High Sierra Topix

Russ

I disagree. The question is which president impacted you the most. The consequences of the creation of the national forest system is huge and is the foundation of much of our Wilderness System.

Mike

I think the backlash to Reagan and Watt also had some seriously positive benefits.

oldranger wrote:Dave

Ah the point is not what he intended but the consequences of his actions. Probably would not have been a lot left to protect under the Wilderness Act without National Forests in the first place.

Mike

Perhaps...

Wilderness areas existed prior to the 1964 Wilderness Act. They were called Wild Areas and protected from development by agency policy. The Act renamed them as Wilderness and gave protection the force of federal law, not just agency policy. No real changes on the ground.

Other areas were added over time, some of which probably should not have.

Dave

Agree with every point you made but that just supports consequences of creation of NF system by Teddy. Totally agree that some newly designated Wilderness do not deserve the designation. I feel that these places kind of cheapen the concept and perhaps in the long run will place the truly deserving in jeopardy.

Mike

oldranger wrote:Dave

Agree with every point you made but that just supports consequences of creation of NF system by Teddy. Totally agree that some newly designated Wilderness do not deserve the designation. I feel that these places kind of cheapen the concept and perhaps in the long run will place the truly deserving in jeopardy.

Mike

Yes. If we consider Wilderness Areas the crown jewels of our public lands, we seem to keep adding cheap plastic trinkets to the collection. In an effort to placate vocal but small special interest groups in their home districts Congress keeps adding to the Wilderness Act, mostly to buy votes in the next election. There also are the wacko eco-radicals that want all land to be Wilderness, which is the most un-environmental policy of all. Every science based organization realizes there is such a thing as too much Wilderness.


In college we had an ongoing discussion about an alternative: (for the lack of a better term) "Brevet Wilderness". An area would have roads stabilized and gated, and treated as Wilderness with all the Act restrictions, in between management entries twenty years apart or so. When it was time to re-enter the area to re-treat, the Wilderness-like restrictions would be lifted, the management activities would be completed in a compressed time frame, then redesignated back to brevet status. Some National Forests are doing similar now, although unofficially, dictated by budget and political constraints not Wilderness considerations.

Dave,

Up in Oregon the big push for new wilderness is on BLM lands. Drives me up the wall! Really wish there was another designation that could be used to protect these lands from development but not use Wilderness designation since these areas usually are crisscrossed by roads that regardless of how long they are not used will still be visible scars across the land. Whoops we are way off topic!

Mike

sparky wrote:I honestly don't know enough about these things to have a passionate opinion one way or the other, I am just very skeptical, jaded, suspicious when it comes to money and power.

I don't trust red or blue. I see them both as a giant clusterfuck of smoke and mirrors.

I do appreciate that the Sierra has been well protected. I will always do what I can to keep it that way. I honestly don't care who has done what in the past, because right now both parties are completely broken

? Then there's the Sierra Club. I never liked them, but they have done some good work.

It really doesn't seem to be about a president. It all comes down to money.

I agree with these sentiments.
However, generally speaking, I think the Democrat Party has done more for backpacking in an "environmental activist" manner than the Republicans. But I have not voted for a Demo in many years, and the way things are going, a vote for a Republican means about the same, i.e; one party rule, so where does that leave me in the future? Not voting? Libertarian? cynical? I am glad we have wilderness to escape to, and not have to think about politics.

oldranger wrote:Dave,

Up in Oregon the big push for new wilderness is on BLM lands....

Same here. There are plenty of BLM Wilderness Study Areas that leave us scratching our heads as to why they ever received that nomination.

The obama administration sure dropped the 'proposed National Monuments' list that came out in 2009 after the leaked "do not give to the press" memo.

richlong8 wrote:...
However, generally speaking, I think the Democrat Party has done more for backpacking in an "environmental activist" manner than the Republicans.

I do not necessarily agree. The 1964 Wilderness Act was initially proposed in 1954 during the Eisenhower Administration. At first the Democrats in Congress were wary and did not actively support it. It took ten years of bi-partisan work to generate enough support before final enactment. Of course, this was during the Cold War and any proposal that would limit our development of natural resources was seen as risking national security and aiding the Red Menace.

maybe off topic but I'd really like to see 168 completed. No worse then what they did in Glacier.

Russ,

Not only no but F--- NO!

Mike