9.4 mil acres in Southern Utah

[Jonathan Hanson]

I can relate. I feel the same way when some DINK families (Double Income No Kids) trot out the "preserve this and that, for future generations," banner. We are not guaranteed a tomorrow. Shouldn't we take advantage of, and make the most of, the opportunities we have today?

I would enjoy reading your take on the dichotomy between the "live your life today" mantra that you & Roseann have encouraged but making preservation and conservation for tomorrow, your life's work.

Interesting challenge, KC. Roseann and I comprise a DAINK family (Double Awful Incomes No Kids), yet we never thought that being childless meant we couldn't be concerned about the world being left to the children of our friends and relatives, or to future generations of humanity in general.

I'm sure there are many anti-wilderness 4WD enthusiasts who are genuinely concerned only about handicapped access when they use that argument. But I'll let everyone reading this estimate honestly what percentage that is of the whole, and how many would thus agree to leave controversial routes open only to 4x4s with handicapped plates.

And I don't see the dichotomy you mentioned. It was our growing desire to preserve what we experienced in the natural world that led us to our current lifestyle. We saw that the paradigm of bigger incomes, bigger houses, and bigger SUVs not only wasn't good for the environment, it didn't make its proponents any happier either. Look it up: Every such study ever completed proves that there is no relationship between money and happiness. None. Those who are happiest are those who feel they are doing something useful, whether or not it pays well.

So, we simplified. And doing so automatically gave us more time to "live our lives today."

 

[DesertRose]

I would enjoy reading your take on the dichotomy between the "live your life today" mantra that you & Roseann have encouraged but making preservation and conservation for tomorrow, your life's work.

Respectfully -

Methinks KC is walking along the cages with a stick, rattling the bars Lookout, the door's open!

I'm flummoxed, frankly by your belief that it's a dichotomy at all. I really, really had to think hard to even get what you meant . . .

"Live your life today" is not about just making me happy. It's about living for the moment, while at the same time not just existing for the sake of making oneself happy. It's about making a meaningful life. People mistake simple living and chasing dreams as selfish - but dreams can be about leaving this planet a better place than you came into it.

If I sat down today and asked myself seriously, "If I died tomorrow, can I honestly say that I lived a life that was more than just making money and spending it and being happy . . . or have I made a positive difference to humanity and / or (hopefully both) the Earth, our most precious legacy?"

You asked, KC, you asked! I feel like my choices in life have been such that I am trying to make a difference for both people and the landscape, and the little bit I've done has had some nice victories in preserving open space in populated areas, saving Wilderness, and assisting communities with reaching their own goals in improving their lives in their own way.

So if I checked out tomorrow, I think I can answer Yes to the question above.

How many people who winge about "losing access" and "mitigation" - and don't get me wrong, as snarky as I intended to sound, I think they have a right to want to preserve something that is important to them (access) - are doing something else to help protect, preserve, or improve something bigger than themselves, a part of the whole continuum of earth and humankind?

We live in the richest country on earth, the freest dang brats alive - the fact you even get the chance to debate what happens to the land is totally forgotten, as I think we're probably the only country on the planet where the people have such an extensive say in our land legacy. And as such (being free, special, democracy-laden brats) we owe it to things we can't see, feel, or touch to protect and preserve them even if we never visit them.

I want to know there is Wilderness out there where there are wolves running around eating deer without harassment from humans on wheels; I want to know there is Wilderness out there where a million caribou still flow across the landscape as they have for millenia; I want to know there is Wilderness out there where I can go and recapture where humans came from, because that IS where humans emerged from, and I don't believe for a single solitary moment that humans don't belong in Wilderness - I just think that as populations explode, and we expand and our technology lets us explore - and invade - the farthest reaches of every place - we should make some of it exclusive - yes, exclusive - to un-mechanized, natural travel.

I fear that if humans altogether lose natural (unmechanized) contact with Wilderness, the place we came from, something very precious will disappear from our very fabric of life. Wild things and places are part of who we are, parts of that weft of the fabric; you don't notice it necessarily but it makes us stronger.

