Heavily Used Wilderness is it a Myth

Belle Star · Apr 4, 2009

I was reading a thread about how the roadless rule affects snowmobiling and was intrigued by a statement in one of the explanations of roadless rules.
It says that it takes the pressure of heavily used wilderness areas.

My questions is, how many of you have encountered heavy use of a wilderness area?

BTW thanks CleElum Sledhead for the information that you posted.

WFO or go home · Apr 22, 2009

Just another "buzz clip" used by the enviro-nazi's to plead their case.

TIM · Apr 27, 2009

central idaho is full of heavily used wilderness areas.
the Frank Church river of no return has over 10,000 users a year go down the middle fork of the salmon. And it doens't look like 10,000 a year hit it.
that is just that river. the main salmon also has alot of people who use it.

so there is heavily used wilderness, not many but there are some.

tim

AndrettiDog · May 4, 2009

I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically but...

All those liberal tree huggers that complain about our (snowmobile) impact on the wildernees just need to look under their feet. How big of an impact is a ski resort? They seem to think that is just fine. They will argue it is not motorized. Well the dozens and dozens of snow cats and snowmobiles that are used during the winter to run a ski resort have more impact than we do in the back country. Not to mention the trucks and heavy equipment used to tear down the trees and form roads. At least when I'm done riding for the year, you can't even tell where I've been.

TIM · May 4, 2009

bugito

I am not 100% sure but i am pretty positive you can not have a ski resort in a designated wilderness area.

tim

Mikey only eats snow · May 10, 2009

White Pass

TIM said:
bugito

I am not 100% sure but i am pretty positive you can not have a ski resort in a designated wilderness area.

tim

Yep they have been working for something like 24 years to redesignate some wilderness area next to the white pass ski area in WA state so they could expand have to look it back up but I think they finally got it.
we could really have a hayday with this one.

AndrettiDog · May 15, 2009

TIM said:
bugito

I am not 100% sure but i am pretty positive you can not have a ski resort in a designated wilderness area.

tim

The point is that people argue that we (snowmobiliers) are impacting the environment. Wilderness or not, ski areas have a HUGE impact on the environment.

And...I know that ski areas use up wilderness. Vail Resorts continually expands to make their ski resort bigger. They have to aquire wilderness area to do this.

sledtahoe · May 16, 2009

impact

What impact, that is B.S. last I looked I was on top on the snow.The same areas allow 4 wheelers, and quads.That is the part that gets me..........

Van Epps · May 24, 2009

Finger pointed at any user group other than our own does not strengthen our personal position. Rather, it provides additional ammo for the anti use groups to fire at our fellow Americans. These arguments (example: ski areas have a more severe impact than xyz) are damaging all multiple users in the long run.

Hunters, jeepers, mtn bikers, campers, dirt bikers, sledheads, fishermen/wemon, non granola hikers (the list goes on) need to fight together. Why do we fight amongst ourselves? We bicker like children, pointing to the other as the "worse" offender, as our land disappears. I picture enviros laughing, watching us implode, watching the disorganization, watching the lack of insight into the big picture. Do we really believe that if we can redirect the attack of the inviros from ourselves onto another user group, that we will escape attack? Are we all this blind? Maybe for a short time. In the end we are all targeted.

All users need to realize this and band together. It is time (past time) to fight concentrated, as of now we are divided and we are falling. Join a club, group or whatever. If you are already a member, go to the meetings! Preach inclusion and acceptance of other groups. Contact other groups and explain that we are really one group. FREE AMERICANS THAT WANT TO USE OUR LAND AS WE CHOOSE!

Together we stand, divided we fall.

Hardass · Jun 18, 2009

Epps you are exactly right. It has been divide and conquer any that thinks there user group will go un scathed is wrong. as soon as sledders are out of the way they will then focous there resources on the next group. It's troubling that every one does not see this.

Vertical_Escape · Jun 18, 2009

SPOT ON EPPS!!!! We ALL stand to lose the things we enjoy without cooperation among ourselves.

sledneckskier · Jun 25, 2009

Van Epps said:
Finger pointed at any user group other than our own does not strengthen our personal position. Rather, it provides additional ammo for the anti use groups to fire at our fellow Americans. These arguments (example: ski areas have a more severe impact than xyz) are damaging all multiple users in the long run.

