Backcountry Pilot • Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Discuss the legality of flying the backcountry, FARs, advocacy, and aviation relevant legislation. Registered users only.
27 postsPage 1 of 21, 2

Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

You guys better go take some more video's and pictures!! :shock:
Go hit it quick, because it looks like they are going to go away!! [-X
Aviation advocates in Idaho want pilots to scale back the use of four backcountry airstrips designated as emergency airfields under a federal wildlife area management plan.

AOPA TOP STORIES

The Idaho Aviation Association cautioned pilots that recent increased use—some of it documented in videos posted on the Internet—has gone beyond a verbal understanding that occasional activity would be acceptable at the “Big Creek Four” strips inside the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.

The four strips are the Vines, Dewey Moore, Simonds, and Mile Hi airstrips—all within the boundaries of a wild region described as the largest single wilderness area in the Lower 48 states.
AOPA is working with the Idaho Aviation Association and the Recreational Aviation Foundation to protect access to the backcountry airstrips in Idaho and beyond, and urges pilots to abide by the Idaho Aviation Association’s guidance.

“The point is, the Big Creek Four are notthe same as all the other strips in the backcountry,” wrote Idaho Aviation Association President Jim Davies in a newsletter article posted on the organization’s website. “Recent increased usage, including by large gatherings, many documented on YouTube, have highlighted the Big Creek 4 to the Forest Service and they are concerned that we are not honoring the agreement. Until there can be a legal challenge to their status or a new Resource Management Plan can be written there are limitations on the use of these strips, and it is our goal, for now, to do what is necessary to maintain the status allowing sporadic use.”

In 2004, AOPA took “strong exception” to the Forest Service’s assertions that the strips were unsafe, and urged that user input be solicited during the development of policy.

AOPA pointed out in a Jan. 29, 2004, letter to the Forest Service that official estimates contained in the 2003 final environmental impact statement of the importance of the strip to pilots were “greatly understated.” The association pursued the issue of backcountry airfield access later that year with the state’s congressional delegation.

The Idaho Aviation Association has no interest in policing the backcountry, wrote Davies—but the organization supports what he called safe and ethical flying under existing restrictions.

“We are asking visitors and locals to be sensitive to the limitations placed on the Big Creek 4 by limiting operations at those strips to occasional and necessary use,” he wrote. “In particular, please avoid the urge to have multi-airplane rendezvous at these strips or to have round robin or multiple landing group activities there. The allure of challenging our equipment and ourselves is evident but, as in so many things, moderation is the key.”
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Well, nobody else is jumping in on this. I guess I'll be one of the first responders :roll: And I don't want to start a huge debate and most all of you may already know what my feelings are on this subject from the other threads that went haywire.

But I would be very interested in know the real facts about the usage of these strips. Does anybody know? Or is the information being gathered based on the 2-3 (or more that I'm not aware of) major fly ins a year? So that's what, 3-4 weeks of heavy traffic for the whole year? I dunno :-k

1. How many aircraft actually use these for airstrips on a daily, weekly, and or yearly basis?
2. What is the actual impact? Noise? Dust from prop wash (if it's a dirt strip)? Grass getting tore up (if it's a grass strip)? Other???

I will admit, I have not flown to any of the four strips mentioned and have not flown in the backcountry for over 2 years now. But I just can't see there being a whole lot of traffic back there except for the big fly in events.

If these airstrips are in fact getting some heavy use every single day or every single weekend during the good flying weather months, then I'll shut up and retract what I just said above.
58Skylane offline
User avatar
Posts: 5297
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Cody Wyoming

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Shit.
I have the ability, capability, and closeness to go a lot to the various Idaho BC gems...
And have only gone a relatively few times because 'life' gets in the way.
I'll be able to retire in a couple of years or so, and have planned on doing a 'bunch' for a few years after that. Truth be told, in the meantime, there is something soothing about their being available-obtainable,if you will-when I am at my daily grind. If the week is an extremely stressful one and it's decent weather, I could 'bug-out' for the weekend and retrieve my sanity........ That fact itself helps me keep my sanity.
And now those SOB ecofreaks/wilderness buffs might get to sit at home and be happy that they have preserved another 'Nature Sanctuary' for damn near no one to enjoy!

Burns my butt!
lc
Littlecub offline
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Central WA & greater PNW
Humor may not make the world go around, but it certainly cheers up the process... :)
With clothing, the opposite of NOMEX is polypro (polypropylene cloth and fleece).
Success has many fathers...... Failure is an orphan.

