Congressional Legislation nightmare

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Wildest Bill on the Hill Coming Soon

 

By Bill Schneider, 2-07-07

 

 

Caption: Map courtesy of Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

 

Informally, the founders call it "the wildest bill on the hill," but officially, it's called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2007, and in the next few weeks, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) will, with the support of 187 co-sponsors (and counting), introduce the bill into the 110th Congress. It would designate many millions of acres of Wilderness, two new national park units, hundreds of miles of wild and scenic rivers, and establish linkage corridors between many of these areas. It covers all of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and dips slightly into far eastern Oregon and Washington.

 

And with the new political landscape created by the last election, backers are confident of their chances for success.

 

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR), the main ball carrier of this legislation, says NREPA will be among the highest priority wilderness bills in Congress.

 

For a more detailed explanation, go here, but in summary, here is what NREPA does:

 

· Protects most roadless lands in the northern Rockies (20,572,147 acres) by giving them the "highest level of legal protection--designation under the 1964 Wilderness Act."

 

· Adds two units the National Park System--Hells Canyon-Chief Joseph National Park & Preserve Study Area (1,439,444 acres) along the Oregon/Idaho border and the Flathead National Preserve Study Area (285,078 acres) adjacent to Glacier National Park. "Preserve status prohibits developments which impair natural and scenic values," according to AWR, "while traditional uses such as hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering and some motorized uses, continue."

 

· Designates 1,810 miles of Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers.

 

· Safeguards against habitat fragmentation by establishing a system of Biological Linkage Corridors to connect the region's core wildlands into what AWR calls "a functioning ecological whole." These areas would be protected as Wilderness and as special management zones (3,476,118 acres) where development is limited, but not prohibited.

 

· Establishes a pilot system of Wildland Restoration Areas (1,022,769 acres) and creates jobs restoring damage caused by unwise resource extraction practices. Efforts will focus on removal of excess and unneeded roads, reduction of soil erosion, and restoration of native vegetation and water quality. "Native fisheries and wildlife populations will be rejuvenated ," again according to AWR, "while boosting the economy in rural communities formerly dependent on resource extraction."

 

· Designate the Badger-Two Medicine area adjacent to Glacier National Park as the Blackfeet Wilderness where traditional Native American uses and treaty rights are fully protected.

 

"It's in bill drafting now," Garrity said in a phone interview with NewWest.net. "We expect it to go in soon, at least by March."

 

Garrity said there is no sponsor for the bill in the Senate yet. "We are going to try for this, but right now, the house is the priority. We hope to get to the Senate by passing it there from the House."

 

New Wilderness is automatically an economic boom for local communities, Garrity said, but in addition, he points to the establishment of Wildlands Recovery Areas as an effort being made by AWR to make the legislation more of an economic development boon for the northern Rockies. If passed, the legislation would restore over a million acres of logged areas and 6,300 miles of unused, poorly maintained roads. Garrity says this will create 2,100 new jobs, "far more jobs than might be lost by the decrease in logging if the bill passed."

 

All the restoration work would be under the Davis-Bacon Act, he notes, which means union wages. Because of this prospect for more good-paying jobs, the Teamsters and Operating Engineers Unions in Western Montana and Idaho have supported the bill, according to Garrity.

 

"This would allow the timber industry to plan for what they can cut in the future," Garrity said. "It would also save taxpayers 245 million dollars because we wouldn't be subsidizing plans to log in roadless areas."

 

While this became a primary concern among people up here because of its significant potential for elimination of millions of acres of OHV access of all types, this situation can and will affect cachers as well, because designated wilderness is off-limits to caches. Even if you live in any of the affected area, PLEASE contact your congressional representatives and express your views. If this passes, some of the most beautiful terrain in the country will no longer be cache-country. Both houses of Congress will be voting on this issue, and the more pressure placed on them will increase the likelihood the bill fails to pass.

 

I'm not going to go off on a tirade about increases in designated wilderness, but the bottom line is that this can affect everyone. Please express your views and help get this legislation shot down. If it were to pass, I see this becoming that little snowball at the top of steep mountain.

[+T F T C]

No sport - even geocaching - is THAT important.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Like the saying goes...

 

you don't know what you had, till it's gone.

 

It goes beyond caching, but directly involves it in many respects.

[+T F T C]

Like the saying goes...

 

you don't know what you had, till it's gone.

 

It goes beyond caching, but directly involves it in many respects.

 

I don't get it. Please explain.

[+wiseye]

Why not go with the wilderness and work to have the NO CACHING RULE changed? Or is there another agenda here?

[BRTango]

No sport - even geocaching - is THAT important.

