Wilderness Acreage in Utah

[teotwaki]

I don't always agree with you toetwaki, but this post I certainly agree with. I often learn new things when the topic is discussed is civil way as I have in this thread.

I also want to publicly thank paulj for the countless posts he makes with informative links and statistics. Thanks.

No problem amigo! Fireside Chat is a great way to kick thse things around and share a virtual beer later on, maybe even in person :friday:

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...I know when I'm traveling this incredible land, I truely appreciate a long stretch of doubletrack taking me to incredible places. It's always a bummer when you go somewhere only to find a network of wildcat trails going every whichway. I think that is what the TMPs and wilderness designations are really trying to combat.

This is absolutely what the Travel Management Plans worked to eliminate, cross country travel and weave/redundant routes were eliminated 95% of the time in the six recent RMP Rivisions. But to say "that is what the wilderness designations are really trying to combat" couldn't be further from the apparent truth judging on the actions of SUWA. For instance the the RMP's closed down hundreds of thousands of acres of lands to cross-country travel, closed thousands of miles of routes (predominately redundant routes) yet this didn't stop the AWRA motives in the slightest... in fact they are suing because those closures were not enough. Its already illegal to drive off-trail in these areas, a Wilderness designation on either side of the trail won't change that

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I wanted to quickly post some photos of the NG map of the San Rafael Swell. This is the southern area west of the road to Hanksville and at or south of I-70 -- not a large area at all in my estimation. Maybe half of "Rhode Island" LOL...

Wilderness Study Area doesn't seem like much but it is drawn on the maps and treated as full time permanent wilderness and can be in this status for years and years. I pretty much consider it the equivalent though occasionally WSAs are returned to public BLM land. I am not arguing that most of this land does not deserve it. But in this snippet of one side of one map alone note all of the different wilderness study areas and the methods they are incorporated. Also note the cherry steming of this particularly large section in the third picture, the Mexican Hat wilderness study area and note the clear lack of roads and all other items other than foot-hiking trails only. Some how this entire WSA was designated other than the road going to it (which would effectively disqualify it from WSA) and the beautiful canyon the road exists in (which may be argueably, the most worth-while part of the area for preservation.

I am posting this for the outsider to get a glimpse of reality here. What is being proposed is either 3 or 4 times more wilderness and wilderness that they frankly have no idea where or what it is at this time, they basically picked an arbitrary number and have run with it, in my opinion.

I hope it helps for anyone interested. I really enjoyed this thread.

Andre

 

[sami]

I am posting this for the outsider to get a glimpse of reality here. What is being proposed is either 3 or 4 times more wilderness and wilderness that they frankly have no idea where or what it is at this time, they basically picked an arbitrary number and have run with it, in my opinion.

I hope it helps for anyone interested. I really enjoyed this thread.

Andre
]

brilliant

 

[paulj]

Here is a link to BLM's description and map of Mexican Mountain WSA, and 6 adjacent inventoried areas.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/blm/utah/pdf/ec85.pdf

This Price Field Office document has comments on the boundaries of this WSA, starting on page 32 and 74
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...evision.Par.9917.File.dat/PriceFORevision.pdf

The RR Coalition description of the same, proposing an area about double the WSA (100,000 acres up from 50,000).
http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=WATE_sanrafael#u2

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

If you look at my posts you'll see that I keep reiterating a theme that I myself am/once was an outside and someone who was likely to advocate for wilderness, and even has while I've lived here. So I keep iterating the theme for many of the moderates or those who believe in increased wilderness preservation in Utah for many of the theoretical/political/rhetorical reasons that much of their info and realistic outlook is not 100% correct.

When I speak about "outsider" I think of myself as a possible expo reader before I moved here. When I speak about "they" I speak about organized wilderness advocates such as SUWA who actively, willing, deceive and mislead their constituents to get them riled up and/or donate money (they alone are not innocent of this, in my opinion many of the off road groups do this as well, citing "radical liberals" "Pelosi" etc) -- making the problem worse, not better.

The point of is:
- wilderness study area is hard drawn on the map, it is not kept open while it's studied.
- Showing cherry stemming is a contradiction of a wilderness area's own definition - let's allow a sliver of road that is somehow not wilderness. You'll see all other roads end or circumvent the boundary.

I am not arguing that this particular area is not wilderness worthy because frankly I have no idea, and I am likely to side with the BLM and their judgment for existing wilderness, WSA, and future wilderness/WSA. But I do not necessary agree with people who are claiming we need 3 or 4 times more wilderness and don't even know where that wilderness would exactly be. Wilderness for wilderness purposes, citing much of the rhetoric that has been posted here. That again, I largely believed, until I lived here and began exploring myself.

The question is which of the Wilderness Study Areas I was in three weeks ago when I took this photo. Kurt and Sami can probably answer this...

 

[sami]

Agavelvr,

In one sentance, how does establishing 3x's the current amount of wilderness in Utah, if anything, boost the local economy from tourism?

