How much wilderness protection is too much?

[Ted]

This discussion was split from another thread and moved to a more appropriate location.

[/quote]What percentage of public lands need to be wilderness?[/quote]
We get out in our camper about 25 times a year, often in National Forest and BLM areas. After about eight years we have barely scratched the surface of places to explore. I doubt that I could ever possibly go everywhere that is open to access. I don't have an answer to your question. Currently about 2.7% of the contiguous 48 states are designated wilderness. IMO, the amount of land protected as wilderness is not a concern.

 

[camper357]

First it was mining, then logging, then OHV, then travel management, and now new wilderness areas and expansion of existing wilderness areas. They are taking a step by step approach and they are succeeding. They are playing a game of divide and conquer by singling out one group of users at a time. But hey, keep taking the reasonable approach by compromising and conceding a little bit at a time. That is exactly what they want you to do. At least that way you won't know you got bent over until they are finished.



Excellent point, Gene. It is good to point out that even environmentalist whacko associations are helping to protect vehicle access.

I think it is important to note that this is a forum for people that take their truck campers off the beaten path for recreation. Obviously if all natural areas were wilderness none of us would be able to do this. On the other hand, what would be the point of getting off the beaten path if all natural areas looked and sounded like an OHV park. A good balance is ideal.


We get out in our camper about 25 times a year, often in National Forest and BLM areas. After about eight years we have barely scratched the surface of places to explore. I doubt that I could ever possibly go everywhere that is open to access. I don't have an answer to your question. Currently about 2.7% of the contiguous 48 states are designated wilderness. IMO, the amount of land protected as wilderness is not a concern.

 

[MarkBC]

First it was mining, then logging, then OHV, then travel management, and now new wilderness areas and expansion of existing wilderness areas. They are taking a step by step approach and they are succeeding. They are playing a game of divide and conquer by singling out one group of users at a time. But hey, keep taking the reasonable approach by compromising and conceding a little bit at a time. That is exactly what they want you to do. At least that way you won't know you got bent over until they are finished.

Hey..."they" sound like me!
Other people sound like you.
So vote your beliefs -- that's Democracy.

 

[Mark W. Ingalls]

They are playing a game of divide and conquer.
First it was mining,
then logging, then OHV,
then travel management,
and now new wilderness areas and expansion of existing wilderness areas.

Forgive me if chopping up this post and rearranging the order of some of the words offends ...

I have lived where uncontrolled mining and logging have clearly and inarguably hurt the environment. I have seen superfund sites that would otherwise have been beautiful lakes and rivers. I have seen the aboriginal Giant Sequoias and wondered what the Adirondacks would have been like if only a small part of the original forest had been spared. I have measured acid rain with litmus paper and seen how it decimated native trout.

I have also seen that hunters and fishermen formed powerful groups that garnered state privileges to use public lands in such a way that you weren't allowed into the woods at certain times without a hunting license. It was the hunters, however, not the radical naturalists, who "bent over" the non-hunting public. So it seems to me that your premises do not support your conclusions.
_________________________________________

This user group is only semi-democratic and definitely NOT a free-speech platform.

 

[camper357]

Here's what Oregon Wild has to say on their website:

"As leaders of the statewide Wilderness coalition, we seek permanent protection for Oregon's forested roadless areas larger than 1,000 acres. We also work to provide ecosystem restoration of public lands adjacent to core wilderness areas in order to heal damaged watersheds."

I hope you enjoy your paved campsites, because if it was up to these types of organizations, your camper on your fossil fueled vehicle would have to stay home. You are naive to think that these groups won't come after your form of recreation next.



Forgive me if chopping up this post and rearranging the order of some of the words offends ...

I have lived where uncontrolled mining and logging have clearly and inarguably hurt the environment. I have seen superfund sites that would otherwise have been beautiful lakes and rivers. I have seen the aboriginal Giant Sequoias and wondered what the Adirondacks would have been like if only a small part of the original forest had been spared. I have measured acid rain with litmus paper and seen how it decimated native trout.

