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

[GaryMc]

This brings up an interesting question, I wonder how many people on both sides of the fight, have actually spent any time in a true wilderness area?

If someone hasn't experienced true wilderness, how could that person possibly understand its value?

I'm leaving the office and heading out to one of our wilderness areas right now! The plus side for me is I'll be getting paid to be there... ; )

 

[paulj]

Idaho Sen Crapo was the sponsor of the Owyhee portion of the Omnibus.

The Owyhee Initiative is a collaborative effort with a broad representation, started by the Owyhee County Commissioners in 2001, to address and resolve decades-old land management issues in Owyhee County, Idaho.

http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/owyhee_initiative.cfm

There is a link to S.2833 which he introduced in the Seanate a year ago.

http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/ is also a good source of information on this area
The list of supporters is here
http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/supporters.htm
http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/agreement.htm
Search this for 'cherrystem' to see what is intended regarding wilderness roads.

Travel and Recreation: The Bureau of Land Management will complete and enforce transportation plans for public lands in Owyhee County. The transportation plans will include a multiple use trail system that will provide a wide range of recreational opportunities and experiences for all users. Off-highway vehicles, will be limited to designated routes and trails through the public planning process. The vast majority of Owyhee County will be closed to cross-country motorized vehicle use.

One area of conflict in this county was travel across private land. Some public land access routes cross private land, and people traveling off-road on public land often cross over onto private land.

Retaining and improving public access to public lands was raised as an issue of critical importance. The OI was able to secure seven additional, permanent public access routes through private lands, and finalize agreements with other landowners through land exchanges, to establish a total of 13 permanent public access rights-of-way. Any public land exchanged with landowners will require continued public access.

 

[teotwaki]

I honestly don't consider this to be an attack, ad hominem or otherwise. As far as I can determine, what those who are against wilderness are saying really does boil down to a statement that simple. Read back over the posts here, even Lance's, and they essentially say exactly what I wrote. If they can't drive there, they don't want it there.

Except, in most cases, it's worse, because most of those arguing against wilderness are perfectly capable of walking, and could easily enjoy any wilderness area in the country if they chose to do so. So - again, as far as I can determine - the argument from those able-bodied people really boils down to, "If I don't feel like going there, it doesn't need to be there."

Not an attack; just a frank distillation of their own stances. I wasn't attempting to be disrespectful, just concise - although I certainly do consider it to be an unfortunate philosophy.

To be just as frank, your "distillations" (assumptions) are dead wrong as you love to lecture far far more than you actually listen.

Sample: "However, I think it is possible to appreciate wilderness on a purely intellectual basis, by realizing that it represents our best efforts as a society to preserve habitat for a higher benefit than our own."

Locking up so much "wilderness" will accomplish just that: KEEP OUT! Intellectual Access Only

The only way people will see the area is intellectualy as 99% of Americans no longer go out to recreate in the "wild". As we concentrate more and more folks into fewer and fewer accessible places we enact tighter rules, implement shuttle buses, restrict camping and basically turn away more folks.

The much vaunted NPR ran an article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18698731) that says as we lock up all the land we have less Americans getting out, content to curl up with their big screen TVs and play video games.

 

[paulj]

The much vaunted NPR ran an article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18698731) that says as we lock up all the land we have less Americans getting out, content to curl up with their big screen TVs and play video games.

The way you have summarized the article makes it sound as though 'locking up land' is the cause for not 'getting out'. The article does not imply anything like that.

The study author

speculates that the declines could have a variety of long-term causes, ranging from rising gas prices to increases in the amount of time spent in front of video games and TV screens.

.
In other words, the cause goes the other way. As people become couch potatoes, they get out less. The problem is not that there are fewer places to get out to. I also suspect there has been a shift to less 'nature based' activities, ones that weren't well represented in their data set (snow boarding, ATV, snow mobiles, thrill rides of various sorts).

From a paper listed at Dr Pergams's web site: http://home.comcast.net/~oliver.pergams/

In conclusion, all major lines of evidence point to a general and fundamental shift away from people's participation in nature-based recreation ... The root cause may be videophilia, as our previous work suggests....

In a paper titled 'Videophilia: Implications for Childhood Development and Conservation', he defines videophilia as

the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media

Videophilia is contrasted with 'biophilia', the 'innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processeses', or 'the innately emotional affiliation of human beings with other living organisms'.

