N6EA wrote: Maybe we should find a native american tribe that used the camp area before Columbus landed at Plymouth Rock.... Does an Indian trump a Ranger ?

Yeah...

Good spot for a f***** casino!!!

Gump

Reminds me of a somwhat recent event between a ranch / timber operation and the forest service.

E. J. Louie and Sons own about 3500 acres up Butte Creek on the north side Mt Shasta. They ranch and log the property. They use a forest service road for access to the property.

About 15 years ago the FS told them they needed a permit to use FS road. Louie's said that they needed no permit cus they had an easment by perscription. FS said that they never have alowed easments cus of some obscure law. FS said that the permit was free. Ellis Louie said that free today but what about tomarrow.

Louie's said that they got he easment from Longbell Lumber Company about 140 years ago and that was way before the FS came into existence. FS bought there land from Longbell and the easment came with the land.

After the FS found out that they could not buffalo old Ellis Louie, they backed off and it has not come up sence. If they grant you a permit for what you can already do, then they can take it away later.

Sorry about the rant but it is an interesting case of not bending over every time they ask.

Tim

OK I do know the lady in question cause my brother in law and I spoke with her for half an hour last week when we were in there. She IS rather condecending and we definitely got the impression we were impinging on her local turf. She answered several questions we had and I'll relay them here. "Was there a bad wind storm or something to blow down all those trees in the campground" " No we don't want the place to look like a logging operation with cut stumps and if we blow them up the ragged edges look more natural, and another reason is the fire fighters,(smokejumpers) needed practice blowing the trees for when they have to. " "I see you're putting a new shake roof on that building. With all the fire hazard why a shake roof?" Ans.."It's an historic landmark and we have to keep it the way it was from the time it was built. However we had to resort to flying the shakes in by plane cause it would have taken all summer for the packer to pack them in here so we reluctantly resorted to flying the DC 3 in here with them." She actually did say reluctantly. So you see when it suits the forestry service they do whatever they talk against to accomplish whatever some bureaucrat wants. I have to agree with JMTGT and Mark on the guvmint mind set. I've dealt with it more than I care to admit in the past. It wouldn't surprise me if they were actively trying to get people to stop going in there and camping. They absolutely use no machinery for anything regarding the place. They cut trees, when they're not blowing them up, with cross cut saws, although now that I think of it blowing them up isn't machinery and a lot easier than cross cut sawing. "So lets just blow them up then we won't have to work at cutting all day.." They have a horse or mule drawn wagon they use to haul stuff, which of course was grandfathered in for them, but I noticed it was equiped with radial tires. What happened to original wheels. Could it be that radial tires are easier to pull over rocks and such than spoke steel wheels??? This lady was what I would consider the Ultimate tree hugger and she definitely showed her displeasure at the presence of our airplane and the fact that it was grandfathered in to stay, but never forget that they are always working to get their own way so lets protect our right to be there. We found out there's a bear in the area and it was raiding campsites and stealing food. The Fish and Game, another of my favorite Guvmint organizations, was to come in that day and destroy the animal before some camper got hurt by it. She wasn't too overly happy about that either since trapping and relocation is only a bandaid solution to the problem. They hadn't shown up by the time we left for JC so I guess she was a happy camper....

iceman wrote: I guess she was a happy camper....

Butch,

No, camping is not grandfathered, so she had to be something else...

N6EA wrote:

iceman wrote: I guess she was a happy camper....

Butch,

No, camping is not grandfathered, so she had to be something else...

Well then if not a happy camper an actual F****** Elitist ***Hole!

Bart Welsh

Bart is the former Director of Aeronautics for the State of Idaho and has spent many years working to develop and preserve the Idaho network of backcountry airstrips.

Flyer probably knows the details regarding federal law. Bart Welsh informed me that the FEDs attempted to close Sulphur Creek? at one time due to a flood . Apparently the creek was damed up and the flood overrode the dam and washed out the strip..
There is a federal regulation on the books that clearly states that the airstrips have to remain open and maintained. In this case the Feds wanted to take it to court after a group Idaho Aviation Association decided to rebuild the airstrip. The feds got a 90 day injunction from the courts but their lawyers told them that they had a snow balls chance in hell in winning the case. The injunction cost the Idahoans a year but the feds/ rangers did a 180 and actually participated in the rebuilding the strip. I may be off a little on specifics but the bottom line is no Ranger no matter what her rank can override the precedent in law or the regulation that states the strips must remain open and maintained.

Interesting series of rants.

Let me point out some facts:

1) It has been said before, but the ultimate lockup of land is private ownership. Try getting permission from Ted Turner to camp and/or land your airplane on HIS mega properties for perspective.

2) Government employees GENERALLY respond to PUBLIC input and views. Not always, and there are those who tend to go pretty far afield in their views.

3) Unfortunately, the aviation crowd (that's us) and specifically the aviation crowd that enjoys and utilizes back country strips, is a TINY MINORITY, compared to all the folks elsewhere, who want to see wilderness preserved and protected from ALL things human. Hell, these folks don't even like the concept of people HIKING in wilderness--it should be totally preserved for their dreams of "wilderness".

