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

[cnynrat]

....
Closing motorized access is usually done for preservation of a resource.

I think there are some occasions when the claimed resource preservation issue is a trumped up excuse to justify closing mechanized access in order to favor one recreational use over another.

A classic example from the past is when the Sierra Club fought against mountain bike access in the early days of mountain biking. At the same time the Sierra Club was working to restrict mountain bike access, they were promoting pack stock trips in the High Sierras. Not just taking the position that use of pack stock was OK, but actually running trips themselves, often encompassing fairly large groups.

I've seen the damage caused by pack stock in the Sierras. I've hiked along trails where the surface of the trail was 2-3' below the surface of the surrounding terrain due to the erosion caused by pack stock. I've hiked in the wake of pack trains with the flies and the stink they leave behind. I've seen the meadows trampled by carelessly tended stock. These impacts easily dwarf any damage caused by mountain bikes.

The Sierra Club justified pack stock trips because they were "traditional". They fought against mountain bikes because it wasn't their chosen form of outdoor recreation.

I have not kept up with the latest Sierra Club positions on mountain bikes - I did not renew my membership over this issue. I suspect their stance may have softened over time as mountain bikes have become more mainstream. But you see the change is not that mountain bikes cause any less damage, it's that Sierra Club members have discovered that they like to ride mountain bikes now.

As a reminder I am a proponent of preservation and our wilderness system - look back through some of my earlier posts in this thread. At the same time though, I can see that in some instances it is not applied in a balanced way, and is used to promote other objectives.

 

[SinCityFJC]

S.22 did pass the Senate today

S. 22 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 )

Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.22 as Amended. )

Vote Number: 3 Vote Date: January 15, 2009, 12:21 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 22 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 )

Measure Title: A bill to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:

YEAs 73

NAYs 21

Not Voting 4


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00003

 

[1leglance]

Great dialogue here and I think with time we will find that like many people we are all alike than not...

The best thing that could come out of this discussion though is action by each person here.....posting on the forums is honestly useless. It will be the phone calls, emails, letters, visits to land meetings and such that will really change things.

So no matter what your stance please please get involved and make a difference.

On a side note...I expect all of you involved in this thread to be at a trail cleanup near you soon And hey for your phoenix folks we have a 4 Peaks one in Feb!!!!
Come on out and help show you are part of the solution.

 

[Hank]

Man, I cannot even believe what I reading, especially from Jonathan Hanson.

Maybe it's different on the West Coast, but here on the East side, we're totally against Wilderness.

Well, let me rephrase that.

Here on the East coast, outdoors men as against Wilderness.

We're not opposed to a road-less area, and we're not even opposed to a restricted area. But once an area goes "Wilderness", there's no getting it back.

What if Gypsy Moths come in and wipe out all the White Oaks? Is it better for the trees to die and fall? What about fire hazards? Would those White Oaks be better utilized as Timber? I tend to think so....

What about a fire line? There is nothing in the Wilderness rule that says a fire line cannot be maintained. Nothing. But can you reasonably maintain a fire line without a chainsaw or bulldozer?

How about Horseback riding? There is nothing in the Wilderness rule about Horseback Riding. Nothing. It's 100% fine. But what about when a tree falls over the trail? Handsaw, right? How about one of those big two-man hand saws where one pushes while the other pulls? That's sound to me like it would work like a charm.

I enjoy Mountain Biking. Can you ride a bike on Wilderness? IT'S A BIKE!!!!

Wilderness has it's place. I don't think we need anymore of it, though.

 

[modelbuilder]

I agree...the land will be there for our Children to enjoy despite the fact that most people think our Environment is being destroyed.

Keep the land the way it is...let me enjoy my Country.

I have a right to take my vehicle out and explore.

This is our land not the governments.

P.S. Just gotta say I am not some anti-government wacko!!!



=)

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Well, here's one outdoorsman who is fully in support of wilderness, as you'd know if you'd spotted this in the New York Times:

 

[SinCityFJC]

Oops my rushed late night 1st post on the S.22 sure did stir things up. hopefully it will lead to us finding some common ground that we can unite under. While I'm not anti wilderness I think it's being applied in areas that would be better served by something like a BackCountry designation that would respect a balanced & inclusive use of our lands

I'm not a very good writer but please check out my new blog - http://briancrichardson.blogspot.com/ It truly reflects my views, passion & hope for the future of our great outdoors.

