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

[paulj]

Much has been made of the area set aside ('locked up') in Wilderness. How meaningful are the numbers, whether stated in acres or percentages of area? Apart from open areas like desert or dunes, area is at best a poor proxy for linear miles of usable road, track and trail.

Some states like Texas have no federally designated Wilderness. Of course by virtue of how it came into the Union it has no National Forest or BLM land either. For California the area is something like 15%. But how do you evaluate that? On a forest specific level, Angels NF, in their land management document
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/angeles/projects/ForestPlan.shtml
breaks down area like this:

12% - Designated WIlderness
2% - recommended WIlderness (that may include the newly allocated piece)
37% - back country non-motorized
8% - back country motorized restricted
24% - back country (motorized ok)
1% - critical biological
13 % - developed interface
2% - experimental forest
None of these areas allow motorized cross country travel. I won't try to summarize the differences between the 8 and 24 % areas. It is worth looking at these documents just to get a sense of conflicting issues that forest managers face. The forest has a higher than average demand for recreational use, and limited commercial use (logging, mining, grazing).

...Our intent is to carefully analyze our designated National Forest System routes (roads and trails) and the non-system routes (user created roads and trails) so that we can make future site-specific decisions regarding which roads and trails will be part of the designated system. Our goal is to resolve resource and use authorization conflicts. This effort is expected to be a long-term program emphasis that will be accomplished incrementally over time utilizing the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

 

[teotwaki]

Los Padres National Forest had something similar in their 2005 plan

48.3% - existing wilderness
18.6% - back country
18% - back country motorized use restricted
9.6% - back country non-motorized
0.1% - critical biological
3.4 % - developed area interface
2% - experimental forest

Looking at the years given we can see that the Wilderness area has grown steadily. Los Padres National Forest has 10 Congressionally designated Wildernesses comprising 875,000 acres, or approximately 48% of the 1.75 million acre National Forest.

Sespe Wilderness 219,700 acres* (includes Sespe Condor Sanctuary) was established 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act.

Matilija Wilderness 29,600 acres was established 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act.

Chumash Wilderness 38,150 acres was established 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act.

******** Smith Wilderness* 64,800 acres was established in 1984 by the California Wilderness Act.

San Rafael Wilderness* 197,380 acres. In 1968 the San Rafael became the first primitive area in the Nation reclassified as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964, additional acreage added in 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act..

Santa Lucia Wilderness 18, 679 acres; established in 1978 by the Endangered American Wilderness Act.

Garcia Wilderness 14,100 acres was established 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act.

Machesna Mountain Wilderness 19,760 acres was established 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act.

Silver Peak Wilderness 31,555 acres
This wilderness was established in 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act. On December 19,2002 the Big Sur Wilderness and Conservation Act of 2002 added 17,055 acres to the existing wilderness.

Ventana Wilderness 240,026 acres
This wilderness was established in 1978 by the Endangered American Wilderness Act, first addition was in 1978 by the Endangered American Wilderness Act, second addition in 1992 by the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act. On December 19,2002 the Big Sur Wilderness and Conservation Act of 2002 added 33,967 acres to the existing wilderness.

Area of LPNF in Wilderness: 875,000 acres

 

[paulj]

The largest chunk of those additions appear to come in 1992 with the Condor Act. It would be interesting to look that up.

Here's the signing statement for that Act by Pres. George Bush
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=21118

- Much of this area includes habitat for the nearly extinct California condor and preservation of this habitat is critical to condor recovery efforts.
-- Nearly half of the Los Padres National Forest is now designated for permanent protection under the Wilderness Act, one of the highest percentages of any national forest in the country.

The Forest district claims

Mt. Pinos Off-Highway Vehicle Routes - There are many Off-Highway Vehicle recreation opportunities in the Mt. Pinos Ranger District. {about 200 miles]

Santa Lucia Ranger District Off-Highway Vehicle Routes - There are many Off-Highway Vehicle opportunities in the Santa Lucia Ranger District. [about 100 miles]

 

[calamaridog]

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?)