4) Unfortunately, that "other" group just mentioned, is HUGE. They sit on their concrete paved patios, drive their mega SUV two blocks to the Starbucks for a $5 latte, and WRITE letters to Congress persons, AND to the agencies, to the effect that they want ALL human uses of public lands stopped, or at least curtailed. I repeat---there are MILLIONS of these folks, and very few of us.

5) When was the last time ANY of US (myself included) wrote a letter to a Congressional rep or an agency regarding continued use of back country strips? This needs to be done BEFORE the shit hits the fan as well as in response to a deluge of letters from the anti's.

6) Your friendly local land manager really have an attitude? Write a nice, professionally worded letter to his/her supervisor, letting them know that you don't appreciate being treated poorly by a public servant. Send a copy to your Congressional Rep. They all have bosses, folks, and believe me--in this day and age, bosses are VERY sensitive to PUBLIC feedback.

7) If you are going to go after some of this, try to be professional and come across as INTELLIGENT. Each of these agencies has a name, and each employee has a title. Figure out what these are, and use them, politely, in your correspondence--get a business card from the person you talk to. There is no such thing as the Forestry Service--it is the U.S. Forest Service. Come across as intelligent and informed, in other words.

Be proactive and professional. In the last couple of years, several organizations and people have helped to turn the BLM around on airstrip use in the Missouri Breaks (or at least we think it's going that way) and convinced a federal agency to OPEN two new airstrips in Montana forests. That progress was accomplished by polite, professional discourse, not name calling and yelling. It was accomplished, in other words, by USING THE SYSTEM.

9) If we don't USE the SYSTEM, I guarantee you those latte slurping folks back in New York WILL. They will probably never see any of this wilderness, but they VOTE, and they WRITE LETTERS.

10) Finally, the smokejumpers DO in fact blow down trees on firelines. They also use fireline explosives with some frequency, on wildfires. They are required to maintain proficiency with these explosives, as well as provide training to the newbies in their ranks. The lady's explanation of why they blew some trees down with explosives sounds like a pretty darn logical way to address two problems at one stroke.

I assure you that you can accomplish MUCH more with a well and professionally written letter to an agency, with copies to your Congressional reps, than you ever will via rants on an internet forum, though the latter may make you feel better. In other words, do both, if it makes you happy.

But, whatever you do, write those letters--it is the only way we'll retain the freedoms we have. I assure you the latte slurpers are writing letters as I type this. Don't let em beat us.

But, start off professional....it will get you a lot further than a loud rant, believe me.



MTV

I agree with the attitude that addressing the Forest service with respect and intelligence,it's unfortunate that sometimes we have to bite our tounge to get the action desired.
On that note back to idea that was a possible location discussed for the new camping area in between the runways,personally I coundn't imagine that someone who is supposed to be intelligent given there position could
make such an assanine statement ,I believe that is there train of thought we should investigate runway safety to the point that the Forest Service
would be reluctant to locate any campimg area except in the trees along side the runways,and in a loooooong stretch see if you could water to the campsite for fire safety.

David

The best way to help accomplish all of these goals is to join and support the Idaho Aviation Association. We have members from all over the world.
You do not have to live in Idaho to join. This group has done the majority of work in keeping our backcountry stips open and maintaining them. A lot of people have put in a lot of work. If you plan to continue flying into Idaho the least you can do is support them.

They have dealt with these government agencies for many years. They can do more than can we as individuals. It feels good to complain about these things but I think that sometimes it is counterproductive.

Connie, who no longer is at Moose Creek, was an excellent forest service person. We really miss her and we wish that she would come back. She had much maturity and experience in the backcountry.


flyer

I my younger days, as a rock cliimber in Yosemite in the early 60s to late 70s, I used to be bit more directly confrontational. Came within a knat's butt of being arrested several times. Looking back, later, it was obvious that it did not accomplish much other than to VENT!

Later, in the midst of flying an old Piper J5 into all sorts of places in Calif., including a handful of short dirt strips behind Mt. Hamilton close to San Jose, the wilderness folks, (freaks) decided to lock up most of that entire section which already included ROADS, mines, ponds, etc. (in clear violation of wilderness definitions) I naively set about to write up a petition and spent the summer getting thousands of names on them, mostly by myself. A few FBOs and flight schools allowed me to drop of some of the petitions.

Well, the day came when I had an actual appointment in Sacramento. Was politely received, listened to, petitions were accepted. Then the person proceeded to show me a stack of about a hundred or so of HAND WRITTEN letters. He explained that "they" give each hand written letter a weight equal to a hundred petitions sheets regardless of the NUMBER of signatures. A hard political lesson for a young fella to swallow.

Talk about discuraged. Needless to say, there are no longer any back country strips open to the public in that section of the Hamilton Range.

All of this is to lead two things.
1. My full support of MTV's message above.
2. My full support of the IAA and N6EA's request to join.

Each year, for some time now, I have purchased IAA members for three additional persons, FBOs, Flight School, etc

This year I will offer three memberships in the IAA to BCP folks.

