9.4 mil acres in Southern Utah

[calamaridog]

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.

HR 233 - Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act included provisions to incorporate existing multiple use, including motorized users, into the protected land. Enough people were happy with the compromise to actually make it happen, whereas this Utah legislation will fall on its face.

For the most part, if people would work together to protect all interests, then many victories would be achieved for the enjoyment and protection of our natural resources.

Certainly not all Wilderness areas should be open to motorized recreation, but areas that are currently open to such use should incorporate aspects of that use in the new management plan.

I think the issue is that your view, does not neccessarily have to be "opposing", but can be analogous to mine, and allow for forward progress.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Incidentally, I've done two articles on handicapped outdoorspeople, one on climbers for Outside, another on paraplegic and quadriplegic hunters for Bugle. Not one of the people I interviewed - not one - advocated restricting wilderness designations or increasing road access for their benefit. On the other hand, every one of them expressed outrage at non-handicapped people who trot out the handicapped banner to achieve their own ends.

 

[calamaridog]

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.

Not what I'm saying at all. I envision some roads and trails being closed, such as what they did at the Northern California Costal site, and some being left open to managed motorized recreation.


BTW, only if the vans look like this

 

[DesertRose]

Ultimately the voters will decide - and that's who should.

What happens on these debates is it boils down to discussing an ideology rather than protecting something worthwhile and, well, more important than the individual - but somehow Wilderness has become a lightning rod for rancorous debate between different types of recreationists and user-groups.

I feel that the original Wilderness Act was one of the finest examples of Democracy working in this country. A very broad coalition of very diverse user-groups (groups that today hardly speak to each other except to yell at public meetings) worked together, walked the Hill, made the legislation, and got the vote.

Would love to debate more but I'm en route to a meeting in southern California and won't be back next week!

 

[calamaridog]

I think that is the point exactly. The voters have decided, which is why no Utah politician will touch this issue right now.

Whereas when people work together, then even groups like BRC, will sign on to a modified style of Wilderness, and a consensus forms, and people can all walk away with a satisfied feeling they have done something positive. A broad coalition of people working together, as you say.

 

[Ridgewalker]

In the early '70s I received my MS and worked for a couple of years in Lake City, CO for the BLM. It was a very frustrating job for my young idealistic attitude. Although it was a very enlightening experience. We had the same issues then that we are discussing today.

No one can have their way or win, but hopefully no one will totally lose.

I now have 4 grand children (9 months to 21 years) I would like to give the opportunities I have had to enjoy wilderness.

Being older I too would still like to enjoy wilderness areas. When I was in my late 30s I soloed 56 miles in 2 days across the Weminuche Wilderness...no more. Through 50 I still backpacked with over 75 multi-day trips under my belt and many many hunting/fishing/13er-14er bagging/day hiking trips.

As long as I can still access the fringes of wilderness and still have 4wd areas my aging body can get me to, I will be elated! I don't have to go everywhere I did in my youth. But I do believe I have the responsibility to give my children and grand children and great grand children the same opportunities I have had. I am willing to sacrifice seeing some of the places I did not go for them.

Thanks for listening to my totally biased opinion.:sunny:

 

[kcowyo]

.....every one of them expressed outrage at non-handicapped people who trot out the handicapped banner to achieve their own ends.

Fair enough. I could count the number of people with disabilities I know on one hand.

It's the irony of some poor SOB who got his legs blown off in Korea, fighting for the good ol' US of A, not being granted access to his public lands that gets me. Or some retired folks, cruising into their twilight years in the Winnebago, who may not be able physically to hike or bike into pristine areas. Should they be denied access because they are simply, the "previous generation"?

On the flip side, I have bred and currently I am raising, the "next generation." I plan to not only instill in them a love of the outdoors, but how to respect it, preserve it and enjoy it in a responsible manner. I will also teach them to use their right to voice their opinions on how their public lands should be used and limited, not to merely lay down and take what Uncle Sam and certain special interest groups, tell them.

I will be more proud of them if they simply elect to use their voice. More than if they become avid hikers or 4WD enthusiasts.

 

[goodtimes]

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I simply love being in wilderness areas. Miles from my vehicle...and everyone elses too. The only people you see are like minded folks who are enjoying nature as nature intended it. Until the group with the pack horses comes through... and leaves you smelling them for the next 2 hours. I like being able to walk down narrow trails and not having to hear two strokes buzzing along in the distance, or having to jump out of the way of mountain bikes to avoid getting run over.