I have also seen that hunters and fishermen formed powerful groups that garnered state privileges to use public lands in such a way that you weren't allowed into the woods at certain times without a hunting license. It was the hunters, however, not the radical naturalists, who "bent over" the non-hunting public. So it seems to me that your premises do not support your conclusions.
_________________________________________

This user group is only semi-democratic and definitely NOT a free-speech platform.

 

[highz]

In the state where I live there is active mining and logging, not to mention widespread fossil fuel extraction. There are also very many roads for OHV use. In fact, I can't hike anywhere in the Lincoln NF, (where I live), where I can't hear someone's engine. I'm not exactly sure where camper357 is coming from regarding mining and logging, but I will say I personally believe there are places where the value of wildlife is greater than the value of the mineral and lumber resources (like Bristol Bay). As to the rest camper357 mentions:

In 1972 there were an estimated 5 million OHV users. In 2000, an estimated 36 million. Does anyone have an estimate for later years? I'm pretty sure it hasn't decreased! Those figures come from here . There are over 312 million people in the USA. There's a reason why quiet boondocking spots are getting hard to find, but building more roads won't fix the problem - it will only prolong it and other species will suffer all the more.

Anyone who thinks regulation and designation of protected areas isn't needed is in serious denial, in my opinion. Things will only get worse as the population grows. Organizations like ONDA and their volunteers are trying to counteract the undeniable loss of open space and habitat. I personally believe protecting habitat is more legitimate than an overpopulated specie's greedy concept that they should be free to do whatever they want to the earth without regard for the consequences to other life on the planet. And here's the harsh reality: If we don't stop having too many babies, it will only get harder to find a peaceful boondocking spot in the future - even if more OHV trails are built. But, that isn't the fault of ethical land-use stewards!

Camper357, we may all soon end up camping in designated, crowded spots as the population and land abuse keeps growing, but you are barking up the wrong tree by blaming conservation groups.

If someone wants to start a thread on responsible OHV use in an overcrowded world, that might be very welcome.

 

[billharr]

Here's what Oregon Wild has to say on their website:

"As leaders of the statewide Wilderness coalition, we seek permanent protection for Oregon's forested roadless areas larger than 1,000 acres. We also work to provide ecosystem restoration of public lands adjacent to core wilderness areas in order to heal damaged watersheds."

I hope you enjoy your paved campsites, because if it was up to these types of organizations, your camper on your fossil fueled vehicle would have to stay home. You are naive to think that these groups won't come after your form of recreation next.


The environmentalists have and will come after any powered off road vehicles. I have camped around the Utica and Union Lakes area off Hwy 4 since 1965. At one time you needed a jeep or motorcycle to get all the way to Spicers Reservoir. Now you can drive a large motor-home there. There is a small ORV road left "Slick Rock Road" and you need a street legal vehicle to travel on it. If the environmentalists can not drive their Prius on the road they think it should be closed.

 

[Lighthawk]

"I can't hike anywhere in the Lincoln NF, (where I live), where I can't hear someone's engine"

That says a lot. In my fairly frequent experience, one moto-user can often impact many people within earshot, or who will later see the damage left behind. I'm guessing most motorcycle/ATV/OHV/snowmachine users have no idea how much impact they have.

I reject the term, used by extremist ideologues, of 'environmental whacko'. What I know is once motorized travel impacts an area, it is never the same. Much like mining, the damage is usually visible for over a century. And who foots the bill for the repair/cleanup?

I think OHV groups have to repair a whole lot of damage and make some pretty big promises to steward the land they want to use, before we can trust them with more, if not less access.

How that impacts me as a 'responsible' truck based camper is that I need to respect the rules and not bash my way over road-less areas. I'm ok with that. I don't think that's leading us into a socialist-ruled world where we'll all be forced to camp at paved campgrounds.

 

[highz]

The environmentalists have and will come after any powered off road vehicles. I have camped around the Utica and Union Lakes area off Hwy 4 since 1965. At one time you needed a jeep or motorcycle to get all the way to Spicers Reservoir. Now you can drive a large motor-home there. There is a small ORV road left "Slick Rock Road" and you need a street legal vehicle to travel on it. If the environmentalists can not drive their Prius on the road they think it should be closed.


