Brian - Team A.I.

Depending on the route, that's ~400 miles from home for me. I'm in Billings, MT and would love to go.

I really like the coin concept, so I don't want to be seen as a killjoy here. Did BSA grant permission for trademarked images and copyrighted terms such as "Be Prepared", the Scout Law, and the various symbols on the coin? This was the first thing to come to mind when I saw the design.

Consider this concept on hold until further notice.

Clarification Part Deux: Wording has changed slightly. This was intended to be AN Arizona CITO Coin, but a wrongly placed word on the coin information page (THE) stirred up a hornet's nest. The idea is being tossed around to make it a series, highlighting the CITO efforts from groups around the state, but the jury is out on whether or not it will proceed that way. It's early in this whole process, and while I would really like to see the concept of a series become reality, I can't say right now if it will.

The Montana coin design is now well underway. It is taking more of a minimalist approach in overall design to minimize clutter, but should be ready to show here and get opinions within the next week. So, for those of you wanting to see this coin come to fruition, it's nearing that point...

To clear up some possible confusion, I started the initial Adopt-A-Highway activity with this section of highway being adopted in Arizona. The torch was passed when I moved, but my cache (CITO Always) is still alive and kickin' nearby. At this point, this section is literally one of the cleanest of all highways in the state.

This idea has been tossed around for a little while, since it so strongly ties into caching and one of the more important tenets of cachers and CITO. Adopt-A-Highway CITO Geocoin (Central Arizona Edition) Right now we're only gauging interest in the coin before proceeding with the rest of the minting process. Please visit the URL above for more information.

RK, I thought I'd let you know that you're fast becoming a cult icon for your statement about value and preservation. I posted the comment to a mailing list specifically dealing with getting the word out on legislation meant to damage the ability for recreationists to...recreate. People are talking about how profound the statement is, and I agree. What you said in so few words has quite an impact. PM me when you get a chance.

West Rosebuzz 23 finds in 3 1/2 years, but this isn't even a back country cache. You have to drive a ways to get to the parking area, near a 100+ year-old hydro-electric power plant, but it's also the trail head to Granite Peak, the tallest peak in the state. It's about 1/4 mile down the trail, just off of a fork from the main trail. It's also the stepping stone for a back country hike that takes you to a lake an average of every 3 miles. This may become one of those areas that is going to be off-limits to caches if a wilderness designation is ever applied, and that would be a real shame. It gives cachers the reward of seeing this area they might not otherwise visit, and can also give hikers a reward on the way to, or on the way from their hike to wherever they chose to go.

Curious, are these cherry-stemmed routes to mining claims/private land or are the claim owners allowed to travel across Wilderness Areas? When the California Desert Protection Act was passed, a few of the new Wilderness Areas and some areas of the newly created Death Valley NP had cherry-stem routes created to allow access to mining claims/private property. One of those routes (Suprise Canyon in the Panamint Mountains) has now been closed and is now focal point of the federal v. local authority battle. There is road access to the claims as I understand it. Where we have to go now, is a parking area at the end of the Goose Lake trail, and hike in from there. I really don't mind that too much, because I certainly wouldn't want to hike all the way in. The road is so rough, not many stock 4x4s will make it through unscathed (absolutely no 4x2 vehicles or passenger cars). But it's absolutely breathtaking once you get to the formal end to the OHV trail. Just on the other side of a rock crossing is the continuation of the road that up until several years ago, was accessible by OHVs. You could drive a little bit farther to Goose Lake itself, giving you a wonderful starting point for any number of hikes. Grasshopper Glacier is filled with...grasshoppers, and it a 5-mile or so hike in from Goose Lake. It's another couple miles from where we now have to park.

This idea is really a non-issue, simply for the fact that caches are not possible in 'designated wilderness'. Some federal officials have gone ballistic even with virtual caches, because they either can't be made to understand, or simply don't want to understand that a virtual is exactly what it sounds like it is. A registry on open NF land is a good idea, and is implemented in various ways throughout the US. But to approach this same concept in 'designated wilderness' is simply impossible without some monumental changes. In 43 years, the Wilderness Act of 1964 has remained what it was created as in 1964. Ahhh, I see. So the issue is more directed at the 'designated wilderness' areas and the fact that it would take an act of congress to alter the specified guidelines in place. Thanks for clarifying. So if you wouldn't mind educating me further... Is fishing/hunting permitted in these areas (with a license) and is that part of the wilderness act as well (like an exemption or something)? Hunting/fishing are permitted under the Wilderness Act, except in places like national parks. Fishing isn't so much an issue as hunting is, because your average fish isn't going to weigh hundreds of pounds and have to be quartered and hoofed out (pun intended) in several trips because you couldn't drive your pickup or ATV in and load it up to take it out. The irony of all of this is mining claims. For those who had mining claims in existence before the designation being changed to wilderness, they can still access those claims with a vehicle such as an ATV, truck or snowmobile. There are several such claims near Cooke City, MT near Goose Lake and Grasshopper Glacier. Not trashing on hunters or anything, but I have to argue some logic. I enjoy hunting. But part of the issue among the environmentalists pushing for more wilderness is noise. A rifle report carries much farther than say, my Jeep idling up a two-track at 3mph, or even an ATV running a bit higher RPM. Since noise is apparently a critical issue, why isn't rifle hunting banned as well because of the noise disturbance a .303 or something would create?