On the other hand, I like having "non-disneyland~esque" areas to ride my motorcycle, mountain bike, and drive my jeep into. Losing a large chunk of land in such a beautiful area hurts this hand (but helps the other). The problem is that these activities (mechanized) ARE harmful to the environment (I don't like horses in wilderness areas either). While the impact can be minimal if one pays attention and keeps their testosterone in check, there will always be the hiker on the single track right around the blind corner (who either gets hit, is forced to jump out of the way, or the mountain bike/motorcycle leaves the trail to avoid them), there will always be the wild life that is distrupted, there will always be the ya-hoo that thinks it is OK to leave the trail to set up camp 1/4 mile away...right in the middle of the riparian area. Once he does it, so will the next guy, because "someone else already drove over there, so it is OK for me to do it too". Then the next one, and the next one....if you don't believe it, just look at nearly any of the trails in high use areas. The problem will keep getting worse and worse as more and more people turn to motorized outdoor recreation. This is why I believe wilderness areas need to be designated NOW, before they are destroyed.

It is a simple (and painful) fact that while there are alot of people out there who ARE responsible, who DO make an effort to minimize their impact, who DO tread lightly...there are just as many who do not. If we cannot protect the environment from those who do not, then I cannot find a reason to support keeping the land open.

To the side issue of handi-cap access: I have stated in other threads, and will state my opinion again. I believe in every geographic area, there should be some access to those less fortunate than us. This does not mean turn everything into disneyland. It means that there should be a couple of well maintained trails for those who cannot handle the rougher trails in each geographical area. Sabino Canyon near Tucson is a prime example. There are a few level, wide, maintained trails which are accessable...there is even a tram which goes a few miles up the canyon. And then there are a bunch of traditional trails for everyone that prefers that kind of hiking.

 

[calamaridog]

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I simply love being in wilderness areas. Miles from my vehicle...and everyone elses too. The only people you see are like minded folks who are enjoying nature as nature intended it. Until the group with the pack horses comes through... and leaves you smelling them for the next 2 hours. I like being able to walk down narrow trails and not having to hear two strokes buzzing along in the distance, or having to jump out of the way of mountain bikes to avoid getting run over.

What is there to be torn about

There are already wilderness areas and hiking only areas to enjoy, and there are already mixed use areas to enjoy The best of both worlds! Before you go, you should know which trails you will find total solitude on, and which you will share the experience on.

I've hiked for days in the Sierra's and never seen another soul. It's a nice feeling, I know. And you know what, there are areas in the Sierra's where you can access via 4x4 trails too. And many of those areas see maybe 50 vehicles pass in a year.

My issue is not to lock the gate to multiple use just for the sake of a wilderness designation. Recent events have proven that both ideas can be successfully incorporated into one area by allowing certain popular trails to remain open, closing some others to mitigate existing damage or potential damage to fragile systems, and most of all compromising.

If you don't offer something to both sides then lines will continue to be drawn in the sandbox.

 

[Clutch]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.


Wilderness:

Main Entry: wil·der·ness
Pronunciation: 'wil-d&r-n&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from wildern wild, from Old English wilddEoren of wild beasts
1 a (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community b : an empty or pathless area or region <in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found -- G. W. Gray died 1960> c : a part of a garden devoted to wild growth
2 obsolete : wild or uncultivated state
3 a : a confusing multitude or mass : an indefinitely great number or quantity <I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys -- Shakespeare> b : a bewildering situation <those moral wildernesses of civilized life -- Norman Mailer>



Maybe they shouldn't call it wilderness?

 

[pwc]

None of the government agencies we talk about have full fundingto really study thier lands and COMPLETELY manage them in the best way. Look at the billions of dollars of backlog the national park service has as an example.

With that in mind, I'm more in favor of erroring on the side of too much conservation NOW to make sure there is something to debate about later. If there's a great tract of land that has some roads on it but we (government agencies) don't know if those roads should remain and don't have the funding to do a full impact assesment, let along the man power, I say close it off and let it just sit. Are there meth labs, illegal grazing or mining going on in those areas now? It's hard to say since you can't check on all the multi-use areas. If an area is that great that we want to preserve it for generations to come, why don't we do that now and let future generations decide when they have some prestine land on their hands, as compared to some overused area we didn't have the time and money to manage?

Does that make sense to anyone? If you don't protect something you can't manage now (and designating as wilderness does a great job of shutting out illegal activity), you might not have it in the future and you can't just grow back most of these areas.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

Interesting debate.. Some of you may know that both Kurt & I have been very involved in the wilderness and 4WD advocacy debates.. He is a former President of the U4WDA, I was the land use coordinator for Wasatch Cruisers Land Cruiser club and organized a "thank you Moab" ad campaign after a particularly bad Easter Jeep Safari in that there were fights on Moab Rim it was a generally bad year...

Kurt is more of a traditional land use advocate in that he generally opposed anything that offers restriction to mechanized vehicles, even if it means that it will stop oil and gas drilling and may otherwise change the landscape (correct me if I'm wrong Kurt)...

