Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure was :oops: -------but we needed to read it. If you really want to get depressed get the latest issue of High Country News or Andy Kerrs' Blog, lot's of info there and it doesn't sound to good! Both these sites also list lot's of "go to organizations and places" where we can fight this.

Smoke
 
"But no one should be able to look at that celebration that unfolded Monday in our state’s Capitol building and see anything other than a disgraceful display of powerful people whooping it up over the pain they were inflicting on, among others, hundreds of thousands of Native Americans."

From the above mentioned editorial.

takesiteasy, thanks for providing the link. It made my day with how well they hit the nail on the head.
 
Lots of good discourse here albeit a little left leaning.

I recently came across this on another forum:
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/revised_final_report.pdf
Regardless of your opinion of Zinke it is good to read the actual document put forth to the current President instead of only reading opinion pieces by media publications. Yes some of his observations and suggestions are vague. If you're against his viewpoint it is still valuable to read. Know your enemy.

While a lot of comments have stated that people aren't going to spend money in Utah because of the decisions made to me those comments are fairly short sighted and reactionary to what has recently happened. To say that one wouldn't visit UT or any other location removes those adventures that are already there. If you go to any of the national parks in the area while you will contribute to local economy, other dollars go to the park system. I wouldn't limit my enjoyment in life due to what party is in office and what they are doing. Had 44 not signed orders creating some of the monuments in question we would not be discussing this.

One thing I am strongly against is closing of access via road systems to places of interest. I'm middle age and like to consider myself fairly able to hike and explore by foot. One day in the future I may not be as able. There are a lot here on this forum who are a bit older and slower than me. If you didn't have road access you could miss out on what is there to see in person. We all share appreciation for the areas off the beaten path via trucks and campers. Remember that a lot of the road systems in place in the southwest were created for natural resource exploration and extraction.

Many of the larger environmental companies such as REI, Northface, Patagonia, etc support closing lands to vehicular access. Again this is fairly short sighted by those companies since it limits who can visit areas they deem worthy of "protection". This is where I chose not to spend my dollars. I rarely shop at REI where in the past I bought a lot of gear from them. I just don't agree with keeping people off and out of areas by vehicular travel.
 
Ya you know I really don't get it. Before it was a national monument it was just a lot of land managed by the BLM. After it was a National Monument it really didn't change except a lot more people became aware of it. Just like those good meaning folks who are trying to improve all the trails to the the top of CO 14'teeners. They made it easier in the the name of erosion resulting in just a lot more people. Have you seen natural erosion it can't even compete with the few places people were scrambling stright up the orignal 14'teeners. And if you climb a 13'teener you will probably not see anyone, except someone has already written a book about that. Come to to think about who are all those people in the National Parks. I mean you can't hardly even go there. Last time I was in Zion it looked like the 505 in LA. Ya, I really don't get it, just paving over paradise. Hey, maybe we we can rewrite the Dante's journey.
 
carld said:
Ya you know I really don't get it. Before it was a national monument it was just a lot of land managed by the BLM. After it was a National Monument it really didn't change except a lot more people became aware of it. Just like those good meaning folks who are trying to improve all the trails to the the top of CO 14'teeners. They made it easier in the the name of erosion resulting in just a lot more people. Have you seen natural erosion it can't even compete with the few places people were scrambling stright up the orignal 14'teeners. And if you climb a 13'teener you will probably not see anyone, except someone has already written a book about that. Come to to think about who are all those people in the National Parks. I mean you can't hardly even go there. Last time I was in Zion it looked like the 505 in LA. Ya, I really don't get it, just paving over paradise. Hey, maybe we we can rewrite the Dante's journey.
Exactly why I try to not talk about where I've been or where I'm headed, people think they need to follow us. Love it, leave it and don't speak of it, that keeps it clean and pristine. Ron
 
There is a balance somewhere between the multiple competing uses of public lands. In my mind, the land being open for the enjoyment of the public is at the top of that list, with exclusive commercial use coming in way down the list (mining, logging, grazing etc). However even with in the category of 'enjoyment of the public' there are many more balances to be struck, particularly between motorized and non-motorized access. I personally think that this balance is currently swung way in favor of motorized access - less than 20% of the federal land in the CONUS is reserved for non motorized use, with more than 80% open to motorized access. I get that many people can't strap on a backpack and hike off into the wilderness - but the vast majority of the public land is accessible in a vehicle. At some point I will no longer be able to backpack into Dark Canyon, and I already will never be able to summit Denali, but that doesn't mean we need a road into Dark Canyon or a chairlift up Denali. For me it is far more important that these places continue to exist, than that I personally can access them.

As for crowding in public lands, this is going to continue to happen whether we like it or talk about it or not. The population is increasing and more people are interested in being outside, which is a good thing. If you want to escape the crowds you have to dig a little deeper than the average American, you have to walk a little further, tolerate it being colder, research remote areas a little further, climb a steeper trail etc. Driving the loop road in a National Park will never get you away from the crowds. At the same time, reducing the number of protected and doucmented areas will also serve to concentrate the crowds in those that remain.
 
I agree about the roadless portions. The land I can access under my own power is already shrinking already due to my getting older, I don't want it to shrink for those still able to access it on foot. Public land is to be preserved and respected for the future, not exploited in the here and now.
 