Hunters, jeepers, mtn bikers, campers, dirt bikers, sledheads, fishermen/wemon, non granola hikers (the list goes on) need to fight together. Why do we fight amongst ourselves? We bicker like children, pointing to the other as the "worse" offender, as our land disappears. I picture enviros laughing, watching us implode, watching the disorganization, watching the lack of insight into the big picture. Do we really believe that if we can redirect the attack of the inviros from ourselves onto another user group, that we will escape attack? Are we all this blind? Maybe for a short time. In the end we are all targeted.

All users need to realize this and band together. It is time (past time) to fight concentrated, as of now we are divided and we are falling. Join a club, group or whatever. If you are already a member, go to the meetings! Preach inclusion and acceptance of other groups. Contact other groups and explain that we are really one group. FREE AMERICANS THAT WANT TO USE OUR LAND AS WE CHOOSE!

Together we stand, divided we fall.

Best post I've seen in quite some time on this forum. There isn't one user group that is safe. I'm also a mountain biker and recently we've been fighting to keep some trails open to bikes on the Beaverhead/Deerlodge. The bikers tried to make a deal with the devil (the FS and wildernuts) to keep 60 miles of the proposed 300+ miles of proposed closures open. Guess how many will be open to bikes of the 300, yup 0. The wildernuts cannot be reasoned with (or the USFS for that matter). Where will we sled in 10 years? This is starting to become a valid question unfortunately.

smokenjay · Jul 9, 2009

Are there any anti-wilderness groups that include all of the groups affected? You are so right on "divided we fall". I want to join such a group.

I commute into Boulder, so on my way in I get to stare at the Indian Peaks wilderness area. I can't decide if I want to cry or punch someone. I should probably do both.

vector boy · Jul 9, 2009

http://www.snowmobilers.org/facts_sound.html

Object

ounds Of Pressure
Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle:30
Horse:8
Man:5
All-Terrain Vehicle:1.5
Snowmobile:0.5

Wade · Jul 10, 2009

The Idaho Recreation Council, is an all inclusive users group. As long as your support everyone's multiple use right. We have 4x4's, mountain bikers, ATV, snowmobile, backcountry horsemen, jet boaters, and anyone else that wants to be a part.

This group has put more pressure on recreational decisions in this state, than anything else.

Check it out: http://www.id-rc.org/

It's real also.

Backcountry Horsemen thought they wouldn't be welcome, they left convinced that they wanted to be a part.

WileyCoyote · Aug 28, 2009

Wilderness

'the Ruby Lakes addition receives very few visitors and manages to be a very wild place.' I clipped this from a site wanting more wilderness, if it receives so few people why do we need to make it wilderness?

2XM3 · Aug 29, 2009

I am very rapidly approaching the " im going to ride where I want and the hell with it" mentality

These stupid restrictions are just that...stupid

Kind of like the way it went in AZ when I lived down there..you get to a point that the closures are so moronic you just say the hell with it.

flatlander dave · Aug 29, 2009

i'm agreeing with you, these stupid laws are just going to make a bunch of outlaws.

2XM3 said:
I am very rapidly approaching the " im going to ride where I want and the hell with it" mentality

These stupid restrictions are just that...stupid

Kind of like the way it went in AZ when I lived down there..you get to a point that the closures are so moronic you just say the hell with it.

bannockrider · Aug 29, 2009

TIM said:
central idaho is full of heavily used wilderness areas.
the Frank Church river of no return has over 10,000 users a year go down the middle fork of the salmon. And it doens't look like 10,000 a year hit it.
that is just that river. the main salmon also has alot of people who use it.

so there is heavily used wilderness, not many but there are some.

tim

i floated the middle fork of the salmon a few weeks back and yes 10,000 people do go down the river every year, but the restrictions on the river are insane. the only thing you can leave on the river is your piss. before goin on that trip i thought wilderness was stupid, but i never thought id see the day when i thought that there shouldnt be motorized vehicles in wilderness. but after 7 days on the river i was disapointed to see cars drivin up and down the road.

i dont know everyone elses situations but i dont want to see this get covered in four wheeler trails

2XM3 · Aug 29, 2009

Of course SOME limited wilderness must be set aside to protect it but the majority of the land is ours and should be open for the public to use Proper roads in areas are a great idea, but they keep eliminating roads. Get a topo map form about 20 years ago and u will be shocked comparing it to todays maps.
First question i ask at FS meetings is "Ok, how many roads are we going to reopen for use in this plan?" well answers always none...then we have nothing more to talk about do we??????

Heavily Used Wilderness is it a Myth

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads