Wilderness Acreage in Utah

[paulj]

... and its the feds that did their own inventory and could only find 1/3 of the lands that the ARWA found.....

The pro-wilderness people contend that that inventory was biased and inadequate

Utah BLM Inventory InadequateUtah BLM typified Watt politics. Under Watt's direction, the inventory resembled more a commercial and industrial zoning document than efforts to preserve remaining wild areas. With the President's backing, BLM excluded entire regions due to the potential development of extractable resources.

http://www.uwcoalition.org/about/history.html#blm-inventory

... Huge tracts were "inventoried" for wilderness suitability by helicopter without adequate fieldwork on the ground. .... Contrary to BLM rules, the agency dropped areas from the inventory lands with potential – real or imagined – for mineral development. The BLM considered other areas unsuitable because portions of the roadless areas were flat of sparsely vegetated and "lacked opportunity for solitude," ignoring the importance of wilderness for wildlife and ecosystem management

http://www.uwcoalition.org/faq/blmInventory.html

More details of the initial BLM inventory can be found the book, Wilderness at the Edge
http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=WATE_shorttoc
The La Sal canyons chapter has claims like:

Even this was too much for Moab miner George Schultz. Schultz owned mining claims in the vicinity of the new WSA, and on December 15, 1980, he filed a protest of the decision creating it. BLM wilderness coordinator Diana Webb reviewed the protest, and on January 13, 1981, she drafted a letter notifying Schultz that the agency would eliminate its sole remaining WSA in the La Sals region. The letter travelled by certified mail, but it might as well have been delivered by hand. Addressed to her husband, George Schultz, its destination was Diana Webb's own mailbox.

... local miners began a campaign of intimidation which included vandalism and death threats directed at BLM staff and local environmentalists. The campaign was a success. By February 1981, not one acre in the La Sals region remained under study for wilderness designation.

I am in no position the judge the accuracy of these claims, but they do raise significant doubts regarding the adequacy of BLM's inventory.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Well according to the federal appeals court they were legally closed, so it is not a sticky situation. As much as you may not personally agree with the law, does not mean you should violate it, or even worse encourage others to violate it. I am fairly sure this violates the principles of tread lightly. As a specific example the Paria River comes to mind. I am fairly certain the en mass ride up Paria earlier this year was a violation of the tread lightly principles.

Show me where I have encouraged anyone to violate a law? Its not a "personal" agreement with the law, its our state and county officials that are conveying the will of the citizens.

Which law trumps the next? State? County? Federal?

Lets discuss the Paria River Trail. Discounting the questionable legality of the trail, what was not done in a Tread Lightly manner? Have you seen the trail? Was it impacted in such a way it will not recover in a matter of days? More specifically a single rain storm? What about Jeep Safari trails in which hundreds of 4x4's do the same trail in a given week? Against Tread Lightly principles? Are those trails beyond worked beyond recovery? How is it some of those same trails are included in the ARWA Bill?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

The pro-wilderness people contend that that inventory was biased and inadequate

Did you honestly expect anything otherwise?

I am in no position the judge the accuracy of these claims, but they do raise significant doubts regarding the adequacy of BLM's inventory.

Well given your claims come from the same source as the Citizens Inventory, I'll take them with a grain of salt at best Keep in mind their inventory includes abandoned mines, roads, cabins, cars, corrals, etc.

 

[DurangoSteve]

Your absolutely right, it will be a long and costly process. I think it goes without saying that the counties are not out fighting over a route that doesn't strike some chord of significance. While SUWA might lead you to believe they are fighting over old cattle paths this isn't the case. They are fighting over historic routes that have been used by hunters, hikers, bikers, ranchers, campers, explorers, etc for the last 50+ years.

I know in the San Juan County action regarding the spur road to Moonhouse, that was simply not so. It's a 1-mile track that ends at the canyon rim. It was a petty act of defiance that served no legitimate purpose. There are plenty of other cases I am not familiar with in which there might be legitimate claims.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I know in the San Juan County action regarding the spur road to Moonhouse, that was simply not so. It's a 1-mile track that ends at the canyon rim. It was a petty act of defiance that served no legitimate purpose. There are plenty of other cases I am not familiar with in which there might be legitimate claims.

Having not explored each of the hundreds of contested routes there is no doubt some that should have been left alone. However with that there are many cases of clean and clear right of way that should have had protected access. The Rincon Trail along the popular Hole in the Rock Trail is just that. Historic, 100% driveable, epic... yet closed for no other reason than 'management decision.'

 

[Rando]

Federal law trumps state and local law, per Constitutional Article 6. The will of the citizens of Kanab/Kane county is trumped by the will of the citizens of the US, particularly in regard to the constitution and federal land.

With Paria, the issue IS the legality of the trail. The trail is on federal land and was legally closed as was determined by the BLM and the federal appeals court. The people who organized this event full well knew this. That is the issue, willfully driving on a closed trail, which is against the tread lightly ethos. By suggesting that Kane county's violation of federal law as admirable it certainly appears that you are encouraging the violation of federal law.

Show me where I have encouraged anyone to violate a law? Its not a "personal" agreement with the law, its our state and county officials that are conveying the will of the citizens.

Which law trumps the next? State? County? Federal?

Lets discuss the Paria River Trail. Discounting the questionable legality of the trail, what was not done in a Tread Lightly manner? Have you seen the trail? Was it impacted in such a way it will not recover in a matter of days? More specifically a single rain storm? What about Jeep Safari trails in which hundreds of 4x4's do the same trail in a given week? Against Tread Lightly principles? Are those trails beyond worked beyond recovery? How is it some of those same trails are included in the ARWA Bill?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...By suggesting that Kane county's violation of federal law as admirable it certainly appears that you are encouraging the violation of federal law.

Ah, I see your angle now. Let me clarify that I believe that users should steer clear of these contested routes until the due process has been handled by the courts if it comes to that.

My respect for the Kane & San Juan County officials stems from their willingness to step up and protect access. Even if we don't regain any of the routes lost, surely their work will result in less future closures. I know in speaking with the rec planner for the GCNRA, they are optimistic that the county and the federal government can get some of these routes taken care of long before it reaches the courts.

Maybe you feel like answering the question the other have ignored? You apparently believe these areas need Wilderness classification to protect against motorized use on existing routes, so how do you marginalize your impact? I'm having a really hard time coming to grip with the hypocrisy of those that will travel these routes while open today yet applaud the efforts of those that want to shut them down for the impacts your knowingly inflicting. I'm not refering to closed routes where protests are being held (ie Paria), I'm talking about the routes that are 100% legal today but with the stroke of a pen would be closed to protect against you and I tomorrow if this bill were to pass.

 

[Rando]

I would happily stop driving on routes that are closed. The reason I spend so much time in Utah is that there is so much land that remains in a primitive state. The primary reason I drive may of the back country routes I do is to access pimitive areas for hiking, canyoneering and experiencing nature. I am not going to park my car at Goblin state park and walk down the road to Ding and Dang canyon, simply because walking down a road being passed by cars and ATVs holds very little appeal to me. However if the road to the existing Ding/Dang trail head were to be closed, I would happily walk. (PS I am just using this an example, I don't think the road to ding and dang should be closed).

To return to the OPs point, only about 10% of federal lands in Utah are wilderness, by far the majority of the federal land in UT is NOT wilderness. I think this is a very unbalanced situation. There are far more opportunities for exploring back roads in Utah than there are for exploring wilderness. The way we here about 'land grabs' and 'eco-nazis' and the like you would think the situation was reversed with 90% of public lands being wilderness and 10% being open to motorized recreation.

Ah, I see your angle now. Let me clarify that I believe that users should steer clear of these contested routes until the due process has been handled by the courts if it comes to that.

My respect for the Kane & San Juan County officials stems from their willingness to step up and protect access. Even if we don't regain any of the routes lost, surely their work will result in less future closures. I know in speaking with the rec planner for the GCNRA, they are optimistic that the county and the federal government can get some of these routes taken care of long before it reaches the courts.

Maybe you feel like answering the question the other have ignored? You apparently believe these areas need Wilderness classification to protect against motorized use on existing routes, so how do you marginalize your impact? I'm having a really hard time coming to grip with the hypocrisy of those that will travel these routes while open today yet applaud the efforts of those that want to shut them down for the impacts your knowingly inflicting. I'm not refering to closed routes where protests are being held (ie Paria), I'm talking about the routes that are 100% legal today but with the stroke of a pen would be closed to protect against you and I tomorrow if this bill were to pass.

 

[Skylinerider]

To return to the OPs point, only about 10% of federal lands in Utah are wilderness, by far the majority of the federal land in UT is NOT wilderness. I think this is a very unbalanced situation. There are far more opportunities for exploring back roads in Utah than there are for exploring wilderness. The way we here about 'land grabs' and 'eco-nazis' and the like you would think the situation was reversed with 90% of public lands being wilderness and 10% being open to motorized recreation.

Just because an area is not designated wilderness does not mean it is open to motorized recreation. With the exception of a few open areas (little Sahara for example) travel is restricted to existing and open roads and trails.

 

[Rando]

I would consider having roads you can drive on in an area being open to motorized recreation. Driving off the trail is definitely against tread lightly ethos, and by looking at the areas where off trail travel is allowed, it is obvious why.

Just because an area is not designated wilderness does not mean it is open to motorized recreation. With the exception of a few open areas (little Sahara for example) travel is restricted to existing and open roads and trails.

 

[sami]

I would consider having roads you can drive on in an area being open to motorized recreation. Driving off the trail is definitely against tread lightly ethos, and by looking at the areas where off trail travel is allowed, it is obvious why.

In my ignorance, do you have a figure on acreage of 'open travel areas' vs. 'non-open travel areas' in the state of Utah?

My hunch would lean towards the 'non-open travel areas' winning in acreage by a monumental landslide.

**I do not particularly endorse the idea of more/new open travel areas** I merely find it interesting that you even bring it up in relation to Wilderness designated area in Utah.

 

[Rando]

I do not have any numbers, but like you I am sure 'stay on the trail' areas are far more prevalent. I kind of put 'cross country travel areas' on par with strip mines, simply for the fact that you wouldn't want to do anything else in these areas.

In my ignorance, do you have a figure on acreage of 'open travel areas' vs. 'non-open travel areas' in the state of Utah?

My hunch would lean towards the 'non-open travel areas' winning in acreage by a monumental landslide.

**I do not particularly endorse the idea of more/new open travel areas** I merely find it interesting that you even bring it up in relation to Wilderness designated area in Utah.

 

[Skylinerider]

In my ignorance, do you have a figure on acreage of 'open travel areas' vs. 'non-open travel areas' in the state of Utah?

My hunch would lean towards the 'non-open travel areas' winning in acreage by a monumental landslide.

**I do not particularly endorse the idea of more/new open travel areas** I merely find it interesting that you even bring it up in relation to Wilderness designated area in Utah.

Now now Sami, let's not cloud the issue with actual facts, its much easier to throw out random percentages and hope they stick.

 

[Rando]

No need to be snarky, I did not notice you providing any numbers or facts on this issue. The ~ 10% number I quoted is from the OP. If you have better numbers than the OP then please provide them.

Now now Sami, let's not cloud the issue with actual facts, its much easier to throw out random percentages and hope they stick.

 

[Skylinerider]

No need to be snarky,

Fine, here is my issue with your percentages. When you state that 10% of utah land is wilderness, and the other 90% being open to motorized recreation, you give the allusion that people can drive on 90% of Utah land. This is blatantly false, and skews the issue to support your stance. It is a half truth at best and a lie at worst.