2.1 millon acres gone - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009

[cnynrat]

However, as someone who has worked on trail and road issues for some time (and who owns two mountain bikes and enjoys riding horses), I can point out one vital difference. A horse leaves discreet (separate) footprints; a mountain bike leaves one long one. In sensitive substrate a single irresponsible bike track off the trail can initiate erosion, which is unlikely from a single horse track.

Oh bull...errr horse pucky! I can show you trails in the Sierras that are literally 2-3 foot deep troughs through alpine meadows. These are in areas where mountain bikes have never been allowed, and are caused by pack stock. Sure, each individual horse may leave "discreet" footprints as you call them, but the cumulative affect is anything but discreet.

 

[BKCowGod]

Thank you Lance... I'm 24 years old, in the prime of my life. I and my wife look like we are ready to run a marathon. But my diabetes has made it so that (at least for now, until I get better at managing it) I can't walk more than a mile without collapsing. And four years of battling cancer means that Leslie can't even make it that far. I know that compared to some of your clients (outreachees?) we are very mobile and fortunate, but it still irks me every time someone says "just walk." I used to be one of those, but in the last few years, I have gotten a crash course in empathy.

To bad many of the very people Disabled Explorers is trying to encourage to get outdoors will never be able to experience some of these areas due to the fact that they can't walk, ride a horse or mtn bike....

Worse is how quite a few folks in this thread think that is just fine.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If there is a ROAD already there then keep it open (unless you absolutely have to close it for a short term reclamation), if there aren't roads then go ahead and close it.

Much of the areas named in this bill already had roads.

All of you who can hike & ride enjoy it while you can.....most folks end up with some kind of mobility issue as they age.

 

[paulj]

I have said it before and I will say it again. If there is a ROAD already there then keep it open (unless you absolutely have to close it for a short term reclamation), if there aren't roads then go ahead and close it..

Have you looked at the details of any of the wilderness designations? The proposal for the White Mountains (east of the Sierras) kept the main access road to the bristlecone pines open, and allowed for OHV travel on 'cherry stem tracks/roads'. I don't know if that carried through to the final legislation, but it does appear that existing access was taken into account. Existing mining claims were also recognized, though tighter oversight of their activities.

Likewise, horse use has been 'grandfathered in'. Local packers and guides have used horses in these areas for years. Rangers and trail crews also. Many National Forests have regulations regarding the use of feed (to reduce the spread of noxious weeds). As a hiker I don't particularly like sharing trails and campsites with horses, but I can understand why they are allowed.

Are cattle (and sheep) really allowed in wilderness areas? Doesn't the FS have a system of grazing permits, requiring payment for such a use of land? I know of wildlife sanctuaries and study areas that have excluded cattle.

Regarding handicapped access, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Why allow a jeep in, but not make provision for a coach full of senior-citizens? How about the person who can't stand the jarring of a rough road due to a bad back? Regardless of what type of travel you allow or disallow, someone or other gets excluded. I have no objection to making rules, exceptions or provisions for people with limited mobility to enjoy wilderness areas, but they should not be used as a trojan horse to allow indiscriminate use by others.

 

[James86004]

We were at the Gila Cliff Dwelling, where there was an exhibit on the Gila Wilderness (the first wilderness, ca 1924). It explained a few things. According to the exhibit, the reason pack animals are allowed and mountain bikes aren't is because of the way the law is written - no mechanization is permitted, which means no wheeled vehicles, including bicycles. (I wonder if that extends to wheelchairs - they didn't address that). Also, cattle are allowed if leases existed before the area was designated a wilderness. (I wonder if that was a compromise to get passage of the law).

It sounds like many of these areas are designated wilderness in order to protect them from mining. It would be nice to have a less restrictive designation that prohibits mining, but allows vehicular travel on existing roads.

 

[Robthebrit]

From what I can see existing roads are affected (real roads, not yahoo trails). Just like in death valley other areas the wilderness ends at the road side and vehicles are more than welcome as long as you don't stray.

I don't think anybody wants to see the Eureka Dunes get used like the Durmont Dunes. You can drive right up to them but you have to enjoy them on foot. This seems like a good compromise and I think we should wait and see what happens before really saying weather its good or bad.