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Delete...for the sake of keeping this positive... #-o
aktahoe1 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Alaska and Lake Tahoe = aktahoe
If it looks smooth, it might be. If it looks rough, it is...www.bigtirepilot.com ...www.alaskaheliski.com

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Delete...for the sake of keeping this positive...


Your more noble than I.....

lc

If you need to 'vent', you can PM any of us 'BC buddies'.....
Littlecub offline
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Central WA & greater PNW
Humor may not make the world go around, but it certainly cheers up the process... :)
With clothing, the opposite of NOMEX is polypro (polypropylene cloth and fleece).
Success has many fathers...... Failure is an orphan.

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Honestly I think the only one talking about this is us. Anybody have links to any tree hugging sites and see any threads concerning BC flying f*ing up their wilderness :?:
Glidergeek offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Hesperia
Aircraft: 1968 P206C
DG 400

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

I think the forest service is the only one complaining. Personally I think IAA shot us in the foot when they made the agreement with the FS to not close the strip but to allow "sporadic use." Now the FS can say that the current usage does not meet their definition of sporadic and we are not keeping our side of the agreement. :roll:
whee offline
User avatar
Posts: 3386
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:59 pm
Location: SE Idaho

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

I posted the quote out of the AOPA electronic flyer?
About 400,000 people have a chance to read it!
All I was trying to do was let everyone know, with all the pictures, videos, and chest thumping that happens when some one conquers the BIG 4, flips a bird or bends one on using these, it just hurries there demise.
Not for it or against it, just trying to open some eyes to another view.
Would you like to know how many bridges I've flown under. Well so would the FAA and the Park Service, Ain't telling and sure as hell not going to have someone take a video of me and post it anywhere! I may be stupid, but I'm sure not ignorant!!
How about crossing the border and return with out EAPIS?? Flying any closer than 2000' horizontal from person place or thing?
I think everyone of (us,you) should be able to go and land just about anywhere, but it going to disappear!
Why does everyone have to thump there chest and show everyone how special they are?? Don't understand?
Who needs to know besides you and who you were with what the hell you did!
Stokin the Embers
GT
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Glidergeek wrote:Honestly I think the only one talking about this is us.


Exactly.

I think so too for the most part. And the USFS has actually stepped up to take care of (transfer) the *one* odd employee (from a large strip named for a large native ungulate on a Creek). This employee's persistent and sometimes bizarre anti-use attitude was completely unwelcome by either her USFS bosses or the recreational users of any flavor (pilots, rafters, etc). I've never been able to take the "Gummint wan' take me fun bits away" line seriously at all after all these years, and this new action is an example of why. The USFS sees a future for aviation in the back country that looks a lot like the past 30 years as long as remains similar in character.

The Big 4 will always be contentious. Steady advocacy, safety, conscientiousness, and careful policy has worked for 30 years. Let's keep it that way by honoring agreements, flying safely, and making sure our voices are heard out there.
lesuther offline
Posts: 1429
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:26 pm
Location: CO

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Littlecub wrote:
Delete...for the sake of keeping this positive...


Your more noble than I.....

lc

If you need to 'vent', you can PM any of us 'BC buddies'.....


I want to keep positive too. I just feel we all need to find out the real facts. What is the real justification for the proposed closing of these four strips? (which may or may not open the door to close more stripes :( ) Does anybody know if there is actual, factual data justifying and supporting the closing of any of these airstrips? If said agencies is using video's and pictures from forums to support their decisions, then I consider that flawed and incomplete data!

So however might be reading this that is against general aviation in the Idaho (and other states) backcountry. Please speak up and let's hear your side. And be positive and proactive about your side of the story! And FACTS, we just want the facts! No whining, no arguing, no insults, just the facts and stay on topic!

But I guess the point I'm trying to make is. Sure there's video's and pictures out there on the net showing a group of planes flying in and out of these strips. BUT, how often are these groups flying? I'll bet $1000.00 NOT every weekend for the entire year or even the entire good weather flying season. And for sure not everyday! I will almost bet those pictures and video's were taken only once a year during 2-3 major fly ins that happen only once a year. If you think I'm wrong, please PM me or speak up. I'll will keep this peaceful and civil as long as you do.
58Skylane offline
User avatar
Posts: 5297
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Cody Wyoming

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

58Skylane wrote:So however might be reading this that is against general aviation in the Idaho (and other states) backcountry. Please speak up and let's hear your side. And be positive and proactive about your side of the story! And FACTS, we just want the facts! No whining, no arguing, no insults, just the facts and stay on topic!