I'm not clear on what you are saying, Bill. Are you implying environmentalists caused the pressure to pave the road to the reservoir? I doubt that, but if you can prove me wrong, please do so. As a start, who built the paved road, and where did the funds come from? I'm more inclined to believe it was part of some use plan developed by a bureaucracy.

On a related note, the population of the US in 1965 was 194,302,963. That's only 62 percent of what it is now. Population pressure on public lands would have been correspondingly lower.

 

[camper357]

I'm not advocating mining or building more roads or for the destruction of natural resources in general. I am in favor of continued access of the land that is now available. I like to be able take my camper down some remote forest road, and I like to ride my motorcycle to explore as well.

I have spent weeks at a time in a few different wilderness areas in Oregon. From what I have seen there is nothing wild or unique about the wilderness areas. They are just tracts of national forest that congress has drawn a magical line around. You cannot go anywhere without seeing evidence of man's presence and influence on the land.

Yes, some wild areas with genuinely unique features deserve protection, but that is not what all the environmental lobbying is all about.

My point is that the efforts of the environmental groups are very focused campaigns concentrating on specific issues, but the end goal is exclusion. They want you to drive to the parking lot at the edge of the national forest and walk in, because that is their preferred method of recreation. They have successfully swayed the public opinion regarding mining and logging, and removing roads. You may choose to stand with them and work with them on some issues, but if you enjoy driving your truck off of the pavement or any other form of motorized recreation, they will eventually be working against you. I am sorry if you cannot see the forest from the trees.

 

[Mark W. Ingalls]

<snip>

My point is that the efforts of the environmental groups are very focused campaigns concentrating on specific issues, but the end goal is exclusion. They want you to drive to the parking lot at the edge of the national forest and walk in, because that is their preferred method of recreation. They have successfully swayed the public opinion regarding mining and logging, and removing roads. You may choose to stand with them and work with them on some issues, but if you enjoy driving your truck off of the pavement or any other form of motorized recreation, they will eventually be working against you. I am sorry if you cannot see the forest from the trees.


And I repeat, your point is not made. I gave an example where (in the East and especially Pennsylvania) the environmental group is made up largely of hunters.

Going further, whether we cannot metaphorically see forest nor trees is your opinion, I would say.

Bubba, I'm from Texas, as someone has privately pointed out: If you can't argue your point well enough so Buford agrees with it, then how do you expect to persuade anybody else?

 

[highz]

I'm not advocating mining or building more roads or for the destruction of natural resources in general. I am in favor of continued access of the land that is now available. I like to be able take my camper down some remote forest road, and I like to ride my motorcycle to explore as well.
No one is denying access to roadless areas, just motorized access. That is what you object to. Can you give me some figures for the growth of OHV roads in the last decade in the National Forests and BLM lands, not just the loss of roads? In other words, is there a net growth or loss of roads in the last decade? Can you get me those figures? Without them, we are debating in a vacuum.

I have spent weeks at a time in a few different wilderness areas in Oregon. From what I have seen there is nothing wild or unique about the wilderness areas. They are just tracts of national forest that congress has drawn a magical line around. You cannot go anywhere without seeing evidence of man's presence and influence on the land.

Yes, some wild areas with genuinely unique features deserve protection, but that is not what all the environmental lobbying is all about.
Tell us which areas of Oregon you are speaking of. Perhaps what makes them unique is the habitat they provide to diminishing species? This cannot be debated without more information.

My point is that the efforts of the environmental groups are very focused campaigns concentrating on specific issues, but the end goal is exclusion. They want you to drive to the parking lot at the edge of the national forest and walk in, because that is their preferred method of recreation. They have successfully swayed the public opinion regarding mining and logging, and removing roads. You may choose to stand with them and work with them on some issues, but if you enjoy driving your truck off of the pavement or any other form of motorized recreation, they will eventually be working against you. I am sorry if you cannot see the forest from the trees.