Honestly, it truly pains me to hear that people think that those of us who love wild, untrammeled places (trammel means fettered, not trod upon) think it's some total-exclusionary thing, or some elitist thing - like we want it only for ourselves, or want to "keep people out." That could not be farther from the truth. I really believe that humans can and should look to those things that are greater than ourselves - God and nature - and hold tight to them. Or we're lost.


En garde.

The cat's back in her cage.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Your painting the motorized argument as something it is NOT... We (only speaking on behalf of those I converse with)... do NOT want new roads... that has never been an arguements. Its the fact that countless existing roads and trails would be lost due to Wilderness classification. Is some cases they have "cherry stemmed" the existing ROW's into the W/WSA, but the WAG's are pushing against that in nearly every case

Kurt, I know that most motorized users aren't arguing for new roads. But I attended I can't remember how many public meetings when the roadless rule for the National Forests was open for comment. At every meeting there were people who stood at the podium and said, "We don't need fewer roads, we need MORE roads!" So there is a fringe faction out there, just as there is a fringe faction on the other side who would outlaw off-highway traffic altogether. You gotta watch those fringe factions; they can creep up on you.

 

[goodtimes]

I can say it with a strait face... While I fully agree that we are "impacting" the land, I disagree that legal OHV use is causing significant damage to the worlds eco-system as a whole. Mother nature can evolve, adapt and repair, just as mankind has over the years... Some of the areas included in the RR bill were once great forests with meandering rivers... they are now barren deserts with deep gorges carved over millions of years. Nature adapts to the minimal impact OHVs have.

Well, we could fire off every nuclear device on the planet...and the planet will eventually recover. The human race probably won't...but isn't the point. When you get right down to it, it is pretty much impossible for us to "destroy the planet". That doesn't mean it is a good idea. My point is simply that we (the OHV community) do have a negative impact on the environment, and we should (IMO) be doing everything we can to mitigate the damage while recreating responsibly. Emphasis on the last two words.

You must remember that Wilderness nor WSA designations do not stop illegal OHV use, in fact in some cases they just promote it as historic routes are suddenly closed and rouge OHV users assert their rights.

The last 3 words here are incorrect. They should read "break the law", because that is what they are doing. OHV users have no *right* to drive on routes that have been closed. It doesn't matter if it was open yesterday, or last year, if it is closed, it is closed. We all know illegal OHV use is a problem...in fact the biggest problem IMO. If everyone stayed on the trails and didn't litter, we would all be in a better position. But since people don't take care of the land, I feel compelled to support conservation efforts similar to the one in question here.

This is not true for all BLM land... each area is evaluated by its field office and motorized travel designations are set. In "most" of Utahs BLM land, the are is limited to "existing routes" only, and with each travel plan revision more of those turn to "designated routes" only. The actual area impacted by man is minimal in these areas. Do we need to teach more proper backcountry ethics? Minimal impact? Leave no trace? Sure... but education will always be needed and the hardest to accomplish.

It is possible that the office responsible for the central AZ BLM land is handling things differently than in Utah...or I may have gotton some bad info. But regardless, my point is simply that in certain areas (like the washes that run hard and fast during storms) will repair themselves several times per year, eliminating the environmental damage the OHV group causes *in that location* (ignoring the issue of litter and oil/chemical spills). In those locations, I am much more in support of keeping trails open, and even opening new trails if there is a legitimate reason (something more than "we want to drive over those big rocks"). But in the vast majority of areas (acre for acre), the water does not flow hard enough to accomplish this. The result is a much more permanent impact on the environment. IMO, this calls for a different strategy in order to effectively manage it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree... I don't think the "problem" as it is called exists like others would have you beleive. I spent 50+ days on the trail last year, almost all in Utah... I can't think of an area that had irrepairable damage and or damage beyond the healing powers of mother nature (fire, flood, snow, etc.)

