Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#171

Post by 24gttghh »

davidw wrote: post #168
24gttghh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Oregon Badlands Wilderness you have pointed out seems very much wild to me. As a counterpoint, much of the WMNF in NH/ME was formerly logged, and there are remnant logging tracks (as opposed to jeep roads) scattered throughout, including in the wilderness areas. Eventually those jeep tracks will be just as unrecognizable as our logging tracks. There are so many other places to ride and build trail, maybe we shoul…

That Badlands place would certainly not the best riding around (it'd maybe be good in the winter), but it's really not 'wild' feeling at all and is a good example of Wilderness != wilderness. > maybe we should just leave the wilderness areas alone. Except that brings into conflict mountain bikers with the idea of expanding wilderness areas. Wouldn't we rather have more areas protected like that? As it stands, mountai…

What doesn't feel wild about it? 29,000 acres seem like a big enough place to get lost in and feel wild. For example, I've camped in the Presidential-Dry River Wilderness (also 29,000 acres) in the WMNF, and I have to say, even camping a half mile inside the area I felt like I could have been hundreds of miles from the nearest person. Being up over 4000 feet probably helps too...

I've never considered that wilderness areas were even being expanded on such a scale, let alone that it would be an issue. I will have to think about it now...I feel like if I could triple the amount of area that would be let to go wild, but lose mountain biking access in the process, that I'd be willing to accept the gain in wilderness with a loss in biking. I've done very little biking on any federal land to begin with. Most has either been on private land or town-organized easements.

To be fair, anywhere I've mountain-biked is nowhere close to being as remote as places out West. Maybe there is enough wilderness area in the West, but not enough here in the Northeast. That may be my perspective.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#172

Post by dang »

nickik wrote: post #156
dang wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post like this regardless of how lame another comment was. It only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I'm sad to see that you've posted nastily uncivil comments before this too. We ban accounts that do that, so would you please read those guidelines and err on the side of civility when posting here?

I agree I should not have done so. The parent post just pissed me. I will try to write a better response next time.

It happens. Thanks!

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#173

Post by dbcurtis »

eonw wrote: post #157
dbcurtis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. A lot of people don't want to admit that hunters were the original conservationists. And also, a lot of non-hunters don't support hunting-oriented conservation methods. For instance, just because you buy a duck stamp it doesn't mean you have to go duck hunting. Duck stamps support the preservation of duck habitat and other wetlands. Buying a duck stamp is an easy way to directly contribute targetted money to wet…

hunters originally only wanted to 'preserve' what they wanted to kill... otherwise we'd still have wolves, grizzlies, and other predators of all sizes, at their historic populations. likewise, certain hunters favorites wouldn't be dealing with population issues now. the ranchers have done the most harm though, they seem to want to kill everything, imo.

Not entirely. In practice, the net result is that hunters want to preserve habitat. The large predator species that you mention require a huge range. It is the fragmentation of habitat that has done them in as much as anything else.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#174

Post by JBlue42 »

microcolonel wrote: post #140
JBlue42 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural Americans don't tend to think that the government is a functional entity and that going through that chain will net anything. They may have a valid point since only money talks in government these days.

Money was the only thing that ever talked in government, the problem is that people have allowed the mandate to grow so outrageously that it's gotten out of hand. I love the original mission of the EPA, which was to do through regulation what was, owing to scale, not feasible in the courts: To assess tangible damage to the property of everyone downwind or downstream of you, and limit it at the source. Every expansion…

A form of scope creep then, it seems?

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#175

Post by davidw »

24gttghh wrote: post #171
davidw wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Badlands place would certainly not the best riding around (it'd maybe be good in the winter), but it's really not 'wild' feeling at all and is a good example of Wilderness != wilderness. > maybe we should just leave the wilderness areas alone. Except that brings into conflict mountain bikers with the idea of expanding wilderness areas. Wouldn't we rather have more areas protected like that? As it stands, mountai…

What doesn't feel wild about it? 29,000 acres seem like a big enough place to get lost in and feel wild. For example, I've camped in the Presidential-Dry River Wilderness (also 29,000 acres) in the WMNF, and I have to say, even camping a half mile inside the area I felt like I could have been hundreds of miles from the nearest person. Being up over 4000 feet probably helps too... I've never considered that wilderness…

Yeah, this is an actual wild Wilderness with lots of high, remote places, and 10X the area of the other one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_Wilderness

Plenty of trails are also not suitable, nor maybe even really feasible for bikes.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#176

Post by zumzumzum »

hellogoodbyeeee wrote: post #3

I feel pretty passionately about protecting national land. Are there any recommendations on how to best support it? I don't live near any federal lands and I'm generally don't trust lobbyist groups. Should I be donating to the Sierra Club? Or are there other alternatives?

You can support the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, both of which are heavily involved in issues of access for all types of backcountry users. RMEF especially specializes in purchasing land rights which unlock thousands and thousands of acres of public land that was previously inaccessible. I don't think any organizations are doing more to promote access on public lands. From their website: "Since 1984, RMEF has opened, secured or improved public access to more than 1.1 million acres of elk habitat across the country for hunters, hikers, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy."

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#177

Post by mindslight »

dang wrote: post #130
mindslight wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main function of the modern government apparatus is to divide up the commons and parcel them out for private ownership. Coase was just another power-supplicating priest.

Would you please stop using HN for ideological battle? It's emphatically not what this site is for: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

First, I do apologize.

I've been sitting on this response, because I've been mulling over this term "ideological battle". I simply cannot see how most every comment here isn't supporting some "ideological battle". That's effectively the modern intellectual realm - information tech has caused us to go ever-more meta, seeking out deeper root causes while also increasing the need for abstract ideas to even navigate.

I think the real problem with my above comment is that it is not very substantive. By skipping the several logical steps between its two sentences, the second bit comes off as a purely incendiary flame. I should have either done the work of fleshing out the narrative justifying the second bit (and then still reworded it), or have left it off completely.

I'll try harder not to write comments in that mindset. And anyhoo thanks for doing what you do.

Post reply on HN