As Mark said, "they" is "me", and I strongly disagree that the end goal is exclusion. From my perspective, the end goal is protection for all species, but I somehow doubt you will believe me. Furthermore, I disagree that public opinion has been swayed - it seems to me the debate is ongoing and lively. My claim is that mining and logging and road creation have not stopped. They are ongoing. In my neck of the woods alone, a dozen new mining claims were filed in 2011 to look for zirconium and rare earth minerals on Otero mesa. If mining starts, they will have to build access roads on public land. The General Mining Act of 1872 still gives priority to mining over other uses of federal lands. If that gets overturned, then I will agree that public opinion was successfully swayed. Until then, I dispute your claim on that point.

So far, I hear you make claims, but I don't hear you support them.

 

[Ted]

Here's what Oregon Wild has to say on their website:

"As leaders of the statewide Wilderness coalition, we seek permanent protection for Oregon's forested roadless areas larger than 1,000 acres. We also work to provide ecosystem restoration of public lands adjacent to core wilderness areas in order to heal damaged watersheds."

I hope you enjoy your paved campsites, because if it was up to these types of organizations, your camper on your fossil fueled vehicle would have to stay home. You are naive to think that these groups won't come after your form of recreation next.

Ok, so their website says they want to protect roadless areas. So if it is currently roadless and they want to keep it that way, how do you get closed roads and having to stay home out of that? Even Tread Lightly advocates not going off of existing trails.

The environmentalists have and will come after any powered off road vehicles. I have camped around the Utica and Union Lakes area off Hwy 4 since 1965. At one time you needed a jeep or motorcycle to get all the way to Spicers Reservoir. Now you can drive a large motor-home there. There is a small ORV road left "Slick Rock Road" and you need a street legal vehicle to travel on it. If the environmentalists can not drive their Prius on the road they think it should be closed.

Bill, I am also confused by your point. It sounds like an example of an area being made more accessible, not less. Perhaps you could elaborate more about why the roadway was paved?

I know a person that is a full time employee of a open space land preservation organization. She has a Sportsmobile and prefers to camp out some remote road like we all do. The volunteer work Gene did reopened roads that were illegally closed - i.e. providing more access, not less. These are evidence that the stereotype that all environmentalists want to close all access to us is not true. I have no doubt their are individuals and probably organizations that want to close access to a lot of areas. But for everyone one of them there is an equal number of people and organizations representing timber, ranching, mining, and recreational interests. They all have lobbyists, supporters, and detractors. Each has won some cases and lost some cases. As I said before, there needs to be some balance. While the environmentalists have made some gains in the last few years, I would not say they are winning the tug-of-war by any means. It is my observation that the timber and ranching interests are much stronger. But overall, that balance seems to exist for the most part - IMO.

 

[billharr]

Bill, I am also confused by your point. It sounds like an example of an area being made more accessible, not less. Perhaps you could elaborate more about why the roadway was paved?




At one time the only way to Spicers was slick rock road. When Spicers was raised a new gravel road was put in west of slick rock road. Several years later the road was paved and camp grounds were put in. It was open camping before, FREE. Then they graded the dirt to Union and Utica. The last few years they have been cutting in camping spots and expect to see asphalt in a few years. Not everyone wants to camp in a campground. Yes this area was made more accessible and then they expanded the Carson Iceburg wilderness, 1984. Trails I rode as a teenager are now closed to motors.

 

[lqhikers]

with time on my hands i have been reading threads and posts that i normally do not read
what i get out of the above posts are that there will always be extreme views on land usage
and what should be the use of such for what ever reason.
this brings me to my thoughts on public and private lands.
years ago we owed a large section of land above sacramento in the foothills even though
our property was fenced and posted we still had people hunting ,cutting fire wood,dumping trash,
breaking into out buildings,when confronted we got a lot of lame excuses as to why no resect was shown .
so to this day if i have any doubt as to the status of ownership i move on to the next area,yet i also have been able to
use a lot of private land just by talking to and asking owners if roads,or camp spots could be used .to this day we still have
areas in calif,nevada,idaho that we use that are private and that we are welcome.what do we do in return?
we always go out of our way to clean up,repair any loose or down fencing,just leave it in better shape than when we arrived.
and we have made many dear friends over the years.

public lands, its sad but the days of having spots to yourself that you used over the years are gone so get over it and realize
its public land!be it blm,wilderness,national park,state park,or what ever.
if you are old enough you will understand that the old days are gone,with all the new toys,motorized or non motorized
the pressure on usage will continue to increase,so more and more restrictions.
we have found that as spots that we have used over the years become unusable to us we just move on and explore new areas
with this frame of mind we are amazed that there are so many new areas that are underused or not used at all
enough for us in our short lives!

