2.1 millon acres gone - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009

[teotwaki]

Of that 274 M visits, only 61M are in NParks (as opposed to parkways, memorials, rec areas, etc)

How would these figures change if the park service changed the backcountry access rules? For one thing, how much backcountry area is closed to wheeled transport purely on administrative grounds, as opposed to area which does not have any roads?

Looking at the 2007 visitor statistics I see that the top ranked parks are:
Blue Ridge PKWY (6%) - that is a road, no backcountry
Golden Gate NRA (5%) - that is an urban rec area. Are bikes allowed there?
Great Smoky Mtns (3%) - an old park
...
Lake Mead NRA (3%) - again a rec area; access rules are much looser
...
Grand Canyon NP (1.6%) - are there good backcountry camping areas with closed roads?
...
Yosemite NP (1.3%) - again, an old park; have any roads been closed? Most visitors never leave the Valley
...
Yellowstone NP (1.1%) - most visitors drive the paved loops, stopping to look at the verious geysers and animals. Winter access via snowmobile has been a major bone of contention. But aren't most of the snow mobile trips, day trips out of W Yellowstone?
Olympic NP (1%) - again an old one; there are a limited number of access roads; none go through the park; I'm not aware of any being closed in the last couple of decades.
Rocky Mtn NP - again an old established one; most visitors stick to the paved ridge road, and day trips out of Estes.

Zion, Gand Teton, Acadia, Glacier - none of these have been known for 4x4 or backcountry driving

Joshua Tree, ranked 56th, is the first that I seen in the list where park growth may have restricted backcountry driving.

Death Valley, rank 90, 0.26%, 700,000 visitors. Allowing more backcountry driving here would not change the statistics very much.

Backcountry camping has had its ups and downs. At a peak around 1980, a low around 1990, back up in the late 1990s, lower now (though not as low as 1990). I doubt if those numbers can be tied to changes in wilderness designation.

Okay but we need the rest of the story if we are to dissect the numbers in detail. If we knock the 274 M down by 75% to 61 M and just leave the backcountry visits to 1.8 M that is still less than 3% of the visits attributable to a group of people in the minority. I suspect that the 1.8M has to go down a lot too. So do we leave it at 3% or go for less? Tail wagging the dog? Still a tiny-tiny group of folks getting special priviledge. (I am one of them as I go to wilderness areas.)

As before, I did not say that we should remove what wilderness we have, bulldoze new roads or whatever other falsehoods have been attributed to me. I say stop closing any more roads until there is some sort of plan, even to collect fees to help with the maintenance. Some try to deflect things with arguments that the roads were probably closed due to staffing shortages, funding shortages, etc. Fine, don't keep expanding wilderness that requires more staff and more management and requires funding that cannot be found for current parks and their already existing roads.

I understand that the camping numbers go up and down but if all of the same reports as I quoted were pulled I doubt we would see any shocking increase of the tiny-tiny percent of wilderness backpackers over the years. They're likely to remain a minority forever. Yes, I know wilderness is needed to be just that and doesn't need human backpackers roaming about, but it is also true that not all existing roads need to be closed just because we sneak in a bill that declares more wilderness in lands already under Federal control.

 

[kellymoe]

Gorgeous.

Absolute shame if they ever close this trail. All cherry stem trails are already closed in this area as it should be, there is no need for them as you can easily walk to anyplace in the area from the main road. It would be a very tough hike in from the nearest paved road if this area were to close, add to that the absolutely no water sources in the area unless you skied in in the winter which would actually be kid of fun.

It also sees relatively little traffic throughout the year and has stayed in very good shape. I have seen no litter or abuse in the area in the 20 plus years I have been camping in the area.

And if anyone thinks I am just selfish in wanting to keep this place open for myself and my kids, your damn right I'm being selfish.

 

[paulj]

In the past two years, this trail is now a memory:

So is this one:

This trail is on the closure list:

Which 'closure list' are you talking about? Pictures like this are an appeal to emotions, without providing information that helps us understand the details. Maps and links to the relevant legislation are more useful.

There was a post earlier in this thread about getting in a visit to the Ancient Pine Cones Forest before it was closed to everyone (except the select few). But with a little digging it was easy to show that the access to this Forest was not going to change under the new designation.