My blog via links shows were my focus is these days on forums, clubs & access groups.

I am starting to regret my finally going public with my experiences with Floppy & Toyota. While I have gotten Toyota's attention it is starting to have a negative impact on my 1st passion of landuse & access for the disabled.

On a final note I finally let Lance of Disabled Explores know the reason why I'm such a strong supporter of what he is trying to achieve. I'm a very private person but feel it's time to let more than my inner circle know that January 21st I'll be Celebrating yes Celebrating three very full years on DNR status. While I can no longer visit some of my favorite places in our great outdoors due to CHF & other conditions, I still thanks to motorized access get to enjoy places close to home like Logandale & Gold Butte.

Hope to see you on the trails

Brian

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I still don't understand why my stance continues to be viewed as at odds with vehicle-based recreation. It's not. There's a place for both - but there's a hell of a lot more roaded public land in the U.S. than non-roaded. Wilderness needs defenders.

The fire fighting myth has been disproved by none other than the U.S. Forest Service, whose own records show that a huge majority of human-caused fires occur in . . . roaded areas. That's right: If you're really interested in preventing fires, support more wilderness.

Again, all these anti-wilderness arguments are based on self-centered themes. You can't argue for more roads by saying they create better habitat, because they don't. You can't argue for more roads by saying they reduce fire damage, because they don't. (And our paradigm of fire ecology has shifted drastically anyway.) You can't argue for more roads by saying they reduce erosion or litter or pollution or noise, because they don't.

Another point: It's always assumed that left-wing "greenies" are the only ones stealing road access. In fact, the U.S. Forest Service currently has 90,000 miles of roads closed because of budget shortfalls. They simply have no money for maintenance or law enforcement. And forest service budget cuts have been highlights of other-than-left-wing administrations. We all know (don't we?) that timber sales on public land are a sham; they actually cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year. That's another other-than-left-wing agenda. (We're not supposed to discuss politics here, but unspoken assumptions about "greenies" are just as political. The fact is there are strong wilderness proponents on both sides of the political aisle.)

So any discussion about public land issues on Expo needs to be fair, it needs to be polite, it needs to be science-based as well as recreation based (if, as everyone keeps saying, we want to pass on these lands to our children), and it needs to be apolitical.

As someone has pointed out, different places inaccessible to different people; we can't and shouldn't make every place accessible to everyone.

Written as a wilderness-loving, gun-toting, registered Republican who loves his Land Cruiser, his Land Rover, and his hiking boots.

 

[Photog]

Well, we have members here from all over the USA and the world. Our folks should have some examples, to answer these next few questions. A logical or scientific (not political) approach.


1) In the USA, exactly what properties need to be converted to a wilderness status?

2) Why do those properties need to be converted? What is the problem with the current situation, and what is the benefit of the conversion?

3) Are there other ways to protect these properties, without converting them to wilderness status?

4) If there are existing roads in these areas, can they be left in place, with the wilderness boundries running along side the roads?

5) Are any of these examples actually listed in the new S.B. 22?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

1) In the USA, exactly what properties need to be converted to a wilderness status?

2) Why do those properties need to be converted? What is the problem with the current situation, and what is the benefit of the conversion?

3) Are there other ways to protect these properties, without converting them to wilderness status?

4) If there are existing roads in these areas, can they be left in place, with the wilderness boundries running along side the roads?

5) Are any of these examples actually listed in the new S.B. 22?

Now, Brian, that's a very loaded question. I could turn it around and ask you exactly which properties in the U.S. don't need to be converted to wilderness. Both are impossible questions to answer "exactly." However, to address your other questions:

Certainly in many cases there are other ways to protect land. Roseann and I work with several ranching organizations that are wonderful stewards of their land and the public lands they lease. We actually worked against an environmental group that wanted to gain extra protective status in one of these areas, because the ranchers were already protecting it perfectly. In other cases, wilderness designation makes the most sense. In others, the so-called backcountry designation is perfect.

