This doesn't make sense to me. What do you all think:

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/435877/bc534e93ac/1454306405/62e122b8fa/

You can just about guarantee that will get apealed. Since when can a goverment agency not use normal industry standard tools to manage and accomplish their day to day operations?

I think that the real story here is entirely political and has essentially nothing to do with aviation, and as such this thread should be ash-canned since there's no longer a hot air section to send it, which I guarantee is where it's going to go.

I'm going to drift here. Good to hear from you Doug. Has the rain hurt the grapes?

Hammer wrote:I think that the real story here is entirely political and has essentially nothing to do with aviation, and as such this thread should be ash-canned since there's no longer a hot air section to send it, which I guarantee is where it's going to go.

Are you auditioning for moderator?

Wilderness is wilderness I guess.

So when you have to haul gravel in by horse or mule and use a crosscut saw, and horse drawn equipment in a wilderness, why not use a Helicopter??

I fail to see why that decision doesn't make sense.....have you read the Wilderness Act?

Pretty simple decision for that judge, methinks.

MTV

It is pretty clear. There were test cases within a couple of years of the RONR wilderness designation involving the USFS and helicopters for surveying and delivering equipment. It was made plain in court.

It sounds like there may have been a miscommunication in directives from the F&G to its work crews. It doesn't sound like this was an intentional challenge to established policy.

Back in 2002 I had the privilege of working with four excellent Alaska Fire Service smokejumpers fighting a fire on and near my remote property. One fellow from New Mexico (Mescalero's finest) related how they jumped a fire in a remote Lower 48 area designated wilderness. The fire was dealt with (not sure why they didn't let the whole country burn), then had to walk out and carry all their gear over 15 miles. Pack loads were over 100# per jumper. Never complained just offered the facts.

I saw him pick up a 100# water pump in a wood box and carry it over tundra so I know it wasn't a story.

GAP

I think the Judge did what he had to do, considering the Wilderness Act's language. I question whether the Wilderness Act should have been written so restrictively, but once it's the law, then the Judge has to enforce the law. It's up to Congress to change the law, if that's appropriate.

Cary

mtv wrote:I fail to see why that decision doesn't make sense.....have you read the Wilderness Act?

Pretty simple decision for that judge, methinks.

MTV

I think the 1964 wilderness act says land untamed by man. There were roads in a lot of the Frank Church. Technically a lot of the land doesn't qualify as wilderness.

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OregonMaule wrote:

mtv wrote:I fail to see why that decision doesn't make sense.....have you read the Wilderness Act?

Pretty simple decision for that judge, methinks.

MTV

I think the 1964 wilderness act says land untamed by man. There were roads in a lot of the Frank Church. Technically a lot of the land doesn't qualify as wilderness.

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You've listed the criteria for inclusion in the Wilderness category......The Congress, however, has the ultimate authority to judge that indeed a parcel of land meets those criteria.....and in this case, they did.

So, at that point, the regulations, etc that come with Wilderness apply, regardless of whether you or I think the place meets the basic criteria in the first place. Congress made that decision already, based on those criteria. Once that's done, neither a federal or state agency has the authority to violate those regulations/policies, or to authorize others to do so.

That's the issue here, not whether the Frank met the criteria for inclusion in Wilderness.

MTV

For a full and, (as far as I can discern), complete story of how the FRANK evolved to it's current condition you can read:
I have met and known a few of the folks from back there and then.
I enjoyed the book up to the last chapter where the political maneuverings and shenanigans take place.

The Cabin Creek Chronicles: The History of the MOST remote Ranch in America.

by G. Wayne Minshall. Author and owner of:

Streamside Scribe Press

1783 S. Old Highway 91
Inkom, Id. 83245-1700

e-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.streamsidescribepress.com

He may make more profit the above way - but - it is on amazon:

There are a couple of key trampled on words in item (4) of O. Maules post.

Always been a history buff - but sometimes it hurts.

Chris C

I've heard the name.....we are Inkom aera neighbors, about 2 miles apart! Maybe I should buy a book, but truth be known, the Frank isn't my fave when it comes to Idaho back country flying. Give me BLM multiple use country, where you can use a wheel barrow if needed! The Frank is great, glad we have it, but so restrictive, I largely stay out of it. Maybe if I didn't live so close I'd appreciate it more.