal.

Snowcrest Wilderness. 89,798 acres near the northwest corner of YNP and east of Dillon, down from 92,000 acres proposed in the draft BDP legislation.

Stony Mountain Wilderness. 14,261 acres west of Hamilton, down from 15,500 proposed in draft BDP legislation.

West Big Hole Wilderness. 44,084 acre West Big Hole Wilderness, in two separate areas along the Idaho/Montana border south of Darby and encompassed with in a 94,237-acre West Big Hole National Recreation Area, a combination similar to the Rattlesnake Wilderness and NRA on the north edge of Missoula, although likely with more motorized use allowed. This is a dramatic reduction from the draft BDP legislation, which called for a 92,000-acre Wilderness.

West Pioneers Wilderness. 25,742 acres in two separate areas west of Dillon encompassed in a 129,252-acre NRA with bicycles and motorized recreation allowed on existing trails.. The BDP draft legislation called for a 34,400-acre Wilderness.

Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness Additions. 78,977 acres in two separate roadless lands adjacent to these existing Wilderness Areas, all west of Seeley Lake and north of Ovando. Also creates the 1,271-acre Otalsy NRA on the south end of the Bob Marshall Wilderness and contiguous to the proposed additions.

Mission Mountains Wilderness Additions. 4,501 acres of contiguous roadless lands to the Mission Mountains Wilderness northeast of Seeley Lake.

Roderick Wilderness. 29,869 acres in the Yaak area northwest of Libby, and the nearby 74,274-acre Three Rivers Special Management Area northwest of the Wilderness but not contiguous to it.

Release of West Pioneer and Sapphire WSAs Removes congressional protections and “releases” any of the West Pioneer and Sapphire WSAs not designated as Wilderness under the bill and specifically says the FS is no longer required to manage the two released areas to ensure their suitability for future wilderness designation. Keep in mind that the Bitterroot National Forest section of the Sapphires will remain congressionally protected as an WSA.

Designates five Wilderness Areas (59,000 acres total) on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). All are currently classified as WSAs.

Blacktail Mountains Wilderness. 10,667 acres east of Dillon.

Centennial Mountains Wilderness. 23,256 acres just west of YNP.

Farlin Creek Wilderness. A tiny 661-acre area southwest of Dillon.

Ruby Mountains Wilderness. 15,504 acres east of Dillon.

Humbug Spires Wilderness. 8,892 acres south of Butte.

Release of BLM WSAs. Removes congressional protections and “releases” seven BLM WSAs.

Lost Creek Protection Area. Creates 15,134-acre Lost Creek Protection Area on BLM lands west of Anaconda.

Recreational trail enhancement. Agencies “may” develop a plan “to provide enhanced recreational trail opportunities.”

Motorized Recreation. Prohibited in all new Wildernesses, but allowed in NRAs, Protection Areas and Special Management Areas, although in some cases, only snowmobiles, not on-the-ground motorized vehicles, and only on existing or new roads and trails. Off-trail motorized use is prohibited.
 
Last edited:

eddy

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Jul 8, 2001
1,094
261
83
67
Sammamish WA
Tester Bill

I have sent my response to my senators. We need everyone to get on this or no one has place to ride!

Maybe they do not realize there will be no more area to throw beer cans and have loud exhaust headers! (Jesting here but c'mon!)
 
K
Nov 10, 2008
658
40
28
B.C.
This is bull****, Get in there take the beetle kill wood and re-plant it its the only way to sustain a forest. Banning people and user groups including snowmobilers solves nothing, we all respect our forests but we are being treated like little kids. What they should do is reach a deal with everyone to take the wood out and re-plant the area and ask all users to stay out for say five years, but only in areas that they have actually done something on. There is no point in closing down areas that nothing has been done yet, our forests need our attention yes but i haven't seen a solid plan yet from any Government, they are making these decisions on hear say reports and if they want to make a real difference do something that will. I live in B.C. and we have the same problem here, i have often thought about going and buying a couple boxes of trees and going out and planting the myself and if everyone did this that cared about the present state of our forests we could easily re-plant more forest than any government or logging company could or is re-planting this year, we have massive cut blocks up here that no one has even touched since they were logged 20 years ago. I do not trust any Government anymore to do anything that would actually help our forests out, all they have done up here is cut back on re-forestation. Personally i think they are just trying to keep people out while the trees fall to the ground so what we don't see won't hurt us, look at these cut-blocks that have never been re-planted i would say we have a long way to go in order to make up for the damage that has been caused and like i say give me a couple boxes of trees and i will gladly go do my part, thats alot more than any polititian will do i guarantee you that.

feb 22 046.jpg
 
Last edited:
W
Oct 29, 2001
1,242
132
63
Spokane
Biggest issue for the F.S. is coming up with the cash to enforce it all. They can't afford to fight the lawsuits against them, let alone enforce the closures.

