9.4 mil acres in Southern Utah

OverlandZJ

Expedition Leader
Saw this elsewhere.. :Wow1:

http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=272633

DURBIN TO REINTRODUCE BILL TO PROTECT AMERICA'S RED ROCK WILDERNESS

Wednesday, April 18, 2007


[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator ******** Durbin (D-IL) said today that he will introduce legislation in the Senate this week to protect America's Red Rock Wilderness, approximately 9.4 million acres of spectacular and rare wilderness in southern Utah. Currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency is not prohibited from selling, leasing or building roads in parts of this publicly held land. An identical bill was introduced in the House by U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today.

"Sunday is Earth Day and it is a fitting opportunity for all Americans to rededicate themselves to protecting our nation's natural resources," Durbin said. "I encourage the Senate to do its part as well by supporting the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, critical legislation that will preserve a national treasure for future generations of Americans."

Durbin's bill would designate 9.4 millions acres in Utah as wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act. The bill provides wilderness protection for wildlands, which include steep red rock canyons, enormous arches and towering cliffs with spectacular vistas of unmatched sandstone landscapes. Hidden within this expansive setting are world-renowned archeological sites and habitat for rare plant and animal species. These areas are a haven for those seeking solace in nature, including hikers, backpackers and recreationists.

The lands designated as wilderness in Durbin and Hinchey's legislation were primarily identified through a detailed and extensive public inventory of BLM lands conducted by volunteers from the Utah Wilderness Coalition. By designating certain areas as wilderness, the bill protects them from new commercial enterprise/development, oil and gas exploration, motorized/mechanized vehicles, and road building. Non-consumptive uses such as hunting, fishing, camping, backpacking, hiking, and horseback riding are permitted under the legislation.

"I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these fragile lands of magnificent beauty, which already belong to the public, do not fall victim to oil, gas and mining interests, increased commercial development, and proposals to construct roads, utility lines, and dams. We are the stewards of these creations and our legislation will help achieve this important goal," Durbin concluded.

Contact Senator Durbin:
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm#contact
 

cruiseroutfit

Well-known member
This has been a long drawn out proposal... each time they find more "wilderness" in the state... mind you most of the "inventories" were done by slightly biased volunteers ;) That made it a bit easier to forget that there were roads, homesteads, ranches, mines, etc... right in the middle of their "wilderness".

This proposal gains a bit of steam each time the Demo's get power in office. Utah's are against it... you can see where the congressional support comes from. Get real!!
 

Grim Reaper

Expedition Leader
cruiseroutfit said:
This has been a long drawn out proposal... each time they find more "wilderness" in the state... mind you most of the "inventories" were done by slightly biased volunteers ;) That made it a bit easier to forget that there were roads, homesteads, ranches, mines, etc... right in the middle of their "wilderness".

This proposal gains a bit of steam each time the Demo's get power in office. Utah's are against it... you can see where the congressional support comes from. Get real!!
They flat out manufactured it. The main part of what it requires to be "wilderness" is no roads in a specified area.

To meet that criteria The FS and BLM just decided "Roads" are not "Roads" they are "trails". Doesn't matter that they are on maps that predate the FS they just changed their classifications so they could loop hole the terminology of "roadless" in the requirement. Then to rub it in they name it the "roadless Initiative".
 

calamaridog

Expedition Leader
It just burns me when people are so clueless:

Hidden within this expansive setting are world-renowned archeological sites and habitat for rare plant and animal species. These areas are a haven for those seeking solace in nature, including hikers, backpackers and recreationists.

What the hell are we? I hate to be marginalized like this. I'm willing to bet I've logged more miles on foot than most people, but frankly, I don't 3 months every summer to hike anymore.

My off ROAD vehicle allows me to enjoy nature. How hard is that to understand?
 

DesertRose

Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
Just have to voice an opposing view - we've been there, and it's beautiful and does qualify as Wilderness (some roads can exist in Wilderness areas, and can be used to fight fires and manage infrastructure for grazing).

I am not opposed to Wilderness at all, in fact applaud it. We need to act now, not wait til we're sorry later.

That's my view! This is the Conservation section, after all.
 

Jonathan Hanson

Well-known member
"Marginalized?" Please take no offense, but who has been "marginalized" by wilderness in the United States? No one.