 

[kellymoe]

This act that was passed seems well thought out and takes into consideration all users. It keeps many of the 4x4 roads open to use including several smaller trails. There was a lot of public input at several meetings up and down the Owens Valley and the high desert and all was taken into consideration. This was about as good a compromise on both sides as could be wished for. Of course there will always be those who are disappointed with the final result.

My call to all is dont be narrow minded, think of both sides without emotion to the extent that is possible. Land needs to be preserved and access needs to be addressed, but to what extent and at what cost? Should all the desert southwest be off limits to vehicle traffic? There are those who think it should. There are also those who would like zero restrictions, neither of these options are optimal for a us or anyone.

Take care of what we have, travel with minimum impact and maybe issues like this will slowly become a thing of the past.

 

[teotwaki]

...........SNIP------------
.
In other words, the cause goes the other way. As people become couch potatoes, they get out less. The problem is not that there are fewer places to get out to. I also suspect there has been a shift to less 'nature based' activities, ones that weren't well represented in their data set (snow boarding, ATV, snow mobiles, thrill rides of various sorts).-----SNIP.........

Well, if one were to actually read what he says on the topic of video games versus camping he does not reach your own conclusion but merely suggests correlation:

....This decline, coincident with the rise
in electronic entertainment media, may represent a shift in recreation choices...

and again

....After many decades of iconic status in American family
recreation, National Parks visits may be one casualty of a
social change in values characterized by our increasing
pursuit of electronic media entertainment...

and again hedges

....If it is indeed true that people have changed their behavior, that they go to national parks less (at least in part) because
they are more sedentary and use electronic media more...

and in the conclusion

....We may be seeing evidence of a fundamental shift away from people’s appreciation of nature...

Which in no way disproves the correlation that I have suggested.

KEEP OUT! Intellectual Access Only!

 

[paulj]

Perjam's hedging is typical of what one finds in academic writing. I agree that correlation does not prove cause. In one of his paper he notes that capacity of National Parks (I'm not sure that is in space or camping spots) peaked in the 1990s. He did not find a correlation between capacity and usage.

Near the start of one the papers he notes that some have suggested that the drop in NP attendance could be attributed to a rise in popularity of ATVs, which are generally not usable in those parks. That is in part why he looked at other indicators, such as attendance at other parks, FS campgrounds, fishing and hunting licenses.

I don't think there is anything in his data that tracks the opening or closing of backcountry to ORV use. Nor does the data measure the popularity of ORVs. I keep reading that ATV use has exploded in the past couple of decades. Where are those riders camping? Or do most just go out on day trips?

You have to look at other data to make any connection between the designation of Wilderness areas, and their level of recreational use.

 

[luk4mud]

I went glassy eyed several posts ago at "solipsistic".

Any chance we can discuss whether they will keep the road open to the bristlecones again?

 

[paulj]

The Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Heritage Act

should take you to the text fo S.3069, the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act. The Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest is discussed in detail toward the end (Sec 9). Sec. 3 is about designation of wilderness areas.

p21 "To conserve and protect the Ancient Bristlecone Pines by maintaining near-natual conditions and to sensure the survival of the Pines for the purposes of public enjoyment and scientific study ..."

p24 "In general" management for the forest will incorparate the Inyo NF management plan (1988) "regarding roads, trails, and facilities developement, motor vehicle use, etc"

Fact_sheet052708_rev.pdf
Other Designations
Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest
"The bill gives permanent protection ... while allowing for continued scientific research ... prohibiting the construction of additional roads and enforcing existing special management"

Between all of this, and the map I looked at earlier, it is clear that existing roads and structures (or their replacement) will remain in use.

 

[silverscout]

I honestly don't consider this to be an attack, ad hominem or otherwise. As far as I can determine, what those who are against wilderness are saying really does boil down to a statement that simple. Read back over the posts here, even Lance's, and they essentially say exactly what I wrote. If they can't drive there, they don't want it there.

Except, in most cases, it's worse, because most of those arguing against wilderness are perfectly capable of walking, and could easily enjoy any wilderness area in the country if they chose to do so. So - again, as far as I can determine - the argument from those able-bodied people really boils down to, "If I don't feel like going there, it doesn't need to be there."

