03-12-2012, 09:11 PM
03-12-2012, 11:34 PM
That is BS!
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 12:21 AM
It is funny how the government feel like it is THEIR land not public land. I can't believe anything but this is only the beginning. Once this is closed it will stay closed, and more land will be closed in the future. People need to complain now. If we wait until it affects "our" areas it will be too late. Ron
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 12:56 AM
I hope i'm wrong, but i think this kind of stuff is going too be more common in the comming years... [:/]
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 02:04 AM
[quote idahoron]It is funny how the government feel like it is THEIR land not public land. I can't believe anything but this is only the beginning. Once this is closed it will stay closed, and more land will be closed in the future. People need to complain now. If we wait until it affects "our" areas it will be too late. Ron[/quote]
Oh no, it's being protected for us so as to protect the resources. It says so specifically there in CFR 43, part 432, subpart B. They are even going to make an ammendment to all of that so that the resources will be protected from some loop hole in all of that........for our children and their children.
I am not familiar with the area nor the resources mentioned but the failure to give a better description of the reasoning behind this is just plain poppycock. Yes, there is a contact person mentioned to get a hold of for more information but that is just not.....well thought out or good PR to put out a release like that. A brief explanation would go an awful long ways, even if not popular. What resources? Mineral deposits? Recently discovered fossils or some other archeology find? Is it 4 wheelers and erosion? Is it a party area for kids? Is it litter? Road upkeep? Pollution? Sturgeon habitat? Is their reasoning so vague that they are embarrassed to mention it in a press release? They must realize it will be an unpopular decision. Did I miss something?
You are right Ron, it probably is only the begining as most temporary closures seem to be and if nothing else we should contact Mr. Boyer and find out the reasoning for this.
.
[signature]
Oh no, it's being protected for us so as to protect the resources. It says so specifically there in CFR 43, part 432, subpart B. They are even going to make an ammendment to all of that so that the resources will be protected from some loop hole in all of that........for our children and their children.
I am not familiar with the area nor the resources mentioned but the failure to give a better description of the reasoning behind this is just plain poppycock. Yes, there is a contact person mentioned to get a hold of for more information but that is just not.....well thought out or good PR to put out a release like that. A brief explanation would go an awful long ways, even if not popular. What resources? Mineral deposits? Recently discovered fossils or some other archeology find? Is it 4 wheelers and erosion? Is it a party area for kids? Is it litter? Road upkeep? Pollution? Sturgeon habitat? Is their reasoning so vague that they are embarrassed to mention it in a press release? They must realize it will be an unpopular decision. Did I miss something?
You are right Ron, it probably is only the begining as most temporary closures seem to be and if nothing else we should contact Mr. Boyer and find out the reasoning for this.
.
[signature]
03-13-2012, 02:45 AM
The location of this is roughly about 5.75 miles down river from AF dam is where it starts. There is about 10 miles of river bank on the north side that will be off limits. I wonder. If they make the land off limits how long before they say no fishing like down stream in lake walcott. There is some very good bass fishing there. I think Windriver has fished it a few times if I remember right. It would be a shame if they got fishing closed there too. It's bad enough that the land is off limits if the river became off limits too that would be a crime. Ron
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 03:21 AM
I've only fished the area a couple times. And saying that I have not had much luck in the area. But closing it doesn't sound like a good idea. Maybe they should just rethink there motives and possibly put in other laws restricting what ever it is that is harming what ever it is they feel they must protect. I mean it is a party spot for teens. A kid I went to school with back in high-school drowned there from an undertow not long ago. I think closing it off is not the answer as it will just stir up to much mixed emotions about it. And like said if they close this what is next on there list?
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 04:20 AM
Hate to see that happen I know they have been in the planing stages for quite a while for the massacre rocks area. climbing on the rocks and traffic in there damaging the area. I can also tell you looking at the map that there goal is to also remove a few individuals who more or less live in the area in camp trailers.
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 05:16 AM
I hate to see any area closed but a large part of this area was clsoed to all but foot traffic for a couple of years now. as for the climbing causing problems really?? it is jsut the most rediculose thing i have heard in a while if there are rocks that have hyrogliphics or writing from pioners cool close those specific rocks off but to close the whole massacar rocks area off i think is stupid but this is what we get for allowing our government to get so big and out of control first the lake lowelll thing now this im affraid to even ask whats next
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 01:39 PM
This is a bunch of crap. I grew up in Rupert and spent alot of time watersking and fishing in that area. It looks the same now as it did 20 years ago. This is wrong and I feel it is the federal goverment taking away our freedom. Soon we will need a permit to walk on your own lawn. Fellow fishermen, we need to be united and contact those names and numbers on the press release and express our opinions. Thanks for listening to me rant.