The U.S. comprises two and a quarter billion acres of land. About 107 million acres of that is designated wilderness - less than five percent. That's one out of 20 acres in the country left in anything resembling the state it was when the Vikings landed. The rest - 19 out of every 20 acres - is open to varying degrees of exploitation, development, and road building. If we designated ten new wilderness areas the size of the entire proposed Utah legislation we still wouldn't reach ten percent wilderness in the country.

There is a very good reason for maintaining federal control over much land in the country, and that is to prevent short-term profit taking by one state from permanently destroying a national asset. And "federal" control just means every citizen in the country has a say. Federal land is owned by all of us, not the government. If enough of us don't like the way it's being run, we can change it. And every poll in the country indicates strong majority support for protecting more land. That's democracy.

And who says you need "three months" to enjoy a wilderness? Park your car at the edge, walk in for 20 minutes, and enjoy.

There is a more important philosophy at work here, too. Our country has agreed that for the bits of land we set aside as wilderness and wildlife refuge, the well-being of the habitat and the animals that live there takes precedence over our own urge to sit on our butts and let internal combustion take us everywhere.

I think that speaks highly of our country.
 

crawler#976

Expedition Leader
I am a motorized hiker for lack of a better term. Due to serious injuries in my mis-spent youth, I can no longer access roadless areas. The areas included in the proposal are currently open to travel - I've been thru parts of it myself. Large portions of the area are already protected under the Grand Staircase/Escalante NM.

here's some info on what's being proposed for inclusion:

http://www.wilderness.org/WhereWeWork/Utah/wilderness.cfm

I've highlighted a few passages.


Consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Act would prohibit construction of new roads and structures, and the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas except in emergency situations. Among the storied places that America's Red Rock Wilderness Act would protect are:

The Kaiparowits Plateau. This is an immense, mysterious, unforgiving land shaped by eons of nature's most powerful elements. Much of it is now within the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, though Utah politicians have sought to remove it to allow coal mining. Serpentine canyons, panoramic vistas, and wondrous silence have, so far, characterized this landscape. Pronghorn and desert bighorn sheep feed in sage-dotted valleys; thousand-year-old pinyon and juniper trees punctuate dazzling rock formations; and deer, bears, cougars, coyotes, foxes, badgers, and bobcats range.

The Book Cliffs. North of Green River, Utah, a 2,000-foot high escarpment marks the southern perimeter of this million-acre wilderness of exceptional geographic and biological diversity. Abundant wildlife and rugged beauty have made the Book Cliffs wilderness one of Utah's most popular backcountry destinations, beloved of hunters and hikers alike. Recent oil and gas development proposals in the Book Cliffs Region threaten the remaining roadless areas that are becoming increasingly crucial for wildlife, as critical summer and winter habitat already has fallen to oil and gas development.

The Bureau of Land Management is now reviewing a proposal to drill over 400 gas wells and to bulldoze hundreds of miles of roads throughout an 80,000-acre project area that includes two proposed wilderness areas-White River and Lower Bitter Creek. If this exploration continues, roads, pipelines, drilling pads, production wells, and pumping stations will scar one of the wildest places in Utah.

The San Rafael Swell. This area contains spectacular slot canyons, colorful rock formations, and abundant wildlife. The area supports Utah's largest population of bighorn sheep, a wide variety of migratory songbirds, pronghorns, mule deer, peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and the endangered San Rafael cactus. In addition, the Swell's vulnerable and unique watercourses are critical for survival of this diversity of native wildlife.

Over the years, the eerie beauty of the Swell has prompted a number of proposals for its protection in a variety of ways. Most recently, in late 2002, the Governor of Utah abandoned his effort to find consensus on a national monument proposal after citizens in Emery County, Utah, voted the idea down.

The Swell, as well as other parts of Utah's roadless country, continues to suffer damage from off-road vehicle (ORV) use. In early 2003 -- and after a decade of delay -- the BLM finally released a travel management plan for the Swell. It announced the closure of 468 miles of routes dirt-bikers and other off-road vehicle (ORV) users have created through use over the years. But it leaves open 677 miles of ORV trails. Added to the 1300 miles of state, county and federal roads, this means that nearly 2000 miles of road remain open through the Swell's million acres. As a practical matter, the number may, in fact, get bigger quickly: ORV operators refuse to remain on approved routes; the BLM refuses to do much of anything about it.