Not an attack; just a frank distillation of their own stances. I wasn't attempting to be disrespectful, just concise - although I certainly do consider it to be an unfortunate philosophy.

In your haste to lump all Expo Members who disagree, you’ve neglected one small principal. Choice.

If I choose to walk, that is my choice. If I choose to ride my unicycle, that is my choice. If I choose to drive, that’s my choice. Conversely, if I choose not to go at all, that’s my choice. For you to assume that all others should concede to your position strictly because you‘ve issued them an ultimatum, walk or stay home, is elitist and destructive.

The road’s already exist, why strip all of us of the right to enjoy them and encourage civil disobedience. Keep the roads open to all.

With respect.

 

[teotwaki]

Perjam's hedging is typical of what one finds in academic writing. I agree that correlation does not prove cause. In one of his paper he notes that capacity of National Parks (I'm not sure that is in space or camping spots) peaked in the 1990s. He did not find a correlation between capacity and usage.

Near the start of one the papers he notes that some have suggested that the drop in NP attendance could be attributed to a rise in popularity of ATVs, which are generally not usable in those parks. That is in part why he looked at other indicators, such as attendance at other parks, FS campgrounds, fishing and hunting licenses.

I don't think there is anything in his data that tracks the opening or closing of backcountry to ORV use. Nor does the data measure the popularity of ORVs. I keep reading that ATV use has exploded in the past couple of decades. Where are those riders camping? Or do most just go out on day trips?

You have to look at other data to make any connection between the designation of Wilderness areas, and their level of recreational use.

Good point about the ORVs' popularity as there are so many of the Yamaha Rhino types of vehicles out there it is amazing

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

If I choose to walk, that is my choice. If I choose to ride my unicycle, that is my choice. If I choose to drive, that's my choice. Conversely, if I choose not to go at all, that's my choice. For you to assume that all others should concede to your position strictly because you‘ve issued them an ultimatum, walk or stay home, is elitist and destructive.

The road's already exist, why strip all of us of the right to enjoy them and encourage civil disobedience. Keep the roads open to all.

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument - or you didn't understand mine. I never said anyone shouldn't have freedom of choice. You're perfectly free to choose to go or not to go into a wilderness area. In fact, it is you who are attempting to deny freedom of choice to those of us who enjoy visiting the very few places left where we don't have to listen to the sound of engines. You have 94 percent of the country for your freedom of choice. Will you not grant me 6 percent for mine?

Gentlemen, many of you arguing against wilderness here are losing your way and returning to the same old fallacious outbursts: "LOCKED UP!" "2.1 million acres gone!" There are a few posts genuinely debating specifics, but no one has yet addressed my "lecture" by offering any data to contradict it. In point of fact, I'm perfectly willing to listen. Just give me something besides platitudes. Please?

Show me data that proves wilderness does not make the best wildlife habitat. Heck, show me data that casts doubt on it. I'm easy.

Show me data that proves wilderness does not represent core habitat that provides edge effect in adjacent roaded areas, thus offering benefits even to those who choose not to visit the wilderness itself.

Show me data that proves there are fewer roads on public land now than 45 years ago, when the Wilderness Act passed. This is your core argument, the "losing access" stance, by which of course you mean "losing vehicular access." However, none of you has even shown that essential assumption to be true.

Finally, prove me wrong that arguing against wilderness is anything but a self-centered position. You can't accuse me of insulting you with that statement unless you can prove it wrong. Jeez, even Lance fully agrees that wilderness has its place; in fact he has expressed willingness to see new ones; he and I simply disagree on whether certain new wilderness areas might be worth creating that would involve shutting down an existing road. That's a straightforward philosophical debate. We might never agree on that point, but I can respect that disagreement. I have no respect for knee-jerk "2.1 million acres gone!" outbursts, because such statements are patently false.

 

[kellymoe]

Did someone say wilderness was bad?? Access seems to be the only issue here that people are upset about. If you want to talk roads that have been closed in the las 45 years I can sit down with you sometime with a beer and maps and show you how many roads have been shut down in the Southern California and Eastern California area. I have no idea how to pull that info up on a computer but can do so easily on a map or taking you for a drive some weekend.