 

[Ursidae69]

Agavelvr,

In one sentance, how does establishing 3x's the current amount of wilderness in Utah, if anything, boost the local economy from tourism?

Not answering for agavelvr, but here is my opinion. It will not change the economy and in fact it may increase the tourist dollars becuase much of the wilderness in Utah is accessible with cherry stems and existing roads. There are also free services that in-tact wilderness provides to the ecosystem, services that we take for granted and are only in recent years being recognized by economists. In The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, published in Nature in 1997 (link), the authors make an attempt to give real world money values to ecological functions that benefit us. Things like nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, water treatment, wildlife habitat, and recreation are just some of the free services provide by healthy, in-tact wilderness ecosystems.

Land management is being really poorly done on a world-wide scale (a gross understatement), and while it is enlightening to debate the value of wilderness in Utah, it is too little too late for most places on this planet. Why not protect some of what we have left here while we can?

 

[sami]

Not answering for agavelvr, but here is my opinion. It will not change the economy and in fact it may increase the tourist dollars becuase much of the wilderness in Utah is accessible with cherry stems and existing roads.

I'd love to hear how this makes sense to you. This simply is not true. The rural towns of Utah have a pretty strong dependancy on travelers of all recreational type. If you cut out the OHV and mountain bike enthusiasts, you're going to choke out business from these little watering hole type towns. Designating 3x's more Wilderness with no concrete plans on where to put it is ridiculous. If the Bill passes at any point in it's current form, the BLM will be lucky to get a word in on what happens.. Especially concerning cherry-stemmed roads. SUWA at that point will have become far too powerful in the matter to need to listen to anyone else. They have money, and you better believe they'll throw it around to close the areas as fast as possible.

I'd still love to hear how cherry stems invite tourism. FWIW my question didn't say anything out 'the economy', but LOCAL(see Utah's) economy. This is what the pro-wilderness advocates are claiming. That by designating 3x's the wilderness, Utah will increase tourism. Simply not true.

 

[sami]

This is what i'm referring to:

At a hearing before a House Natural Resources Committee subcommittee last month, some witnesses from Utah said the bill would prevent development of the lands, hurting the state's economy. However, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and a Utah outdoors equipment maker told the subcommittee that protecting the lands will draw more visitors to the state, boosting the economy.

This is a valid point:

"Since they can't achieve their goal of locking up millions of acres of western land through an open and transparent democratic process, they're now trying to use back door, undemocratic rules and regulations to lock up public lands," Rep Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said in a statement. "If Congressman Hinchey was serious about protecting lands in Utah, he should try to work with Utahans instead of trying to go around us."

link

 

[sami]

This is a nasty little game to play. I could just as easily ask you how establishing more wilderness detract from the local tourism economy. Lands are not designated as Wilderness to help the Economy...they are designed to protect the Environment.

I'm not intended for a 'nasty game' to be played.. I was merely curious if you saw things the same way as those on the sub-committee that are pro-wilderness, and if you could explain your point of view.. I can't as easily talk to the guys sited in the article.

The kicker with designating 6million more acres of Wilderness, is that not all of the land meets the specifications! Some current Wilderness doesn't meet the specs. Down the road proposed NP's could be denied because they have 100+ y/o mining roads and other non-wilderness characteristics all throughout them..

This shotgun approach just doesn't work. What will work, is having committees assess county by county working with county, state, citizens, etc to form the designated areas.

 

[Skylinerider]

Since we are all about looking at this through other people's perspectives HERE is an interesting view.

 

[paulj]

Speaking of roads along Wilderness boundaries, and cherrystemed, the Mugruder Corridor from Idaho to Montana comes to mind. It separates the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness from the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

At 2.3 million acres (9,300 km²), [Frank Church] is the largest contiguous area of protected wilderness in the continental United States, ... Together with the adjacent Gospel Hump Wilderness and surrounding unprotected roadless Forest Service land, it is the core of a 3.3 million acre (13,000 km²) roadless area. It is separated from the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, [1.3 million acre] to the north, by a single dirt road (the Magruder Corridor).

wiki

 

[teotwaki]

Since we are all about looking at this through other people's perspectives HERE is an interesting view.

That is a long read. I'll need some time to digest that article.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I think you guys are missing the point here and the exact purpose of this thread. This thread is about compromise. I don't think anyone here is overly anti-wilderness including myself. The cherry stem was an example. A wilderness area is supposedly a 5000 acre or larger chunk of land undisturbed by man. Yet a 30 foot wide corridor that is somehow "not wilderness" that goes right through the middle of it, where a road might have existed for 100 years, seems like a contradiction. I understand why its applied and I can understand cherry stemming in terms of real world applications and practicality and am likely to agree with it as well. But again, it is a contradiction...

Finally, though it's making for some good conversation I don't think that either of you will ultimately change your mind based on what we're writing so why don't we just drop it. One thing I would like to add is after you come up a few more times and for example spend some time in the swell lets talk some more. Not about problems with existing wilderness or WSA, but the idea of adding 3-4 times more.

thanks,
Andre