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 03:32 PM
Ive never been there and cant comment specifically on this location. However I work for a different public land agency so wish to speak from that perspective.
If there is resource damage occurring then gov agencies (and state agencies) are mandated to stop it. It only takes a few individuals to screw it up for everyone. I dont know the issue at this location, but lets go with the rock climbing. If this is a historic/cultural site then rock climbers putting in anchors or such in the rock becomes an issue or garbage vandalism etc all brings something like this to a head. You as an indiviual may not see an issue but someone interested specifically in the history or if its a native american cultural site they may be. If they complain we have to look into it. Theres not much leeway. Regulation rule what we do. I assure you we do site around trying to figure out how to screw the public. BUT many times the public leaves us little choice in how we manage the land. I have never in 16 years seen anything closed for "spite". Sometimes public land is either loved to death or people just trash it from over use or just out of disrespect.
Has anyone called to ask WHY this action is taken place? or how long its going to be closed? Might behove ya to do this before getting all worked up about it.
[signature]
If there is resource damage occurring then gov agencies (and state agencies) are mandated to stop it. It only takes a few individuals to screw it up for everyone. I dont know the issue at this location, but lets go with the rock climbing. If this is a historic/cultural site then rock climbers putting in anchors or such in the rock becomes an issue or garbage vandalism etc all brings something like this to a head. You as an indiviual may not see an issue but someone interested specifically in the history or if its a native american cultural site they may be. If they complain we have to look into it. Theres not much leeway. Regulation rule what we do. I assure you we do site around trying to figure out how to screw the public. BUT many times the public leaves us little choice in how we manage the land. I have never in 16 years seen anything closed for "spite". Sometimes public land is either loved to death or people just trash it from over use or just out of disrespect.
Has anyone called to ask WHY this action is taken place? or how long its going to be closed? Might behove ya to do this before getting all worked up about it.
[signature]
03-13-2012, 03:38 PM
one more thing. This is important so pay attention. Public land agencies are governed by the public. By this I mean public comments on projects etc drive the decision making process. If you dont comment you dont have a right to bitch about what happens.
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 04:49 PM
Phutch30......You make several valid points regarding the need for land managers to protect public land, however this specific instance seems rather unique . Not much has been said regarding the "whys" People have asked questions and specific answers are not being provided. This is what prompted me to post and let people know this is happening. In my opinion, a dangerous precedent is being established. Check out the Idaho State Journal's op/ed piece : http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/...cs/?p=8849
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 04:56 PM
Phuct Ill disagree with you on many of your points. I am an avid sledder and we see land closures to us more than probably more than any other out door recreational group. Ive seen areas closed for no reason even when many more groups are commenting to keep it open but the group with the deepest pockets gets it closed. End of the day public land isn't public land, if it was closures would be put to a majority public vote.......until that happens Ill call it what it is, government land that they allow us to be on.
[signature]
[signature]
03-13-2012, 05:26 PM
Disagree all you want. I wasnt making any of it up. Theres way more to these decisions than you think.
Realize that public land is managed for multiple use. So while you may want something left open for say sledding, that activity may conflict with x-country skiers or wildlife use. You may feel that your sledding in high country basins doesnt affecct anything, while a backcountry xcountry skier who sees the area all trackedup may feel different or both of you may be disrupting wolverine breeding or maybe the group for noisefree forests takes offense to hearing snowmachines in the woods.
Public land isnt a free for all, there are rules and regulations that govern how its managed. As more of the public get involved in issues then more controvesy is going to arise. Many of the "deep pockets" have lots of members which = lots of comments. So even if they dont have a bone in the fight they are still part of the public and have a right to send in comments. You have to realize, that since it is in fact "public land" Joe blow in NY city has just as much of a right to say how he thinks it should be managed as Larry local.
Put 10 diverse people in a room and get them to agree on a topic and then you will begin to get an idea what its like trying to please everyone. Ive been involved in this for 15 years. No one sits around trying to think up ways to shut down public land. The public decides theres and issue, so its looked at. If its a legit issue theres public input sought. Then a decision is made based on regulations, public input, and the resource. Public land agencies cant just make a arbitrary decision reguardless what many people think.
