Senate confirms REI’s Sally Jewell as Interior Secretary

[Christophe Noel]

Your weird vision of your obviously hoped-for "future" is quite literally out there in the upper reaches of the stratosphere.

By no means hoped for. Not at all. I'd love to see responsible use and protections for existing wild places and think this recent appointment of Jewell's may be a positive. I'd also like to see all of our existing off roads left available to us, but despite what you or I want, that may not fit into the changing trends in land management. That's all.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

What this boils down to is how far do you want to hike? If you are agile enough, then maybe having areas we can currently visit via motorized means closed down won't bother you. However, if you are elderly, very young, or otherwise limited in mobility, then your access may very likely be limited.

First, as Flounder said, this approach could be seen as a reason to bulldoze new roads everywhere under the guise of "handicapped access." Find me a handicapped rights group that is lobbying for the elimination of wilderness areas. They aren't - this argument is usually brought up by perfectly healthy people who just don't feel like walking. Also, it's nonsense to think you need to backpack two weeks into a wilderness area to appreciate it.

But there's a much more vital issue at stake. The whole philosophy behind roadless and wilderness areas is to put the welfare of the habitat and wildlife ahead of our own recreational convenience. A significant majority of the American public supports that idea, and I think that speaks highly of us.

 

[preacherman]

It would be balance if she sat on a board of interior secretaries, but she is the only one. She is a far left weirdo IMO.

She worked for an oil and gas company before she worked at REI how is that far left?

 

[Christophe Noel]

She worked for an oil and gas company before she worked at REI how is that far left?

The three little innocuous letters, R.E.I. are enough to get hackles bristled for no sound reason.

 

[C5dad]

Lets see how her true colors come out! Given the slate of drewling libtard ecofreaks, she may bring balance.

There are good arguments here, though fact remains that dems have done too many unilateral decisions without discussing the ramifications to the local populace with the locals- think Escalante Staircase and Clinton! I know ranchers and locals who are still PO'd that the Siera Club and others drove it, yet none live around there!

 

[Xterabl]

Wow, never imagined so many Jack Boot Statist Lovers on this site.
Sigh.
Good luck to you and yours, I guess.

 

[haven]

"drewling libtard ecofreaks" ... "Jack Boot Statist Lovers"

Please find a way to make your point without the politically inflammatory language. Or find yourself facing the ban hammer. Thanks.

Chip Haven
moderator

 

[brushogger]

I'd also like to see all of our existing off roads left available to us, but despite what you or I want, that may not fit into the changing trends in land management. That's all.

This is the kicker right here. Roads and trails that have been used, some over 150 years, are being closed. I would be happy with the status quo, but many of that side won't be happy until they are closed to all but hikers. Yes some being closed to Mb's and horses.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DarinM]

I'd like to see existing roads left open as well, but I still keep thinking about last time I was in Colorado - that was when I met you and your wife, Alan. Some of the places I went exploring were way back in BFE - didn't see another vehicle all day on some of my rides. And there were still ATV tracks all over the place off the established trail. There were ruts cut through meadows, mud bogs, etc that not only are damaging to the environment, but also drastically reduce the scenic value of the area. I have to end up firmly believing that the only way to preserve some of these areas, because of the idiots who can't respect them, is to close them off. And it's a shame that we have to punish everyone because of the actions of a few. But preservation is more important, in my opinion, than everyone having access.

 

[brushogger]

The main issue I have is closing it off to everyone but hikers. They are all for this because their ox isn't being gored. They act like the fact they are on foot prevents their causing any damage. This is not the case as I have seen hiking trails with extreme erosion issues. And there is evidence that hikers cause more damage than bikes or 4wds when they are driven in a Tread Lightly manner. But will the hikers be banned- no, because they are the "greenest of the green". Read this thread on hikers vs bikers vs horses. https://14ers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=37813&start=36
Horses seem to do the most damage of all Don't get me wrong man. I enjoy it all hiking, biking, and riding the passes in the FJ. It would make more sense to close it to everyone vs closing it to a select few if genuine protection is warranted. This won't happen though because the "greenest of the green" has the loudest voice and "they are just walking". How could that hurt anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haven]

The rule against political taunting applies both ways. Knock it off,please.

 

[roverrocks]

The main issue I have is closing it off to everyone but hikers. They are all for this because their ox isn't being gored. They act like the fact they are on foot prevents their causing any damage. This is not the case as I have seen hiking trails with extreme erosion issues. And there is evidence that hikers cause more damage than bikes or 4wds when they are driven in a Tread Lightly manner. But will the hikers be banned- no, because they are the "greenest of the green". Read this thread on hikers vs bikers vs horses. https://14ers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=37813&start=36
Horses seem to do the most damage of all Don't get me wrong man. I enjoy it all hiking, biking, and riding the passes in the FJ. It would make more sense to close it to everyone vs closing it to a select few if genuine protection is warranted. This won't happen though because the "greenest of the green" has the loudest voice and "they are just walking". How could that hurt anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I think to really make wilderness areas true wilderness areas especially the very marginal new ones that certain "groups" such as SUWA want then they should be CLOSED TO ALL HUMAN PASSAGE/PRESENCE OF ANY KIND. Lets see how the hikers like being left out. Let's see how the equestrians like being left out. Let's see how the rafters/kayakers/fishermen like being left out. No overflying by planes/helos either so there is no sound disturbance. Let's truly make wilderness areas what certain people/groups say they want. Totally off limits to all human interaction of any kind. Come on SUWA and others. Put your money where your mouth is. You want to ban me then do what is absolutely the RIGHT thing. Ban yourselves as well. TRUE WILDERNESS!!! What's good for motorized expeditioners should be good FOR ALL. That would be true protection.

 

[Christophe Noel]

The main issue I have is closing it off to everyone but hikers. They are all for this because their ox isn't being gored. They act like the fact they are on foot prevents their causing any damage. This is not the case as I have seen hiking trails with extreme erosion issues. And there is evidence that hikers cause more damage than bikes or 4wds when they are driven in a Tread Lightly manner.

Like many people on this forum, and in general, I'm not just an "overlander." In a given year I'll bikepack, backpack, mountain bike, trail run, hike with the dog, explore on a motorcycle, or plop my lazy ******** in a car seat for hours on end. Lots of us are multi-mode travelers. So, I can't whine about hikers because I'm one of them. I can't complain about overlanders, because I do that too.

There are definitely areas that are best explored on foot. To say foot traffic is as high impact as vehicle traffic is so silly we need never hear of that nonsense again.

As an obsessed cyclist who logs up to 9,000 miles in a given year. I also can't ride in a wilderness areas, but I can hike them. There's also lots of places I cannot go like the Rubicon trail. My rig wouldn't make it. So, by some of the logic posed above, we should either pave it for more available access or just close the sucker off.

At any rate, when one user group lashes out at another, it doesn't accommodate reality. Many of us represent the majority of user groups in and of ourselves and can see the arguments from all of those angles.

 

[Christophe Noel]

By the way, there are some areas of designated wilderness which are closed to all human travel. Regularly designated as wilderness research areas, those places are off limits without the appropriate permits. Oddly enough, the vehicle-based travelers seldom baulk about those areas as they lack roads anyway. You also don't hear the hikers up in arms over it. There's plenty of places to walk, hike, bike, drive....

 

[Flagster]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...ewell-How-green-is-the-new-Interior-secretary

I found this interesting...