https://www.npr.org/2023/09/23/12013068 ... ted-wilder


Plenty of others appearing often lately as well.

No shortage of drama in that report. Seems like more and more fun haters every year. And I say some places may be sporaticaly busy occasionally, but the majority of recreational pilots are back at camp, if they even left, well before noon. I think the challenging party in these lawsuits should have to pay the fees the defendant incurred fighting these suits if they lose their case. Seems to be a common tactic of the left to try force their will on to others.

Issue is GA is a soft target for the green crazies

It’s been seen here, too many aviation people just take it, they are afraid if they don’t turn the other cheek or ignore attacks that the green crazies will not like them, thing is the green crazies won’t stop till you can’t even fly fully compostable glider.

Until aviation starts to go after these people who file these frivolous BS infringements, this garbage is going to keep on going

There was a drop zone who was sued by some crazy “noise pollution” woman, when she lost they countered sued and won all legal expenses

If AOPA and EAA was more like Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition, used member dues to pay aggressive lawyers to bring suit against both the green crazies and the FAA etc, aviation would be much much better

But GA does the same nothing we have been doing yet expects a different result..

Any "left vs right" talk will lock this thread.

Zzz wrote:Any "left vs right" talk will lock this thread.

My left is on the yoke and right is on the throttle.

Reading that “article” man NPR has gone down hill over the last half decade or so

Anywho, some of my favorites

“ And then they fly back out of the wilderness to whatever lodge they're staying at for the evening. They're not in there having a wilderness experience. They're in there having, like, a motor-sport experience”

Soooo instead of some hippie making camp for days, stomping through the woods, swimming with all their lotions in the waters, crapping in the “environment”, bothering critters being there and just as loud and annoying as they are in the city where they live, the planes are just in and out….. isn’t that less stress on the area????


It’s like when some big city hippie talks down on a deer hunter “hurting the environment”, yet who contributes more to conservation funds and understands how to actually be in nature more

I do fear this does not stop with limiting access to the Big Creek 4. It would only start there. I did 4 trips to Idaho this summer. I camped a few times but also stayed at the Big Creek lodge twice. Spine surgery and a weakened back preventing me from camping every trip. I feel like I was able to support the local economy while still enjoying the wilderness staying at the lodge. They also play amazing music every night and cook great meals. I love how this attorney is defining what a wilderness experience is for everyone.

We had 26 planes camped at Johnson Creek the 3rd weekend in August at it's busiest. I have been there in the past where more than 70 planes were camping at 3U2. The area didn't seem overly crowded with airplanes on all 4 of my trips this summer. Maybe I just got lucky this year but I still feel the Idaho backcountry is only enhanced by aviation. So much more of the wilderness is accessible due to GA and small 135 operators. There is a local economy that is dependent on GA and the area is rich in aviation history.


Josh

I got to listen to Mike Dorris talk at the Flying B last summer. Very interesting. One of the really prophetic things that he said was that without the airplane, man would have put roads and railroads back here to gain access.

Dog is my Copilot wrote:.... The area didn't seem overly crowded with airplanes on all 4 of my trips this summer. .....

Just like noise complainers near airports...even one airplane is too many for some people.

hotrod180 wrote:

Dog is my Copilot wrote:.... The area didn't seem overly crowded with airplanes on all 4 of my trips this summer. .....

Just like noise complainers near airports...even one airplane is too many for some people.

^this


And thats why we should never give them a inch, never compromise anything

And if something happens to a strip near you, kick in some money, folks should pool together to hire a lawyer to go after the trouble maker personally.

On average GA folks tends to have more money than there enviro weenies, I see people on here spend over 20 grand just to save 10lbs on their planes, maybe just go on a diet instead and kick in 5k towards a lawyer with some other pilots, offensively protect that strip you frequent that’s under attack.