 

[paulj]

... Still a tiny-tiny group of folks getting special priviledge. (I am one of them as I go to wilderness areas.)....

So what is the relevance of the National Park backcountry figures? Is it just to prove that the number of people who are able and willing to hike to campsites is a small fraction of the population? Is the whole purpose of Wilderness designations to give this group more play area, and to limit the areas where wheeled campers can go? Is the whole thing a conflict between two special interest groups?

 

[teotwaki]

So what is the relevance of the National Park backcountry figures? Is it just to prove that the number of people who are able and willing to hike to campsites is a small fraction of the population? Is the whole purpose of Wilderness designations to give this group more play area, and to limit the areas where wheeled campers can go? Is the whole thing a conflict between two special interest groups?

The purpose of the backcountry figures is to dismiss the notion that wilderness is somehow being enjoyed by a majority of Americans and also that "saving it for our grandchildren" wrongly assumes that the grandchildren may ever see it. It truly is a minority of Americans that are actually willing to go into the wilderness and see it. The numbers are also offered in contrast to the laughably small number of Zogby participants that seems to be a sacred cow of some sort.

Despite the one hundred and forty one posts here I would hesitate to say it is a conflict between special interests groups. The conflict often comes from false assumptions about the "Other" side. The conflict also may start with the introduction and forced passage of a bill such as the OPLMA which only seems to harden opinions and stances.

Wilderness designations embrace incompatibility with mechanized travel so exisiting roads are closed down. Therefore a minority of people have access and others are "locked out".

 

[Ursidae69]

--nevermind.

 

[kellymoe]

Which 'closure list' are you talking about? Pictures like this are an appeal to emotions, without providing information that helps us understand the details. Maps and links to the relevant legislation are more useful.

There was a post earlier in this thread about getting in a visit to the Ancient Pine Cones Forest before it was closed to everyone (except the select few). But with a little digging it was easy to show that the access to this Forest was not going to change under the new designation.

I don't know about the first two trails Nathan is speaking of but the latter, the Papoose Flat trail has been under consideration for some time. I have been contacted to speak at public forums up and down the Owens Valley concerning road closures in the White Mountains and the Inyo Mountains of which Papoose Flat is located, but living 400 miles from the meeting locations it was a little tough to make it up there. For now Papoose Flat is still open and I believe escaped the final cut of the final draft. Many cherry stem roads in the White Mountains and the Inyos were closed and for the most part rightfully so, many went through very fragile areas including meadow areas.

Paulj also asked what the areas are like since the implementation of the Desert Protection Act of 1994, I thought it was 92, oh well. I can only speak to the areas that I frequent which are mainly the Saline Valley, the Inyo Mtns. and the White Mtns. I will speak only of the Saline Valley since I have noticed the most impact there.

Prior to the DPA the Saline Valley was a rarely visited and little known area to the West of Death Valley. I first arrived in the Saline in 1986 and it grabbed hold of my mind and has not let go since. It was mostly visited by hippies, miners and desert rats. There was a sense of community there like no other place I had ever been. People lived there for months at a time in converted school buses and VW buses, they were snow birds.

The area around the valley and especially the hot springs was spotless and well kept. For decades there had been a lawn and koi fish pond built by hippies and miner s that are still there today. Watered by hoses that are gravity fed by the springs. The outhouses were dug every 6-8 months and the old holes filled in. Smell from them was never and issue and it was impossible to tell where the old outhouses had been. The pools of the springs were meticulously kept clean. There was a sense of pride in how well everyone kept the area clean.

After the DPA the Death Valley NP absorbed the Saline Valley and the springs. Fortunately they turned a blind eye on the clothing optional tradition but that is about the only good thing they did do. Soon after that installed vault toilets that not only are an eyesore but a health hazard. These toilets are 60 miles from the closest paved road. 60 miles of washboard and washed out steep bumpy roads. How often do you think these toilets get pumped? The first truck that made it in said they would never come back, as a result toilets overflow into the desert and stench fills the air. Since they smell so bad people end up crapping all just outside the boundary of the camping area. The NPS attempted to build a kiosk for whatever reason but a little monkey wrenching did away with that. There is now a 30 day cumulative per year limit for camping and yet since the park service took over and the area gets more press the area is more crowded now than it has ever been.