Rob

 

[Ursidae69]

Are cattle (and sheep) really allowed in wilderness areas? Doesn't the FS have a system of grazing permits, requiring payment for such a use of land? I know of wildlife sanctuaries and study areas that have excluded cattle.

Yeah, they are allowed in and they pay grazing fees which are meant to provide the land agency a way to pay to recover the land, but the system has never worked and in my opinion it is simply welfare grazing at the expense of our public lands. Edit: Here is a book that is very one-sided, but makes a lot of good points on grazing in the west on public lands.

 

[teotwaki]

True, I apologize for that callous missive. As the father of a child in a wheelchair I am ashamed that I made such a broad statement. I mean that.
That said, I still stand behind that spirit of what i said.

Thanks for your note.

 

[luk4mud]

Just one person's perspective on one trip. When I heard that the White Mountains/ Bristlecone area was included in the wilderness bill, my wife and I decided to visit these trees last summer. We were the only visitors at the visitor center on a Saturday in mid-July and the only persons on the trails. The ranger at the visitor center told us that the trees get only a few thousand visitors annually. The trails show it- lots of sticks, pine cones on the trail suggest minimal use.

What an amazing site the trees are- a photographers dream. The paved road to access the main grove is 10+ miles long and climbs several thousand feet (6+ thousand if memory serves) Although I am not an expert on the new law, I think that road will be closed now. That means that to see these marvelous trees, one will need to hike up several thousand feet in elevation and several miles of trail/ closed road. Given the sparse visitation numbers with the road open, I suspect that very few people will visit now at all. What a shame.

I understand that one of the main arguments for inclusion of the trees area into the bill was human impact upon the trees. It's hard to believe that, having been there. Perhaps smog from the Owens Valley is an issue for the trees, I don't know, but that won't change with the wilderness designation.

What is my point? I don't see this particular wilderness desigantion as a land use/ abuse or offroaders are irresponsible kind of issue. The access road is paved, and the area receives so few visitors that those who domake the trek are so few as to have no or minimal impact. My point is to ask, having been there myself with now firsthand knowledge of the area, what is the point of designating the White Mountains/ Bristelcone Pine area as wilderness?

 

[paulj]

Although I am not an expert on the new law, I think that road will be closed now.

Here's the wilderness designation proposal that I found.
http://friendsoftheinyo.org/web-con...s_proposals/wildernessareas/whitemtnsadd.html
As said, I don't know how close the final legislation is to this. Rep McKeon claims there was extensive local consultation, so my guess is that if anything, restrictions have been weakened in the final version.

Wilderness status would restrict ORVs to cherry-stemmed roads, preventing the destruction of these fragile mountain habitats, while still maintaining motorized access to popular locales.

The map on that page has clear non-wilderness corridors along the access roads. I've driven that paved road up from the south (on the way from Nevada to Big Pine). It sure looks to me that it will remain open. It is quite common for Wilderness area boundaries to be gerrymandered to exclude existing roads and mining interests.

http://friendsoftheinyo.org/foi/files/wilderness_factsheet_0309_0.pdf
is a summary of designations in this particular California bill. Under the Bristlecone Pine forest designation (toward the bottom of the list) it specifies 'no additional roads'.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Oh bull...errr horse pucky! I can show you trails in the Sierras that are literally 2-3 foot deep troughs through alpine meadows. These are in areas where mountain bikes have never been allowed, and are caused by pack stock. Sure, each individual horse may leave "discreet" footprints as you call them, but the cumulative affect is anything but discreet.

Please go back and read my post carefully.

 

[paulj]

Just one person's perspective on one trip. When I heard that the White Mountains/ Bristlecone area was included in the wilderness bill, my wife and I decided to visit these trees last summer. We were the only visitors at the visitor center on a Saturday in mid-July and the only persons on the trails....