Their doesn't need to be a trade off. And recreational opportuneties are not limited to OHV use either. How about funding the backlog for repairs in existing forests and parks. How about funding the maintenance and enforcement of existing trail systems so they don't get closed too.

As far as using DOD lands for recreation, Nellis is already being crowded by the vast growth in the Vegas area. Many DOD lands are unsuitable - read unsafe - for open use.

How about wilderness advocates just buy private land for their use too Of course, some already do, then they give it to the govt. and they get to pay for the upkeep. I bet the insurance cost would be less for wilderness than OHV...

CA and AZ are way ahead of anywhere else for OHV areas. Many Vegas people ride in CA, not around Vegas, due to the closures here. The state and county are building the largest outdoor shooting park in the world in Vegas on land they got from BLM. Maybe they will develop an OHV park too.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

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".

From me:

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

From you:

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

Pretty darn clear.

Do my stances and arguments contain emotion in addition to the evidence you've been unable to refute? You bet. This isn't about Warn winches versus Ramsey. This is about the future of habitat and wildlife in our country.

Virtually every argument the anti-wilderness people here have put up has proven my original claim: Those who argue against wilderness do so for self-centered reasons. Look at the other posts. They inevitably go back to arguing about how many people "backpack 20 miles" into wilderness areas. They complain about how overrun and trashed their favorite ORV areas are, and the response is to open up wilderness to the same treatment? Marvelous. And illogical.

 

[paulj]

Their doesn't need to be a trade off. And recreational opportuneties are not limited to OHV use either. How about funding the backlog for repairs in existing forests and parks. How about funding the maintenance and enforcement of existing trail systems so they don't get closed too.....

I have no objection to better funding for road and trail repair. Earlier in this thread I pointed out some long overdue funding for both in the district closest to Seattle (roads and trails that I have used).

I noticed yesterday that Los Padres NF has a request in for state Green Sticker funds (I'd seen the Angeles NF request earlier).

As far a I know, current Wilderness designations don't chew into the forest district budgets. I can't think of a reason why managing a designated Wilderness would be any more expensive than managing other areas of the forest. Now back when Wilderness designations put a stop to district road building and logging it did make a big impact on the budget, cutting back on both an expense and a income source. However it's been argued that NFs subsidized logging through the road program.

I realize that there problems with opening DOD lands to the public. On a much smaller scale, military bases have been decommissioned, and turned into parks (or other public projects). Many of the state parks, and some of the city parks, in the Puget Sound area are former bases and forts. I can't think of any ORV play areas in these parks, but some have good mtn bike trails.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Logging (and road building for logging) on public land has historically cost taxpayers millions of dollars per year.

Unlike some who have posted here explicitly stating otherwise, I have no desire to take away opportunities from any user group. I'll repeat that I'd be happy to see more of all kinds of public land. We need to get it now, both wilderness and non-wilderness. That's my idea of a balanced approach. But habitat and wildlife come first. That's a sacred duty.

 

[teotwaki]

The largest chunk of those additions appear to come in 1992 with the Condor Act. It would be interesting to look that up.

Here's the signing statement for that Act by Pres. George Bush
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=21118


The Forest district claims

Right next to Mt. Pinos is the Calif. State OHV park called Hungry Valley. It is a very very dense network of trails and is heavily used.

 

[calamaridog]

Logging (and road building for logging) on public land has historically cost taxpayers millions of dollars per year.

This is true, but don't recreationists then use the roads and fire fighters as well?

Unlike some who have posted here explicitly stating otherwise, I have no desire to take away opportunities from any user group. I'll repeat that I'd be happy to see more of all kinds of public land. We need to get it now, both wilderness and non-wilderness. That's my idea of a balanced approach. But habitat and wildlife come first. That's a sacred duty.

I'll drink to that:beer:

 

[teotwaki]

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

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

Pretty darn clear.