I wonder which enviro group BHO is going to bail out first?
 

eddy

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Jul 8, 2001
1,094
261
83
67
Sammamish WA
Mt Jefferson!!!

Am I reading the Map correct that they want almost all the riding and access south of Mount Jefferson (Blue creek basin to the peak, east and west) to be made wilderness?

If this is the case Island Park riding will never be the same. If we do not fight it is all lost.
 
D

Disco Dan Richter

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2007
652
47
28
Me no snow ta
www.grandgarages.com
OK, I am skipping all the dead beat posts to say this, so if was said already, please forgive me.
THis bill is a combined effort with all people getting a peice of the pie. WIlderness area's are going the be the best offering, but you know you cant win that game.
It will set aside riding area's. Not as much as we are used to but it will, at least it is not a total no sledding bill right?
Logging will be allowed in areas to combat the dead fire starter, making jobs and cash flow for the timber indusrty.
It is not perfect and I am by no means a Tester fan, but at least someone is looking at all the users, not the enviroterrorists alone. My guess is it wont pass anyways just because of that. Progress is made through comprimise, not strong arming certain groups into submission.
If you want more riding area's, quit whining about them going away due to the specialty groups. Joining the BRC wont do a damn thing if they cant prove the nazi's wrong when they claim enviro damage, game chasing, global warming etc... prove all that crap as a lie, and your area's may have a chance. Let them continue to lie, and you are beating a dead horse.
 
S

Snow Flake

Guest
OK, I am skipping all the dead beat posts to say this, so if was said already, please forgive me.
THis bill is a combined effort with all people getting a peice of the pie. WIlderness area's are going the be the best offering, but you know you cant win that game.
It will set aside riding area's. Not as much as we are used to but it will, at least it is not a total no sledding bill right?
Logging will be allowed in areas to combat the dead fire starter, making jobs and cash flow for the timber indusrty.
It is not perfect and I am by no means a Tester fan, but at least someone is looking at all the users, not the enviroterrorists alone. My guess is it wont pass anyways just because of that. Progress is made through comprimise, not strong arming certain groups into submission.
If you want more riding area's, quit whining about them going away due to the specialty groups. Joining the BRC wont do a damn thing if they cant prove the nazi's wrong when they claim enviro damage, game chasing, global warming etc... prove all that crap as a lie, and your area's may have a chance. Let them continue to lie, and you are beating a dead horse.

I have to say the Disco Dan is right on this one.
 
OK, I am skipping all the dead beat posts to say this, so if was said already, please forgive me.
THis bill is a combined effort with all people getting a peice of the pie. WIlderness area's are going the be the best offering, but you know you cant win that game.
It will set aside riding area's. Not as much as we are used to but it will, at least it is not a total no sledding bill right?
Logging will be allowed in areas to combat the dead fire starter, making jobs and cash flow for the timber indusrty.
It is not perfect and I am by no means a Tester fan, but at least someone is looking at all the users, not the enviroterrorists alone. My guess is it wont pass anyways just because of that. Progress is made through comprimise, not strong arming certain groups into submission.
If you want more riding area's, quit whining about them going away due to the specialty groups. Joining the BRC wont do a damn thing if they cant prove the nazi's wrong when they claim enviro damage, game chasing, global warming etc... prove all that crap as a lie, and your area's may have a chance. Let them continue to lie, and you are beating a dead horse.

Wow.

"I am skipping all the dead beat posts"

I guess that must include mine.:confused:

"Wilderness area's are going the be the best offering..."

How much wilderness are you willing to accept in western Montana? Sounds like with this bill you are OK with 677,000 acres. If someone adds another bill for another 500,000 acres in MT is that OK too?

What about the 200,000 acres in north ID in the Clearwater NF that is proposed for snowmobile closure. Is that OK too?

Not sure I understand your "compromise" comment. I do know for a fact that 50% of 50% of 50% will eventually equal zero.:(
 

donbrown

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
6,728
1,017
113
61
Los Angeles
OK, I am skipping all the dead beat posts to say this, so if was said already, please forgive me.
THis bill is a combined effort with all people getting a peice of the pie. WIlderness area's are going the be the best offering, but you know you cant win that game.
It will set aside riding area's. Not as much as we are used to but it will, at least it is not a total no sledding bill right?
Logging will be allowed in areas to combat the dead fire starter, making jobs and cash flow for the timber indusrty.
It is not perfect and I am by no means a Tester fan, but at least someone is looking at all the users, not the enviroterrorists alone. My guess is it wont pass anyways just because of that. Progress is made through comprimise, not strong arming certain groups into submission.
If you want more riding area's, quit whining about them going away due to the specialty groups. Joining the BRC wont do a damn thing if they cant prove the nazi's wrong when they claim enviro damage, game chasing, global warming etc... prove all that crap as a lie, and your area's may have a chance. Let them continue to lie, and you are beating a dead horse.

