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

[Explorer 1]

I agree with Reagan

One thing I fear the most is that knock on the door and when I ask who it is I hear "Hello, I'm from the goverment and I'm here to help"

It will be interesting to see what existing road and trails they close now that they have the ability and authority.

Thanks,
Fred
Explorer 1

P.S. Besides there was no tax base from most of this land so maybe they can now charge a use fee.

 

[teotwaki]

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:




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.

While you were gone there was actual discussion as opposed to another accusatory leap to conclusions. Any near-term trips planned? :elkgrin:

How about answering these questions?

Who paid for the poll and why was it done?
How were those people chosen?
What area (nation, state, or region)?
What group (teachers,lawyers, Democratic voters, etc.) were these people chosen from?
Are the results based on the answers of all the people interviewed?
Who should have been interviewed and was not?
Do response rates matter?
When was the poll done?
What is the sampling error for the poll results?
What other kinds of factors can skew the poll results?
What questions were asked?
In what order were the questions asked?
What other polls have been done on this topic?
Do they say the same thing?
If they are different, why are they different?

As for Zogby:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/03/24/zogby-poll-rears-its-head-again-right-wingers-swoon/

As we saw during the 2008 election, John Zogby’s polls are ridiculous. They’re ridiculous when they’ve shown Democrats in the lead, and ridiculous when they’ve shown Republicans in the lead. A Zogby poll is like Jim Cramer telling you to buy Bear Stearns but even less accurate. So its no wonder conservative blogs like Powerline (are they still looking for the Democrat who wrote the Schiavo memo?) and conservative newspapers like the Boston Herald are flogging a Zogby poll that’s supposedly going to show Obama at 50%. It isn’t that I don’t think the President’s numbers will fluctuate over time (though I’d go out on a limb and say he’s never going to hit the sub-25% that was the last 3 years of his predecessor), but Zogby just isn’t credible.

Right now the credible pollsters have President Obama’s approval rating at about 59%.

and more
The Worst Pollster in the World Strikes Again
by Nate Silver @ 9:35 AM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/worst-pollster-in-world-strikes-again.html

 

[paulj]

It will be interesting to see what existing road and trails they close now that they have the ability and authority..

I don't follow. What 'ability and authority' do 'they' have now, that 'they' did not have before?

 

[Explorer 1]

Who does the management....

Perhaps it is my ignorance but isn't "Designated Wildness Areas" managed by another agency than the BLM?

And if so, aren't the rules changed on determining what impact an existing trail or road may have on that "Wilderness"?

Thanks,
Fred
Explorer 1

 

[teotwaki]

Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management manages about 270 million acres, 7,796,842 of which are Wilderness. Among other activities, the Bureau conserves these lands and their historical and cultural resources for the public's use and enjoyment.

Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service conserves the nation's wild animals and their habitats by managing a system of more than 500 national wildlife refuges and other areas, totaling about 91 million acres of land and water, 20,702,350 of which are Wilderness.

Forest Service
The Forest Service manages national forests and grasslands. It conducts forestry research and works with forest managers on state and private lands. The Forest Service oversees nearly 200 million acres of national forest and other lands, 35,479,099 of which are Wilderness.

National Park Service
The National Park Service was established to protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources and to provide places for recreation. The Park Service manages 51 national parks and more than 300 national monuments, historic sites, memorials, seashores, and battlefields. It oversees 43,383,389 acres of Wilderness.

From the Sierra Club

"Each wilderness possesses individual characteristics. The application of wilderness management techniques should reflect the individuality of each wilderness within the context of requirements to preserve the wilderness resource. Wilderness management plans should provide for flexibility in meeting conditions that vary with location and time.

Pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may have been included when a wilderness was designated. Maintenance and/or replacement of such structures and continuation of such uses should be determined within the context of site-specific management requirements of each wilderness"

 

[paulj]

The East Sierra portion of the Omnibus bill has maps that clearly define the boundaries of the new Wilderness Areas (and additions). Those maps include clear exclusions for roads that will not be included in the Wilderness. Anything within the boundaries will be closed to wheeled travel. The outlines of roads that will remain open are clear in the map for the White Mountains Wilderness, and the adjacent ABP Forest (which is not WIlderness). I've also seen such lines in the Muir Wilderness additions map I. Some of the boundaries were adjusted during the local consultation process, taking into account, for example, streams that ranchers have been using for years. I don't think BLM and FS have much discretion in this area.

I think that, for the Owyhee area, the maps outline the Wilderness areas in somewhat less detail (though someone noticed that the Owyhee Byway is outside any Wilderness area, as I would expect). The text of the bill charges BLM with holding public meetings to further define access routes. That includes a select number of public routes across private land.

Some new Wilderness Areas already existed as Wilderness Study Areas. I don't know if boundaries are being adjusted on any of those.

In general, Wilderness Area boundaries have been drawn to exclude existing roads.

 

[cnynrat]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. It has been demonstrated that demand exceeds supply when it comes to the NPS backcountry areas. Perhaps more should be created to meet that form of low impact recreation.

I don't agree with your assertion above. To take an example from the Sierras; it's true that for the Mt Whitney trailhead you need to apply for a permit well in advance, and virtually all weekend permits will be taken throughout the non-winter months. To a somewhat lesser extent the same is true for some other popular trailheads. On the other hand, there are trailheads in the Sierras where I can get a permit on pretty much any weekend I want without any advance planning. So, considering the totality of the designated wilderness in the Sierras there is an excess of capacity relative to current demand.

The same is true for permits to access technical canyons in Zion NP. Certain popular canyons will be fully booked for nearly all weekends during the 'season,' and many weekdays will be booked as well. But, there are other less popular canyons where the daily limits are reached infrequently.

So, some premier wilderness areas are over-subscribed, but other areas rarely reach their usage limits. Unless there are some locations with "premier wilderness characteristics" that have not yet been designated wilderness, adding more wilderness probably does little to alleviate the demand for the current popular areas.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I'm with you, Jeff. We're how many pages into this, and nothing has been accomplished. It's uncomfortably akin to arguing religion.

Jim: I've honestly tried to present my arguments for wilderness in the form of documentable, scientific justification. But when I present such arguments, you call it lecturing. When I present challenges that are open invitations for legitimate debate (such as, prove that wilderness doesn't make better habitat), you say challenges aren't productive. When I present the results of polls showing that a distinct majority of the American people support wilderness, you dismiss the the poll as ridiculous, without offering any opposing poll proving your apparent counterclaim that only .00106 percent of Americans support wilderness. Instead you want me to answer 20 questions about the poll I referenced. That's simple obfuscation.

Other direct questions I've asked are simply ignored (what about blading those 4-plus trails that lock out so many people?). The arguments always circle back to the same thing. Wilderness locks people out. It's elitist. Not enough people go there to justify adding more. Not everyone can backpack 60 pounds 20 miles. All clearly countered by science and logic as well as public opinion.

So I guess I need to be satisfied that in the wider court of public opinion, the concept of wilderness retains widespread support, a sign that most Americans are still capable of thinking beyond their own recreational whims.

You aren't in favor of more wilderness; I am. The science of habitat and wildlife conservation is clearly on my side, as is - for now - a majority of the American people. My fear is that if we don't get more children out enjoying all kinds of open space, we'll lose all of it. Wilderness will simply be the first to go, because the salient problem facing children today is inactivity and obesity. Thus it stands to reason that if they do go outdoors, they'll naturally gravitate to the least strenuous means to do so. But that's just the first step. Soon they'll realize that they don't even have to drive anywhere; it's all there on Animal Planet. Why move off the couch?

That's the ultimate fate implied by all these "not enough people go there" arguments. And in the end, habitat and wildlife will lose. Silent Running, here we come.