The damage I see every day on the trail is obvious. Trash laying around, automotive batteries tossed into a creek, tires heaved over the side of cliffs...multiple trails leading around a tree (braiding), Saguaros being used as winch anchors. The problem is more the user than the method of use. If people stayed on the trail, didn't litter, didn't shoot everything they saw, didn't cut down old mining buildings for firewood and generally acted responsibly...there wouldn't be as much need for conservation, IMO. But as long as people act irresponsibly, and there is no enforcement, we, as a country, should do something to protect some of the land.

One last comment, which I probably should have made in my first post. My comments here are not aimed directly at the wilderness area in question. I have not seen the maps, nor do I know of the historic value or extent of the existing access routes. My thoughts here are in more of a general nature...why I support wilderness areas in theory. I like the idea of having wilderness areas...wether or not I support a specific area being designated as a wilderness area should not be assumed. I support access rights, but I also support responsible land use. With that comes support for setting aside some of the land in a manner that will preserve it for the future.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...The last 3 words here are incorrect. They should read "break the law", because that is what they are doing. ...

I agree, I had intended to add quote around "assert their rights" as that is the argument many use when the situation is brought to light. I too do not support breaking the law, regardless of how crooked the closure may or maynot be. Sorry for the confusion there.

...The damage I see every day on the trail is obvious. Trash laying around, automotive batteries tossed into a creek, tires heaved over the side of cliffs...multiple trails leading around a tree (braiding), Saguaros being used as winch anchors. The problem is more the user than the method of use. If people stayed on the trail, didn't litter, didn't shoot everything they saw, didn't cut down old mining buildings for firewood and generally acted responsibly...there wouldn't be as much need for conservation, IMO. But as long as people act irresponsibly, and there is no enforcement, we, as a country, should do something to protect some of the land.

But creating Wilderness will NOT stop people from being idiots... their impact will just intesify elsewhere, or they will break the law and continue about their normal pattern. Wilderness doesn't educate people, it doesn't provide an ethical model... it just locks people out of historic access.

...My thoughts here are in more of a general nature...why I support wilderness areas in theory. I like the idea of having wilderness areas...wether or not I support a specific area being designated as a wilderness area should not be assumed. I support access rights, but I also support responsible land use. With that comes support for setting aside some of the land in a manner that will preserve it for the future.

I support wilderness too... when it is truly that, wilderness. Manufactured Wilderness does us zero good, and as I have argued it just funnells the use elsewhere (as it has in other Utah wilderness's). I guess the whole emphasis of my argument is we don't need Wilderness to protect land unlike some would tend to beleive.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Kurt, I know that most motorized users aren't arguing for new roads. But I attended I can't remember how many public meetings when the roadless rule for the National Forests was open for comment. At every meeting there were people who stood at the podium and said, "We don't need fewer roads, we need MORE roads!" So there is a fringe faction out there, just as there is a fringe faction on the other side who would outlaw off-highway traffic altogether. You gotta watch those fringe factions; they can creep up on you.

Sure they exist... I've seen them many times too... in some cases I have to agree with them. In the areas in question for the RR Wilderness, I don't necissarily agree.

Sit back and look at it from their perspective... We have a drastically increasing OHV user base, and a dwindling amount of trails. The anti-motorized groups are already preaching "overuse" and "resource damage", yet they want to continue to reduce the legal opportunities. Its a means to an end by their account, likely exactly what they want to happen.

I guess I just can't put myself in your shoes and see how you can justify doing any offroading, inviting any additional folks out, or even advocating the use of OHV's if you truly think the environment needs to be protected from US. Why is the "environment" your OK with traveling in any less precious than the "environment" they seek to protect?

 

[DesertRose]

I guess I just can't put myself in your shoes and see how you can justify doing any offroading, inviting any additional folks out, or even advocating the use of OHV's if you truly think the environment needs to be protected from US. Why is the "environment" your OK with traveling in any less precious than the "environment" they seek to protect?

Speaking for myself, I'm not seeing it as a "USE" issue. Wilderness in general, to me (well, and it's biologically a fact), is important for wildlife. There really needs to be places where the suite of natural species - deer, mountain lions, bears, raptors, etc - can live unmolested by our mechanicals. Not tiny little parks, but big landscapes.

