The strips in question are inside the FC-RONR wilderness. You can Google the news stories and the WW complaint itself. Of course, it's self-serving and one-sided, but you can see what their claims are. Here's an article in the Missoulian on it https://missoulian.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-frank-church-wilderness-airstrips/article_b09dbfa2-1063-11ee-bf60-4f6d1e26e72a.html

OK that link provides a ton more color. Reading the NPR transcript it sounded like they wanted to get rid of charted strips in the Frank Church and that they were talking about Big Creek which is outside of the wilderness boundary.

One side throws lawsuits around like spaghetti on the wall to see what’s sticks

Our side does nothing, AOPA/EAA et all wouldn’t file a lawsuit to save their own lives

Do we have more or less strips and places and abilities to fly than we used to?

If anybody thinks they’d stop if they won the lawsuit to get the Big 4 removed, they’re crazy. This is merely a step in a MUCH larger plan.

NineThreeKilo wrote:One side throws lawsuits around like spaghetti on the wall to see what’s sticks

That's because they have no downside. It's an economic opportunity for these groups to drive donations and membership. The system is set up that way.

NineThreeKilo wrote:Our side does nothing, AOPA/EAA et all wouldn’t file a lawsuit to save their own lives

Don't blame them for not doing something neither they, nor anyone else, can do. There's no legal claim for "You're FOS. Stop Suing The Government To Get Your Way." Many states have "anti-SLAPP" statutes that punish any attempt to "chill" "public participation" by filing lawsuits against the people suing the government. There are things that we (and the Alphabet groups) can do. This lawsuit was just filed last June. We need to put our time and energy into supporting the RAF and state pilot groups like the IAA. I support EAA and AOPA, too. The pilot community is too small, and not nearly rich enough, to afford to be divided.

As a data point, AOPA did sue Santa Clara County earlier this year for the County's illegal banning of 100ll sales. The FAA whiffed on this completely, allowing the ban to remain in place as long as the County entered into a B.S. "MOU" about studying the "problem." So, AOPA did stand up and sue.

NineThreeKilo wrote:Do we have more or less strips and places and abilities to fly than we used to?

185er is probably right about the intentions of the antis, but going after other strips is a whole different deal, and it's a long game. In the meantime, we need folks to stop doing dumb things in the wilderness that make it easy to tar all of us as hobbyist abusers. And, there are actually new backcountry airstrips and even strips outside the wilderness that formerly were closed, but are reopening.

shortfielder wrote: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.

That would fix things, but, unfortunately, that's not the way the law is written. Changing that has been a political non-starter for as long as I can remember.

CAVU wrote:

shortfielder wrote: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.

That would fix things, but, unfortunately, that's not the way the law is written. Changing that has been a political non-starter for as long as I can remember.

Some noise pollution crazy got hit for $115,791.00 for her frivolous nonsense

https://www.timescall.com/2015/07/29/ju ... neys-fees/

Seems firearms rights groups have no issue shooting off lawsuits and making wins

NineThreeKilo wrote:
Some noise pollution crazy got hit for $115,791.00 for her frivolous nonsense

https://www.timescall.com/2015/07/29/ju ... neys-fees/

Seems firearms rights groups have no issue shooting off lawsuits and making wins

That's the Longmont Skydiving case. As I said above:

CAVU wrote: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.

Advocacy groups usually don't make the mistake of bringing lawsuits where they can be stung with an award of attorney's fees if they don't win.

Firearms aren't the same as flying. The Second Amendment creates standing and a legal claim to sue anyone who infringes on the right to bear arms. When it comes to flying, the consensus is that "The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to fly an aircraft. Flying isn’t considered an inalienable right such as the right to freedom of speech or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Rather, flying is considered a privilege that is earned." https://shackelford.law/news-aviation/flying-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%20does%20not,a%20privilege%20that%20is%20earned.

Personally, I'm committed to fighting to defend what we have, but I draw the line at tilting at windmills.