Do my stances and arguments contain emotion in addition to the evidence you've been unable to refute? You bet. This isn't about Warn winches versus Ramsey. This is about the future of habitat and wildlife in our country.

Virtually every argument the anti-wilderness people here have put up has proven my original claim: Those who argue against wilderness do so for self-centered reasons. Look at the other posts. They inevitably go back to arguing about how many people "backpack 20 miles" into wilderness areas. They complain about how overrun and trashed their favorite ORV areas are, and the response is to open up wilderness to the same treatment? Marvelous. And illogical.

Anything that I have said can be taken out of context and portrayed to paint me as anti-wilderness, forced into your definition of "pretty darn clear". Maybe we should quote all that I said?

You claimed that I somehow had 94% of the country for my "choice" which is meretricious claptrap.

After I said "NO" I also said:

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?

I've never said anything about opening up wilderness to OHV nor taking away wilderness. I posted about my trail building efforts in all sorts of areas and yet you ignore all of that. You have already decided that I am anti-wilderness because I don't like the OPLMA or that I did not quote the exact 107.361 Million acre figure.

Let's not forget what else I asked you for:

"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....."

I can make unreasonable demands too and then castigate you for not offering up "proof" of your assertions.

I don't care at all if you are emotional, passionate or indifferent about wilderness. Please keep your emotion applied to the topic and not about demonizing people you wrongly view as enemies of wilderness. As a moderator you should keep to a higher standard anyhow. You jump in and move the thread but just can't resist the comment about NWoods "premise';

I moved this thread here, where, despite Nathan's premise, it belongs....

That was a completely unnecessary jab.

DieselCruiserhead and I are at opposite (polar? ) ends about global warming yet his "emotion" is never applied to villifying people he disagrees with. His command of facts and his passion are always evident but he commands much more respect from me because he listens well and he shares information, never lecturing or pontificating. I know that I have learned much from both his facts and his technique. You could too.

 

[Guinness44]

The coregroup, the wilderness, but the 4wheeldrive stuff? The coregroup, has a site, and lots of enthusiasts show up. Unfortunately the green stuff takes over. this is not the way you fellows will keep taking your trucks into the boonies, to either start a hike, or camp from there. About the wildlife habitat: sure love to see them lovely Eagles, Lions, Javas, Snakes, rats, mice, coyotes..deer, .and such all around our property or on the trail. Neat. We dont need more, we dont need less.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

This is true, but don't recreationists then use the roads and fire fighters as well?

Quite true, and the value to recreation must be figured in to their cost. But keep in mind that logging roads, by definition, are designed and oriented to benefit loggers, not recreationists. Square gridworks of logging access roads aren't often the loveliest of exploration opportunities.

However, the firefighting argument for roads is a red herring, as I mentioned before. The Forest Service's own studies show that wildfires occur far more frequently in roaded areas than in non-roaded areas.

To Teotwaki: I'm sorry you think I've somehow misconstrued your stance; however, every single reference of yours I can go back and find is harshly critical of even the current acreage of wilderness in the country. You continuously use phrases such as "that HUGE amount," the "tiny, tiny, TINY" percentage of users, the "where are the bills to reduce that . . ." If you think the current acreage of wilderness in the country is wonderful, and would fight to preserve it, why haven't you said so? Have I missed something? Even this grudging statement:

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.

. . . contains the factual error regarding the "tiny minority." See results of poll, already posted. Many people in our country are willing to support wilderness for its true value, even if they don't go there. Did I mention how highly that speaks of them?

Regarding my comment when I moved the thread: Nathan's inflammatory title is utterly, preposterously false: "2.1 million acres gone." Gone where? Bladed clean? Strip-mined? Nuked? All the animals and plants therein killed? Electric fencing installed around the perimeter to keep all humans out? Or just "gone," as in Nathan can no longer drive there? Significant difference.