Smaller roads in the area are now closed, not just with a small sigh but by bulldozing 8' high berms accross them and into the area around them. Talk about the destruction of cryptobiotic soil.

For as much as I MMMMM and moan about it I am thankful that I can still go there and enjoy it. I just long for the days when it smelled better and was cleaner, the days before the DPA.

 

[sinuhexavier]

Imagine if the proper stewardship had taken place in Southern California...

Would the Santa Monica Mountains still be covered in Redwoods?

Would more of the coast look like the Bixby Ranch rather than the Suburban mess it is today?

 

[paulj]

Seems that the Saline Valley problems are primarily administrative - the park service did not have the foresight and money to properly administer the area. As long as it remained unknown, user maintenance worked. I do not know whether the area would have remained unknown if it had not been included in the park or not. In a sense, the area used to be open to a few select users, not by a rule, but by the virtue of being unknown. But that kind of protection is fragile.

I haven't been able to find information as to whether Papoose Flat (or its neighborhood) had ever been included in a Wilderness Study Area or not. The text of the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act is available on line, as are detailed maps. The final version of the Omnibus (146) does not seem to be online yet, the January version (S22) that failed to get the 2/3 majority is online.

The majority of the opposition to the Omnibus bill (either version) came from Congressmen from outside of the states directly affected. The Senator from Oklahoma who led the fight was, as best I can tell, more concerned with oil exploration rights than recreational access.

The Eastern Sierra bill was, as best I can tell, crafted by the local representative, Buck McKeon. Did the local consultative process that he sponsored last year work? Talk of the Omnibus bill being rammed through ignores all the work that went into crafting the various parts at the state and local level, as well as consideration at the Congressional committee level.

I found an appeal by a pro-wilderness group for participation in some of these meetings last year. They indicated that Inyo County supervisors were strongly against any further wilderness designations, and that off-road groups were rallying their troops. Was Mono County more receptive? I noticed that on the list of newly designated Wilderness areas (or expansions) (on Boxer's site) all were in Mono (though I think some like White Mtn overlapped into Inyo).

News report of a bill hearing in Mono Country last June
http://www.californiawild.org/300-p...pport-wilderness-lets-do-it-again-inyo-county
and not quite so friendly Inyo meeting
http://www.californiawild.org/wilderness-activists-pack-inyo-county-hearings


I noted earlier that another part of the Omnibus was intiated by Owyhee County commissioners, apparently in an attempt to bring some closure to conflicting land use pressures (Air Force base use, Wilderness Study Areas, recreational users, and ranchers). An area Tribe also signed off on the final bill.

 

[teotwaki]

Jim,
I applaud your efforts to find the statistics to support your view, though I disagree and sense an attempt to manipulate the projected data. While total NPS Park visits & NPS Backcountry permits make for interesting statistics, they are skewed and not representative of total wilderness use statistics. Many different organizations manage wilderness areas, and the NPS receives the most number of ‘gift shop’ visitations than any other type of wilderness. In the NPS accounting system, you will get very high visitation numbers because there is usually a gate that charges admission or an electronic eye that counts vehicles passing by, which is then used to calculated # of visitors based on the average # of people per car. Backcountry permits are typically counted by the number of physical permits issued, not the number of actual users listed on the permit. For example: I visited Bryce last summer and did an overnight trip. My party of 3 was issued one permit and there was no accounting procedure to distinguish it from a permit issued to one or six people ( I think 6 was the magic number per camp site allowed). Therefore, the numbers could be much higher, especially when you factor in day hikers who are not required to file a permit. So, there is a significant difference between permits issued and actual visitors unless further analysis is conducted.
But the larger issue skewing these stats is the fact that overnight backcountry permits are extremely limited.
Most NPS units limit the number of people that can be at a particular site per day. It is extremely common for a particular overnight backcountry camp to be ‘sold out’ due to the severe limitations on the number of permits issued. There are many more people who would like a backcountry wilderness experience than the supply allows. .
Using this information, I guess you could advocate the creation of more wilderness to meet that demand : )

So now perhaps you can see why I do not find 1,797,912 NPS issued backcountry overnight permits to be a tiny tiny number though or relevant to the total value of a space. Statistically, it would appear to be in the best interest for the NPS to build more gift shops, paved roads, and lodges. Fortunately, we do not make our decisions on stats alone :sombrero:

Visitation to wilderness areas not administed by the NPS can be quite high. This is especially true in areas around NPS units, where users who were unable to get a backcountry permit tend to flock as an alternative. Unfortunately, it is estimated that 1 in 76 trail users actually sign the trailhead log books in these unadministered areas. Which then leads to visual assements to determine usage patterns.