Mining,logging,power plants,public needs,as long as we demand need it will be supplied.
population growth will see to that ,but that is another subject!

so what we try to do is to respect the land and not to abuse it if possible.

the above are my thoughts and would never try to make them yours.
drive slow and enjoy"its the journey"
Les,lqhikers

 

[Smokecreek1]

Guys

Most interesting thread, as some of you know I spent most of my professional career in the BLM and I'm pretty much into the public use of all of that wonderful public land out there-by all of us as long as we live by the rules. But it took both the BLM and yours truly, many years to evolve into understanding of what "public Land" is how to both use it, and protect it! When I came into the BLM, it was all mining, timber, and cows, with dirt bikes making a claim for their part of the pie! I as a backpacker, environmentalist and and gung-ho archaeologist, came into the hated BLM (destroyers of my archaeology, and wild areas, lover of cows, etc) to save the world (and to make some $). I was one of those in the first waves of the"ologists" that all the new laws (FLPA, NEPA, ARPA, Clean Water Act, etc) that were being forced on land agencies by congress and most of the public-and yes signed into law by Nixon! The BLM, and FS and the other land management agencies and their users, were about as ready for us as we were for them! My first boss told me simply, "I don't know what arcks do and don't know what the law really says or means, that's your job, but you are a vet and public employee, and I'll back you until I find out that you lied to me then your ass is grass". He was a good boss-an x chopper driver from the Korean War-and a good man-taught me allot! Over time, us "ologists" and the "extractors (those who ran and used the mining, ranching etc programs) usually learned to work with each other, sometimes we won sometimes, they won, but usually a little bit of each side won along with that part of the public. The official term management used was the Multi Use concept- best use for that land, hated by most of us, but without it, nothing would have ever been accomplished and it rubbed off on me and most of us-became a conservationist and learned even dirt bikers, miners, cows and backpackers, fishermen, whatever and especially wild horse Ann and her horses had a place out there-even if they all trampled on my ark sites and wanted to drill in my favorite back packing place-but we usually worked it out, sometimes by putting all the users in a cabin up at High Rock Canyon and leaving them there until they learned to work to together and develop a plan that worked for all of us-You don't always get your way-something allot in congress or on some of these threads and nation/world seem to have forgotten. That's what your vote is for, if you don't vote and go hide in your corner and bitch, sorry- if you don't attend those boring BLM meetings about that area or the thing that turns you on-you loose and someone who did attend will get their piece. I don't know how many meetings we held on management of the public lands and hardly anyone showed up-those that did, were heard-maybe didn't win, but maybe next time, maybe they did; so you have a problem, attend meetings, write letters, vote, until then , best of luck in finding that place out there where you want to do you thing ---and protecting it!

Sorry for going on and on, but it's only our land if we fight for it not just bitch!

Smoke

 

[highz]

Les, you have a very healthy attitude! I'll bet you have good control over your blood pressure. I have to say, though that I don't agree that population growth is another subject; I think it is a fundamental factor in pressure on public lands, and we all need to see that and stop scapegoating the wrong people regarding increasing regulation on public lands.

Smoke, I was hoping you would weigh in with an insider's viewpoint. Don't worry, some of us DO attend meetings, write letters, volunteer, etc. We just occasionally need to bitch, too

 

[MarkBC]

This argument:
No vehicle access = bad
Paved road access = bad
Dirt road access for 4x4 = just right
doesn't sound like much of an argument to me. It's basically "I want it the way I want it 'cause that's the way I like it", without any other basis.