Probably not directly. I have not read that article that Frank refers to, but it sounds like another modification being made to an existing regulation by this administration. Every National Park, Monument, Wilderness or OHV area, National Conservation Area-just about any special type of set aside area , is managed by a specific set of rules that relate to that area; all Public Lands in general are governed by more general rules and regulations. Public Land is supposed to be managed for "multi-uses". There are allot of interest/user groups out there that have an interest in how our Public Lands are managed and each political administration has a bias on what those users are. This bunch in power now believes more in the"use" a than in the "preservation" of those lands.

How you use trail bikes on Public Land (special area or not) is just an an other example example of how this process works. There are allot of paths, trails,vehicle ruts and all types of roads, out there and each one as a group of users that wants more of them to play in (that's why you see all those signs out there in the woods that say what one can and not do). Trail bikes(pedal) usually can be used in areas (unless other wise designated) that are also used by motorized recreation but not in areas designated for foot recreation only (hikers, back packers, bird watchers etc) and there has always been friction between the two groups with the pedal bunch wanting more access to the foot trails. It sounds like the pedal bikers are making a push for more access to these areas under this new proposed regulation. As an old back backer the thought of meeting a bike heading for me on some blind corner on a mountain pass could really ruin my day-well it's better than meeting a dirt bike I guess!

For another example. last year I was camped in an area next to a wilderness area ( I arrived there by paved road, then dirt road then 4x4 road[all designated as to use]). One of the first things I noted was that it seemed each and every trail in the area had a specific user (or all users)-foot, bike, dirt bike/atv, 4x4 vehicle. The further one got into the wilderness areas the more primitive the access was. Here is another more example of how things sometimes work! Years ago we had a major problem with vandals digging up archaeological sites in a wilderness area-they got in by destroying the gates/fences that blocked road access into the area and driving in, destroying the protective site gating and digging up the sites . We, on the other hand had to use choppers to fly in the equipment to repair and mitigate the damage because we were not allowed to drive in (could walk) because it was a area closed to vehicles. Yep, that's the law! Another words-multi use at it's best or worst. It will get worse before it gets better out there, so keep those letters going!

Smoke
 
Casa Escarlata Robles Too said:
I the SF paper this morning.
Bill introduced to allow mountain bikes on "wilderness trails"
Where will all this assault stop on our "sacred" lands?
Frank
Here is the article:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Republican-bill-seeks-to-open-federal-wilderness-12425703.php

What is being discussed here is removing the prohibition on bicycles and some other wheeled conveyances from the the 1964 wilderness act. This is not related to the National Monument issue and should probably get it's own thread for further discussion.
 
Just read on the Public Lands Foundation site(PublicLand.Org [org. of retired BLM employees]) that based on the outstanding results of his National Monuments plan) our wonderful sec/interior wants to do a reorganization of the BLM and ignore years of land planning and replace it with a shift to exploitation not protection. Same old bs about moving mgt down to where the rubber [robbers] meets the land. Major proposal is to move the Washington Office staff to the field and form regional action centers to better respond to local input---remember how well that worked with monuments plan. From what they were saying, he has not even asked for comments on his plan from the users and managers of Public Lands yet, His action plan is what the the Sagebrush revolution folks and mining and oil and gas industries want. get the public out of multi-use Public Land management and replace it with a return to the era of the "Robber Barons".

I went through several reorganization plans when I was in the BLM and some did address problems with Public Lands Mgt, but all had input from the public-all of it and from those who were trying to manage it. And they took time and followed standard management practices. to do it. This plan is just another end run around all those regulations that allow us to both use those resources properly and play out there and instead put management in the hands of certain vested interests backed by the Koch Brothers and that crowd. Yep as we have said here allot-it is our Public Land and it is up to us to write those letters and attend those state and fed land management meetings because this bunch will take it from us in an instant-just look at what has happened so far!

Smoke
 
Back up and take in the "Bigger Picture" for a moment. This isn't about truck campers vs. hikers or bicyclists vs. ATVs....this is about returning property to the government than can then be leased out for mining, oil drilling or in much of the country, for grazing by corporations and private individuals.

As we have learned so many times...."Follow The Money" and if you do, it leads back to vested interests making huge campaign contributions to the election PACs for government officials. After all, your State and Federal politicians have one and only one job and that is to get reelected!

I hate to say it, but Committees and Forums and even some of the better known land or wildlife preservation groups are just plain out-gunned and out-spent these days.

The game is rigged fellas, so you basically have to start over..
1) get corporations out of their "people" designation as campaign donors
2) limit campaign donations
3) do not send anyone to the legislature or to Congress who will not support campaign finance limitations
4) vote for the party and for individuals who not only promise to come through with those ideas but who actually DO vote that way.

Blaming tourists who want to visit Yosemite or the parks in Utah for trampling things may seem like the problem here, but that is whole different can of worms....the problem here is the wholesale removal of public lands in trust for the citizens so that corporations and private individuals can exploit them. We may visit these areas and leave NO footprint we've ever been there....but strip mining and over grazing are a different thing altogether.

It was bad enough back when Congress persons were more concerned with "pork-barrel" money coming to their state or districts. Now that isn't the issue as the politicians aren't REALLY beholden to the voters.....they are directly beholden to the PACs and big money campaign donations to get reelected and money can bury your candidate faster than anything.

Now I'm totally depressed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts - WTW

Back
Top Bottom