Whereas I generally have respect and want to preserve the land but I believe certain segments can be used with minimal damage. IE I think vehicles should be able to go in this section at least, I believe the 4WD issue for the strict environmental groups is overstated, and I largely believe it is a cultural issue, in that in the end it still boils down to the same-old left versus right in the end. But I do believe that land should have protection against oil and gas drilling and exploration (unless, possibly, very strict environmental preservation regulations are put into effect), and I think the land should generally be preserved... And that generally the wilderness groups (SUWA at least) is unfortunately close minded and overly narrow about this, not willing to compromise or come up with some sort of scenario that works for 4WD users as well.



As a result here is what I wrote:

Senator Durbin,
I am writing in response to the proposed Wilderness Act that will affect Southern Utah. I wanted to mention that I am generally a Democrat and am Liberal and generally favor land use restrictions, particularly in regards to energy exploration and development. However, I wanted to say that I oppose this bill in its current form because of its land use measures specifically involving 4WD vehicles. Much of this land is incredibly remote and simply cannot be reached without 4WD vehicles. While I am not an avid 4WD enthusiast, I do believe that the current debate with the 4WD vehicles, in many cases, is "mental" from the perspective of the environmental organizations, some of which I personally support. The damage by 4WD vehicles is overstated, and particularly in these rural areas very few people are there regardless. The opposition comes from the fact that most 4WD enthusiasts are Republicans and Conservative, ultimately it is a cultural issue.

In fact most 4WD users, particularly those interested in going to these areas, are environmentalists too, and believe in just as much protection for these lands as the environmental groups. I do not think there should be a ban on 4WD and mechanized vehicles in my opinion. I hope you and/or your staff will revisit this and realistically re-evaluate your stance on it. Furthermore, I am from New York originally; I thought I understood the issues before I moved here, but found that I did not until I got here.

Sincerely,
Andre Shoumatoff
Park City, Utah

 

[PhulesAU]

Ultimately the voters will decide - and that's who should.

I have always wanted to take a quote out of context.... If you belive this then, why are you still getting raked over the coals by the IRS????

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...This is not popular in Utah with the people who live there. How about some local input?

You pretty much summed it up right there...

I typed out a giant reply... computer froze up just as I hit the "post" button... here is my summary. My opinions...

1. Utah has plenty of existing Wilderness and WSA (WSA's are just exploited loopholes that are essentially Wilderness).

2. I don't oppose more Wilderness, nor do many motorized users. But I do oppose 9.4 mil more... especially when we stand to lose HISTORIC access in some of these areas.

3. While I can respect the Wilderness advocates opinion to some degree, I honestly have a really hard time respecting that of the motorized user that wants this 9.4 Wilderness. How can you honestly say that we need Wilderness void of motorized users, and then justify your next trip. What makes these proposed area any less succeptable to the damage YOU think happens? Want your cake and eat it too... I have a hard time seeing how there is a line to walk... either your for Wilderness and anti-mechanized or you against it and think that we should maintain the motorized access we have now.

4. How in the heck is it "environmentally respectful and preserving" to literally funnel the increasing number of mechanized users onto a dwindling amount of land. Talk about two faced... I beleive 100% that public land would be better off as a whole if we had more dispersed use... which doesn't happen when we keep corralling the same amount of users (lets not forget the other users not allowed in Wilderness ie: ranchers, oil, mining, etc.) I posed this exact question to SUWA leader Heidi Macintosh, here response was simple bs. She just wants here big paycheck and the multi-milluin dollar lawsuit machine (aka SUWA) to continue their sting of frivolous legal roadblocks.

5. Interestingly enough the Redrock Bill keeps growing... how do they keep finding more Wilderness? Where was it before? At one time some of the motirzed advocacy groups agreed to the majority of the proposed Wilderness, but they weren't willing to comprimise, why should they? They are making big $$$ touring the US showing the destruction our vehicles are doing.

Enough ranting for me tonight... Thanks!

 

[calamaridog]

Kurt,

You are correct. Every year there are more motorized recreationists and less acreage to recreate on. This is an incontrovertable statement, and contributes to the self-fulfilling prophecy that motorized recreation is bad. As more and more people attempt to ride and drive on less and less acres, the problems will continue to compound.

In other words, it is not environmentally responsible to do this.

It's not like someone is saying we want to turn this 9 million acres into Wilderness and then we will set aside these several 100k acre tracts for motorized recreation to offset your loss.

The other issue you touch on is the multi-million dollar Anti-Access environmental lobby (business) in the U.S. This is self serving industry, in and of itself.

Compare that to the mostly grass roots lobby of the Pro-Access groups and you are talking David and Goliath.