https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro Should it be designated, or not? en-us 2017-12-06 23:48:49 UTC 2017-12-12 15:52:38 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Xmastree.png conor_baranski https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115755 2017-12-11 17:09:32 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115755 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115809 I believe that Scotchman´s peak should be designated as wilderness because it would be too hard to recover resources from that area. ]]> 2017-12-11 17:09:40 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115809 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115877 In our opinion we do think Scotchman Peaks should be designated wilderness. We think this because, Scotchman Peaks is already being treated as such  and the only thing that would really change is the title the area holds. Not only that but because we feel it is important to preserve the land for generations to come so they can see the beauty in nature rather than just the miracles of Technology. It has multiple species that inhabit the area proposed and we feel it is important to protect the critical habitats for the animals including Mountain Goat, Grizzly Bear, Canada Lynx, Wolverine, Fisher, Wolves, Bull Trout and  West Slope Cutthroat.]]> 2017-12-11 17:09:50 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115877 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115912

1. Scotchman's Peak should be designated as wilderness by the US congress. Scotchman's Peak and the area surrounding it is a valuable resource not for timber and mining but a recreational resource for current and future generations to come. In Senate bill 3531, made the Idaho portion of the Scotchmans Peaks into wilderness, becoming a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The North Idaho area now will not be host to certain public land, mining, mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, timber companies, rather let the USDA carryout management strategies and activities to aid in preservation of the Scotchman's Peak.

]]> 2017-12-11 17:09:54 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115912 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115945 It should be designated because it doesn’t change the way individuals access the land very much as opposed to recomended access. the bill changes the way the forest service and other care takers acces the land and what tools they are aloud to use. (Least invasive) Also because as a law reversing the down the road would harder.]]> 2017-12-11 17:09:58 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115945 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115989 I think it should be designated because it is already proposed wilderness, and nothing will really change besides for our nature and wildlife being even more protected. Also north Idaho has no federally protected land and we should preserve our beautiful land.]]> 2017-12-11 17:10:04 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215115989 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215116015 We think the wilderness should be designated because designation would not have a substantial impact on the rules and regulations of the area, which is a big argument from the opposing side. ]]> 2017-12-11 17:10:07 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215116015 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215116095 because the bill isn't changing anything, or fixing a problem. The bill is just protecting this place for future generations.  North Idaho has no designated land compared to the states surrounding us, so it would cause a positive impact to protect some of that wildlife in our area. ]]> 2017-12-11 17:10:17 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215116095 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215116336 I don't think that it should be designated because it is already proposed wilderness and if it became federally protected very little would change. The federal government would take power away from the community where the people closest to the proposed forest are the ones more greatly affected therefore they should have control. The argument that it needs to be protected from logging interest is invalid because one of the biggest logging companies in the country has said it is not interested in logging the area because it would not be economically beneficial proving that the area does not NEED to be designated in order to prevent logging. ]]> 2017-12-11 17:10:52 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215116336 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215117182 The Scotchman Peaks wilderness area should be designated as it would be very beneficial to the community as well as nature. The Friends of the Scotchman Peaks claim that no limits or regulations will change, and they want it to be officially protected so no outside forces could potentially damage the land. In my opinion there isn't enough evidence to support the area not becoming designated.]]> 2017-12-11 17:12:30 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215117182 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215120621 I think it should be designated as a wilderness because it would be to hard to recover resources and there is to much life there that could be harmed.

]]> 2017-12-11 17:19:07 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215120621 https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215120940 We think that the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness area should be designated as wilderness by the US Congress because the area is already treated as a national park, the only thing that would change is the title on the land. The land is also very beautiful and the future generations should be able to see it.

]]> 2017-12-11 17:19:48 UTC https://padlet.com/conor_baranski/gwp11igbnqro/wish/215120940