I think there will only be crickets. Not many people here other than people interested in flying.

I think the issue is more that it is pretty easy to find a lot of average, non-flying folks who would look at a 'sporadic use' agreement, then consider the group fly-ins, and be easily convinced that the gatherings did not meet the spirit of a 'sporadic use' agreement.

Opinions may vary, and it shouldn't be so surprising.

The wisdom of creating such a restrictive agreement in the first placed might be a better question- a lot of innocuous types of use could be viewed as violating the spirit of such an agreement by a lot of 'lay' people or land managers. It's an agreement with little upside- it allows a few discouraged, but perfectly legal incidents cast a shadow over all access. If certain types of use are really the target of discussion, then they should be laid out in an agreement explicitly. Basically, if groups are the problem (and from what I hear, it is the core of the problem, but I'd like to hear what else is being talked about), then address group use directly.
lesuther offline
Posts: 1429
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:26 pm
Location: CO

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

The wisdom of creating such a restrictive agreement in the first placed might be a better question

As I understand the agreement it was that or shut them down period.
Does anyone remember Meigs Field in Chicago!!
GT
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

You can look at this several ways. We can continue to say environmentalist are all tree huggers, but think of the alternative. If they had not started a movement to protect the wilderness, the big 4 would be in the middle of a huge clear cut. So perhaps the strategy would be to find a common ground and come to some kind a mixed use accord. If we go out and cr@p all over the place and flaunt the rules, we will be shut out. We really need to be a bit more organized and present a united front with some kind of alliances with a few of the tree hugger groups. Some of them are reasonable some are nutters, pick your friends.

Calling them names and pounding our feet isn't going to work. Working with the Forest Service isn't going to work either. It is political influence. So, unfortunately, we must deal with the reptiles in Washington, you know the ones we elect. The Forest Service couldn't give a whit about what we feel. They do react when heat comes from the purse strings. So if we go hand in hand to a political with an allied group to the actual representative, like insects when exposed to light, the officials will scurry away and the use of the strips will be rationalized.
dogpilot offline
Took ball and went home
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:20 pm
Aircraft: Cessna 206H Amphib, Caravan 675 Amphib

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

lesuther wrote:If certain types of use are really the target of discussion, then they should be laid out in an agreement explicitly. Basically, if groups are the problem (and from what I hear, it is the core of the problem, but I'd like to hear what else is being talked about), then address group use directly.


I believe it is really helpful to understand the real issue here. This area is designate as "wilderness." What does that mean? It means "no motorized vehicles." It's really not the size of the group - its publicizing the violation of the use plan - and the back room verbal agreement that it was okay to do so - as long as it was "sporadic." It really does not matter whether it's 1 landing a year - it's still a motor - and technically these strips were supposed to be maintained for emergency use. Clearly the videos were documenting people landing for "shits and giggles" and not emergencies.

Now we can debate this till the cows come home - and we likely will. But congress made this area "wild" and the USFS has to enforce that policy. These strips could have been grandfathered in - like jet boat usage on the Salmon. I don't know why that didn't happen - other than the aviation community was not organized in 1980. I didn't read anything new in this AOPA article that wasn't told to us at Johnson Creek. I'd like to see these 4 strips opened up, to more formally accepted use - and I think I can understand the sensitivity of the situation.

But I also have to take issue with the notion that the world comes to an end if we are denied access to 4 strips. I love to visit wild places and hear no motors too. I've been on the losing end of many of these wilderness debates - for example the drilling of fixed anchors for protection of climbing using electric drills - a safety issue for long-accepted use of wilderness. There are still plenty of aviation opportunities in Idaho that are as far as I can tell are wide open and promoted heavily. The sky is not falling.

We should be glad we are not dealing with the National Park Service. It seems reasonable to me to self-police and avoid kicking the hornets nest.

'soyAnarchisto
soyAnarchisto offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1975
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:23 pm
Location: Boulder, CO
Aircraft: 1955 Cessna 180

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Soy,

The Act that created the Frank Church explicitly includes airstrip access and jet boating. It is unique in the lower 48, and there is explicit language outlining what the Administrator can and cannot do with regards to motorized access. I've posted it elsewhere on this site, and it is a short, simple read.

