Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
langenbacher wrote: Perhaps it would help if you told us what you think anybody will not be able to do after wilderness designation that they were able to do before ??? What will wilderness designation protect the wilderness against? Why should we bother to support it if it won't stop people from doing what they are doing now?
This is the essential question that I would also like answered.
Matilda wrote:Wilderness is not closure. This bill doesn't "close" anything that you drive on legally
Then why all the emotion wrapped up in this wilderness legislation? If it doesn't close roads that are driven legally then that implies people are misusing the land and driving illegally....if it is already illegal then enforce the regulations those few fools are violating
(ORV free-for-all is a different issue--I can only address law-abiding recreation here)
Isn't this your error? You should be addressing the law violators instead of changing a designation that will add more restriction on law-abiders.
On the selfish side of me, I think Wilderness areas are great things because I'm a hiker not a rider. But I see this as the typical lefty-enviro-big gubment solution to all problems...Take more control and deny more freedom (in the form of access)
That's one of the biggest misperceptions out there, and I'd like to know what it would take to correct this misperception
Misconceptions (assuming you are correct) are usually based on passed experience. Government programs or plans never get smaller (try and name one that has) They always grow. And it may be a loose wilderness area tomorrow but it will grow into a more restricted-, limited access, pay-to-play area in the future
What is it, exactly, that you want to do on these lands that you won't be able to do if they are designated wilderness?
What is it exactly that you want to restrict? And please be complete.
I think everyone here knows what wilderness designation means--the big, bad restriction of motorized and mechanized recreation. If you don't, go to wilderness.net and read about it. You can read the Wilderness Act there, too.
What current activities will the designations in this bill restrict? Not much of anything, really. As huts mentioned, lands in the Hoover additions are already managed as wilderness. Glass Creek Meadow is managed as a non-motorized area. Areas in the Whites are pretty rugged for orvs and miners. The Bristlecones are protected under the current forest management plan. But through this act of Congress, all this would be made permanent.
Other designations in the bill open up new areas to motorized use. It's illegal to snowmobile in Leavitt Bowl now. The bill makes it legal to do so. Lands near Granite Mountain and in the Bodie Hills will be released from further consideration as wilderness.
Philosophical differences, I guess. I don't work for the big bad gubment, but, admittedly, I am extremely, shamefully liberal and I think the argument that the government is somehow denying anyone's rights by designating wilderness in unroaded areas is weak. For instance (and I'm trying to be specific here by naming one of my favorite places that's in this bill), I don't really think anyone has "the right" to ride a dirt bike through Glass Creek Meadow. And here's the (granted unlikely) scenario that worries me: if that area isn't designated wilderness, the biker could ride through the meadow enough that his/her tracks create a trail, then maybe this amazing subalpine meadow gets opened up to motorized use. That can't happen if it's within wilderness boundaries. Is wilderness designation going to stop someone from riding a dirtbike through Glass Creek Meadow? Maybe not (gee, I hope so)--but if that biker has and can read a map, he/she will have a much clearer idea of what's ok to do where.
But that's the philosophical difference--to me, wilderness designation is smart, permanent management; to others, a slippery slope and a diabolical plan to take away "access."
Caddis, I can't convince you that wilderness designation is a good idea any easier than you could convince me that this bill threatens access to public lands.
I do agree that management (or lack thereof) of public lands can cause cynicism and mistrust. But I also think that, at least in this corner of California, you'll see more consensus building among user groups and attempts to help agencies manage the lands better. We've all complained enough--now it's time to do something about it. This legislation is a move in that direction.
Why should you support this bill?
Because it gives the highest level of protection to a handful of beautiful places while still allowing all kinds of recreational access in the region. We could sit back and say "if it ain't broke don't fix it," but I think that lacks some foresight. As one of my friends, a fairly staunch libertarian said to the argument that there could be too much wilderness 'round here:"that's a good one--wilderness is now encroaching on civilization!"
Not everyone is completely happy about everything in this bill (I'm not super stoked about snowmobiles crossing the PCT, for instance), but it's a fair compromise and settles some long-standing land management issues.
The great thing about this, aside from friendly debates, is that we can all have our say and some level of influence over this kind of legislation. Don't like this bill? Write a letter to Boxer, Feinstein and McKeon! Read the bill and give feedback. Thank them for working on this. They are listening.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and for listening to my two cents, everyone! I'll keep you posted on any developments with the bill.
Bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like
Freddie Mercury said it well.
That's my only objection to new wilderness areas. I love hiking and I love bicycling. There's plenty of area in the eastern sierra for both. Wilderness designation makes the bicyclists throw in with the motorsports folks, even though I would prefer to throw in with the hikers.
