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

[cnynrat]

The Blue Ribbon Coalition's Backcountry designation is a farce. It seeks to increase access and does not offer provisions for mitigating damaged created by recreational users. Yet, the BRC argument is based on needing access so management agencies can protect the land. Whatever happened to letting nature run it's course? I hear many BRC people pick apart the wilderness definition saying that true wilderness lacks the touch of man, yet at the same time advocate the 'backcountry' designation argueing that access is needed for active management. Seems to me like the BRC just wants to have motorized access everywhere, not very conservation minded in my opinion.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the BRC's Backcountry proposal, but I think it's an idea worthy of consideration. Seems to me that a tool that allowed us to block future commercial development (mining, etc.), preserved the essentially undeveloped character of an area, but allowed for a diversity of recreational pursuits might be a useful addition to our portfolio of land managment tools. I don't see it replacing full Wilderness designation - and neither does the BRC. They specifically state that there is a place for Wilderness designation which by definition does not include mechanized access.

Appropriate managment of mechanized recreation would need to be addressed. Perhaps such use should be restricted to existing trails/roads present at the time the area is designated this way. Seems that this is a proposal that both sides could start with and develop into a useful management practice.

Perhaps we are already too polarized though.

 

[1leglance]

All I want and need is to keep the road/trails we already have. There are plenty and honestly we don't need more.

So I would support any plan that preserves the areas without roads against resource extraction and against new roads AS LONG AS it also preserves the roads/trails we already have for motorized use.

Remember beyond those of us who MUST USE motorized access to reach the backcountry due to physical disability there are plenty of geologist, conservationist, those who study animals, plants and more who also need motorized access.

Personally I am just glad to see this discussion since there is a serious case of apathy amoung the off highway community and I hope we can keep it civil.

So now the real question isn't what do you THINK should be done, but what are you DOING about what you think?
Are you calling, writing, emailing, telling anyone in your government?
After you use public lands for a trail run or camping trip do you call the head office and thank someone high up for that access, tell them you picked up some trash and offer to help in the future?
Do you pay for all the proper permits and fees so the system has some cash in it for the land managers to use?
Do you go to local meetings and voice your concerns?

Compared to my time spent working against motorized access I can tell you the off highway community is hurting itself far more than outside forces. Jeep vs Hummer vs Toyota instead of working together. 4wd vs ATV vs Mountain biker vs Horse Rider (they still have to get to trail heads)...

So posting here is great, put please send equal time telling your government officals.

 

[cnynrat]

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.

On this point I think we can agree! :victory:

And does that category of land open to mechanized recreation but closed to resource extraction sound even a little like the BRC's Backcountry designation? I think it does.

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.

While I might quibble a bit about your characterization of the BRC (they do explicitly state that they believe that "Wilderness designation is appropriate for many lands" for example), I agree that neither side seems to want to work together to find viable solutions to these issues.

But then we're back to that polarization issue again. The proponents on both sides seem more comfortable in their traditional positions of confrontation. Could it be they are afraid real soutions might lead to questions about their raison d'etre?

 

[Guinness44]

Good point horserides, (I got some hayburners too). They need to get to the trailheads. Lots of trails are being closed to equines. First mechaniced, then equines. IF you dare to ride in the wilderness, you must feed weedseedfree CERTIFIED feed, for several days before and during. Changing a horses feed is only safe, takes almost a WEEK, otherwise they can colic (horsekiller number one). And looking for THAT feed? If its available, you pay like it contains some goldpelltes.

And totally agree with 1leglance, us for 4wddriving, we dont need more trails, we dont want less trails. (Its just selfish to tell some disabled person, what has been written, park, and THATS it. And I am friends with a couple of those persons, who totally depend on mechanical transportation. A wheelchair is mechanical, and not allowed, and not really a hiking tool.)

 

[SinCityFJC]

I'm pretty sure wheelchairs and service dogs are allowed in wilderness areas & national parks...Is there an example where the ADA is being trumped by wilderness or park regulations? I didn't think that was possible from a legal standpoint.

Lance is best one to answer that question since he should be more current on those issues than myself.