And yes, wilderness areas can be created with what are called cherry stem roads left in place; the proposed Tumacacori Wilderness in southern Arizona is set up that way. That's an example of both sides working together.

I've read S.B. 22 in reasonable detail, and I was very satisfied with the land parcels in it. Obviously, a majority of U.S. senators were too.

 

[Hank]

I agree with you, Jonathan, for the most part. But why "wilderness"?

As far as hunting in Wilderness......you're joking, right? On the East coast, no one hunts in Wilderness areas. No one hunts in the WMA. At least not the people hunting trophy's. Whitetail Deer, Wild Turkey, and Black Bear, do not live in Wilderness areas here. The Oak trees (acorns) have been killed off by the Gypsy Moths, the Hemlocks and White Pines (evergreens) have been killed by Beatles, and there is virtually no thick cover left for these animals to live and hide in.

Again, I don't know about the left coast, but here in Virginia, the Shenandoah National Park (Wilderness, basically) has caught fire every year for the past 4-years from lighting strikes. It's easy for a fire to burn when the Hemlocks are dead (ever burned a dried out Christmas tree?). As the fire creeps down the mountains, it endangers homes and private property. There is nothing that can be done until that line is crossed.

That's the problem with S.22. It's too vague. Will this affect the East Coast much? I sure hope not, but neither you or I know for sure. I don't know the circumstances on the West Coast, so it may be different there.

I don't expect you to understand this map because you do not live here. But this is basically my play ground. This is where I hunt, fish, hike, camp, and wheel. I've played in these hills since I was a kid. The Gum Run, High Knob, and Oak Knob areas are the only 4wd trails we have. And calling them "4wd trails" in an insult. But even if they took a 1/4 of the "Potentially Wilderness" and made them Wilderness, we'd stand to loose a lot!

Now, will that happen? Probably not. But whats stopping them? If they can sneak something like S.22 by, why can they not sneak these areas into wilderness? That's what I do not like about "wilderness", because once it's done, its done - there is no going back. So why do it?

You mentioned that there are 90,000 miles of off-road trails. We have 1,872 miles of trails, of which 556 miles (30%) are open year around. 244 miles of trails are "unmaintained".That's not much. We're fighting, and it would seem that we're making headway. We know they hear us. But S.22 does not help us.

 

[cnynrat]

As far as hunting in Wilderness......you're joking, right? On the East coast, no one hunts in Wilderness areas.

I thought hunting was not permitted in designated Wilderness areas. I'm not a hunter, so I may be wrong about that. Is hunting permitted anywhere in a federally designated wilderness?

 

[Guinness44]

Some pro wilderness fellow has read the S.22 in detail. How long did that take? 1300 pages, 160 areas.
Being satisfied with the landparcels in it. Probably not right next door to, or affecting local travel. Politicians, would not have THAT much time, to reasonably read that bill, and check the maps, and possibly GO to the area, THEN vote.... would they.

Cherry stem roads, are a bait, (NOW we cant run a certain trail during an event, because its a cherry stem, thats happening RIGHT now.) Most likely about 5 rigs show up for that trail.

 

[modelbuilder]

I just want to keep the land open....no need to designate it as wilderness.

Keep it open to hikers, bikers, and 4x4s

Increase the fines to deter kunckleheads. ( I know there will always be knuckleheads but you can't pass any law to prevent them from being knuckleheads)...increase them a lot.

Close all current BLM Land, and those of similar types to development...forever.

Why not do something like this. Don't take my land away from me...don't take the land away from the people.

Finally, there is no need to pass a bill of this scope. The congresspeople are voting for it not because they really believe it's the right thing to do, but because it is a great opportunity to gain some major politcal points with the greenies. I doubt even 1/4 of them will read through the 1600 page bill.





Anyone remember the global cooling fad back in the 70's...




.

 

[modelbuilder]

A quote from "Gold Road to La Paz" a guide to the Bradshaw trail. This book was written by Delmer Ross who is handicapped.

"Take note that Dr. Ross, who is handicapped, is one of many who would not be able to see desert back country if it is locked into wilderness so it can be visited only by youths in perfect physical condition."

...it's true.

Parking your car and walking or pushing your wheel chair out 50 feet is not being out in nature...as some in this thread would lead you to believe.








=)