Wilderness designation would protect the Swell from the steady encroachment of dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, and other ORVs.
 

pwc

Explorer
The main part of what it requires to be "wilderness" is no roads in a specified area.
That's simply not true. Take the Boulder River Wilderness in Washington state, for example. You start out walking on an old railroad grade that was turned into a road when the mining stopped. It was a road to harvest the timber decades ago. It was then turned into a wilderness and is mostly older second growth forest with some great recreation.

Are people opposed to it because it'll stop them from driving in there? Are you looking out for your interest or what's best for the country? Is it really bad if there's more of this country that people have to walk/ski/dog sled into? or should EVERYTHING be open to moto-bikes, snowmobiles, mining, logging, etc...?
 

kcowyo

ExPo Original
pwc said:
Is it really bad if there's more of this country that people have to walk/ski/dog sled into? or should EVERYTHING be open to moto-bikes, snowmobiles, mining, logging, etc...?

It's only bad when one group of users tries to dictate and push their own agenda onto another group, regarding how our public lands should be used.

I'm not advocating EVERYTHING being open. I'm an advocate for equal access.

I think the first hiker who slips and breaks a leg will be happy when a motorized rescue vehicle comes to their aid. A LOT happier than say if they had to wait for a first-aid hiking team.....
 

Clutch

<---Pass
Wilderness should be deffined: NO humans.

Now, if it was deffined in such a way, do you think the hikers would push their ideals?

That is the one of things that really chaps my hide, you can have hikers and equestrians on 1500lbs. horses with metal shod shoes, tromping through the "wilderness", but, I can't ride a human powered mountain bike?

What makes them the exception???

I do believe we need to set aside some pure wilderness....meaning no humans what so ever, but, there has to be a balance.
 
Last edited:

pwc

Explorer
But the wilderness act is all about "one" group pushing their agenda on others. that "one" is the government, saying you can't go driving or mining or whatever else in this area. It's democracy
 

calamaridog

Expedition Leader
Jonathan Hanson said:
"Marginalized?" Please take no offense, but who has been "marginalized" by wilderness in the United States? No one.

You missed the point completely.

Motorized OHV users are also recreationists, not just hikers. Not being considered as such is being marginalized.

None of the politicians in Utah even want this. This is not popular in Utah with the people who live there. How about some local input?
 

kcowyo

ExPo Original
pwc said:
But the wilderness act is all about "one" group pushing their agenda on others. that "one" is the government, saying you can't go driving or mining or whatever else in this area. It's democracy

And who tells the government what to do? You know those fatcats didn't come up with this of their own volition.

Should a person with disabilities in a Tank Chair not be allowed to enjoy the wilderness because they require motorized assistance?

I support protecting wilderness areas from logging and mining, but would prefer there not be definitive legislation limiting recreation opportunities. Too many variables involved to make this Bill an absolute.
 

Jonathan Hanson

Well-known member
Given that 95 percent of the country is non-wilderness, I'd say the motorized users have been considerably more successful pushing their agenda than the other way around. There's not a chance in hell that the designated wilderness area in the United States will grow by more than another one or two percent as a fraction of the whole. There is neither the land, the money, nor the political will power to make it happen. So what we get in the next decade or so will be it, forever. Our legacy to future generations. "No, we thought one out of 20 acres was enough to protect; we wanted to ride our ATVs over the rest."

There is no reason to exclude humans from wilderness, as long as we hold to the ideals of putting our own convenience second to the welfare of the landscape and wildlife. It's not hard, really. It's an honorable thing.

The horse versus bike debate is a fair one. I'd be more likely to vote out horses than vote in bikes.

But motorized access: Do we want paved roads suitable for wheelchair-equipped vans reaching every square mile of the country? Does anyone here honestly believe that if there is a place you aren't capable of (or don't feel like) walking to, it doesn't deserve to be protected? Actually I hear it all the time: "Well, I'll never go there." Sad that this has become the determining factor for so many people.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,341
Messages
2,905,800
Members
229,959
Latest member
bdpkauai
Top