Wow.

"I am skipping all the dead beat posts"

I guess that must include mine.

"Wilderness area's are going the be the best offering..."

How much wilderness are you willing to accept in western Montana? Sounds like with this bill you are OK with 677,000 acres. If someone adds another bill for another 500,000 acres in MT is that OK too?

What about the 200,000 acres in north ID in the Clearwater NF that is proposed for snowmobile closure. Is that OK too?

Not sure I understand your "compromise" comment. I do know for a fact that 50% of 50% of 50% will eventually equal zero.


All I can say is there will be more wilderness because their argument makes more sense from a legal point of view IMHO.
 
D

Disco Dan Richter

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2007
652
47
28
Me no snow ta
www.grandgarages.com
CS-what I mean by dead beat posts is this: We try to fight a losing battle with the same old stupid rhetoric. How do you think we look to out adversarie's? Like a bunch of dead beat idiots! Just like they look to us! Start with education, realism and comprimise, and everyone will benefit, not just us, or them. Enviro's have deep deep pockets, we dont so stop the rhetoric and start acting like smart educated land users and you might see a change.
Cleum, you have kept us all on top of these issues and you deserve a medal for it. Too bad too many sledders only care about themselves and not the industry(riding in a wilderness are, good idea), these mentalities will keep bringing us all down.
This bill is actually, good.(dont hate), it has been so far, the only bill that has supported all industry's and groups, instead of just one.
I also meant...."wilderness area's will get, the best offering". I type fast and make mistakes, sorry.
I am more than willing to sacrifice, to sustain a viable future in the timber industry. In case anyone has not seen it, 60 percent of the HElena National Forest, is dead. another 20 percent is currently under infestaion, doing the math only shows that it wont be long until 100 percent is dead. IF the enviro's get thier way, it will stand, die, rot and burn. 100 percent waste, I am not OK with that, are you?
 

donbrown

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
6,728
1,017
113
61
Los Angeles
There will be less places to ride UNTIL we educate the masses about how benficial to have snowmobiling in their area as compared to an unused (the way we benefit) wilderness area.
 
How much wilderness are you willing to accept in western Montana? Sounds like with this bill you are OK with 677,000 acres. If someone adds another bill for another 500,000 acres in MT is that OK too?

What about the 200,000 acres in north ID in the Clearwater NF that is proposed for snowmobile closure. Is that OK too?

Exactly.
It boils down to the basic questions,
How much is too much?
and where exactly would it end?

The answers are not good.
There is no "too much" as far as they are concerned,
They haven't found an end yet, nor do they intend to until there are no more lands to take.
 
W
Nov 2, 2001
3,460
279
83
Boise, Id
So Disco Dan, How many jobs? 10, 100, 400, $15/hr jobs?????? I can't find one single promise, of how many jobs. The limit is 10 years. 7.000 to 10,000 acres a year, for 10 years is going to fix all of this over night. I read that 2 million acres where already slated for timber management, so you got a promise for 100,000 to 200,000 acres. How does that add up?

I think that timber had just as much of a chance of being cut, as it will after this bill. You seriously think they won't file a lawsuit, everytime a logging crew goes into a new area. This timber problem you speak of, has nothing to do with sledding. I can sled in standing dead forests for all I care, this problme isn't my making. This problem was created by Environmentalist, they should be forced to give up something to make up for their sins, and should be fixed by the Forest Service. Not hijacked, and used as a club; to force sledders to give up another million acres. It's kidnapping and extortion.

660,000 new wilderness acres, and how much new "trail only" riding? When NREPA comes back, and asks for 29 million more acres, you OK with that? And, what kind of forest managment are they going to execute, in this new wilderness? Look down the long road, this jobs bill will be like all the rest.
 

donbrown

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
6,728
1,017
113
61
Los Angeles
So Disco Dan, How many jobs? 10, 100, 400, $15/hr jobs?????? I can't find one single promise, of how many jobs. The limit is 10 years. 7.000 to 10,000 acres a year, for 10 years is going to fix all of this over night. I read that 2 million acres where already slated for timber management, so you got a promise for 100,000 to 200,000 acres. How does that add up?

I think that timber had just as much of a chance of being cut, as it will after this bill. You seriously think they won't file a lawsuit, everytime a logging crew goes into a new area. This timber problem you speak of, has nothing to do with sledding. I can sled in standing dead forests for all I care, this problme isn't my making. This problem was created by Environmentalist, they should be forced to give up something to make up for their sins, and should be fixed by the Forest Service. Not hijacked, and used as a club; to force sledders to give up another million acres. It's kidnapping and extortion.