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/recreation/bristlecone/index.shtml

On September 4th, 2008 the Schulman Grove Visitor Center was completely destroyed by fire. ... the Inyo National Forest has decided to rebuild this facility. Funds have been allocated toward this project through a Forest Service Facility Capital Improvement national competition;

 

[luk4mud]

So does anyone know for sure whether the existing roads will be closed or not? Some posts suggest they may be kept open, but I have been to numerous wilderness areas where the roads have been closed.

 

[goodtimes]

What is my point? I don't see this particular wilderness desigantion as a land use/ abuse or offroaders are irresponsible kind of issue. The access road is paved, and the area receives so few visitors that those who domake the trek are so few as to have no or minimal impact. My point is to ask, having been there myself with now firsthand knowledge of the area, what is the point of designating the White Mountains/ Bristelcone Pine area as wilderness?

The point of the wilderness designation is not "to keep off roaders out"...the point is to protect these areas from damage in the first place.

Yes, some of the areas that are designated as wilderness have suffered from damage at the hands of humans (and the tires of their vehicles...), and the wilderness designation will help those areas recover...but the whole idea is to stop the damage before it starts, to preserve the area in its natural state, to essentially prevent us (humans) from coming in and destroying it.

This particular area may not have been in danger of that happening anytime soon...but now, it is protected forever. We know (with as much certainty as we know anything regarding government protections) that 100 years from now, this area will still be in its natural state. Without the protection, who knows what it would look like. Maybe it would still be in its natural state...or maybe it would be a strip mine, shopping mall, another glamis.

It is a preventive measure, not a reactive measure.

 

[sinuhexavier]

If they are rebuilding the visitor center I doubt the road will be closed. According to the map it actually looks like there are quite a bit of existing roads remaining open.

Wilderness is good.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

To bad many of the very people Disabled Explorers is trying to encourage to get outdoors will never be able to experience some of these areas due to the fact that they can't walk, ride a horse or mtn bike....

Worse is how quite a few folks in this thread think that is just fine.

I have said it before and I will say it again. If there is a ROAD already there then keep it open (unless you absolutely have to close it for a short term reclamation), if there aren't roads then go ahead and close it.

Much of the areas named in this bill already had roads.

All of you who can hike & ride enjoy it while you can.....most folks end up with some kind of mobility issue as they age.

Lance, then I have a question: Are you now going to give up trying to get handicapped people to experience the outdoors, because of all the land that's now "locked up" as a result of this bill?

Or is it possible there are still hundreds of thousands of miles of trails, and tens of millions of acres of public land, suitable for such an experience?

I know you read the post I put up in another thread, but you seem to be dismissing or ignoring it: Wilderness is about putting the welfare of habitat and wildlife above our own recreational convenience. It's not about locking out everyone who can't backpack 60 pounds 30 miles. Trying to make that the issue won't work as long as I'm reading these threads. Go read the Wilderness Act if you think I'm making this up. It's not long.

I know you're not going to tell me handicapped people are incapable of recognizing a higher cause than their own access, so I really can't grasp the gist of your argument on a theoretical level. If you are unwilling to support the creation of any new wilderness areas, even some that might have relic roads in them, when science shows indisputably that it would benefit the habitat and wildlife there, then I submit that you are not thinking beyond your own desires and fears. That's absolutely fine if you're up front about it, but please don't tacitly accuse those of us who are in favor of new wilderness areas of being against handicapped people. We're for habitat and wildlife, period.

If you think we're losing access, as in a diminution in road and trail mileage, do a bit of research and compare for yourself the miles of roads and 4WD trails on all the public land in the U.S. now, as opposed to, say, 30 years ago. You might be surprised. Also, have you researched to see how many of the roads in these new wilderness areas were wildcat roads to begin with? Have you fallen into the trap of assuming that any well-used road or trail you see is a legal right-of-way? Thousands and thousands of miles of roads and trails on public lands are not. Are you willing to have illegal roads on public land closed down? If you are not, then you are overtly endorsing the behavior of anyone who drives off an established trail.

I'll make a blanket challenge: I don't believe anyone here will, in his or her lifetime, come remotely close to exploring all the existing roads and trails open to 4WD use in the U.S. - or even in one state. We're not running out of roads. We are running short of places where there aren't roads.