 

[paulj]

This Oregon newspaper article points out that Wilderness designation has limiting effect on hikers - groups larger than 12 are not allowed.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/terryrichard/2009/04/rocky_mountain_national_park_g.html#more

I remember a glaciology prof talk about this. The field trip that he led to glaciers on Mt Baker (WA) normally used the south side, which is a NRA. One year, due to trail conditions, he took the group up the north side, through a Wilderness area. To get around the group size limit, he had to split the class into several groups.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Chuck was smart. He avoided the many bruises that come from beating one's head against the wall.

 

[bugnout]

Lots of details and lots of posts, and I'm having a little trouble following all the arguments, but I believe it boils down to a difference of opinion on how to protect the land. I don't think either side is debating that the land shouldn't be protected. Just how it should be protected.

Those that advocate designating it National Wilderness Areas want to protect it by denying access to all but those willing to walk in.

Those that advocate designating it as something else, like National Recreational Areas want to protect it, yet come up with workable access plans so all Americans can enjoy these areas.

Lots of good points about the impact of humans, but I believe impact can be managed by education, management and enforcement. (All of which are underfunded today)

So far I haven't heard any compelling arguments why closing these places serves anyone's interests. What do we gain as Americans and humans?

 

[paulj]

Those that advocate designating it National Wilderness Areas want to protect it by denying access to all but those willing to walk in.

That's a gross simplification of what the Wilderness designation does. Under ADA, wheelchairs can be used in Wilderness areas. That is, they have permission to use any road or track that their chair can handle. However, no agency has the obligation to make the trails chair friendly.

The traditional alternative to foot travel is usually allowed - horses. Boats, such as canoes and kayaks, can also be used in Wilderness areas. Except for emergency cases, FS and BLM personel must follow these same rules.

The prohibition on commercial activity, and road building by FS or BLM to facilitate it, is, arguably, a more significant part of the Wilderness rules than the prohibition on wheeled traffic. I pointed out earlier that people are campaining for a Wilderness designation in some unlogged areas around the scenic Rogue River in Oregon. Wheeled access isn't an issue (yet), because there are no roads or tracks into these dense woods. But BLM is considering building roads so the area can be logged.

Wilderness designation is more about preventing the construction of new roads, than it is about blocking access to existing ones. More often than not, existing roads are 'cherrystemmed' out of the Wilderness area when it is setup.

cherry-stem v. to extend a spur of unprotected non-wilderness land, especially a dead-end road or trail, through a protected wilderness area. Also as a noun and as the form

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/cherry_stem/
take a look at the citations

 

[teotwaki]

I'm with you, Jeff. We're how many pages into this, and nothing has been accomplished. It's uncomfortably akin to arguing religion.

Nothing has been accomplished = NOBODY AGREES WITH MY POINT OF VIEW

It is likely due to your frame of reference: ARGUING!

Think "DISCUSSION"

If somebody disagrees with you and it is always an "argument" you should re-evaluate your approach. Maybe you just want people to agree with you?

Jim: I've honestly tried to present my arguments for wilderness in the form of documentable, scientific justification. But when I present such arguments, you call it lecturing. When I present challenges that are open invitations for legitimate debate (such as, prove that wilderness doesn't make better habitat), you say challenges aren't productive. When I present the results of polls showing that a distinct majority of the American people support wilderness, you dismiss the the poll as ridiculous, without offering any opposing poll proving your apparent counterclaim that only .00106 percent of Americans support wilderness. Instead you want me to answer 20 questions about the poll I referenced. That's simple obfuscation.

I will take it at face value that you have honestly tried. Why can't you do the same for everyone else you have put down with your comments about people's intent and various types of name-calling? You could have moved Nwoods thread with a simple comment that it was a better fit in this area but no, you just had to pronounce judgment of his "intent".

When I issued "challenges" to you you have ignored them. (NO SURPRISE!) You presented none of the data I asked for to justify the poll or some of your other claims. Tell me why anybody at all has to pay any attention to your "challenges"? What makes them special? You are a moderator? You are the EIC of OJ? You'll post up a message with ten different items and when most are ignored you interpret that as some sort of vindication of your POV or that the target of your wrath cannot prove "their" point. Bad technique.

