The North American Fly Fishing Forum

The North American Fly Fishing Forum (http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/)
-   News & articles for discussion (http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/news-articles-discussion/)
-   -   AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry (http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/news-articles-discussion/163196-affta-joins-tu-opposing-bill-would-trash-americas-backcountry.html)

Editor 07-21-2011 06:59 AM

AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry

Guest1 07-23-2011 12:08 AM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
I think this is a case of uneducated panic on the part of TU and whoever they talked into going along with it. It does not touch anything designated as a widerness area. It only effects BLM managed land that does not fit the criteria of being "Wilderness". There have been a number of things recently, one being the "Brown Trout Kill Mob" of TU's that make one wonder what has happened to them. If you remember I called the fisheries office involved in the area of the aforementioned clobber a Brown Trout project of theirs and was told by the fisheries biologist for the area that it was a bad idea and they were not contacted or consulted in any way before TU went all militia on the trout. I just read the bill proposal and it is at this point just a proposal. It's not a "put roads everywhere" bill as stated by TU and AFFTA. I think it another case where like the fisheries biologist I mentioned said, " I think it's a case of trying to look like they're doing something." It says NON WIDERNESS AREAS right in the bill.

I'd just like to add there would be a lot less problems if everyone, us and politicians did what I just did and read the dang bills.

Jackster 07-25-2011 08:38 AM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
Trout Unlimited = Cold Water Conservation

It seems though some are mostly fly fishing clubs in disguise. I belong and have been a member for over a decade but I mainly keep my membership in hopes the monies are going to cold water conservation. I know that my local chapter, always with their hand out like the National, is about as far from a cold water conservation group as I ever met.
A lot of T.U.'s resources right now should be in defending The Clean Water Act: House Panel Fast-Tracks Bill to Divest EPA of Regulatory Power Over Water - NYTimes.com This act went right to the heart of cold water conservation and has had amazing, positive results on our watersheds.

Frank Whiton 07-25-2011 10:59 AM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
Hi Everyone,

The concern is for Wilderness and Roadless areas, not just Wilderness areas. We have way too little Wilderness areas and many are surrounded by roadless areas. I don't believe there should be a road right up to the edge of any wilderness area. Many roadless areas act as buffer zones for Wilderness areas and they need protection just as much as Wilderness areas. I am against any attempt to create more roads in our remote areas even if it is not a Wilderness area. Anytime a road is built in a remote area the fishing, hunting and land suffer.

Frank

fyshstykr 07-25-2011 12:29 PM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
Another link for anyone who has trouble opening the link above.
AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill Removing Wilderness Protections | MidCurrent

A summary of the bill.
H.R. 1581 - Summary: Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

The long form.
Read The Bill: H.R. 1581 - GovTrack.us


While TU does do some things that I personally find troubling, their overall goal is for the good of our fisheries and trout. As Jackster, I'll continue to support them.

TU is only a part of the Front against this legislation, and AFFTA is a coalition of hundreds if not thousands of fly fishing associated businesses, manufacturers, and Guides. A peek at the BOD.American Fly Fishing Trade Association > Board of Directors + Staff

So to say that this is "uneducated panic on the part of TU and whoever they talked into going along with it" is not accurate. I'm quite sure that this Bill has been read, reread, and reread again by many who are far smarter than I am. In my reading and comprehension of it.....it seems like they are doing nothing more than trying to keep the door closed to more Industrial/Commercial access, we all know where that road leads.

Guest1 07-25-2011 01:42 PM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
I just talked to one of the writters of the bill. Again it does not effect widerness areas. It does open to access for the public some areas (not designated or not fitting the criteria of being wilderness) as a side effect of reducing the wildfire hazzards so many have tragically become aware of. Over protection has had the unintended consequences of at some point creating a wildfire that wrecks the area some you guys seem so bent on never touching and then overrunning that, and destroying homes and businesses. I'll bet we have a bunch of people right here on the forum who have had first hand experience with a wildfire. The bill also said right in it that as a protective measure that the bill cannot be used by the secretary of the interior to release wilderness areas. Or we can just never touch any of it and wait for nature to wipe it clean and take maybe your home with it.

