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

[sinuhexavier]

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.

So what you are saying is cater to the lowest common denominator?

Maybe if people would get more than 50ft away from their car they would be in better shape and could venture deeper into the wilderness.

 

[paulj]

In fact, I have read that there are way more than 100 million acres designated as Wilderness since 1964.

Earlier in this thread I quoted a FAQ from wilderness.net which puts the area at about 5% of total US area, and about 2.5% of the area in the lower 48. The two states with the highest proportion (after Alaska) are California with something like 15%, and 10% in Washington.

And, apart from some desert units in California, few if any miles of real road (as opposed to user created tracks) were closed to wheeled travel when Congress created them. In other words, most of the acreage set aside as Wilderness never was accessible by road. In most cases, what the Wilderness designation did was stop the Forest Service from putting in new logging roads. While the Forest Service administers the largest number of Wilderness units, National Parks contain the largest amount of Wilderness area.

Here's an example of a current logging road v Wilderness battle in SW Oregon
http://www.oregonwild.org/wilderness/zane-grey-wilderness-proposal
Apparently this proposed wilderness was not included the latest Omnibus bill.

A couple of years ago the James Kim family got lost in a maze of logging roads the BLM had put in overlooking the Rogue River. They got lost in area that was supposed to be gated. Now BLM wants to put in more logging roads, closer to the river. The river itself is designated "Wild and Scenic", and is a popular white water rafting route (so popular that BLM administers it with a quota system).

For the most part, the debate of whether you or I can drive deep into a designated Wilderness is a red hearing. We can't do so without making a new road or traveling cross country (which is prohibited in 90% (my guess) of the country, not just in Wilderness areas).

 

[teotwaki]

So what you are saying is cater to the lowest common denominator?

Maybe if people would get more than 50ft away from their car they would be in better shape and could venture deeper into the wilderness.

So what you are saying is that creating more and more and more wilderness will get Americans into better shape? Awwwww c'mon. :ylsmoke:

 

[sinuhexavier]

So what you are saying is that creating more and more and more wilderness will get Americans into better shape? Awwwww c'mon. :ylsmoke:

If there is no incentive, why bother?

There are no roads to the top of Mt. Rainier, I wanted to stand on top of it and see it's shadow cast across Puget sound at sunrise. You know what? I had to train and get into shape to do it and that made the view that much better.

You know what makes me laugh is the person that doesn't even get out of their car at the "Scenic Vista" and shoots a "been there, done that" picture from the car.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

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

Honest, at least. Thanks for your consideration for our country's wildlife and heritage.

Awarding more and more acres of wilderness to a minority of folks who are fit enough to backpack for days

And there we go, right back to the same fallacious platitudes. Sorry, but I simply have no respect for arguments that are patently false, and designed only to appeal to the emotions of those unwilling to think beyond themselves. Your counter-arguments have only confirmed every stance I've taken. And you failed to respond with evidence to a single one.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

In fact, I have read that there are way more than 100 million acres designated as Wilderness since 1964.

It's 107,361,000 acres. I'm not sure that qualifies mathematically as "way more," but it's still only five percent of all the land in our country. And you've just betrayed your willingness to reduce even that, so your arguments about all those roads being closed, the mileage of which you have been unable to substantiate, are irrelevant anyway. You're simply annoyed by the very concept of places you can't drive to, and you have, consciously or unconsciously, admitted that by your statements.

Fortunately, a majority of the American people disagrees with you, in contradiction to your "tiny, tiny, TINY percentage" accusation:

Nearly nine in ten Americans believe that protecting public land as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System is important, according to a new Zogby International poll of 1039 likely voters across the country. These voters view as “very important” (57 percent) or “somewhat important” (30 percent) the protection of publicly owned land as wilderness, leaving it just as it is. The support cuts across political parties, regions, age groups, and ethnic and religious backgrounds. Twelve percent said it was not important to protect the nation's wilderness.

 

[teotwaki]

I think there is a bit more to WILDERNESS designation than the exclusive recreational use by the ultra fit and exclusion of OHV. You don't have to be in good shape to get out and do an overnight wilderness trip (I'm good proof of that). I think you underestimate the %s of folks who are able to take advantage of such places.

I agree that there is more to the wilderness designation, especially when it truly is meant to be a barrier that protects ecosystems. I thought that this thread was about access and not that wilderness is somehow bad.

I've actually searched for a published number of the folks who access the wilderness areas but figure that I am going at it all wrong. It may be that starting with the number of wilderness permits issued might be good but I'll bet that none of the agencies have them readily accessible. Going at it area by area would be a full time academic job. Google is powerfull but not all-knowing. I can imagine that the study has already been done though.

 

[nwoods]

Nathan, I too can post plenty of photos of roads going into wilderness areas. Like this one in Nevada:

Trouble is, this road and many, many just like it were put in after the wilderness area was in place, by self-centered morons who cut the fence and drove right on in.

