I just read that ther some changes comming to Moose Creek,Id. airstrip
through the IAA July newsletter.

Would anyone know just what the Feds are up to?



David

DAVID

When I was there last, the NEW RANGER told me some of the options they are considering.

Firstly, they have tagged many trees in the camping area for removal. Their rationale is that they are not healthy and they may fall on someone.
I asked when was the last time that a tree fell on someone. Is that not a risk you take in the wilderness?

They are also considering the option of getting rid of the tables and going back to strictly wilderness camping.

They are considering moving the camping area to the thin trees between the runways.

I told her that it sounded like they were trying to discourage our camping.
She said that was not true.

It appears that they are up to no good.


flyer

flyer wrote:DAVID

When I was there last, the NEW RANGER told me some of the options they are considering.

Firstly, they have tagged many trees in the camping area for removal. Their rationale is that they are not healthy and they may fall on someone.
I asked when was the last time that a tree fell on someone. Is that not a risk you take in the wilderness?

flyer

The first point I can agree with, assuming the trees really are diseased. Trees do kill people occasionally by falling on them. It's not common but more likely around dying trees and given that it's a camping area...

If the tables are wood, I don't see what they're bitching about there and, unless the place they are proposing is actually better (I haven't been to big creek yet), what's the point in that? If they do move it, I propose moving it back.

If they post signs saying no camping in this location, I propose moving those too.

flyer wrote:DAVID

Firstly, they have tagged many trees in the camping area for removal. Their rationale is that they are not healthy and they may fall on someone.
I asked when was the last time that a tree fell on someone. Is that not a risk you take in the wilderness?

flyer

Just a week or so ago, a big tree at a campground on the Oregon coast fell and smashed the crap out of a picnic table. Could have been the campers.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/k ... 0e7e9.html

I agree, though, that when in the wilderness, there are all sorts of risks that you can't completely manage.

tom

Groundlooper

If you will read it again, you will notice that we were not talking about Big Creek.

It is my opinion that if you go into the wilderness or other backcountry area, you should accept the risks involved. I do not think it should be up to the forest service to cut suspect trees down. Should they cut every suspect tree on every trail so that there will be no risk? If you want to be risk free, buy an RV and go to a paved RV camp.

She said that neither the tables nor campsites are grandfathered into the wilderness. Only the runway is grandfathered.

It appears that they have quite a few trees tagged in the camping area.

flyer

Apparently those trees were not grandfathered in either.
Erick

flyer wrote:Groundlooper

If you will read it again, you will notice that we were not talking about Big Creek.

Woops. Sorry, Moose Creek. Haven't been there either.

flyer wrote:
It is my opinion that if you go into the wilderness or other backcountry area, you should accept the risks involved. I do not think it should be up to the forest service to cut suspect trees down. Should they cut every suspect tree on every trail so that there will be no risk? If you want to be risk free, buy an RV and go to a paved RV camp.

She said that neither the tables nor campsites are grandfathered into the wilderness. Only the runway is grandfathered.

It appears that they have quite a few trees tagged in the camping area.

flyer

I was under the assumption that the camping area would not be in wilderness if it was in conjunction with the airport. So... technically yes, the tables or improved campsites don't conform to wilderness designation. In that case they should either leave the campsite alone or leave the trees alone.

They have "blown up" the dangerous trees. They used dynamite to knock the trees down and make them look like it was anatural blow down. They left the trees lying all over.

Suzanne Cables is the new Wilderness Manager, not really the ranger assigned to Moose Creek. I talked with her last summer when she was first assigned. She made it rather clear that she allows the planes to be in the backcountry for now because it is written in the Management Plan. She is by no means a proponent of keeping the airstrips open.

cdlranch wrote:She allows the planes

She allows... These assholes forget just who this country belongs to. All of us, not just them.

Gump

If the Feds decided that the area between the runways in that would be new site for camping I don't believe I have seen camping areas on the departure or approach ends or in between runways either.

David

Sort of on topic, sort of a thread jack but here goes.

Nothing makes my blood boil more than Federal taking of land. One of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence was to get away from the Kings owning the land and taxing the people to live on it.

Another screwed up bullshit scam is the non-profit enviromental groups that accept land from land estates only to turn them over to the feds for a park or preserve. So, we take privately owned land off the tax rolls and give it to the feds to "manage" at what cost ?

Want more info ? Go Here

Sorry for the rant but this crap really gets me fired up.

Mark

Every once in a while these people need to be reminded that the true owners of this land is the American public. This is not their private fiefdom, they are merely managing the land for us to enjoy. I have had more than a few discussions with rangers and fish/game types that have forgotten this. Most are great people but the few who think they are the owners need a gentle reminder. I try to keep my cool and have a civil conversation to get my point across, however, there have been a few times where I let both barrels fly (verbally). Writing a follow up letter to the authorities is beneficial. The IAA is the best proponent of these strips and becoming a member strengthens their clout and helps insure your access to the Idaho backcountry, if you are not a member you should consider joining to have your voice heard in these matters.