Given enough time with the current trend, what’s the point of one’s ABWs or STOL mods if the only place you’re “allowed” to fly to is a paved strip in the ghetto, doubt signature or Atlantic will even allow you to make a camp fire

Here’s their little website

https://advocateswest(dot)org/the-advocates/staff/

(Dot) put in to not hot link

Their frivolous complaint

https://advocateswest(dot)org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/complaint_filed.pdf

Here’s another enviro nutter board she’s on

https://www.nedc(org)org/about/board-of-directors/

Seems these people make career being on the board of these “non profits”

Seems most went to Thai school, in Portland OR

https://www.lclark(dot)edu/

Portland is known to attract crazy protestors and the college seems to offer to help with funding on their first page, seems like a frivolous protestor lawsuit maker factory



Be nice if EAA and the like had staff attorneys

Recently I got a email from the FPC about a gun ban, it asked for money to help fund the legal effort, I happily chipped in

If I got emails, even for gofundme, to pay for legal defense and counter suits I’d happily kick some change their way

TXWagon wrote:I got to listen to Mike Dorris talk at the Flying B last summer. Very interesting. One of the really prophetic things that he said was that without the airplane, man would have put roads and railroads back here to gain access.

Roads are built into the mountains to log the timber. Evidently there isn't enough value there to pay for the roads or they would have been built. Railroads are even more expensive.

NineThreeKilo wrote:Reading that “article” man NPR has gone down hill over the last half decade or so

Anywho, some of my favorites

“ And then they fly back out of the wilderness to whatever lodge they're staying at for the evening. They're not in there having a wilderness experience. They're in there having, like, a motor-sport experience”

Just to clarify, that was a quote from Andrew Hersch, the attorney that represents the group that filed the lawsuit.
I would argue that it is fair reporting to show the mentality of the group that is suing, as well as the perspective of the people that live there and fly there.
If you listen to the story closely, you'd note that the reporter tries hard to portray both sides of the issue, something we should appreciate, regardless of our position.

We need more of this type of reporting, and not the usual confirmation bias bs.

AKclimber wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:Reading that “article” man NPR has gone down hill over the last half decade or so

Anywho, some of my favorites

“ And then they fly back out of the wilderness to whatever lodge they're staying at for the evening. They're not in there having a wilderness experience. They're in there having, like, a motor-sport experience”

Just to clarify, that was a quote from Andrew Hersch, the attorney that represents the group that filed the lawsuit.
I would argue that it is fair reporting to show the mentality of the group that is suing, as well as the perspective of the people that live there and fly there.
If you listen to the story closely, you'd note that the reporter tries hard to portray both sides of the issue, something we should appreciate, regardless of our position.

We need more of this type of reporting, and not the usual confirmation bias bs.

I didn’t get that at all

When the enviro extremist lawyer said that stupid statement I quoted, any interviewer worth his salt would have made the logically obvious statement I made, the guys cause is laughable, but NPR handled him with kiddie gloves and refused to ask him any remotely difficult questions.

I occasionally listen to NPR because I find it funny, literally everything bad in the world is ether “climate change” “racists” or Trumps fault, I mean it’s almost to the point they could do a story on someone getting shot in Chicago and somehow it’s “climate change”

When it’s something NPR is for they will let the interviewee get away with murder unchecked, if it’s something that makes a unassailable point against one of their favorite topics, they won’t even risk airing it, or they will cut out any of the parts they go against NPRs agenda.

NineThreeKilo wrote:

AKclimber wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:Reading that “article” man NPR has gone down hill over the last half decade or so

Anywho, some of my favorites

“ And then they fly back out of the wilderness to whatever lodge they're staying at for the evening. They're not in there having a wilderness experience. They're in there having, like, a motor-sport experience”

Just to clarify, that was a quote from Andrew Hersch, the attorney that represents the group that filed the lawsuit.
I would argue that it is fair reporting to show the mentality of the group that is suing, as well as the perspective of the people that live there and fly there.
If you listen to the story closely, you'd note that the reporter tries hard to portray both sides of the issue, something we should appreciate, regardless of our position.

We need more of this type of reporting, and not the usual confirmation bias bs.

I didn’t get that at all

When the enviro extremist lawyer said that stupid statement I quoted, any interviewer worth his salt would have made the logically obvious statement I made, the guys cause is laughable, but NPR handled him with kiddie gloves and refused to ask him any remotely difficult questions.

I occasionally listen to NPR because I find it funny, literally everything bad in the world is ether “climate change” “racists” or Trumps fault, I mean it’s almost to the point they could do a story on someone getting shot in Chicago and somehow it’s “climate change”

When it’s something NPR is for they will let the interviewee get away with murder unchecked, if it’s something that makes a unassailable point against one of their favorite topics, they won’t even risk airing it, or they will cut out any of the parts they go against NPRs agenda.