Thanks for helping me clarify. I meant to include the cache placement approval as part of the process in my original post. As far as the feasible part of it, I have no clue, I kinda guess that's why I threw the idea out there. For those that may be better informed as to how feasible the idea is. This idea is really a non-issue, simply for the fact that caches are not possible in 'designated wilderness'. Some federal officials have gone ballistic even with virtual caches, because they either can't be made to understand, or simply don't want to understand that a virtual is exactly what it sounds like it is. A registry on open NF land is a good idea, and is implemented in various ways throughout the US. But to approach this same concept in 'designated wilderness' is simply impossible without some monumental changes. In 43 years, the Wilderness Act of 1964 has remained what it was created as in 1964.

Exactly. I find it incredibly disturbing how the environmental causes have no interest whatsoever in compromising for the benefit of all, while the OHV enthusiasts are all about compromise to give everyone equal opportunity to enjoy the land. When groups in this state get together with the various FS officials during discussions regarding the TM plans, the ultimate goal is to maintain a designation of 'multiple use' for trails wide enough for a full-size vehicle. This shuts out nobody as far as who gets to enjoy that same area. More narrow foot trails can remain human/horse access only, and I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. Other trails can become a combination of motorcycle/ATV use, if they are too narrow for a full-size vehicle to drive on. There will always be some degree of use segregation, and I believe to some degree it is necessary. But to segregate the land from 99% of the population is ludicrous. We all deserve to enjoy those lands, and not just when we can meet certain criteria.

I don't quite understand this. Your ATV, trailer and gear makes a lot bigger mound than my backpack (and I tend to carry way too much). While I can't say anything about your kids as I don't know them, during the thirty years I've worked with Jr/Sr High youth groups, I've seen the "ability" of the kids go downhill. When I first started some of the hiking trips we took were 10-15 miles for a weekend/three day trip. Now if it's two miles it's too far for them to go. As a young kid (early grade school) my family took hikes that were many miles long, why can't the kids of today do the same thing? I don't really believe that kids can't do as much - it seems more like the leaders perception of what they can do has changed. Maybe some of those sights will now become goals to achive, not mundane, every weekend sights. Camping equipment, especially that of the light, long-term back country hiking variety, is expensive. To purchase this equipment for a family of 4 is going to have a serious impact on the finances of most people. Currently, I don't own ATVs and I'm fine with that. My wife and I both own Jeeps, and we take those to go play. Besides the requisite recovery gear (tow ropes, snatch blocks, tree savers, etc), I pack lunch, some extra clothes, and the equipment the forest service mandates. Those items are: shovel, axe and a water bucket. If we take both vehicles, we don't take two of everything, except for the FS required gear, because that is a per-vehicle requirement. My children are also incredibly active, but just not capable of what I am...yet. If you expect a 6 year-old to handle a 30-mile hike, I've got news for you. Now, on many of our four-wheeling trips, we cache if they are in the area. As a result, my family gets to see some of the most gorgeous back country in the nation, we have some great bonding time, and we find some caches. If bills like this pass, in order to take what was previously a day-hike/drive, it becomes a 3-4 day (or more) ordeal to get in/out and back home. We would all lose out on some wonderful memories, including those the cacher who placed the cache we're seeking, who is trying to portray that vision to us through their cache placement. Areas I never would have seen or known about to go visit, I've discovered through caching. Some of that was seen through driving, and some through hiking, but most often a combination of both. Not only would we lose out on getting to those caches due to wilderness designation, but we wouldn't even be able to place those caches anymore. I really like how RK put it as far as land valuation for/from the people. That's probably the best way I've seen it phrased.

Yep.

I still fail to see why this would be bad. Don't label me insensitive but I don't want to see a paved "Handicap Access" road leading to the top of every pass. Unfortunately, you're throwing one heck of a twist on my words here. I wouldn't want to see that either, but the bottom line is ACCESS. The term access applying to all people, not just an elite group.

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

I agree wholeheartedly. I see it as a one-sided issue of take, take take, and no give, give, give. Don't even mention compromise, because it's clearly an all-or-nothing thing for the finalized designation. This effort, while under the guise of preserving the lands for future generations, couldn't be further from the truth. In all honesty, I believe that the ultimate goal of this effort is to protect the land from future generations, unless you are affluent enough to be able to afford the time off and mounds of equipment necessary to be able to enjoy those lands that are so remote due to the increased access closure as a result of more wilderness.