You attributed a bogus quote to me but never proved the source. Get the point? You want your targets to be "smart hands" and do all of the work but you provide little response of your own when requested.

Other direct questions I've asked are simply ignored (what about blading those 4-plus trails that lock out so many people?). The arguments always circle back to the same thing. Wilderness locks people out. It's elitist. Not enough people go there to justify adding more. Not everyone can backpack 60 pounds 20 miles. All clearly countered by science and logic as well as public opinion.

Maybe you honestly thought blading a road was a direct question. If you wanted more you could have said "Hey, just for the sake of discussion, should we also consider improving access in some areas just to whet people's appetites to go really far into the back country?" Don't you get it that a lack of response to such questions says that at the least they are uninteresting and at worst just plain stupid?

Science and Logic? Where did you personally make any effort to research and present any numbers about who goes where? At least I've been in contact with the NPS and presented their own wilderness numbers for discussion. Posting one drive-by Zogby poll is neither science nor logic on display.

So I guess I need to be satisfied that in the wider court of public opinion, the concept of wilderness retains widespread support, a sign that most Americans are still capable of thinking beyond their own recreational whims.

Then go take another 2 day trip and relax! There is no need for you to be upset when you cannot impose (argue) your point of view into the discussion. Don't forget that while you are gone that forum discussions are capable of going on without you. It was more sad than funny when you bemoaned "Jeez. Gone for two days (to a lovely backcountry area with roads), and when I come back the debate has once again devolved...." as if no one is capable of discussing wilderness without your sage presence.

Agavelvr, Paulj and I were able to kick some interesting things around until you came back to un-devolv the discussion. We may not have agreed on anything at all but it was a nice discussion and I know I learned some good things along the way.

You aren't in favor of more wilderness; I am. The science of habitat and wildlife conservation is clearly on my side, as is - for now - a majority of the American people. My fear is that if we don't get more children out enjoying all kinds of open space, we'll lose all of it. Wilderness will simply be the first to go, because the salient problem facing children today is inactivity and obesity. Thus it stands to reason that if they do go outdoors, they'll naturally gravitate to the least strenuous means to do so. But that's just the first step. Soon they'll realize that they don't even have to drive anywhere; it's all there on Animal Planet. Why move off the couch?

And you are doing what to get children out there? You are setting the example with your recent two-day mechanized trip? We'd all applaud any honest effort at all but I have no idea what you are doing about it. Please start a new thread so we can all admire your generous community efforts.

That's the ultimate fate implied by all these "not enough people go there" arguments. And in the end, habitat and wildlife will lose. Silent Running, here we come.

Your gloomy view is quite evident in all of your posts. Everybody is "arguing" with you. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Lots of good points about the impact of humans, but I believe impact can be managed by education, management and enforcement. (All of which are underfunded today)

So far I haven't heard any compelling arguments why closing these places serves anyone's interests. What do we gain as Americans and humans?

You're absolutely right about the underfunding of education and management and, especially, enforcement (because we all know there are users out there who have no desire to be educated).

I'll repeat that these places are not closed, except to mechanical contrivances, period. As to what we gain as humans, that's simple: We gain the immense satisfaction that can only be experienced by putting a higher goal ahead of one's own convenience. The goal of wilderness is specifically not to see how many humans go there, but to ensure the best conditions for the habitat and wildlife, and to simply leave a little bit of land untrammeled by machines. To, if I may, give back a bit to the world for all we've taken.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Jim, I think you're the one who needs a stress pill. My blood pressure hovers right around 120/60 all the time.

And you are doing what to get children out there? You are setting the example with your recent two-day mechanized trip? We'd all applaud any honest effort at all but I have no idea what you are doing about it. Please start a new thread so we can all admire your generous community efforts.

Wrong challenge to the wrong guy, Jim. Let's discuss that one over a beer sometime.