elknut1

When I first read this a couple days ago, the first thing that came to mind was great, the more trails that are inaccessible the better. Few are the folks that'll try enter the woods without a highway to go in. Trails and roads are people magnets. Now I enjoy elk hunting, but the fewer the hunters the better. When I come across nonmaintained trails that cuts way down on hunter access, as few are the ones to cut trail.
Now I realize that some folks have stock, therefore bank on cleared trails, but as soon as they're open, every Tom, Dick and Harry are right behind you.
So let's not get to gun ho about opening them up. I know it sounds selfish, but they're my true feelings on the matter. If you're willing to take matters into your own hands and clear one out for personal use, more power to you, but I may be right behind you, killing your elk. elknut1

j3k2c1

One of my ideas is that, now this is off the subject but it relates, they should reintroduce grizzlies where ever they used to be. If there are more bruins in the woods then there are less people. Inaccesible trails are great. more hunting opportunities as well as for the serious hiker you have some killer trails.

RobinHood36

Well said, I totally agree! I have even seen where hunters are sneaking there atv's in on trails that are supposed to be closed. This year there was a guy taking matters in his own hands, cutting fallen trees on a blaze trail himself so it would be clear for the rifle season on elk he told us.
The less traffic, usually the better the hunting.

rambopacker

Hey Sawbill I have to disagree a little with you but you have some great points. After careful cosideration I've come to the conclusion that we need to keep the chainsaws out of the Wilderness. As someone who wants to take care of the trails I want to open them up too but we have to draw the line somewhere and I don't want to go down the slippery slope. I rather cut the trails out by cross-cut, which actually is a great tool, than open the doors for more exceptions. What could be next, quads to carry tools? you get my point.
Yes our forest are getting more crowded but I hear the complaint that only the elite can use the Wilderness. I don't want to turn the rest of the public against the idea of Wilderness by making access more difficult. I still know of many places where there is plenty of elk and yeh you might have to work harder to get em.
People will still go into the woods and if they have to go around a bunch of trees then they will cause resource damage. I was hiking on an illegal trail today and people cutting their own trails are even worse.

bigbulls

Ok correct me if I am wrong. It is called a wildernes area for a reason right.

The definition of WILDERNESS:

1: An unsettled, uncultivated region left in its natural condition.
2: A bewildering or threatening vastness

Reading the definition of wilderness I would have to say that if someone wants access to it then let them get off of their panzy arses and access it themselves. Yes it belongs to all of us but we all have to access it the same way. Just because some may be more "woods wise" than others is that our problem? Do we really need people roads traveling all through the woods allowing everyone else to easily get to where others had to work hard to get to what was once secluded wilderness. It is there for everyone to use if they have the desire. Some of us have more desire than others do.

Four of five horses packing in an elk camp can make an "illegal" trail in just a couple of trips up and down the mountain. We now have a trail to our hunting camp simply because horses quickly make a trail and the elk help keep it a trail when we are not up there hunting. It actually started out as multiple elk trails that got connected by horses.

Coastie

rambopacker, in your original post you stated you would have budget for "Only 4 trail crew hands" in the upcoming season with which you are expected to maintain 600 miles of trails. Now I've run a chainsaw a time or two and I've worked a crosscut a time or two and there is a significant difference in ones productivity between them. I would expect any manager to make the best use of the resources available and the advantage of a chainsaw over a crosscut
should be obvious.
You also stated that there is a 12 mile section of trail that was severly impacted by a fire and also had erosion damage and was dangerous. Was the erosion there before the fire or did it develop afterwards? In other words had it been neglected prior to the fire due to previous budget cuts or will it now be closed due to budget cuts?
I guess I just don't understand the point of the post in the first place, folks offer suggestions and comments, and then you defend the agency responsible for the neglect. Either you want us to do something to help improve your ability to do your job or you don't. Which is it?