Fighting wilderness because you think you're losing access to public land is a misplaced battle. Fight stuff like this instead, fight land agency budget cuts. That would do some real good. Think beyond your own convenience when you consider wilderness. It's a good thing to have whether or not you ever go there.

Jonathan, don't know how much you get out to California, so its difficult for me to know if you are speaking in generalities or specifically. I am talking specifics, in the local context of California. I have not been off roading very long, but in my short years of enjoyment, I have witnessed a skyrocketing number of people using (and yes, sometimes abusing) a SIGNIFICANTLY dwindling number of areas.

I am not as fit now as I was when I got out of the military, but back then I did a fair amount of hiking and summitting throughout the Sierra's and a few peaks in Colorado. I can certainly appreciate wilderness, and agree with it's protection.

However, what I am seeing now, locally, is that the unending reductions in available area is causing significant damage due to overuse of the remaining open lands.

The gold rush period created thousands of miles of trails that have existed for over 100 years. They are a marvelous way of exploring the California deserts and foothills. I want them to remain. They are a huge part of our (California's) history and culture. I hate being denied access to them. I hate being forced into the same boxes on a map as everyone else. I hate what it does to the land in those areas.

 

[teotwaki]

If there is no incentive, why bother?

There are no roads to the top of Mt. Rainier, I wanted to stand on top of it and see it's shadow cast across Puget sound at sunrise. You know what? I had to train and get into shape to do it and that made the view that much better.

You know what makes me laugh is the person that doesn't even get out of their car at the "Scenic Vista" and shoots a "been there, done that" picture from the car.

When did you go up Rainier? I never thought of trying for the shadow when I was up there in 2003, 2004 and 2006. I did catch Mt. McKinley's shadow in 2005. (Probably a seperate thread anyhow...)

Anyhow, the people at the scenic views need to be encouraged to take a few more steps rather than be laughed at. They may not be so good at creating their own goals and incentives that will lead them into Nature.

 

[calamaridog]

However, what I am seeing now, locally, is that the unending reductions in available area is causing significant damage due to overuse of the remaining open lands.

This is very true. More users and less use area to use. Not enough funding for land managers and enforcement either.

The majority of the people who OHV and 4x4 would be happy to do it near population centers. And yet, I am still waiting for the funding to build them a new OHV area near those population centers.

If you told people "we are going to set aside 1 million acres as wilderness AND we are going to develop and maintain additional recreation resources in these other locations" - you may have more people on board.

Then again, if the government would have properly funded land management agencies they could have lived up to there obligations in the first place. The obligations to take care of the land in their charge - something they have failed miserably at.

 

[teotwaki]

It's 107,361,000 acres. I'm not sure that qualifies mathematically as "way more," but it's still only five percent of all the land in our country. And you've just betrayed your willingness to reduce even that, so your arguments about all those roads being closed, the mileage of which you have been unable to substantiate, are irrelevant anyway. You're simply annoyed by the very concept of places you can't drive to, and you have, consciously or unconsciously, admitted that by your statements.

Fortunately, a majority of the American people disagrees with you, in contradiction to your "tiny, tiny, TINY percentage" accusation:

Nearly nine in ten Americans believe that protecting public land as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System is important, according to a new Zogby International poll of 1039 likely voters across the country. These voters view as “very important” (57 percent) or “somewhat important” (30 percent) the protection of publicly owned land as wilderness, leaving it just as it is. The support cuts across political parties, regions, age groups, and ethnic and religious backgrounds. Twelve percent said it was not important to protect the nation’s wilderness.

1. Please, please show us where I said anything about reducing current wilderness. Never said it. Period. Trying to portray me as advocating wildernous reduction is the very epitomy of fallacious. Forcing false stereotypes into a discussion in order to discredit the forum member that you disagree with....? Truly emotional and opprobrious posting techniques for a "moderator".

2. I spent all of today up in LPNF hiking some of the ******** Smith Wilderness. (48% of the whole Los Padres forest has been committed to Wilderness, or 875,000 acres) Last Saturday I spent the day working at trail repair in the Cleveland National Forest. I've also worked on trail repair at Rattlesnake Ledge up in Washington State and many other places. Your ignorance of who I really am and your prejudice against me is readily apparent.

3. Stating that 107.361 Million acres is "only" 5% is disingenuous, as if the other 95% of the land was crawling with OHV'ers from the BRC. Show us a complete work up of acreage for farmland, military reserves, cities, roads, swamp, BLM land, city parks, National Parks and so on that are not OHV playgrounds along with a thorough break down of all land in the United States. When you don't substantiate the exact, full and accurate numbers then I'll have to say you're simply annoyed by the very concept of places where you can't lock out the sound of an internal combustion engine, and you have, consciously or unconsciously, yet again admitted that by your statements. Wait, that sounds like a familiar blustery lecture.....

4. The "tiny tiny percentage" is clearly the folks such as you and I that actually go out into the back country, on foot, for days. We are in a very tiny minority and are quite free to backpack it all until the day we die. Why should we be awarded more and more land when we cannot possibly ever see the current 107.361 Million acres? This thread was about denying acess to areas that already had access, not about going after any statement that even has a glimmer of disagreement with the OPLMA of 2009.