What's an argument for "no vehicle access"? It's the natural way, the way all places used to be before modern humans. It's the given state of things, so to argue against that you'd need to make a good argument for why it's good to change that pristine original state.

What's an argument for "paved road access"? Not everyone can afford a 4x4 truck or ATV or other expensive and/or expensive-to-operate toy -- which is exactly what they are -- including my truck: an expensive luxury. If I didn't use a camper to go camping in out-of-the-way spots I'd only own my Honda Civic (not a Prius, BTW

) at less than 1/2 the purchase price and less than 1/3 the operating cost of my truck.
(I'm not saying I want more paved roads, but this is a good argument for them.)

On the other hand, nearly everyone can afford a pair of hiking shoes.

Not physically capable of hiking or skiing into a wilderness area? Oh well...that's life. I'm not physically capable of climbing Mt. Rainier right now, but I don't think that justifies a road to the top. I'm not even in good enough shape to backpack far into wilderness areas, but I don't think that justifies a road. Just because it would benefit my fat, lazy butt doesn't make it right.

Any argument that comes down to "I have this expensive motorized toy and so I deserve a place to use it no matter what the consequences to the land or other people" is the same as saying "self-interest is all that matters". Yes, I know that a lot of people do believe that...which is sad

...but it doesn't convince me.
And I'll continue to support wilderness.

Mining,logging,power plants,public needs,as long as we demand need it will be supplied.
population growth will see to that ,but that is another subject!

Yep that's what it comes down to. It may be "another subject", but (as highz said when I wasn't looking) it's an important element of this discussion.
People of child-bearing years: Please, no more than two, preferably fewer. When I was young, California had 20 million people and Oregon 2 million. Now they both have >50% more. If there were fewer people we'd need less minerals and oil and less timber and fewer dams and fewer livestock and fewer developed areas, less suburban sprawl, etc. (Yes, I realize that this impacts economies, but if the counter argument is "we have to grow forever, from 7 billion now to 70 billion!" I guarantee you that that approach will break down)
And it's a change that's quick-and-easy to make, unlike the time it takes to repair environmental damage: For example, if people had no children the world population would drop to zero in about 100 years...so if we just restrain our instincts a bit (i.e., don't have more kids just because you're fertile and your DNA commands you to) we can at least reduce the population over time and reduce the conflicts over natural resources and the damage to the natural world.

 

[Smokecreek1]

Les, you have a very healthy attitude! I'll bet you have good control over your blood pressure. I have to say, though that I don't agree that population growth is another subject; I think it is a fundamental factor in pressure on public lands, and we all need to see that and stop scapegoating the wrong people regarding increasing regulation on public lands.

Smoke, I was hoping you would weigh in with an insider's viewpoint. Don't worry, some of us DO attend meetings, write letters, volunteer, etc. We just occasionally need to bitch, too


Highz


Good! Yeh, bitching is fun, but bitching hopefully leads to some type of legal action, but you gotta vote to play! Sometimes, would meet some people out there that acted like it was my fault that their favorite spot was found, well come to the meeting and maybe it will not be! This is a real good thread. But you hear this all the time,"me and my problems, the govt, people ect,ect- no one is at fault! You got that right about the pressure. park lands were filling up fast, overflowing into FS, and even BLM lands-most of them not knowing what to do out there, must less worry about the other guy-bitch bitch! Time to get dinner out-then I will bitch!

Smoke

 

[Smokecreek1]

Hey..."they" sound like me!
Other people sound like you.
So vote your beliefs -- that's Democracy.


Mark
Who is they? By the way! They did this, they then did that! Didn't a famous German minister prior to WW2,say the same thing----and pretty soon there was no one to speak when they came for me! Maybe he lives in the German part of Oregon-Mark you know that where is, Maybe they don't vote there-have to put it on my map when I'm "wandering" around your state-catch an x-fed like me there may be dangerous! Have to go undercover! Seriously, lots of people feel that way, but don't have an answer about the who what and where of it al just theml-yep vote, before the "them" try to take it away-hmmmmm, isn't that happening in a few places now!

Smoke