High Sierra Topix

Relative to the proposed bills listed that affect Wilderness...

These kinds of bills would pass one or the other house of Congress in recent years under Republican control, but were never taken seriously because Obama would veto them. With Trump available to sign off, the Republicans who prefer their wilderness in coffee table books and the real wilderness turned into logging, oil and gas drilling, off-road vehicle playgrounds, beaten up overgrazed range, etc., will make a serious effort to pass bills like this.

The point of H.R.6156 "Local Wilderness Management Act" is to eliminate all temporary protection for wilderness study areas on national forests and BLM lands so the mining, drilling, logging, dirt-biking, etc., can commence. This won't affect any of the true High Sierra, but it will affect a lot of other nice mountain and desert landscapes throughout the west.

The point of S.3205 "Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act" is to open up designated wilderness area trails to mountain bikes. This WILL affect the high sierra wilderness areas. Although the bill gives land managers two years to draw up plans for each wilderness area to desginate which trails are open to bikes and which not, since they have to follow the planning laws (such as NEPA) and you can bet that the administration will starve the agencies for funding, it is unlikely that very many of these plans can be finished in two years. Thus, ipso facto, the majority of wilderness trails will be opened to mountain bikes.

In both cases, I personally would be very much affected, because I enjoy visiting roadless areas around the country and want to see them kept undeveloped, and don't want mountain bikes in our high country wilderness.

-Phil

Perhaps a more interesting perspective is the result of adhering to the preamble of "We": Who's in charge here, the governed or the state? As consent was perceived to have been abused by political & bureaucratic overreach, the counter effects are the policy reforms now being instituted.

How this plays out at local levels is the wild-card. For instance, what is the authority of the current permit system? Or for that matter, bear canisters. Are they stipulations of the Wilderness act or Nat'l park charter, or are they merely interpretations subject to challenge? I'm being sincere here - actually curious.

Park Service authority re permits and bear cans derives from Sec. 3 of the Organic Act of 1916. It provides that the Secretary of the Interior "shall make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks."

Much less open-ended, under the Wilderness Act of 1964, is the mandate for management of designated wilderness areas. It establishes strict standards to preserve these areas in a state "untrammeled by man." Unfortunately, violations of the letter and spirit of the act by management agencies are a dime a dozen. One of the most disheartening things about the (fascinating) End of Season reports filed by backcountry rangers in Sequoia and Kings Canyon that are archived over at highsierrahikers.org is the ongoing chronicle of impacts and activities prohibited by the Act, many of them perpetrated by the NPS itself. The late Randy Morgenson was particularly vigilant in bringing these up.

On the topic of permits—and, implicitly, bureaucratic overreach—one of the reports filed by George Durkee makes an interesting point:

At great risk of hearsay, have parts of the wilderness permit program outlived their usefulness? That is, is it necessary to enter in all the names and addresses and even destinations of everyone who gets a permit? How much are we spending to do this (both money and time) and what are the benefits to the backcountry? What management decisions are made based on such information? Do we exceed the quotas at trailheads often enough to justify all the information asked for on a permit (route, name, address etc.)?

The most important part of permits from my standpoint is the information given to the hiker by the permit issuer. It seems as if we could make it easier on everyone if we no longer took names & routes but just gave an effective minimum impact talk. Every few years we could "ground truth" hiker's routes to see if the quotas are still realistic for given areas (though I suspect a ranger would notice if an area is being overused and would recommend appropriate action even without such checks).

Another observation by George in an EOS report is "the fewer regulations the better." No doubt this did not go down any better with his superiors than it will with some of the regulars on this forum. But it speaks directly to your point about the abuse of consent, which is certainly the wind filling some enormous political sails at the moment.

Quick sidebar question - what is forum policy re: politics / political debates?

It's allowed so long as the debate is civil.

which is certainly the wind filling some enormous political sails at the moment

Thanx for the citations and references. In the long arc of current events, we see the pendulum of public sentiment constantly swinging from one side to the other. Right now, the political 'climate' definitely seems to be exhibiting a more FU attitude towards certain aspects of governmental authority.

One of the interesting parts of the ACA EO was this language that directs governmental agencies to use discretion to the advantage of individuals:

Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

If one were to speculate, it would be logical to expect this type of orientation could be expanded to impact and effect other public agencies in the conduct of their legally mandated duties.

For one, even though I hate bikes on trails, it's difficult to justify a blanket prohibition eg PCT when the general basis of law is equal access. For two, Trump is an advocate of a national (concealed) carry law; is there a supremacy clause for the parks? For three ... well, we can see the trend is heading in terms of questioning what legal authority exists that prevents the enjoyment of certain enumerated rights.

The nexus of this debate as it pertains to HST is how it specifically effects us, the outdoor enthusiasts, playing around in the Sierra and elsewhere.

Individual employees are free to use their personal social media accounts to express their views. They are not allowed to state, or even imply, their views represent official policy. The use of the official logos or banners is also not allowed on personal web pages or media accounts (NPS Arrowhead symbol or FS shield, e.g.)
Senior managers in the Senior Executive Service (GM 15 and above) do have restrictions on their personal activities

All employees have a general responsibility to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest" or engage in outside activities that bring discredit to the Agency. A vague catch-all phrase that could be used as retaliation in particularly egregious cases.

Retirees have no restrictions whatsoever. They can do or say anything they want and the agency or White House cannot retaliate.

I agree wholeheartedly with LMBSGV and maverick. As to riown's rathole remark that just reflects on riown.

SSSdave wrote:ranting and raving

UC Berkeley is the perfect example...