One category for closing an airstrip is if the Administrator deems it "hazardous". The agreement limiting use to sporadic or emergency uses is not a clear categorical mandate in the Act, but some sort of political proxy/compromise entered into in the interests of keeping the strips open. My thinking, after having watched it all escalate and de-escalate repeatedly over the years is that 'frequent group visitations' started occurring, and more than a couple isolated safety events gave other forces the ammunition they needed to run for the 'hazardous' declaration.

I can't say whether or not the strips would have stayed open if the use model hadn't changed to one that included 'frequent' group visits. All I know is that they were not on the radar until this became common. Simmonds was barely ever mentioned. Vines has been in and out of use for decades. Mile Hi is just a place where people want to land for the sake of it. Fine. I love Vines...if you have ever wet a line in certain areas near it, you know exactly why Vines is a gem. If you have ever hoofed it up up the Moumental Creek country, you know exactly why Simmonds is an incredible place. Frankly, I'm fine with hoofing from Cabin Cr or other strips to enjoy these areas once or twice every several years if it came down to it. Other people don't have the luxury of ability or time to do that, and I would like to see access continue for those users who want to fly there occasionally or as a true wilderness trail head.

I have met enough pilots up here who feel the same way in recent weeks of flying up here so far this year to know that certain comments here are not representative of the reality of the situation. Especially imaginary hordes of 'radical tree huggers'. I think I would have noticed more than a few wingers in over 30 years of summers back here. I've met a lot of people who fly who are consummate 'tree huggers'. It took a pretty large horde of 'tree huggers' to put that wilderness Act together (for us), a lot more to mow the strips (for us), more to create tables and pits (for us)...for 'free' use. An awful lot of them like planes. And more than their share work for the USFS. I'd like to keep it that way.
lesuther offline
Posts: 1429
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:26 pm
Location: CO

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understood from the presentation at JC was that this "agreement" was no agreement. After being labeled as "emergency only" strips (can't plan to land there as the presenter said), the FS, without going through the public comment period and other hoops that they should have jumped through, changed the plan to sporadic use only...problem is, there is no definition for "sporadic". In the context of a year, it'd be hard to say it isn't sporadic. In the context of a couple of weeks in June, it would be hard to say that it is sporadic. So, the options now available is 1) engage in a costly legal battle to force the FS to go through the required process to change the management plan and define sporadic (not the desired course of action) or 2) keep massaging the situation and hope for a much less expensive back room, out of sight solution that gets less attention, especially from the ecofreaks.

Anyway, that is what I understood from the presentation. Feel free to correct where needed if you were there. After all, I was sitting close to the range of the speaker limits.
Grassstrippilot offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 3536
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 6:17 am
Location: Syracuse, UT
FindMeSpot URL: https://share.garmin.com/WolfAdventures
Aircraft: Cessna 205

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

8)
OregonMaule offline
User avatar
Posts: 6977
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Orygun
My SPOT page

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". Ben Franklin
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

bad title for this thread IMO...the big 4 ain't goin' away, lets quit acting like they are....they have been and will always be contentious at best, go there when u have time, respect them, and enjoy...a little heat on us about this subject can be good for us...
jomac offline
User avatar
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:25 pm
Location: idaho falls, id
jomac

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

The Forest Service didn't like the size of horse groups going into Chamberlain Basin in the Frank Church Wilderness. There were a few organizations and people that opposed them, from the Backcountry Horsemen, to various guides and outfitters. Eventually, the FS established a rule limiting the size of groups, limiting both the number of people and the number of horses. They also established a $5000 penalty for violating the rule. These rules were shown to me by a FS employee during a friendly discussion on possible outcomes for the Big 4 issue. His point: history has shown that the FS almost always gets its way.
kevbert offline
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:10 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Latest on the disappearing Big 4 in ID.

THe "treehuggers" have a very good point in limiting the numbers at any one time. The thing is, say, 200 people spread out over a year will not only allow the area to cope, but it will also make it more desirable for both visitors and the native wildlife.

If you have a hundred people using a site (any site) over a couple of days for "meets", then you have it all at once, and you will form and influence the surroundings much more.

Of course the FS usually get their way over there (as the equivalents over here do too). They have the facts and arguments on their side. Fifty people spread out over half a year is better for the ecosystem than 50 people spending two days there at one go.

Go to even a small venue (could be a small festival or something, not necessarily flying-related) and watch what all those people do to the surroundings.
Twoupfront offline
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:29 am
Location: Greater Copenhagen, Denmark

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Next
27 postsPage 1 of 21, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base