660,000 new wilderness acres, and how much new "trail only" riding? When NREPA comes back, and asks for 29 million more acres, you OK with that? And, what kind of forest managment are they going to execute, in this new wilderness? Look down the long road, this jobs bill will be like all the rest.

I can't speak for Dan BUT that's my point and then some. I thnk that is Dan's point as well

Are there any "public" opposition going out to the "all" the population to educate them what a wilderness cost?
 

Hardass

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,013
514
113
Troy Montana
Who's going to force the enviros to give up anything? Brc? Saws? Us? Whos going to do it? No ones seems to be doing any good so far. How long will it take to To teach people about whats been going on? This has been happening for some time know,it's not new. Once it's gone can we get it back ?Probably not. Is it really going away you bet it is. This whole deal is just like voting Only a certain percent are trying to do any thing and that small percent is telling the others how it's gfoing to be. Unless there are masses of people involved on our side right know theres no chance period. If any of you think that a hand full of peple on snowest making some comments are going to stop the momentum of this thing your dead wrong.

I'm part of the troy club we have tried to reach out for years now for involvement with out much success. No one from any where else is trying to help our area that i have seen the brc is not here trying to help with our decisions nor others. I have mixed feelings about what were involved in but hey no one else seemed to care so we have to do what we think is best for us. At a meeting in north idaho they said they would give up some of our area to save the Rn,Pac river and those areas Is that right?. so you know our groups are small so here we are trying to make decisions that will affect alot of people. If people were against this where were they this whole time as i said none of this is new, it's been going on for year,s now.. It's virtually impossible to stop an avalanche after it gets started, beleive it or not you better have your beacons on because your about to get buried. Sorry i'm not trying to upset any one with this it's just how it is. Frivalous lawsuits get filed every day with no accountability from the green team Why are we not doing the same ? Tying them and there funds up legit or not it seems to work for them. Good day.
 

donbrown

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
6,728
1,017
113
61
Los Angeles
I was in a national forest last few days when a lightning storm happened.

Went to the look out tower and sure enough they were plotting the fire progress.

Why plot the fire progress in the very remote area I was in with NO CHANCE OF HARMING ANY LANDMARK OR STRUCTURE?

Because the smoke is a known carcinogen and they need to "attempt" to put it out so they don't get a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
K
Nov 10, 2008
658
40
28
B.C.
Fact!!! The lumber industry is in shambles right now there is no way you can make a profit and mills are shutting down all over the place because of this, so i think your senators plan would be great in a perfect world with high lumber prices.

A lot of these trees have already gone past the point of being able to make lumber, In B.C. The only thing that is keeping our forest industry going up here is the renewable energy sector. We have built many co-generation facilities for power, many pellet plants (which sell directly to Europe and other nations),so thats pretty much the only market besides pulp and paper that this wood will be any good for. I am not to sure how many facilities you have like this down there but if you don't have them they take years to build.

So i think the question Senator tester should be asking himself is how are we going to market this wood, the housing market surely does not need it and unless he figures a way to sell it all his plans will be put on hold until the market comes back we are hoping about five years, all these areas will be closed because of someones dreams about putting people to work. It all sounds real good and in a perfect world it would work but not today sorry.

Right now given the economy i am afraid to say the only answer would probably be prescribed burns and reforestation or just keep waiting like our Government does and the forests will take care of themselfs, ie... forest fires, dead fall and so on... These politicians are being paid to be thinkers and i think on this one he is dead wrong its not the right time, so to sum it up he should and will probably have to show your goverment how this plan will be implemented in a profitable way, and if they pass it anyways thats just plain stupid and i feel sorry for all you guys who will lose your riding areas because of this, Best of luck...

P.S. This beetle problem is mostly because of the enviromentalists it could have been stopped along time ago look at the mass devistation it has caused us all, they should be ashamed and not trusted one bit. JMO enough said.
 
Frivalous lawsuits get filed every day with no accountability from the green team Why are we not doing the same ? Tying them and there funds up legit or not it seems to work for them.

I've thought of this too.
I think the cost of the lawers alone to do this is more than what the organizations have to fight the greenies with.
There has to be companies in the industry that want to donate $$$ to SAWS with the understanding that it will be used accordingly.
I damn sure don't think CleEllum Sledhead should have to foot the bill him self and I doubt seriously that ANY 1 man could.
I see the list of those who have donated on the SAWS site.
It's a damn small list as even compared to SW member numbers ammounting to basically only keeping their lights on.
 
Last edited:
Premium Features