In past dealings with BLM & planning consultants I was told ADA doesn't apply to wilderness areas - "if you can't walk in & out on your own two feet tuff"

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Wheelchairs are allowed in wilderness areas. Some new wilderness areas are even being designed with enhanced wheelchair access on certain tails.

 

[SinCityFJC]

Horses & pack animals are allowed in lots of wilderness areas. I think most of them have 4 hooves :sombrero: That's one form of wilderness access that works very well for people with mobility disabilities.

Ooops my comments were from my experience at public meetings with BLM & consultants on what is now Sloan Canyon Wilderness Area a number of years ago. As I said 1LegLance is a great resource for this kind of info.

 

[Guinness44]

Equines, for disabled mobility? Both my buddies wouldnt be able to enjoy that. PLUS if one were physically able to ride, one better learn A LOT about equine skills. Thats just not a quick crashcourse. (And dont forget the right FEED). There are trails, that have been closed to hooves. First mechanized, goes, then hooves.

Wheelchairs are considered mechanized. All mechanized travels (incl mountainbikes) are on the NO list.

 

[jg45]

Wow, some really passionate people chiming in about this subject. I find it interesting how perceptions, most likely influenced by those we associate with, differ. Mr. Hanson says 1. a majority of Americans support new wilderness areas, and 2. "a whole bunch of American citizens are ready to fight to protect that legacy". My perception is almost the opposite. Most people I know think we need to protect our natural resources, but would not consider designating areas that have roads as wilderness. I also know a bunch that would be willing to fight to protect what they view as their right to access and use their public lands. There are a lot of other things these people are about ready to start fighting for as well.

As for the BRC. They are dedicated to the preservation of motorized access to public lands. I'm OK with that. They are a specialty group. The Backcountry designation (as they lay it out) may not be perfect, but it is a start. I think it would benefit both sides to have this designation available (maybe with some modifications to the BRC definition).

Both sides have their zealots, and both sides have reasonable people. The problem is that the zealots tend to be the vocal ones. Hopefully we can get past the mantra of the zealots and come to a solution that protects our lands, our access to them (and yes that includes motorized where appropriate).

 

[jg45]

I imagine this should adequately clear up any confusion due to the MISINFORMATION that keeps popping up on within this forum. Perhaps you guys can vent on one of the other websites that does not look critically at both sides of the issues.

We are having a mostly civil and open debate on a subject that interests many of us. As the intent of the Expedition Portal seems to deal with motorized vehicle dependent travel remote or distant areas, this would seem to be in line with what this forum is all about.

[Edited to not inflame any feelings]

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

It is mandatory that we all keep this discussion civil.

However, there is one thing for a few of you to keep firmly in mind: The people who started this website are all strong wilderness proponents, in addition to being fans of vehicle-based recreation. The Conservation section was intended to be exactly that, not, as are similarly named sections on other sites, about the "conservation" of someone's perceived right to sit on his behind and drive or ride everywhere.

So, if you post an inflammatory thread here about wilderness legislation, and include terms such as "land grab," etc. etc., you can expect to be taken severely to task, and you'd better have your facts lined up. Debate is fine, disagreement is fine, but watch the rhetoric. The same warning applies to we "greenies," as some of you call us.

 

[1leglance]

It would appear as if you are proven incorrect...

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blm_programs/planning/Black_Rock_Desert-High_Rock_Canyon_Emigrant_Trails_National_Conservation_Area/black_rock-high_rock/background_documents/what_is_the_difference.html

Who was it that said the BLM told them otherwise?

Here's some bedtime reading if you don't trust the BLM...
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm#Anchor-Sec-6296

One man's opinion w/ good info...I think he is qualified to speak about mobility issues and wilderness.
https://www.hcn.org/issues/312/15986

I'm an avid mountain biker, but I do not blindly follow along w/our big advocacy group. Here's a greedy argument laid out that I do not agree with...
http://imba.com/resources/land_protection/wild_wheelchair.html

I imagine this should adequately clear up any confusion due to the MISINFORMATION that keeps popping up on within this forum. Perhaps you guys can vent on one of the other websites that does not look critically at both sides of the issues.