Flying is a privilege but one worth protecting. I see the BC4 lawsuit in grander scheme of trying to limit access. As many others have alluded - this is just the start of likely further litigation and possible changes to the Frank Church Wilderness. Listening to these arguments referenced in some of the articles a person unfamiliar with the region would get the feeling that yahoo hobbyist pilots of destroying mother earth with little regard for nature. I just do not see this from my experiences flying in Idaho. Even at crowded places like Johnson Creek I see a high level of respect for nature and incredible airmanship. We have all seen people doing dumb stuff with airplanes. It happens outside of the Frank Church Wilderness everyday and I would argue with far greater frequency.

I must say this litigation only served as motivation for me to fly into some of these strips last summer. I flew into both Vines and Mile Hi. Beautiful places worth seeing and experiencing if one has the proper airplane and skills to safely make it into these places. I flew over Simmonds just to see if I could find it. I think we can safely say it may be the Big Creek 3 now. That strip looks incredibly overgrown and likely not a place I would try. In the last 3 years Idaho has added 3 new strips all within the boundaries of the wilderness preserve - Marble Creek, Cougar Ranch, and now Hoodoo. So we will see where this lawsuit goes and if it has any teeth.

I think the amount of traffic flying into the BC4 strips is minimal compared to the other less challenging strips in the Frank Church Wilderness. Nobody is doing touch and goes at Mile Hi and to me this lawsuit is just an easy starting point and target. The BC4 strips have a rich history and are worth protecting along with all of the strips within the region.


Josh

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.

This! There are far too many people flying into our wilderness areas for the purpose of bagging strips, Idaho in particular. In my opinion, this is inappropriate and will eventually be the undoing of our current freedom to access via airplane. It’s only a matter of time. Fly in, shut down, enjoy the place. Hunt, fish, hike, camp, whatever. Yes, we have the freedom to fly all day, landing at as many places as we desire but it needs to be acknowledged that this behavior will only create more of these scenarios where the leftist whack jobs eventually attack you and attempt to deprive you of this freedom. If you’re in agreement with this sentiment, don’t hesitate to state your opinion, there is a huge population of new pilots that are pursuing the bush pilot/backcountry/STOL craze and many of them are laser focused on flying the backcountry and might not be aware of proper stewardship of our wilderness areas.

How is enjoying public lands a privilege

If someone wants to fly in and do yoga, have a spiritual experience, or just push their abilities or play with their six figure toy, I don’t see how it’s any different or anyone’s business, so long as they arnt trashing the place or hurting anything/anyone

Same as when a big city hippie drives into the wilderness, or rides his bike in

As for privileges
Seems it’s the nose under the tent, just like how the right to travel was slowly neutered into a bunch of separate privileges

Imagine pulling that in the founding fathers days, ah yes you can travel…but see, riding that horse, well that is a privilege you have to petition the state for lol

Doesn’t really matter now as it’s too widely accepted, but I always get a chuckle out of that

I feel like a lot of people are confused on what wilderness means in this context. These areas dont have the same rules as national forest or parks. You cant drive, ride a bike or even bring a wheel burrow into wilderness. There are no machines allowed. In the case of the Frank Church, its relatively new and there were a bunch of airstrips that are grandfathered in. That is the only reason we are able to land in the wilderness. This is why they are marked on the VFR sectionals and they ask you to stay 2000' AGL.

All of this being said the government abides by these same restrictions when it comes to the wilderness. They benefit greatly from having these strips and the ability to get supplies into these areas. Any restriction on these strips would hinder the government as well. If you dont believe that look at the restrictions that they have when it comes to fighting fire in true wilderness areas.

Josef wrote:.....All of this being said the government abides by these same restrictions when it comes to the wilderness. They benefit greatly from having these strips and the ability to get supplies into these areas. Any restriction on these strips would hinder the government as well. If you dont believe that look at the restrictions that they have when it comes to fighting fire in true wilderness areas.