[signature]
Realize that public land is managed for multiple use. So while you may want something left open for say sledding, that activity may conflict with x-country skiers or wildlife use. You may feel that your sledding in high country basins doesnt affecct anything, while a backcountry xcountry skier who sees the area all trackedup may feel different or both of you may be disrupting wolverine breeding or maybe the group for noisefree forests takes offense to hearing snowmachines in the woods.
Public land isnt a free for all, there are rules and regulations that govern how its managed. As more of the public get involved in issues then more controvesy is going to arise. Many of the "deep pockets" have lots of members which = lots of comments. So even if they dont have a bone in the fight they are still part of the public and have a right to send in comments. You have to realize, that since it is in fact "public land" Joe blow in NY city has just as much of a right to say how he thinks it should be managed as Larry local.
Put 10 diverse people in a room and get them to agree on a topic and then you will begin to get an idea what its like trying to please everyone. Ive been involved in this for 15 years. No one sits around trying to think up ways to shut down public land. The public decides theres and issue, so its looked at. If its a legit issue theres public input sought. Then a decision is made based on regulations, public input, and the resource. Public land agencies cant just make a arbitrary decision reguardless what many people think.
[signature]
03-13-2012, 05:31 PM
Drshen-
Whats the issue at this location? DOnt rely on the media. Call and speak with someone from the office handling this and ask what the deal is. The rumor mill is a wonderful fantasy land once it gets going.
Again I have zero background on this area or office. Im just saying there has to be a legit reason they took this step. Call and find out. Then you will be informed and can submit informed comments rather than the typical "I dont like this"
[signature]
Whats the issue at this location? DOnt rely on the media. Call and speak with someone from the office handling this and ask what the deal is. The rumor mill is a wonderful fantasy land once it gets going.
Again I have zero background on this area or office. Im just saying there has to be a legit reason they took this step. Call and find out. Then you will be informed and can submit informed comments rather than the typical "I dont like this"
[signature]
03-13-2012, 05:33 PM
Look Ill help ya out. They anticipated people having questions so included this in the press release.
For further information, please contact Robert "Hap" Boyer at (208) 678-0461, ext. 15 with the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Snake Field Office in Burley, Idaho
[signature]
For further information, please contact Robert "Hap" Boyer at (208) 678-0461, ext. 15 with the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Snake Field Office in Burley, Idaho
[signature]
03-13-2012, 05:44 PM
The reality is that when it is managed for multi use that it isn't really and you proved my point. By saying that one group shouldn't be allowed because another group doesn't want things from the other group there. Sorry but I have been the rounds on this to many times to not see it for what it is.
What about our state lands? Does joe blow in NY still have a right to have an opinion on them? No he shouldn't but he does. The point is that the majority of these cases don't have anyone but a select fews interests at heart and has nothing to do with what is best for the use of the land. Not saying it is the case here but the majority of the time it is true.
[signature]
What about our state lands? Does joe blow in NY still have a right to have an opinion on them? No he shouldn't but he does. The point is that the majority of these cases don't have anyone but a select fews interests at heart and has nothing to do with what is best for the use of the land. Not saying it is the case here but the majority of the time it is true.
[signature]
03-13-2012, 06:06 PM
So your saying you have been kicked off of all public lands so it isnt managed as multiple use? Multiple use means theres multiple uses allowed. It doesnt mean that every section allows everything. It may mean some areas allow this and not that but overall mutiple use. You cant tell me all public land in ID is off limits to snowmobile use. There's areas that are, as well as areas that are open. Just as there are areas that are closed to mountian bikes or ATVs or any of a dozen different uses.
By definition state land isnt "public land" it land managed by the state for a specific purpose, usually generating funds for public schools. So to anwser your question I dont know, I dont work with state land. They have a different set of regulations that govern how they manage.
Anyway not going to get into a pissing match. Just telling how it works.
[signature]
By definition state land isnt "public land" it land managed by the state for a specific purpose, usually generating funds for public schools. So to anwser your question I dont know, I dont work with state land. They have a different set of regulations that govern how they manage.
Anyway not going to get into a pissing match. Just telling how it works.
[signature]
03-13-2012, 06:22 PM
A fairly substansial portion of Lake Walcott is closed to boats which mostly closes it to fishing except where shore anglers have been able to forge through the riparian zone.
[signature]
[signature]