My uncle and I had an incredible time...I think his words were, "The trip of a lifetime!" I have to agree and hope that it won't be my last...if it was, I hope that won't be due to USFS action regarding the BC4...although by my understanding of the wilderness act which created the Frank Church even action on the BC4 will leave all other strips open.
However, I am concerned about the debate we've been having, and by continuing to debate it we are becoming victims of circular reporting and inflaming the issue greater than it is. I'm NOT saying that it ISN'T an issue nor should we not be concerned about it. However, I think our focus should be on supporting IAA/IAF/RAF actions in support of keeping the BC4 open for our use rather than all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling!" crap.
Interestingly, on the IAA website there is no mention of the BC4 on either their front page: http://idahoaviation.com/ or the first page of the Idaho Airstrip Network section: http://idahoaviation.com/idahoAirstripNetwork.php
Same goes for the IAF's front page: http://idahoaviationfoundation.org/index.php as well as the RAF: http://www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org/
Finally, a Google and Bing search of "Big Creek 4" and "Big Creek Four" shows the only relevant pages/discussions (at least in the first 3 pages of search results) to be on BCP, SC, Shortfield (from 2009) and the RAF websites. We are the only ones talking about it!
All of the above confirms my suspicions that although the issue is a concern, it is not as dire as we have made it out to be.