It appears that the forest service would like to preserve the wilderness so that they, the forest service people, can enjoy it.
If they prevent people from accessing and enjoying it , I believe there is no point keeping it in wilderness. There is too much value there to keep for just a few forest service people and backpackers.

flyer

dlhanst wrote:Every once in a while these people need to be reminded that the true owners of this land is the American public. This is not their private fiefdom, they are merely managing the land for us to enjoy. I have had more than a few discussions with rangers and fish/game types that have forgotten this. Most are great people but the few who think they are the owners need a gentle reminder. I try to keep my cool and have a civil conversation to get my point across, however, there have been a few times where I let both barrels fly (verbally). Writing a follow up letter to the authorities is beneficial. The IAA is the best proponent of these strips and becoming a member strengthens their clout and helps insure your access to the Idaho backcountry, if you are not a member you should consider joining to have your voice heard in these matters.

I have resigned myself to the fact that I cannot have a civil and polite discussion with some (not all) federal employees and therefore will avoid the situation of causing more harm than good. To get in someones face about this stuff will not further our cause so I'll avoid that tack and write a letter, where warranted. I do not want to undermine any good will the IAA has with the Forest Circus and support them completely to relay my / our views.

Anybody that is not a member of the IAA, should be...

Go Here to join...

Er...anger at the federal government aside, one person who works for the government is specifically named at the beginning of this post. While the terms "assholes" and "F****** elitist jack asses" might not be directed at her personally, that's pretty much how it reads.

Regardless of their views on land management, I doubt any of us would be so rude as to say these things to someone's face, especially without actually talking to them before hand. If I were the aforementioned government employee reading this, I can't say it would make me very aviation friendly. That doesn't do us any good.

Again, I rather doubt anyone is specifically attacking this person, but if she were reading it I'm sure that's how it would appear. Maybe we should start a new thread for bashing the guvmt and not single out one person... Especially not one person that many of us will eventually meet face to face, and who all of us will have to work with, if only indirectly, while enjoying some of the backcountry strips.

Actually, it's the talking with them that gets me pissed. Some of our employees (don't forget who pay's them) are condescending and elitist and would likely not be employed anywhere else where they have contact with the public. I do not know the ranger in question and I'll withhold judgement as to her character. However, I have found sufficient numbers of federal employees that exhibit the aforementioned attitude, so as to make me reluctant to engage them in conversation. I used to think it worthwhile to try and share my perspective but I have found it is usually a lost cause. They usually are not interested and don't want to be confused with facts.

I understand I may be stepping on a few federal toes here (at least they're in steel toed boots) and if your not part of the problem then I'm not refereing to you and I appreciate your maintaining a customer friendly attitude when some of your brethren are giving you a bad name. If you are offended by the thread and comments, well then all I can say is if the White Brand boot fits,,, wear it...

Hammer wrote:Er...anger at the federal government aside, one person who works for the government is specifically named at the beginning of this post. While the terms "assholes" and "F****** elitist jack asses" might not be directed at her personally, that's pretty much how it reads.

Well... Yeah, but.

In accepting the position (and paycheck) of Wilderness Manager, she became the face of the policies and attitudes of the agency controlling that area. At that level the buck does stop there, and she becomes synonymous with that agency.

In not knowing her personally, I would more than likely say to her face, "Ma'am, your agencies policies suck pond water." But, if I knew her, and she was an asshole or a f****** elitist, then I certainly am not shy at calling a spade a spade.

Same as dealing with Feds at the airport. I've had POI's who were great guys, and bent over backwards to assist commercial and GA folks in their jurisdiction. On the other hand, we all know and love their evil twins, the assholes and f***** elitists, who go out of their way to be mean, petty, miserable little bureaucrats, who make up for their own personal shortcomings with being badge heavy jerks.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I was taught, and still firmly believe in personal rights and responsibilities. It is my right to travel anywhere on public land that I want. It is also my responsibility to behave properly, and not damage anything so the next person coming along the trail has the same use of the land that I did. Plain and simple, and it's how I try and live my life in general.

Gump

They say that the camping is not grandfathered in. If it is a wilderness how can they stop you from camping in the wilderness, right were we have always camped.

Do not ask for permision.

Tim

qmdv wrote:They say that the camping is not grandfathered in. If it is a wilderness how can they stop you from camping in the wilderness, right were we have always camped.

Do not ask for permision.

Tim

How in the world can camping not be "grandfathered" when it is likely camping was going on there before the Forest Circus was in existence ? Maybe we should find a native american tribe that used the camp area before Columbus landed at Plymouth Rock.... Does an Indian trump a Ranger ?

N6EA wrote:

qmdv wrote:They say that the camping is not grandfathered in. If it is a wilderness how can they stop you from camping in the wilderness, right were we have always camped.

Do not ask for permision.

Tim

How in the world can camping not be "grandfathered" when it is likely camping was going on there before the Forest Circus was in existence ? Maybe we should find a native american tribe that used the camp area before Columbus landed at Plymouth Rock.... Does an Indian trump a Ranger ?

Mark,
Now I bet were on 279