Thank you for making my point.

AKclimber wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

AKclimber wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:Reading that “article” man NPR has gone down hill over the last half decade or so

Anywho, some of my favorites

“ And then they fly back out of the wilderness to whatever lodge they're staying at for the evening. They're not in there having a wilderness experience. They're in there having, like, a motor-sport experience”

Just to clarify, that was a quote from Andrew Hersch, the attorney that represents the group that filed the lawsuit.
I would argue that it is fair reporting to show the mentality of the group that is suing, as well as the perspective of the people that live there and fly there.
If you listen to the story closely, you'd note that the reporter tries hard to portray both sides of the issue, something we should appreciate, regardless of our position.

We need more of this type of reporting, and not the usual confirmation bias bs.

I didn’t get that at all

When the enviro extremist lawyer said that stupid statement I quoted, any interviewer worth his salt would have made the logically obvious statement I made, the guys cause is laughable, but NPR handled him with kiddie gloves and refused to ask him any remotely difficult questions.

I occasionally listen to NPR because I find it funny, literally everything bad in the world is ether “climate change” “racists” or Trumps fault, I mean it’s almost to the point they could do a story on someone getting shot in Chicago and somehow it’s “climate change”

When it’s something NPR is for they will let the interviewee get away with murder unchecked, if it’s something that makes a unassailable point against one of their favorite topics, they won’t even risk airing it, or they will cut out any of the parts they go against NPRs agenda.

Thank you for making my point.

I’m not sure I did lol

The extremists’ lawyer defeats his own argument, by his own recorded statement, and NPR just lets it go?

That’s not anything I would call news, unbiased or good reporting

Next in line.

I admit that, when I first listened through this, I was with a bunch of other pilots, and our reaction was that it was anti-aviation, and especially anti-private backcountry aviation. I expected the plaintiff’s attorney to slam us, but I was also put off by the derogatory reference to “Hobby Pilots” and the closing statement, which I took to imply that airplanes don’t belong in the wilderness.

Reading the transcript, though, the vast majority of the time and attention in this interview was on the flying and the positive aspects and history of backcountry aviation in Idaho. I’ve pasted the transcript of the entire story below. If there are other comments or statements that anyone thinks are biased against aviation, please call them out. What did I miss?

All of that said, the attorney quote about using wilderness for “motor sport” zeros in on our biggest vulnerability. [Insert Dead Horse emoticon here.] The key distinction that the story missed is between tagging/bagging, on the one hand, and using wilderness strips for non-aviation activities, such as hiking, hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping on the other. It’s nice that they included the discussion with Josh Lorenz, but can’t tell from the interview what he was doing once he landed.

I get that some of the hard core environmentalists will never be satisfied until all internal combustion engines are banned and the only access to wilderness is by foot, mule, or raft. That's not likely to happen any time soon, but the Forest Service imposing limits on backcountry flying might. An absolutist, God-Given-Right to do whatever we want, wherever and whenever we want makes it easy for politicians and regulators to lump us all together and dismiss us as rich, hobbyist, yahoo, fill-in-the-blank-ist cranks who just want to promote ourselves online and don't give a damn about other wilderness users.

High performance/high challenge backcountry flying is fun and cool, but there are still plenty of places to do it that are outside of designated wilderness areas. It used to be that there wasn’t hardly anyone around to be annoyed by tagging and bagging places like the Big Creek Four, but now, any armchair environmentalist can be offended watching a Youtube video of someone landing in the middle of some pristine place that they someday maybe hope to visit. That creates a “problem,” and regulators love to manage problems. IMO, that’s reality, and ignoring it is going bite us in the a$$.

I have hoped that the main promoters/advocates for high performance, STOL/drag types of activities will step up, lead by example and carry the message that wilderness isn’t the right place for tagging/bagging or extreme STOL theatrics. If someone can show me an example of that, I’d sure like to see it. If there aren't any, it's past time.

Anyway, here’s a transcript of the whole interview:

“SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Think of a bush pilot landing in remote, rugged wilderness. You might automatically think we're talking about Alaska, but it should also be known that Idaho boasts some of the most backcountry landing strips in the U.S. And as NPR's Kirk Siegler reports, Idaho is also the setting for a dispute over restricting access to some of those remote places.

KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Idaho is home to the most federally protected wilderness of any state outside Alaska, 7,300 square miles of roadless terrain.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DON REIMAN: Boise tower from terrain 858 bravo's ready for takeoff.

SIEGLER: And if you're going to fly into the steep, narrow canyons of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, let alone land in one, you'll want to have a backcountry pilot like Don Reiman at the controls.

REIMAN: Just to warn you, we will be flying close to ridges and the side of the hills.

SIEGLER: Close to ridges and hillsides, he warns over headsets that mask the roar of his 1979 Cessna Turbo 210. Now, Reiman has 50 years of experience. He was flying into these high-altitude, jaw-dropping Idaho mountains well before much of the land below us became federally protected wilderness in 1980.

REIMAN: We're going to go out farther past this point.

SIEGLER: This point is more a cliff, really. And Reiman needs a better view of the small green landing strip beneath it, so he'll do a flyover and then decide whether it's safe.

REIMAN: Where the sun is, I can't see the trees and the terrain well enough.

SIEGLER: The glare of the early morning sun is blinding. There could be an elk down there on the strip, he says. There's no air traffic control in the wilderness, obviously. The little Cessna banks then drops. The tops of pine trees race by at 100 miles an hour outside the small windows, then thud, the tires hit dirt and grass. Another safe conservative landing at Sulphur Creek Ranch.
Good, and then down.

REIMAN: Yep. And you might go ahead...

SIEGLER: He figures it's at least his 50th touchdown here.

REIMAN: So you've got to be comfortable controlling the airplane at slow flight within confined boundaries of the walls of the canyon without stalling it 'cause if you stall, you fall out of the sky.

SIEGLER: Point taken.
Reiman is stopping here to say hello and deliver some supplies to the ranch's longtime caretakers Kiere Schroeder and her husband, ValDean.

KIERE SCHROEDER: Oh, that's a lot. Thank you.

REIMAN: And then...

SCHROEDER: Oh, my gosh.

REIMAN: ...This is for you.

SIEGLER: They're trying to get the place reopened after a recent wildfire and then mudslide. This morning's chat is all about a certain neighbor who really likes to dine on the pipes that flow into the historic log lodge.

SCHROEDER: We'll have no water in the morning. We'll think what's going on? And Val will go out, and he'll have a piece. He'll go, well, it looks like the bear had fun last night, right?

SIEGLER: The Schroeders live way back here for more than half the year.
Do you go out at all?

SCHROEDER: What did we use to say? For funerals and lawsuits (laughter).

SIEGLER: Sulphur Creek, originally a homestead, is kind of a relic of a bygone era when ranchers, miners and adventurers relied on prop planes to access these remote Idaho mountains that later were protected as federal wilderness. The Wilderness Act bans all motorized travel, but we can still land a plane here because this was one of many sites grandfathered in in a compromise when the Frank Church was designated in 1980.

SCHROEDER: Yes, we're called an inholding lovingly by the Forest Service.

SIEGLER: You could get here by horseback or a hike in a really long way, but there's a whole culture and economy built up in an American wilderness thanks to the relative ease of backcountry air travel.

SCHROEDER: There's hardly anyone that comes in here that doesn't say, oh, this is so peaceful. I love being here, that says, oh, I missed this. And so I keep thinking our life is so full and fast that we've forgotten what it is to be quiet.

SIEGLER: Now, there are more than two dozen sanctioned backcountry landing strips in or surrounded by the Frank Church wilderness, most managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the state.

REIMAN: Seat belt's on?

SIEGLER: Yes, sir. Roger.

When he's not doing supply runs or volunteer missions, pilot Don Reiman uses them to access remote trailheads for backpacking trips. He loves it.

REIMAN: A lot of people don't quite know what to expect. And then it's pretty amazing when you get back here, just clearing trees next to cliffs and coming down the canyon and then landing. And it's a very unique experience, and it's a very valuable treasure of Idaho.

SIEGLER: But lately, longtime backcountry pilots have noticed an explosion in traffic out here that could jeopardize this treasure. At this Forest Service ranger station and airstrip along the famous Middle Fork of the Salmon River, planes drop off gear and raft guides and clients who are about to launch a seven-day float. There are also a few hobby pilots, as they're sometimes called, parked on this strip.

REIMAN: Two here, one landed just ahead of us. And when we were on final, two more were in the air behind us, following us in.