Since the IAA needs all the members it can get, and the more widely dispersed the better, I will reserve the right to select the three most "distant" responders.
It helps when the U S Forest Service gets calls from out of state members of our government

SO, I you would like a free years membership, just send me a pm with name address etc.

I will be back in ID for another week or so before I can fill em out.
Will either send ya pm or snail mail note.

MTV thanks for your post above. Being a So Cal'er I don't know how they fight fires in forest area's. I wasn't questioning the need to practice blowing the trees. I stand corrected and agree whole heartedly with your position. I will join this week and I don't think a letter to the lady's boss is warranted in this case. I was just relaying what came across to us from our conversation with her. We definitely got the feeling she was anti airplane and not happy with fly in forest users. As to blowing the trees she only added that they needed practice after touting the aesthetic value of how natural a blown up tree looks. Got to admit it fooled us. We thought the wind blew them down. Will be joining IAA this week. Kudo's to you....

Another thing that can be done is to always support your legislators that support your views. Idaho has two great people already in office that are true friends of backcountry airstrips. Governor (former congressman) Butch Otter and Senator Mike Crapo. These guys are leading the fight to keep airstrips open and I encourage their support. Back in 2005 I wrote a letter to Butch to find out about an assembly bill he was sponsoring to keep most Id. airstrips open and out of reach of our opponents. It has been stalled and delayed several times and I'm not sure where it stands now. Likely it's on the back burner still. Here is Butch's response to my inquiry:

This is exactly why I am voting for John to be President. He says what he means and there is no flip flopping.
I am sure we would all like to take the diplomatic approach and try to use logic and facts while appeasing to their sensitive nature. But after years of watching this approach fail the only thing to do is beat them in court and the law is on our side. The airstrips must remain open and maintained. Even if we had a referendum and won the vote they would take it to court. Lets face it we are fighting the religion of the extreme left. Call it Global Warming, Climate Change, the hypothesis has not been proven. I would bet that if our land was managed we would not have half of California burning to the ground. These extremist will never stop until we are not allowed to fly in the back country make no mistake about that issue. Join the Idaho Aviation group today and bring your passion to bear on the enemy. And if along the way a few vulgarities happen to fall on certain ears, it isn't anything they haven't said about us or to us. Make no mistake if you sent them Teddy bears from Vermont every holiday they still would not want us to fly in the back country.
As the man always says getting off the soap box now.

Sojorrn,

You're right, California is burning right now because those forest lands have not been managed. The proper management regime in ALL these forest lands is for periodic large fires to run through them and reduce fuels and open up the canopy to provide light for the young seedlings which will sprout from the fire scarified seeds.

So, you see, much of California is currently being managed as we write this......

Of course, all those folks who built their dream mansions out in the woods may lose a house or two in the process, but it's like building in a flood plain, do that and sooner or later, you'll lose the house.

Course, Uncle Sugar will forgive your debt, give you a bunch of no interest money, and encourage you to rebuild right in the same spot.

Fire is a natural part of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, we've successfully suppressed fires for so long that the fuels in the forest today are piled up, and the fires are more severe than they were 100 years ago.

That's management, though....

MTV

The IAA newsletter for August had a report from Johnny Stewart on this saying that the tables and fire rings would be removed, but the pit toilets would remain and that "wilderness camping" rules would be the rule. The same issue had a call for action regarding Reed Ranch on the South Fork of the Salmon. The August newsletter is not linked on line as of now but I don't know why.

Edit: it's still on line (D'OH!). See here: http://www.flyidaho.org/newsletters/August.pdf?menuID=48~48

Personally, I think we should emulate the Corps of Discovery when it comes to "wilderness camping." Of course, the fishing was better back then.

CAVU

qmdv wrote:They say that the camping is not grandfathered in. If it is a wilderness how can they stop you from camping in the wilderness, right were we have always camped.

Do not ask for permision.

Tim

My first thought exactly. It's been a long time since I was in a designated wilderness area (Alaska just has a whole lot of undesignated wilderness), but I thought you could camp where ever you wanted as long as you did it in accordance with the Wilderness Area rules.

How in the world can camping not be "grandfathered" when it is likely camping was going on there before the Forest Circus was in existence ? Maybe we should find a native american tribe that used the camp area before Columbus landed at Plymouth Rock.... Does an Indian trump a Ranger ?

Better hope not. If so it might be completely closed off for historic preservation!

Phil

Hummm...

That's interesting. I was there when they blew the first tree. Landed about 40 mins before it happened. Listened to several trees meet their demise throughout the day. I talked to the female forest ranger that was in charge. I don't know if it was the girl that you guys seem to speak so highly of, but she was female and seemed in charge.

My take on it was quite positive. As I talked to her, I mentioned that this was my first time in there. She said (in what seemed real sincerity) that she hopes that this doesn't ruin my experience and that I will still come back. It seemed she feared that I wouldn't come back. I don't know, but that's how she made me feel. She was really nice and considerate. Told me about the area, what to do and see while I was here.

Maybe she just had a crush on me?

Should I?

Just kidding...