I have participated in data collection for trail usage in the past when I worked with the USFS. 8.8 million trail users are estimated to have visited wilderness areas within the National Forest System annually between 2004-2006. Approx 35 million acres under management in the USFS. Extensive statistics can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/

We could talk stats all day long, but I'm guessing that is not very interesting or relevant to the discussion. In fact, I’d be surprised if anyone even read this far into my post. These days, wilderness is not created primarily as a visitor amenity, though it serves that purpose. Wilderness is not created to lock users out of the land either. It's supposed to protect the ecological resources we all benefit from, much like a wildlife refuge. If a particular use jeopardizes that resource, then isn’t it reasonable to restrict that use? How many rock climbers & hikers do you think are outraged at the seasonal closure of certain areas within the Granite Mountain Wilderness in the Prescott National forest in order to protect nesting peregrine falcons? I would call them short sighted too.

In the end, restriction is a tool used for protection. If we don’t find better tools to enable protection, expect more restriction. If we don’t protect these places, they will not be worth visiting in the future, regardless of your preferred means of travel.

I did read it all the way through and there is plenty of food for thought. I appreciate the tone of discussion and effort made to share thoughts and opinions. Issuing "challenges" is mostly grandstanding that accomplishes little more than creating animosity and frustration.

I am not one to manipulate stats and it was difficult for me to figure out that NPS had a whole batch of stats available. What is available did not offer the detail on number of users on a permit, who cancelled, and so on. If you go to the NPS web site that I referenced you will see that the number was for "Backcountry Campers" and not number of permits. Maybe I can email them and ask how the number is derived?

I'll make it easy because I know how hard it was for me to find something that should have been easy to discover: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm?selectedReport=SystemCampingReport.cfm


It is a given that all stats are skewed but how would we discover that if we are at the far end of the supply chain? I did not hide the source so I am interested in additional information and dissection.

The stats are not the end of discussion but they are a place to start and no matter how they have been parsed they still show that very few Americans get out in the backcountry. I don't think that I tried to equate low use of wilderness to low value.

 

[paulj]

Regarding the NP statistics, it may make more sense compare the backcountry camping numbers with the tent and RV camping numbers. For the year I looked at (working from memory):
backcountry: 1.7
tent: 2.8
rv: 4.3
Those proportions may be typical across the country of the split among RV, carcamping, and backpacking campers. In National Parks the backcountry numbers may include people who travel by horse, and may be even boat. For example when we visited Yellowstone some years ago, we spent two nights at a site on the shores of Yellowstone Lake, about an hour boat ride away from the launch.

But all visitors in parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite benefit from the roadless areas, even if they don't personally venture very far off the paved roads. The animals that create traffic jams would not graze that close to the roads if there ATVs and dirt bikes freely roamed the meadows.

In Denali, the park service runs a shuttle bus system, in an attempt to maximize the chance of visitors seeing wildlife, without disturbing it.

 

[Guinness44]

Bet almost nobody read the omnibus bill, and just said yeah, as its cool to be green right now. They dont care, most of the just dont, or even live close to an affected area. Then shove it thrugh again, fast, so nobody has time to read it..... again. comeon.

BTW, about having to get permits, for the backpackers, how about trying to get one anymore on for White Rim trail (unless it bakes outside, or is freezing cold). It takes luck or way ahead planning. So for popular areas, with mechanized travel, no different.

Wildlife is important to us: we always enjoy driving thrugh a herd of Elk, getting eagles visiting our house. Seems like they do fine, and often the wildlife argument gets thrown in, just to shut down some more land. But dare our side ask about access for people that cant hike/backpack? Lazy butts in the truck? My butt likes it there, then gets out and roams around many times a trip.

