ALERT - Harry Reid to Force Vote On Omnibus Land Grab This Weekend - 09 Jan 2009

[Guinness44]

Lots more wildernesses. (The LCFWDC, the Chile Canyons, are probably gone, last Chile Challenge this year???). THATS the problem with this bill, its sooo huge, sooo many pages, sooo many areas. So they just sign it because: right now its a fad to be green. Look thrugh the paper, lots of "green" ads, its like Vitamin C, then Calcium, then Clasic Coke, then.... a FAD.
So you want votes, GREEN is the word. When we took them Greens on a landuse run, most of them were newbies, from out of state: stirring up dust, most of them didnt have a CLUE where they wanted wildernesses, and even admitted, wow, thats just not so bad to drive thrugh here. BUT......so get ready for blacktopping with those MTs.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

C'mon, guys. Do you have any idea what percentage of public land in the U.S. is "locked up" as wilderness, including the land in this bill? Any clue? You won't be stuck on pavement with your MTs anytime soon.

 

[cnynrat]

C'mon, guys. Do you have any idea what percentage of public land in the U.S. is "locked up" as wilderness, including the land in this bill? Any clue? You won't be stuck on pavement with your MTs anytime soon.

So a little Googling produced the following information ...

About 650 million acres of land are owned by the federal government. This stat included BLM, NFS, and NPS administered lands, and given the context I suspect also includes areas such as military bases, government office buildings, etc.

About 107 million acres are currently set aside as designated wilderness areas.

So we've got about 16% of the total federally owned land set aside as wilderness, and the 2.5 million acres in the bill being discussed here represents just a couple percent increase to that total. These numbers do not include any land owned by the states, some of which may be off limits to mechanized recreation.

Like a lot if things, the devil may be in the details. 10 acres put into the wilderness system can effectively block access to a favorite trail. If there are specific areas in the bill that are a problem with respect to off-road access it would be more clear how to respond.

 

[Guinness44]

It is unreal, that not only the greenies are trying to shut us down, but some fellow 4wd people.
As said, ONE bill, ONEHUNDREDANDSIXTY areas, ONETHOUSANDTHREEHUNDRED pages. Does one really believe, that "they" read all this, OR have ANY clue what this is all about, whereabout? This is being pushed thrugh, really fast, WHY? Because they know ITS WRONG. If it were legit, why the big rush?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Okay, first: It's not "federally owned." Sorry to keep harping on that, but it's one of the misconceptions most eagerly promoted by anti-conservationists.

It's public land, owned by all of us. The government - local, state, federal - only manages it at our direction. If enough of us become unhappy about the way it's being managed, the management will change.

Second, you took into account only public land. The concept of wilderness is to protect what remains of all the land in the country in some semblance of its natural state. The U.S. comprises about 2.27 billion acres, so the total percentage of designated wilderness is less than five. One out of 20 acres. Is that really too much land to preserve free from ATVs and, yes, Land Cruisers and Land Rovers? A significant majority of the American people think not.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

It is unreal, that not only the greenies are trying to shut us down, but some fellow 4wd people.

So, if I own a 4x4 I'm not allowed to enjoy hiking as well?

This facile polarization of outdoor enthusiasts will result in loss for all of us.

 

[cnynrat]

Okay, first: It's not "federally owned." Sorry to keep harping on that, but it's one of the misconceptions most eagerly promoted by anti-conservationists.

It's public land, owned by all of us. The government - local, state, federal - only manages it at our direction. If enough of us become unhappy about the way it's being managed, the management will change.

Point well taken about the land being managed by the Federal government based on the wishes of the citizens. That does raise a potentially interesting line of discussion about whether that in fact is what is happening.

I think it is appropriate to refer to these areas as "federally owned". If you look at the text of the 1964 Wilderness Act it specifically refers to "Federally owned areas" in describing those lands to be considered for inclusion in the wilderness system. "Federally Owned" and "Public Lands" may have different connotations, but I believe both are correct terms.

Second, you took into account only public land. The concept of wilderness is to protect what remains of all the land in the country in some semblance of its natural state. The U.S. comprises about 2.27 billion acres, so the total percentage of designated wilderness is less than five. One out of 20 acres. Is that really too much land to preserve free from ATVs and, yes, Land Cruisers and Land Rovers? A significant majority of the American people think not.

You asked a question about acreages, perhaps rhetorically. I provided an answer, but frankly I don't really think that's a productive avenue for discussion. Absent consideration of a specific area, nobody can say how much is too little, or too much for that matter. The discussion should really center on the merits of incuding a specific parcel in the wilderness system. Considerations should include whether the area in question meets the criteria as defined in the Wilderness Act, it's "wilderness character", it's uniqueness, and other characteristics. That's been missing in this discussion about the bill passed by the Senate last weekend.

In case it's not clear, I am a proponent of the wilderness system. I also enjoy hiking, canyoneering, and backpacking, all activities best enjoyed in a wilderness context. I am all for protecting areas for these pursuits (and for other reasons) so long as the decisions are made in a balanced way.

 

[cnynrat]

This facile polarization of outdoor enthusiasts will result in loss for all of us.

I agree with this point completely.