5. So one minute you are content with the portrayal of a majority of Americans being couch potatoes and then suddenly to bolster a weak argument you want to claim that Zogby "likely voters" represent a super-duper wilderness loving majority of Americans who agree with you??? Aw, c'mon.

 

[paulj]

...
The majority of the people who OHV and 4x4 would be happy to do it near population centers. And yet, I am still waiting for the funding to build them a new OHV area near those population centers.

If you told people "we are going to set aside 1 million acres as wilderness AND we are going to develop and maintain additional recreation resources in these other locations" - you may have more people on board.....

On the Angeles NF (near LA) web site they have announced that they have applied to the state for funds to operate (or develop) their OHV area(s). Apparently the state charges a fee to users or buyers, and then uses the funds for this type of recreational area.

In that regard, California may be miles ahead of most states. Washington may have something related to gas taxes, that goes to maintenance of trails used by OHV. However since most of that is used for trails on the dry and dusty side of the mountains, I haven't paid much attention to it.

While funding is a big issue (how much money does it take to administer an OHV area v. a Wilderness?), jurisdiction is also a consideration. The White Mountains are in a different district (Inyo) than OHV areas near LA (Angeles or Cleveland). Most of the desert is BLM. Private land owners near potential OHV areas also want a say in the matter, as do county law enforcement agencies.

In this latest Omnibus bill, there were recreational considerations. But first keep in mind that most (if not all) the components of the bill were worked out at a local level before being submitted to Congress. That is clear from the 2 pieces that I have mentioned, the East Sierras, and the Owyhee. Work on the Idaho bill was initiated by country commissioners. While that bill restricts cross country travel (an issue which bothered private land owners), it also provides access across private land to a select number of public lands. The East Sierra bill sets up a snow mobile area near Bridgeport.

But most urban areas in the USA don't have nearby public land where OHV parks could be setup. In that sense OHV owners in LA are lucky compared to ones in NY.

Why should the tradeoff be between Wilderness and OHV parks? Why not between DOD land and OHV parks? Surely Nellis could set aside a few acres for recreation. Fort Irwin could open its gates on the weekends? How about using private land? Actually that seems to be the best option in the East and Midwest. Just as companies buy and develop land for resorts, golf, and theme parks, they could open up land for thill riding and mud slinging (for profit, which is the American way, right?)

 

[paulj]

Out of curiosity I was looking at BLM lands near Las Vegas. They appear to be the biggest 'land owner' in Clark Country. While there are something like 17 Wilderness areas in the district, and more 'wilderness study areas', the largest area of OHV closure is close to LV itself. According to a 1998 notice in the Federal Register, the reasons for this closure include
- support of a county shooting closure
- reduction of dust to protect air quality
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_information/laws_and_regulations.html

The Closure is intended to compliment and supplement an existing
Clark County shooting closure. The rapid increase in population and growth
of the Las Vegas Valley has created conflicts between new urban areas and
traditional public land users accustomed to target shooting on public lands around Las Vegas. There have been incidents of indiscriminate shooting toward residential areas and other public land users, destruction of property, injury, and one fatality. Trash accumulation from items being used as targets are impacting public lands. This action is being taken to help ensure public safety, prevent environmental
degradation, and provide consistency with the Clark County shooting closure.

This action is being taken to reduce the amount of dust and particulate matter generated from the use of public lands, ensure health and public safety and prevent environmental degradation. This action will assist local governmental efforts to meet Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards and to reduce dust production from unpaved roads within the Las Vegas Valley Non-attainment Area.

While the details are specific to the Las Vegas area, they illustrate the kinds of conflicts that can develop between unregulated OHV use and adjacent urban and private landownership.

 

[teotwaki]

-----snip-----
Why should the tradeoff be between Wilderness and OHV parks? Why not between DOD land and OHV parks? Surely Nellis could set aside a few acres for recreation. Fort Irwin could open its gates on the weekends? How about using private land? Actually that seems to be the best option in the East and Midwest. Just as companies buy and develop land for resorts, golf, and theme parks, they could open up land for thill riding and mud slinging (for profit, which is the American way, right?)

Good ideas ... I've been at Fort Irwin many times and would not want to worry about unexpended ordinance. USMC's 29 Palms desert base area is even worse. Funny thing is, 29 Palms is trying to expand their base into a very popular OHV area, Johnson Valley.

There are sure to be other areas that could be shared. The China Lake complex that is adjacent to Death Valley and Fort Irwin was an Electronic Combat Range and is littered with chaff but not ordinance. China Lake does conduct monthly tours into a spectacular petroglyph area.

What should the tradeoffs be? I guess that implies cooperation and those bridges need a lot of shoring up!

 

[paulj]

One of things that triggered the Owyhee bill was a proposal by Mountain Home Air Force Base to expand its testing grounds.