On the topic of closures, there is a trail here in Red Rock Cyn State park outside Mojave called Nightmare Gulch. It's a moderate 4x4 trail that runs through a bird of prey nesting area. A system was worked out where 4x4's can uses the trail on the last week of the month for half the year and hikers hace access year round. It is probably not exactly like that but the point is that limited access seems to work very well. It just as easily could have been shut down for good but the two opposing sides had their input and this is what was the state park came up with. I think this is an example of the "system" working.

I think some of you guys need to take a few deep breaths and calm down. We can all agree that we would rather be outside away from our desk, some may like to backpack while others like to drive. I like to do both. Which makes me think that when I go backpacking I go places where I never hear a engine except a jet engine. When I go wheeling I go places that most people would never consider backpacking. I think that issue woks itself out most of the time anyway.

I dont have spell check, back off:ylsmoke:

 

[silverscout]

In fact, it is you who are attempting to deny freedom of choice to those of us who enjoy visiting the very few places left where we don't have to listen to the sound of engines.

That single sentence sums it up for me.

 

[teotwaki]

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument - or you didn't understand mine. I never said anyone shouldn't have freedom of choice. You're perfectly free to choose to go or not to go into a wilderness area. In fact, it is you who are attempting to deny freedom of choice to those of us who enjoy visiting the very few places left where we don't have to listen to the sound of engines. You have 94 percent of the country for your freedom of choice. Will you not grant me 6 percent for mine?

Gentlemen, many of you arguing against wilderness here are losing your way and returning to the same old fallacious outbursts: "LOCKED UP!" "2.1 million acres gone!" There are a few posts genuinely debating specifics, but no one has yet addressed my "lecture" by offering any data to contradict it. In point of fact, I'm perfectly willing to listen. Just give me something besides platitudes. Please?

Show me data that proves wilderness does not make the best wildlife habitat. Heck, show me data that casts doubt on it. I'm easy.

Show me data that proves wilderness does not represent core habitat that provides edge effect in adjacent roaded areas, thus offering benefits even to those who choose not to visit the wilderness itself.

Show me data that proves there are fewer roads on public land now than 45 years ago, when the Wilderness Act passed. This is your core argument, the "losing access" stance, by which of course you mean "losing vehicular access." However, none of you has even shown that essential assumption to be true.

Finally, prove me wrong that arguing against wilderness is anything but a self-centered position. You can't accuse me of insulting you with that statement unless you can prove it wrong. Jeez, even Lance fully agrees that wilderness has its place; in fact he has expressed willingness to see new ones; he and I simply disagree on whether certain new wilderness areas might be worth creating that would involve shutting down an existing road. That's a straightforward philosophical debate. We might never agree on that point, but I can respect that disagreement. I have no respect for knee-jerk "2.1 million acres gone!" outbursts, because such statements are patently false.

These ram-rodded back-doored congressional wilderness edicts are taking away access from existing roads to those who choose vehicular access, thus denying ORV'ers more and more choice.

Numbers were requested for how many miles of roads have been or will be closed. While that is a massive study in its own right, I am quite sure that a number of individuals here can offer their own portion of the total.

I know that wilderness activists routinely state such things: "

The Road TRIPorter Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. November/December 1998. V olume 3 # 6 Restoring Wilderness at Grand Canyon — by Kim Crumbo and Bethanie Walder: "Obliterating 130 miles of road on the Kaibab Plateau is central to the plan for rewilding the Greater Grand Canyon"..... SNIP

For instance, The Los Padres national Forest contains 37 inventoried roadless areas totaling 636,000 acres, the second-highest in California. It also contained 451 miles of off-highway vehicle routes. (Los Padres Forest Watch). It will be good to track just how much that area's ORV acess will diminish.

You have 94 percent of the country for your freedom of choice. Will you not grant me 6 percent for mine?

Well, as much as all of the sparring is fun and educational, my answer would be: No

Awarding more and more acres of wilderness to a minority of folks who are fit enough to backpack for days is just plain wrong when it is built upon taking away access from the majority of Americans who are not in that tiny tiny TINY percentage. No one is taking away that tiny minority's freedom to visit already exisiting wilderness anywhere that they choose, areas that already provide excellent wildlife habitat. In fact, I have read that there are way more than 100 million acres designated as Wilderness since 1964. There is no bill before Congress to diminish that huge number, is there?