Well I said it before and I will say it again...
I like wild places that don't have roads...and I am fine with them staying that way.
I like remote places that already have road and I am working to keep those roads that ALREADY are in place open...not looking for new roads/trails, just keeping the ones we already have.

Oh and on the stuff you referenced...well here are my thoughts:

Wilderness is open to wheelchairs but " Improvements will not be made within a wilderness area to provide for wheelchair use."
So if you are not strong and able to move your chair on dirt, gravel, rocks you are still out of luck. But that is ok if we keep the roads/trails we already have since that will allow lots of access to remote places.

Another qoute "
Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) is to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires use of a wheelchair, and consistent with the Wilderness Act no agency is required to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation, or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area in order to facilitate such use.

(2) "Wheelchair" defined

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "wheelchair" means a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. "

So again you have to be strong and able to handle your chair in rough conditions...and there are already rules against segways, scooters and other electric chairs, but most land managers are allowing geared hand cycles and such which are helpful even if not traditional chairs.
But again that is ok as long as we keep the roads/trails we already have so there is plenty of backcountry access by vehicle.

Oh and the article that was referenced by the young man in a wheelchair...
Here are some direct quotes that are interesting:
" A one-mile trail may not seem like much, but to a wheelchair user, it’s a substantial distance"
and
"Including accessible trails in wilderness legislation is in harmony with both the disability and wilderness laws. "

So we see a wheelchair user state that trails are tough and even wilderness needs to be accessible...he is just ok with modified hiking trails instead of motorized access.
I am ok with that even though the above gov states say that no special trails will be made. And like I said I am ok with no vehicles in wilderness as long as we preserve the trails/road we already have.

We all know that there is hardly any money in the Park/Forest System for handicaped trails/routes/bathrooms/and such....so why close motorized access then ask for special trails & route? Why not just keep the roads/trails we already have which will meet the needs of the disabled and save money.

Let me sum this up again...
If there isn't a road/trail then keep it that way...
If there already is a road/trail then keep it that way...

That will allow the non-motorized folks to be happy....
and the motorized folks who often include the disabled will still have access to remote areas. Simple eh?

And for the record I am an amputee and only spent 6 months in a wheelchair...but it was a rough 6 months I still remember 20yrs later.

Please keep this thread civil and alive, lots of good discourse and reference material coming out of it. Please remember to disagree with someone doesn't mean you can't still be friends.

 

[jg45]

It is mandatory that we all keep this discussion civil.

However, there is one thing for a few of you to keep firmly in mind: The people who started this website are all strong wilderness proponents, in addition to being fans of vehicle-based recreation. The Conservation section was intended to be exactly that, not, as are similarly named sections on other sites, about the "conservation" of someone's perceived right to sit on his behind and drive or ride everywhere.

So, if you post an inflammatory thread here about wilderness legislation, and include terms such as "land grab," etc. etc., you can expect to be taken severely to task, and you'd better have your facts lined up. Debate is fine, disagreement is fine, but watch the rhetoric. The same warning applies to we "greenies," as some of you call us.

I did not start or title this thread. However, this is where the discussion is happening so this is where I am posting.

Well I said it before and I will say it again...
I like wild places that don't have roads...and I am fine with them staying that way.
I like remote places that already have road and I am working to keep those roads that ALREADY are in place open...not looking for new roads/trails, just keeping the ones we already have.

My stance exactly. I am afraid that this is the old adage about eating an elephant. One small bite at a time. There are those (not necessarily on this forum) that intend to close all public lands to motorized travel. They want to close the trails/roads around Moab and Death Valley just as much as the remote "wilderness" areas. People that support this stance know that it cannot be done all at once or the general population would cry foul. Therefore, they get sympathetic politicians to introduce legislation and do it a piece at a time. I am scared of this bill because of the way it was 1. assembled from some many smaller bills, and 2. the way a very unusual Sunday vote was called to make it filibuster proof. There are many good things in this bill that I do support, but there are things (i.e. the $3.5 million for St. Augustine's Birthday Party) that I do not support.

 

[SinCityFJC]

Vote is live right now on CSpan http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2_wm.aspx

 

[SinCityFJC]

Vote is live right now on CSpan http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2_wm.aspx

Just Passed 73 to 21