As for the uneducated panic, I stand by the statement. The chacterization of the bill by TU and those involved is completely innaccurate. I prefer to think of them as uneducated rather than the obvious alternative.

fyshstykr 07-25-2011 05:55 PM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diver Dan (Post 291497)
I just talked to one of the writters of the bill. Again it does not effect widerness areas. Correct, but it does open the "buffer zone" that Frank mentioned to new roads and trails which will put these roads at the doorstep to designated wilderness area's. And then the next step is full blown motorized access.
It does open to access for the public some areas The public already has access to these area's, they just cannot drive into them with a motorized vehicle. Access is not prohibited, you just gotta hoof it.(not designated or not fitting the criteria of being wilderness)

as a side effect of reducing the wildfire hazzards so many have tragically become aware of. Over protection has had the unintended consequences of at some point creating a wildfire that wrecks the area some you guys seem so bent on never touching and then overrunning that, and destroying homes and businesses. Boy oh boy that's a red Herring if there ever were one. I'll bet we have a bunch of people right here on the forum who have had first hand experience with a wildfire. The bill also said right in it that as a protective measure that the bill cannot be used by the secretary of the interior to release wilderness areas.
Or we can just never touch any of it and wait for nature to wipe it clean and take maybe your home with it. If you build a home far enough from protective service you are taking your chances. And if an unfortunate act of nature happens then you have to deal with it.

As for the uneducated panic, I stand by the statement. The chacterization of the bill by TU and those involved is completely innaccurate. I respectfully disagree with you once again. How is the opinion of TU and AFFTA on this subject completely inaccurate?
How about we let the members here read it, digest it, and think on it for themselves and then we can have an actual discussion about the proposed legislation? Rather than a mudslinging event.

How about it folks, can we have a discussion of the proposed legislation here? I would love to have an informative, thought provoking thread, rather than the "same old/same old" whenever something of this nature comes up.


Infact, I'll say that I could be wrong. (I am human after all). So instead of telling me what an Idiot I am if you disagree with me, show me why I'm wrong to offer my support in fighting this legislation.

JoJer 07-25-2011 07:33 PM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
I read the short version. It sounds well intentioned. It would make roadless areas more accessable, for instance, for wildfire control and other management practices.
But I also believe that once the roads go in, the character of the area changes, generally not for the good. I think it's a slippery slope. Once it's gone, you can't get it back.

Guest1 07-25-2011 09:35 PM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
Once a wildfire goes through and spreads to the wilderness areas that pretty much changes the character of the area to doesn't it? I still don't understand why people are acting like this is going into wildlife areas. It says BLM managed land that does not fit the criteria of wilderness areas. It's not like they are talking about putting a highway into the BWCA for God's sake. By the way do you remember when a major chunk of the BWCA burnt to the ground? Or the fires that wiped out so much of the Rockies not that many years back. My brothers house was less than 300 yards from the fire when Travelers insurance called him and said they were dropping him. They didn't get away with it, but nevertheless. Think back. You have huge areas in Montana with Beetle kill. Do you think it's wise to just let it set there till it's hit with lighning and burns down along with the surrounding healthy forest? Along with towns that happen to get in the way?


Quote:

Originally Posted by fyshstykr (Post 291655)
instead of just telling me what an Idiot I am,

I missed the part where someone called you an idiot. Where was that at?

fyshstykr 07-25-2011 09:48 PM

Re: AFFTA Joins TU in Opposing Bill that would Trash America's Backcountry
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diver Dan (Post 291741)
Once a wildfire goes through and spreads to the wilderness areas that pretty much changes the character of the area to doesn't it?Yes it does change it, but over time regeneration takes place. I still don't understand why people are acting like this is going into wildlife areas. Because it is. It says BLM managed land that does not fit the criteria of wilderness areas. It's not like they are talking about putting a highway into the BWCA for God's sake. Are you saying that primitive area's like Frank Church, The Grand Tetons, or The Uintah's are less important than the BWCA?By the way do you remember when a major chunk of the BWCA burnt to the ground? Yes I do. Even spent a lot of time in the Island Park area when Yellowstone was on fire.Or the fires that wiped out so much of the Rockies not that many years back. My brothers house was less than 300 yards from the fire when Travelers insurance called him and said they were dropping him. They didn't get away with it, but nevertheless. Think back. You have huge areas in Montana with Beetle kill. Do you think it's wise to just let it set there till it's hit with lighning and burns down along with the surrounding healthy forest? Isn't it possible to take care of these issues without more roads? Or using existing roads for crews to access if clearing needs to be done?
Even with more roads into the "buffer zones", fires in primitive area's are going to run wild
so your point holds no water, because we are not talking about those areas.Along with towns that happen to get in the way?

I think the whole point of this legislation is to allow more access to commercial logging and deforestation, gas well drilling, and mtn top strip mining rather than the ability to fight forest fires.

---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diver Dan (Post 291741)
I missed the part where someone called you an idiot. Where was that at?

Never said anyone called me an Idiot, I was referring more to the point of where discussions of this nature end up going, instead of staying on the topic they usually digress to name calling. I'm challenging myself, you and others to have a rational, well thought out discussion.

Please answer my question to your statement from above; How is the opinion of TU and AFFTA on this subject completely inaccurate?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
2005-2014 The North American Fly Fishing Forum. All rights reserved.