Not necessarily.
Ive seen USFS strips on the Idaho chart, I believe restricted to USFS ops.
The guv'mint could very easily close the wilderness strips to non-official use,
but continue to use them itself.

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

How about one side are American patriots and the other side are socialist, communist, capitalist haters, and fossil fuel haters?

I just have to pop in every so often to keep your blood pressure up Z. I hope you and the girls are well.

Cheers...Rob

OregonMaule wrote: I hope you and the girls are well.

Cheers...Rob

We're good, thanks. This fatherhood shit is harder than I ever thought. You probably know better than others what the Thunderdome of sisters is like. Two girls enter, one girl leaves. Dreading the day they use their martial arts training on each other. Every day is a new challenge trying to help them become compassionate but critical thinkers who can navigate the continuum of grey areas in first/second grade without turning single issues into their identity.

Zzz wrote:

OregonMaule wrote: I hope you and the girls are well.

Cheers...Rob

We're good, thanks. This fatherhood shit is harder than I ever thought. You probably know better than others what the Thunderdome of sisters is like. Two girls enter, one girl leaves. Dreading the day they use their martial arts training on each other. Every day is a new challenge trying to help them become compassionate but critical thinkers who can navigate the continuum of grey areas in first/second grade without turning single issues into their identity.

I agree with your thoughts. The world is a strange place these days. Cheers

Zzz wrote:... Every day is a new challenge trying to help them become compassionate but critical thinkers who can navigate the continuum of grey areas in first/second grade without turning single issues into their identity.

Are you sure you're talking about your daughters and not fellow BCP contributors?

hotrod180 wrote:

Josef wrote:.....All of this being said the government abides by these same restrictions when it comes to the wilderness. They benefit greatly from having these strips and the ability to get supplies into these areas. Any restriction on these strips would hinder the government as well. If you dont believe that look at the restrictions that they have when it comes to fighting fire in true wilderness areas.

Not necessarily.
Ive seen USFS strips on the Idaho chart, I believe restricted to USFS ops.
The guv'mint could very easily close the wilderness strips to non-official use,
but continue to use them itself.

Which ones? I have seen that when they have fires on strips inside and outside of the wilderness. A quick look on skyvector I cant see any strips inside of the frank that are closed to public use. I could have easily missed them however.

Josef wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:...Ive seen USFS strips on the Idaho chart, I believe restricted to USFS ops.
The guv'mint could very easily close the wilderness strips to non-official use,
but continue to use them itself.

Which ones? I have seen that when they have fires on strips inside and outside of the wilderness. A quick look on skyvector I cant see any strips inside of the frank that are closed to public use. I could have easily missed them however.

Maybe I remember wrong?
Looking at the sectional now, I see a lot of strips marked USFS but apparently open for public use.
I did see one, OR62 just south of Rogersberg, that is marked "(private) Cache Creek USFS".
Airnav sez "private use, permission required prior to landing",
which is not quite the same thing as closed to non-official use.

hotrod180 wrote:

Josef wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:...Ive seen USFS strips on the Idaho chart, I believe restricted to USFS ops.
The guv'mint could very easily close the wilderness strips to non-official use,
but continue to use them itself.

Which ones? I have seen that when they have fires on strips inside and outside of the wilderness. A quick look on skyvector I cant see any strips inside of the frank that are closed to public use. I could have easily missed them however.

Maybe I remember wrong?
Looking at the sectional now, I see a lot of strips marked USFS but apparently open for public use.
I did see one, OR62 just south of Rogersberg, that is marked "(private) Cache Creek USFS".
Airnav sez "private use, permission required prior to landing",
which is not quite the same thing as closed to non-official use.

Yah I am pretty sure Cache Creek was the spot that we used to stop and check in at on the way up River. I think a couple of people stay there year round and help monitor river traffic. It was a long time ago though. I dont remember a strip there but I wasnt really looking for them from the river at that time. I am sure its something small that they may get resupplied via plane from is a boat isnt available.

I definitely see the forest service shut down airports when there are TFRs and heavy fire activities going on.