I'm not sure about the 10 to 1 thing. If you look at how many people in the US own snowmobiles, vs. how many own xc skiis, I doubt 10 times as many own snowmobiles. If snowmobiling gets banned, people (and their businesses) will adapt, as they have for centuries. It's like when they ban smoking in bars - bar owners say they'll go out of business, there will be unemployment, no one will visit that town or state anymore. But it's not true. All the people who didn't go to bars to hang out, eat, listen to live music before, because of the smoke, now do go out to bars, and they are actually doing better than before. When one door closes, another opens. And I admit, I'd like there to be snowcoach access into the park, for my xc skiing trip. Several national parks have banned private cars and visitors must use shuttles. And enough about my horse suggestion! I was just asking. I didn't say "use horses", I just asked if that would be an option. Cathy Cross-country ski ownership vs. snowmobile ownership is purely a regional thing. For example, in Arizona, you'll find few people owning sleds. But in Montana and places where snow is prevalent, sled ownership is actually quite high. In this state, I would put money on the ski-to-sled ownership being more of a 20-to-1 ratio or higher.

If you lived in West Yellowstone and depended on those businesses to feed your kids - you would think differently..... You're not listening - I would be going there, spending plenty of money, which would support the locals. Perhaps snowmobile shops would have to close, but other businesses would open and prosper. That's why I say the economy would change, but not necessarily be worse. There is just something wrong when the park rangers at the entrance booths have to wear gasmasks. On the contrary, you aren't considering that land is needed for the horses, laws need to permit them where you live, and the upkeep that far exceeds that of maintaining sleds, bikes, quads, 4x4s... There is a situation going on right now with the east entrance of Yellowstone. The officials are looking at closing it permanently during the winter, which has the strong potential of destroying two towns who rely heavily on this type of activity to survive. Not only would it affect snowmobilers, but anyone in a vehicle wishing to drive into the park from that entrance. Riding horses through several feet of snow is not a really functional way to get into those back country areas, so your argument for horses is really only applicable in non-winter months. Depending on where one lives, that can be a very short period of time, or an extremely long period where one can use horses for access. Horses as the alternative is not really a viable alternative in the long term. At the same time, there are those involved in the politics of these decisions that believe horses will be banned within the next decade, alongside all other OHV access.

That would involve thousands of dollars in additional expenditures, such as a tow rig, trailer, horses and upkeep of all of the above. Why should that be necessary? We have an issue just like the one you mentioned involving an area known as the Crazy Mountains. 50% of the range is wilderness, while the remaining 50% is under a Travel Management Plan. There was a push to increase the amount of wilderness significantly, shutting out all other forms of recreation except foot and horse traffic. Why? There was distinct separation before, yet that didn't seem to be good enough. In fact, during the required federal meetings during the comment period, it was learned from the forest service officials that the chief complaint about noise was one that had no backing whatsoever. There wasn't a single complaint that had come into their offices regarding too much noise, and appears to be nothing but a fabrication based on a perceived possibility. Hikers involved in the TM plan efforts have asked other hikers on the trail whether or not they've had noise problems. Aside from planes flying overhead at altitude, it's been dead silent. I know this isn't the case in all situations, but the issue of hikers and noise realistically has a very small occurrence rate. If it does, and the area is deemed 'multiple use', such interactions are possible, but not necessarily likely. During a trip to the Little Belt Mountains, we saw nobody but us the entire day.

The second and third options you mention are good things, but the top one seems to only apply to that section regarding the national park designations and doesn't apply to the rest of it.

No, I don't think we'll run out of land to live on, but we'll lose significant amounts of land to recreate on unless you meet certain criteria. That criteria limits access to hikers... While I love to hike, if I have to hike 20 or 30 miles to get to someplace that was previously accessible by say, a 5-mile hike, I will get to visit these areas much less frequently, if at all. One of my favorite areas to visit is becoming this example. No longer will I be able to 4-wheel on the old Jeep trail to the area known as Balancing Rock, like people in covered wagons did many, many years ago. I'll need to hike in for miles that before I could drive (or even bike into). My family will never get to see that land, as I learned about it on a trip my buddy and I went on. This is the ultimate problem I see here, since the decision to create millions of acres of new wilderness is akin to using a .44 to kill a fly on the wall. My entire family also loves to cache, so we would be stuck shuffling around on more sidewalk/asphalt than the beauty of the outdoors as this trend continues.

duplicate post

Caching is a secondary, or even tertiary way for me to enjoy the outdoors. I like to trail ride with my 4x4 club, participate in trail conservation efforts as both part of a club and as an individual, cache, fish, and even mountain bike from time to time. In this venue, to keep it on-topic, I presented it as an adverse impact to cachers. However, it affects nearly every outdoor recreation activity in a negative manner. Part of my problem with this is my children. Neither can handle the distance I can hike, let alone my wife. So we take trips in using our vehicles, and make a smaller trip of it, so everyone can enjoy equally. With every acre given the designated wilderness status, is another acre that my family and I cannot enjoy as a family anymore. Plain and simple, this robs many of the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, when the wilderness designation is applied. Those who have the physical means and financial capability to back-country hike for days/weeks at a time will be among the only folks who will get to enjoy the lands once they are taken from everyone else and given this designation.