Much of the local opposition to additional Wilderness designation arose after boxer introduced her first California Wilderness bill. In her introductory comments in the Congressional Record she stated "This bill is only a start. The areas now protected will be expanded over time...". The same phraseology is used in the CWC web site, where they explain that many of the delineated proposed wilderness are bounded by roads for a reason. With enough pressure, local managers will close the roads, then the Wilderness can be expanded out to the next road, which can be closed, etc. If there is any doubt to the CWC's long range plans, look at the shape of their proposed Wilderness areas -- many are long-tentacled amoebas with fingers that extend for miles outside the core area to intentionally include existing OHV and mountain bike trails.
Also note that Paul Spitler, the current environmental appointee to the CA state OHV commission, is a former director of the CWC. Since his appointment the OHV commission has been increasingly hostile to OHV use on public lands.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
caddis wrote:Misconceptions (assuming you are correct) are usually based on passed experience. Government programs or plans never get smaller (try and name one that has) They always grow. And it may be a loose wilderness area tomorrow but it will grow into a more restricted-, limited access, pay-to-play area in the future
Matilda wrote:I think the argument that the government is somehow denying anyone's rights by designating wilderness in unroaded areas is weak
.
dave54 wrote:Much of the local opposition to additional Wilderness designation arose after boxer introduced her first California Wilderness bill. In her introductory comments in the Congressional Record she stated"This bill is only a start. The areas now protected will be expanded over time...". The same phraseology is used in the CWC web site, where they explain that many of the delineated proposed wilderness are bounded by roads for a reason. With enough pressure, local managers will close the roads,then the Wilderness can be expanded out to the next road, which can be closed, etc. If there is any doubt to the CWC's long range plans, look at the shape of their proposed Wilderness areas -- many are long-tentacled amoebas with fingers that extend for miles outside the core area to intentionally include existing OHV and mountain bike trails.
You guys are totally right. This is all part of an evil plan to close every road on National Forest lands. Gee, I'm glad I found out now. I guess I was still too much of a newbie to be let in on the environmental groups' secret plots!
Matilda wrote:You guys are totally right. This is all part of an evil plan to close every road on National Forest lands. Gee, I'm glad I found out now. I guess I was still too much of a newbie to be let in on the environmental groups' secret plots!
Now you're learning!! LOL!!
Put away the tin foil beanie. But you still must keep alert the ulterior motives of some of the more radical factions of the environmental industry. They are socialist are at heart, and some are downright wacko. The Wildlands Project, for example, advocates large areas of the Sierra Nevada be closed to any human use whatsoever -- no backpacking, no hiking, no backcountry skiing, even prohibiting airplane overflights. All public entry prohibited. The CWC links to their website as a form of endorsement. The Wildlands Project also advocates the elimination of small forest communities -- like Mammoth. Force the residents to move to large cities. In one essay they suggested the entire population of the U.S. would be required to live in 500 urban areas and leaving the city to visit any wildlands required 'permission'.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Yeah some of that extreme, anti-population stuff is pretty whacked out, no doubt.
That's why those of us who love the Sierra and have lots of time on the ground need to get or stay involved. Probably 95% of us could agree on land management issues. It's the last 5 that gets tricky.
I'm off to the meeting in Independence to listen to the last 5.
Looking forward to more time spent hiking in the wilderness (August can't come soon enough!) than all this time debating wilderness.
At Bishop, the government people opened the meeting with pius sounding words to the affect that "this is what we're going to take and there's nothing you can do about it." No wonder people were pissed ...
Then again, maybe this was the intent of those words, to inflame and turn opinion to their stand, putting into the minds of the undecided that equates angry behavior with nature shredding lunatics in Jeeps. See the comment under the first news report from a reader.
mountain hiking is addictive:
I can quit anytime I want - I just choose not to want
I was at the Bishop meeting, nothing "pious" about it or Rep. McKeon's staffer. He was trying to explain the circumstances, and invite people to give constructive feedback (as in, I don't want this area included in the bill because... or it looks like my favorite trail might be closed). He didn't say anything about "what we're going to take"--besides, it's all federally owned land anyway.
I could see why opponents to the bill would bristle at being told 'if you don't like this, just wait 'til the Obama or McCain administration gets in--you'll be sorry.'
Not like most of the audience was actually listening.
Too busy spitting on enviros (seriously, a redneck kid spit on me when I walked by him, apparently because I had on a green ribbon--and he didn't even have the guts to look me in the eye when I stopped and stood in front of him). Oh, and booing/hissing at hikers from Santa Clarita who spoke in favor of the bill, noting that they come to the Owens Valley to backpack and spend money in local businesses. Someone actually yelled "go home!"
As an editorial in the Inyo Register pointed out, we locals don't have any more "rights" to these public lands than someone in New Jersey.
Mob mentality = not good for anyone.