rambopacker

Hey, got me back on my heals coastie, take it easy. I'll start by saying that this was just for light discussion and I originally put up the post to see how people felt about trail conditions on the Forest. I'm also not defending my agency but stating my personal beliefs. I have mixed feelings about Wilderness management including how we take care of the trails. I won't say where the problem begins as far as why I as a lower level manager trying to take care things on the ground doesn't see enough funds to do what "I" believe should. We can debate this stuff till we're blue in the face but as long as I'm paid by the taxpayers to maintain the trails that's what I'll do. I've run chainsaws as I am a firefighter and I've built trails for the better part of 10 years, both Wilderness and non-Wilderness. Just so you know, I am not against fire fighters using chainsaws in the Wilderness for safety concerns with exceptions. If you payed close attention I've never said cross-cuts can out cut chainsaws but I do know that a well honed cross-cut sawyer can almost keep up with a chainsaw. It is a trade off between using whatever tools and keeping a Wilderness a Wilderness. I know coastie you want to debate what a Wilderness is probably. I love my Wilderness and I do what I think is right.

I had to come back and add something. Don't get me wrong about this. I believe we need to keep the trails open at the same time that doesn't mean we can allow unlimited access. I work in a Wilderness where I can go out on the trails and not see anybody in a week. I also don't want to see a trail into every nick and cranny. Each Wilderness is different and has it's own problems. I've worked in places that I thought had too many trails and was angry that I was told to build more. I've also worked in many where only a small percentage of the Wilderness was accessable by trail and you had to bushwack into areas if you wanted to hunt them. There is a balance and we can't make blank statements about this cause one size does not fit all. If there is an area that is being impacted by too many visitors than it's up to us managers to use the appropriate techniques to solve the problems. Hope you feel better. Now I have to go feed the horses and I think I'll ride up one of our trails today.

BeaverJack

Shoot, I fergot the ATFB. Tree hugger? What the hell you talkin' 'bout? Gotta plop a label down on everbody, cause thet's the american way I reckin'. You can't be an individual, you gotta have a cause, everthin' you say has to have a political purpose, an' you gotta be with a crowd. Well, I'm hear to say thet I don't like crowds. I don't like all this brotherhood crap y'all ram down everbody's throats, an' I don't believe for a minute that hunting is better today than it was before it got over commercialized, over technologied, and over populated with pink behinds looking to recapture their manhoods by runnin' 'round the hills with over-sized, under-practiced rifles. I don't like the hippie backpackers what burn up the wood I cut and stashed for next year's hunting camp. Or their smelly wimmins what got hair stickin' outta places where it ain't 'sposed to be. I don't like the new age horse whisperers neither what show up with their flighty arab mounts and end up gettin' throwed and walkin' back or spookin' my mule with their stupidity. I don't like the llamas or the pack dogs. I don't like the ATVs, the old people that feel safe enuff in the hills to take daily walks where there outta be wild animals. There ain't no wilderness. Don't kid yerselfs. I for one, don't like it. Keepin' the trails from becoming four lane highways is jus' one way to keep the crowds down. Outside of forced sterilization I reckin' its as good as any.

rambopacker

I don't know too many real muleskinners BJ that hang out on the computer. I know some of them types(hippies with hair sticking out of all the wrong places) that would last probably longer than you out in the woods. Sorry couldn't help myself. Oh yeh, if you ever been out in griz country with a griz charging you you might feel like your having a Wilderness feeling.

Coastie

rambopacker, I'm not trying to be controversial or combative here. I would like to support you and your fellow foresters, rangers etc. as much as I can. The wilderness concept is fine except it really screws the folks that have a bit of a problem getting around in a true wilderness. If you're twenty something, in perfect health and have the time, you can do a "Wilderness Experience" with little trouble. If you happen to be one of the thousands of people with some injury or handicap (or a full time job with a family to support) that prevents you from doing it the "Right Way" that's just tough. Further more, I don't expect you to have all of the answers nor yet know all of the questions, but, as I stated before, your post started off as if you were looking for some backup or support, then you do a 180 and are defending the beaurocracy that has put you in a bind. As for the chainsaws vs crosscuts, hey whatever flips your bic. I do know a man can run a chainsaw for 8 or 10 hours and be a little more fresh than if he had been running a crosscut, and with our tax money (yours and mine) paying the freight, I'd as soon get more done for the time and effort expended. Any manager, whether a forest manager or a bank manager, that doesn't do that should be fired.