We DO need to provide for the enormous growing OHV community. We don't deny that. Heavens, no one here is advocating not having great place places to explore, and keeping them open. We're talking about levels of access by vehicles.

Again, again, again - we're getting polarized so that it's only about US, and only about MY ACCESS and USE and "US VS. THEM" and "THEM BAD GREENIES WANT TO LOCK US OUT" blah blah blah.

I just want to see folks try to look at something that's bigger than themselves and their needs and wants, and try to compromise on something that won't leave us with a legacy like, say, Europe, where for the most part every square inch has been severely altered and affected by humans, and no true wild places are left.

Why do we think that when all of us talk about overlanding dream places, it's to Africa and South America, not France?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Then I owe you an appology...then, you do know. I did not know that about you.

No apology needed, Kermit. It was a fair challenge.

 

[DesertRose]

Let me just clarify as well, what I'm talking about on a theoretical and personal basis, if I can.

South of where we live is about half a million acres of ranchlands, state land, a little BLM land, and a lot of federal (wildlife refuge) land.

It's mixed multiple use - plenty of road access, good hunting, birdwatching, and hiking and biking and overlanding on two and four wheels.

If tomorrow a proposal came up to turn it into Wilderness and leave only a few roads for management, and I could only access it by foot, I'd support it in a heartbeat - even though it's my favorite place in the U.S. to explore with our Land Cruisers or mt bikes and to hunt in.

Why?

Because I believe in putting land and natural legacy ahead of my own wants. And there are 9 million acres of National Forest land in my region, not to mention millions of BLM and state lands, open to me in my region.

That's simply my view. We'd be on opposite sides of the fence, but then this is a democracy.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

We have illuminated in this thread, some of us unintentionally, the major difference between the majority of motorized, anti-wilderness advocates and the majority of wilderness advocates.

Admit it or not, arguments against wilderness and for unrestricted motorized access to public lands rely heavily on the personal pronoun. It's always about "me." "My" rights, "my" access, "my" public lands. There is nothing wrong with that, unless one tries to pretend it isn't so, which is where my objections to spurious arguments about handicapped access arise. Please note again what I wrote: There's nothing wrong with arguing for one's personal rights on public land which one pays taxes to maintain. I also want access to lots of public land where I can drive my Land Cruiser and Land Rover.

But those personal rights are the only valid arguments in existence for favoring roaded access over wilderness. You can't argue that roaded areas make better wildlife habitat, because it isn't true. You can't argue that roaded areas are more peaceful or offer a better nature experience. Roaded areas are where a significant majority of serious forest fires start (arguments that roads are needed for fighting fires have been totally disproven by the Forest Service's own studies). Roaded areas result in more erosion than non-roaded areas (and I don't have space to explain why there's a huge difference betwen natural and man-caused erosion).

Those of us who argue for preserving wilderness and even designating new wilderness have a higher goal in mind. Yeah, that sounds like total self-serving BS, but dammit it's true. I want to know there are places where the well-being of the habitat and the wildlife is the highest priority for our land managers. I don't care if I never get to see most of it; I'm satisfied knowing it's there and knowing that humans can still place certain issues above their own immediate desires.

Yes, there is a growing problem with increasing 4WD traffic in many places, especially near urban areas. But that should be a problem we have to deal with, not the wildlife it is our duty to protect and preserve. I don't plan to sit back and accept a Silent Running fate for nature.

I'm happy that the majority of members on Expedition Portal still mean it when they discuss mutliple use and the need to preserve wilderness. I don't mind disagreement on the extent to which we preserve that wilderness, but so far no one has convinced me that five percent of all the land in America is too much or even enough to preserve the legacy of what God put here.

 

[kcowyo]

Methinks KC is walking along the cages with a stick, rattling the bars Lookout, the door's open!

Actually my question and comments were not intended to be a challenge or an attempt at rattling the cages, but rather an opportunity for you two to clarify for those like myself who may not see the correlation. There is a reason I generally stay out of these threads you know......