Unlike many other 4WD forums, our Conservation section is just that. It's not about the "conservation" of our perceived rights to sit on our butts and drive everywhere. You're welcome to put up posts that claim as much - and that's why I moved the post here rather than simply delete it, and why we include "and land use" in the title - but you'd better have your facts and figures straight to make claims such as that one.

As a moderator, I'm perfectly free to post my own thoughts. In fact, it is my duty to present the philosophy of myself and, now and then, the founding members here whenever possible. However, far more than any of you, I'd better have my facts straight. So far, none of the challenges I listed in post #88 has been proven false.

If I put up a thread titled something like "4WD use destroys habitat," I'll bet you'd take me to task, and rightly so. I would never claim such a thing, because there's all kinds of habitat, and plenty of it in roaded areas. Titling a post "2.1 million acres gone" is no less inflammatory, and no less wrong. I've simply been logically addressing that original claim, as well as the posts of those of you who clearly agreed.

"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....."

I can make unreasonable demands too and then castigate you for not offering up "proof" of your assertions.

As for that, it's not an unreasonable demand at all. You're simply wrong. Five percent of our country is designated wilderness. Fact. I never claimed the rest was crawling with OHVers, did I? All I claimed was that it was lost as wilderness. Surely you're not disputing that?

Let's revisit my overriding concern here: that those of you fighting and whining about new wilderness areas would do far, far more for the cause of continued vehicular access to a large swath of public land if you addressed land agency budget cuts and the continued trashing of areas that are open to vehicular use.

I'll present a challenge here - and I have no idea if my theory is correct in terms of statistics; it's just a gut feeling based on long experience. But here it is: I'm willing to bet that for every mile of legal road closed because of the omnibus wilderness bill that just passed, there are at least 100 miles of illegal, wildcat roads elsewhere on public land being used regularly by unknowing, otherwise law-abiding 4WD owners, including you and me. Further, I'll bet that for every mile of legal road closed because of that bill, there are at least 100 miles of Forest Service or other agency-managed roads that are now decommissioned and inaccessible due to budget cuts.

If my theory is correct, wouldn't it indicate that some priorities here are misplaced? Even if we leave out the entire habitat issue, which seems to get ignored anyway?

 

[Bill Beers]

Quite true, and the value to recreation must be figured in to their cost. But keep in mind that logging roads, by definition, are designed and oriented to benefit loggers, not recreationists. Square gridworks of logging access roads aren't often the loveliest of exploration opportunities.

Hey Jonathan,

not looking for an argument here, just a clarification. Where in the US/North America are there square gridworks of logging roads? My only logging road experience is in the PNW.

-Bill

 

[paulj]

.. Where in the US/North America are there square gridworks of logging roads? My only logging road experience is in the PNW.
...

In mountains like the Cascades the logging roads have more of a branching structure - a main along a valley, with a zig zag of branches up the slopes. (e.g. between Randle and Ashford)

The pine plantations of eastern Oregon (east of Bend) might be candidates for something closer to a grid, since the land is relatively flat. Zoom into the area between LaPine and Silver Lake. I wandered on some of these roads while looking for Hole-in-the-ground. Along the way a rear tire picked up a 4" length of file (for chainsaw sharpening).

Roads in the BLM land (C&O) south of the Rogue River where James Kim died is pretty dense and interconnected.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Fair catch on the grid remark.

I have driven on miles and miles of logging roads, mostly to access hunting territory, and they're certainly not designed to take in views or wind up in scenic vistas. In fact, they generally seem to go through areas that have been, um, heavily logged, are extremely close to one another, and dead-end a lot - definitely not optimized for vehicular recreation. So the value for our tax dollars remains questionable at best. As Paul mentioned, a branching structure is more accurate.

A short Google search comes up with maps such as this one:

http://www.prentice.k12.wi.us/prenticeloaders/superiorforest.pdf

I haven't yet found any for a logged forest in completely flat terrain, but I wonder if those might not be closer to the grid I described.