Let it go? No, its our land too. At this point there is something for everybody, as it should be. No more, but No less. Access for all on our public lands. Most important is educate the "not knowers". One hiker asked for solitude, THEY use a 4WD to get to their trailhead. cool. The solitude is starting right there, where the mechanized travel stops.

 

[teotwaki]

Regarding the NP statistics, it may make more sense compare the backcountry camping numbers with the tent and RV camping numbers. For the year I looked at (working from memory):
backcountry: 1.7
tent: 2.8
rv: 4.3
Those proportions may be typical across the country of the split among RV, carcamping, and backpacking campers. In National Parks the backcountry numbers may include people who travel by horse, and may be even boat. For example when we visited Yellowstone some years ago, we spent two nights at a site on the shores of Yellowstone Lake, about an hour boat ride away from the launch.

But all visitors in parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite benefit from the roadless areas, even if they don't personally venture very far off the paved roads. The animals that create traffic jams would not graze that close to the roads if there ATVs and dirt bikes freely roamed the meadows.

In Denali, the park service runs a shuttle bus system, in an attempt to maximize the chance of visitors seeing wildlife, without disturbing it.

Just got this email. Thought that I'd share it FWIW

From: Butch_Street@nps.gov [mailto:Butch_Street@nps.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Backcountry Campers in a calendar year

Jim,

It's mainly the number of people times the number of nights they stayed,
usually taken off permits. There are some estimates made that don't have a
very reliable permit system.

Thanks

Butch Street
303 343-2704

www.nature.nps.gov/stats

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Jeez. Gone for two days (to a lovely backcountry area with roads), and when I come back the debate has once again devolved to the supposition that wilderness doesn't deserve to exist unless a whole bunch of HUMANS go there.

So, once again, the anti-wilderness position, as I maintained from the start, centers entirely around anthropocentric arguments. Honestly, that's fine, as long as it's recognized that that's your argument. But my question then is, just exactly how many people do you think need to go to an area for it to deserve to exist? What about undervisited National Monuments and National Parks? Should they be decommissioned? And, um, what about backcountry roads and trails that have not been driven on for months or years? Using your logic, those shouldn't exist - am I getting this right?

What percentage of the American people have ever or will ever drive on a 4-plus rated 4WD trail? About the same percentage as use wilderness areas, I wonder? If so, those trails should either be shut down, or bladed so two-wheel-drive vehicles can negotiate them safely. Because, after all, those trails are . . . what was the word? Oh yes: GONE for millions of people who simply don't have the money to equip their vehicles with dual lockers and six-inch lifts and 35-inch tires. I mean, if we're talking actual numbers of visits by humans as the arbiter of things, I can come up with a whole slew of places that should be either shut down or paved, so that more people can go there.


Wilderness is about habitat and wildlife, not how many people go there.

As for this:

As for your oft-cited "majority" of Americans Zogby poll.....

The current population of the US (US Census Bureau today) 04/07/09 at 20:41 GMT (EST+5) is 306,169,421 of which the voting age population is (Wiki) 230,917,360 and somewhere around 169 million were actually registered and supposedly 58% voted, so leave it at 98 million. Now Zogby couches their number in the phrase "likely voters" so we'll divide 1,039 by 98 million to see how many Americans actually might side with your arguments according to the number that you embrace.

0.00106%

Uh, you weren't serious with that, right? Joke, right? Tell me you're claiming that you believe .00106 percent of Americans actually support wilderness.

A 1,000-strong poll is considered statistically significant by all political parties and every PAC I've ever worked with.

 

[paulj]

Bet almost nobody read the omnibus bill, and just said yeah, as its cool to be green right now. They dont care, most of the just dont, or even live close to an affected area. Then shove it thrugh again, fast, so nobody has time to read it..... again. comeon.

Would the outcome be any different if the component bills were voted on one by one? Wouldn't the same senators and representatives voted for each piece like they did on the whole?

There might have been some defections from the pro side. For example, the Idaho representation might not have voted for the California piece(s) if wasn't anything in it for their state. Here in the PNW, all representatives voted for the Omnibus bill, except for 2 from Washington State (one was Doc Hastings) - there weren't any locally crafted Washington pieces in the bill.

Among those that did vote against the omnibus, did they voice opposition to specific items, or did they vote against the broad idea of 'locking up' land needed for oil and mineral exploitation?