While there are several members of this board who I enjoy antagonizing, I'm putting my ego aside to ask the question, so I may learn something from two people whose opinions I value and respect. For true intelligence isn't about knowing everything - it's about knowing you don't know everything. If I'm to be guilty of anything in this thread, let it be blatant ignorance and not intentional button-pushing.

And while I enjoyed reading your responses, I think I had my answer before you replied, when I logged onto the Hanson homepage and found this gem -

"Live as if to die tomorrow. Learn as if to live forever." - Mahatma Gandhi

I appreciate your several detailed responses. They have given me something to think about and a little better understanding of how to balance today & tomorrow, debates over access in Wilderness areas and whether it truly is about me and my recreational wants or is it about looking down the road to the bigger picture.

.....and now back to the sidelines :lurk:

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

You mean we wasted all that time and all we had to do was quote Ghandi?

 

[articulate]

You mean we wasted all that time and all we had to do was quote Ghandi?

John Lennon's "All you need is love" would have done the trick, too.

 

[DesertRose]

Is there a barfing emoticon?

 

[calamaridog]

We have illuminated in this thread, some of us unintentionally, the major difference between the majority of motorized, anti-wilderness advocates and the majority of wilderness advocates.

I think you've heard from a fraction of the players, who happen to participate on this forum, and think surprising similar thoughts, although they may not realize how similar those thoughts are.

Admit it or not, arguments against wilderness and for unrestricted motorized access to public lands rely heavily on the personal pronoun. It's always about "me." "My" rights, "my" access, "my" public lands. There is nothing wrong with that, unless one tries to pretend it isn't so, which is where my objections to spurious arguments about handicapped access arise. Please note again what I wrote: There's nothing wrong with arguing for one's personal rights on public land which one pays taxes to maintain. I also want access to lots of public land where I can drive my Land Cruiser and Land Rover.

Humans are very selfish creatures. Come to think of it, most animals are. I'm still trying to figure out where the "handicapped" arguement fit in. I have never seen this arguement used by a pro-access group.

But those personal rights are the only valid arguments in existence for favoring roaded access over wilderness.

What could be more important than personal rights?

You can't argue that roaded areas make better wildlife habitat, because it isn't true. You can't argue that roaded areas are more peaceful or offer a better nature experience.

The world would be a better place without humans, for sure.

Roaded areas are where a significant majority of serious forest fires start (arguments that roads are needed for fighting fires have been totally disproven by the Forest Service's own studies).

The vast majority of arson occurs right off the main highway. Not sure which firefighter told you they don't need dirt roads in the backcounty? After the largest fire in the history of the United States, the one in my backyard (literally), they graded MORE fire service roads and repaired existing ones to make it easier to move equipment.

Then again, the policies of our government agencies regarding wildfires has vastly altered the natural environment more than all the recreation could ever do.

Roaded areas result in more erosion than non-roaded areas (and I don't have space to explain why there's a huge difference betwen natural and man-caused erosion).

They do, but in the grand scheme of things, the use of a few roads for recreation has a tiny fraction of the impact on the earth compared to mining, development, etc.

Those of us who argue for preserving wilderness and even designating new wilderness have a higher goal in mind. Yeah, that sounds like total self-serving BS, but dammit it's true. I want to know there are places where the well-being of the habitat and the wildlife is the highest priority for our land managers. I don't care if I never get to see most of it; I'm satisfied knowing it's there and knowing that humans can still place certain issues above their own immediate desires.

Ah yes, the higher "goal" arguement

Yes, there is a growing problem with increasing 4WD traffic in many places, especially near urban areas. But that should be a problem we have to deal with, not the wildlife it is our duty to protect and preserve. I don't plan to sit back and accept a Silent Running fate for nature.

There should be a cry for managed (did I say funded too?) OHV areas to alleviate the presure near urban centers. 95% of OHV users are content to drive their quads around close to home and never venture too far away.

I'm happy that the majority of members on Expedition Portal still mean it when they discuss mutliple use and the need to preserve wilderness. I don't mind disagreement on the extent to which we preserve that wilderness, but so far no one has convinced me that five percent of all the land in America is too much or even enough to preserve the legacy of what God put here.

I'm happy too