SIEGLER: It's busy in one of the emptiest spots on the map in the lower 48. In nearby Missoula, Mont., Andrew Hursh is an attorney with Wilderness Watch.

ANDREW HURSH: The kind of traffic that goes through the Frank Church is insane compared to any other wilderness area, especially in the lower 48 and the density of these landing locations and the amount of people flying to them.

SIEGLER: Hursh says the 1964 Wilderness Act was passed to protect wildlife and preserve America's rustic character, not so the Idaho mountains could be a playground for the wealthy. There are already 26 official landing strips out here. This summer, Hursh's group filed a lawsuit over the legality of four additional ones that they say are being maintained under pressure by Idaho tourism boosters. Hursh says some pilots are just flying to the most challenging strips, landing three or four times just to say they bagged them.

HURSH: And then they fly back out of the wilderness to whatever lodge they're staying at for the evening. They're not in there having a wilderness experience. They're in there having, like, a motor-sport experience.

SIEGLER: The Big Creek Lodge and its airstrip sits just a few air miles west of the Frank Church wilderness boundary. You can drive here on a narrow dirt road from the nearest little town, more than an hour away. Backcountry pilot Josh Lorenz flew in because he had heard about its popular breakfast. He's on a monthlong trip through the West.

JOSH LORENZ: I went from St. Louis to Anchorage, up the coast, Bellingham to Ketchikan, and then from Anchorage went down through Canada and then down here to Idaho.

SIEGLER: Idaho, he says, is a favorite. It's the most challenging, even harder than Alaska, due to its high-altitude landings and rugged river-carved canyons. But for Lorenz, there's another appeal.

LORENZ: Look at Colorado. Look at Wyoming. All these places are getting so crowded, so people are trying to find nature. And I think backcountry aviation is one of the few places where we can really, you know, get away and experience places like this.

SIEGLER: A quest, if not struggle, to find these last wild places, but also a debate about what wilderness really means. Conservationists hope their lawsuit here sparks bigger questions about whether all these flights are a threat to the wild land and the wildlife that Idaho is famous for.

Kirk Siegler, NPR News, Big Creek, Idaho.”

CAVU wrote:Next in line.

I admit that, when I first listened through this, I was with a bunch of other pilots, and our reaction was that it was anti-aviation, and especially anti-private ......


Kirk Siegler, NPR News, Big Creek, Idaho.”

Thanks. This is why I posted it. I think the perceived issues were made pretty clear. It seemed like journalism, and not the "Journalism©®™" or manufactured outrage click bait that some have grown wanton to displace journalism. I liked that bit.

The perception issues have been a part of the conversation for the 41 years I've been going back there. Over those decades, it's pretty clear that more or most of the people I come across in any setting in the backcountry are just as diverse economically as those I come across on any airstrips. A random sample of people I ran into recently floating the Selway was certainly weighted far loftier economically than most of the people I've met flying in, for example, something lost in the implied narrative.

The lawsuit will be interesting to follow. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Proving a lack of regulatory fidelity or harms is another issue. But this was all predictable as soon as bagging and helicoptering out bent metal became so popular.

Still lots of places without the traffic there. The arrivals and departures fun and all for sure, and amazingly convenient as I get older, but the real gems are found far from the airstrips. The conflicts are in perceptions and differing priorities for use.

Hopefully someone counter sues, otherwise this just gets worse and worse, skin the the game and all

It's pretty simple when the defendant is a private party, as was the case in the Longmont NIMBY skydiving lawsuits. When the defendant is the USFS, or another government agency, it's more complicated. There's no "loser pays" attorney's fee statute that forces the plaintiffs in a case like this latest one to have skin in the game. Win or lose, it's all upside for them in terms of publicity and fundraising.

I'm sure that aviation groups are evaluating all of the options, but that discussion is best not had in public forums.

I am confused on who they are suing and on what grounds. Sounds like they are upset about strips that are on forest service land, managed by Idaho, that already have motorized access. This doesnt sound like them suing in regards to the wildness. Proximity maybe?

In terms of suing the federal government about the grand fathered access to the Frank Church there is already a ton of precedence there. I grew up in Lewiston and they were constantly talking about shutting the river (in the wilderness) down to jet boats. I have moved out of that area but I dont believe they have had any success in limiting boats in the wilderness.