My observation is that it's mainly people who "cross over" to both sides who hold this view. Not too many people who recreate solely on one side or the other of the "mechanized" dividing line aren't already polarized.

Certainly would be productive to find ways to build more bridges to connect all outdoor enthusiasts. Maybe we need to be thinking about tunnels - less obvious to start with.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

You make good points as well. The fact remains that however it is called, public land is a birthright of every citizen in the U.S., and if enough of us find fault with how it's managed, it will change.

I also agree with a balanced approach. The problem is that for the first 200 years of our country's existence there was no such approach; natural resources were considered up for grabs and inexhaustible. Now that we have found out this is not so, a balanced approach in my mind means giving the benefit of the doubt to wilderness. As the saying goes, they're not making it any more. If every harebrained legislative proposal in existence for new wilderness areas went through all at once, it still wouldn't make much of a dent in what we've already mined, logged, and paved over.

 

[jg45]

I must say that I am against the bill. I am concerned that the omnibus bill was made so that things that wouldn't pass on their own would get passed by being included (possibly buried deeply within) a larger omnibus bill. When it comes to the Wilderness designation, I feel that an area should truely be roadless wilderness. I am for the Backcountry Designation as described by the Blue Ribbon Coalition. This would protect assets from being developed/exploited (as described by Mr. Hanson) and still allow existing access to the land to be maintained.

BRC information regarding the omnibus bill

BRC info on Backcountry Designation

 

[teotwaki]

......................
Like a lot if things, the devil may be in the details. 10 acres put into the wilderness system can effectively block access to a favorite trail. If there are specific areas in the bill that are a problem with respect to off-road access it would be more clear how to respond.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE TACTIC..!

My local national forest has a 10 mile trail called San Juan in the Cleveland National Forest. The Wilderness proponents keep trying to slice the trail here and there and effectively shut the whole trail down to mountain bikers. That makes it easier to come back and take the whole area. Boil the frog a little at a time.

Same for OHV users:

"The Ceveland National Forest, Descanso District has implemented the new off road management plan. The Forest Service adopted plan 3 which is the most consertivate plan. The OHV area had 2100 acres which was reduced to 1800 acres last year. With the new plan OHV usage is now limited to 12.8 acres total. OHV trails were cut by 75% to under 9 miles total in the area. Left untouched was a 8 mile road leading from I-8 to the OHV area."

 

[cnynrat]

I also agree with a balanced approach. The problem is that for the first 200 years of our country's existence there was no such approach; natural resources were considered up for grabs and inexhaustible. Now that we have found out this is not so, a balanced approach in my mind means giving the benefit of the doubt to wilderness. As the saying goes, they're not making it any more. If every harebrained legislative proposal in existence for new wilderness areas went through all at once, it still wouldn't make much of a dent in what we've already mined, logged, and paved over.

That doesn't really sound like a balanced approach to me. At what point in time do you judge that we will have properly atoned for the sins of our forefathers? Who should make that judgement?

Earlier in this thread others were critical of the OP because of his suggestion that just because it's a wilderness bill this community should be against it. How is the position you take here any different in principal than his?

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was created with specific criteria governing how these lands are to be selected for inclusion in the wilderness system, and for how they are to be managed once included. Recognizing that there is room for human judgement to enter into the process, it seems to me that the law should applied as faithfully as possible to govern the decisions that are made, and decisions should not be based on some arbitrary tilting of the scales.

I also think it's worth noting that the first time public lands were preserved by any government was in 1832 when Andrew Jackson set aside land near Hot Springs AR. In 1864 Lincoln signed an act of Congress that set aside Yosemite "for public use, resort and recreation" for all time. In 1872 Yellowstone was set aside as the world's first national park. Admittedly none of these actions reached the level of full wilderness designation as we now understand it, but it didn't take the U.S. 200 years to begin to recognize the need to preserve some of our natural heritage.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I'm all for keeping plenty of public land open to motorized recreation yet free from resource extraction. I'm also all for keeping plenty of public land open to non-motorized recreation and free from resource extraction. And I realize that some areas of public land need to be open for carefully regulated mining and logging. That's what I consider a balanced approach.

Just as many environmental organizations do not recognize such a balance, so does the Blue Ribbon Coalition fail to do so. They are all about motorized access, period.

 

[teotwaki]

..........
I also think it's worth noting that the first time public lands were preserved by any government was in 1832 when Andrew Jackson set aside land near Hot Springs AR. In 1864 Lincoln signed an act of Congress that set aside Yosemite "for public use, resort and recreation" for all time. In 1872 Yellowstone was set aside as the world's first national park. Admittedly none of these actions reached the level of full wilderness designation as we now understand it, but it didn't take the U.S. 200 years to begin to recognize the need to preserve some of our natural heritage.

But facts tend to unsettle the screaming chorus that WE HAVE TO ACT NOW :ylsmoke:

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Dave, you're right: The United States has often been at the forefront of environmental protection. Nevertheless, it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century that environmental awareness became widespread. Federal protection of water, air, and wilderness - these are all largely products of the 1960s - and pioneered by the U.S.

A whole bunch of American citizens are ready to fight to maintain that legacy.