 

I have to agree... I think the designation of the land is much more important. Instead of contacting your congressmen to shut down the legislation... contact your congressmen and the land managers through your local caching organizations and work with them to allow caching in the new areas.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Caching hasn't been allowed in wilderness areas since caching began pretty much, so in the 6.75 years caching has been around no progress has been made toward this. So, rather than standing idly by and allowing the systematic elimination of many outdoor recreation opportunities, why not work to get one problem fixed (permitting caching in designated wilderness) instead of piling more problems on top of problems without ever finding out that the effort to get an activity permitted is going to be fruitful? Once these things are written into the Congressional Record, they are irreversible. Besides, I don't know for certain whether or not the Wilderness Act of 1964 would even permit an activity such as caching. If not, it would require a monumental act of Congress to get such a change made, and I honestly feel such a result is extraordinarily unlikely, even impossible.

[+NorthWes]

"Welcome to the western half of the United States, managed directly from the Federal District in Washington DC. "

 

Alaskans are familiar with 'wilderness' land use designations and restrictions imposed from afar, and the ensuing negative impact to established local economies (despite all the 'studies' which purport to show ecotourism as a highest best use - those are low-paying service industry jobs which often fail to provide enough income to support a worker without additional income sources such as a second job, and which have their own negative issues in terms of environmental impacts). The 'new' composition of the House and Senate will be very favorable towards this type of legislation. In the face of campaigning from well-funded 'protect/preserve the wildlife' organizations (whose contributing members don't have to suffer the economic and lifestyle impacts caused by retro-restorative wilderness legislation) the local communities don't stand much chance of successfully opposing passage of this kind of legislation without vocal feedback from a broad spectrum of opponents (not just cachers).

 

From a historical perspective, those states admitted to the Union following the Civil War generally had much (if not most) of their lands held in Federal ownership, unlike the original colonies and the 'second wave of statehood'. It's much easier to impose a national mandate on a state's landscape when a broad percentage of lands within that state are under Federal control. Imagine the impact on an eastern state's population (pick any one along the Eastern seaboard) if we were to pass a national mandate that 'restored' most of said state to 'wilderness' conditions and ensured large swaths of the landscape were managed for no human impact whatsoever. It can only be done to western states, with small populations (and therefore small voice in national affairs) and large areas of land controlled directly by the Federal government. As an example, why isn't southern Florida being 'remediated' and 'restored to wilderness' for the sake of the greatly endangered panther population? In this kind of situation, pity the states where the bulk of land ownership lies in federal hands...

[top con]

In the current state of environmental awareness, i feel that any effort to protect wilderness areas is a GREAT thing. it does stink that we might not be able to cache in those places anymore, but that is just too bad. if the law doesn't pass, then we could end up with new roads criss-crossing our wild areas...and we all know what that means...more park and grab micros!

i think i understand where you are coming from (i think), but i feel that your effort is misplaced. caching should NOT be the only reason you go out and enjoy nature. sorry, i can't back you up on this one.

[+StarBrand]

I am not sure many of you can fathom that as uch as 70% of Woming is federal land. Only Alaska has more.

 

We are talking about blocking access to large tracts of this land. I am all for perserving it - so long as we can still use it. I am not sure who or what it is good for if nobody can access it. Grab a map and take a look at the areas in Wyoming where the contenential divide acually splits around an area called the red desert. Virtual no roads and very few people. Many have proposed closing down this area to access.

 

I am opposed to any designation of these lands that prohibts access to otherwise reasonable uses.

[+Lord Stirling]

Caching hasn't been allowed in wilderness areas since caching began pretty much, so in the 6.75 years caching has been around no progress has been made toward this. So, rather than standing idly by and allowing the systematic elimination of many outdoor recreation opportunities, why not work to get one problem fixed (permitting caching in designated wilderness) instead of piling more problems on top of problems without ever finding out that the effort to get an activity permitted is going to be fruitful? Once these things are written into the Congressional Record, they are irreversible. Besides, I don't know for certain whether or not the Wilderness Act of 1964 would even permit an activity such as caching. If not, it would require a monumental act of Congress to get such a change made, and I honestly feel such a result is extraordinarily unlikely, even impossible.

 

There is no blanket ban on geocaching in wilderness areas. Many wilderness areas do ban geocaching, some do not.

 

Nothing I've ever read in the Wilderness Act of 1964 would prohibit geocaching. In fact recreation is specified in tha act as one of the purposes of wilderness areas.

 

From Sec. 4-B:

..."Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

 

Anyway, considering that the Wilderness Act allows for prospecting, mining, power lines, grazing animals, road building and drilling, and camping and horseback riding are accepted uses, geocaching is rather benign in comparison.

 

As far as the OP is concerned, I'm all in favor of more WAs.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Lord Stirling

[+T F T C]

Caching hasn't been allowed in wilderness areas since caching began pretty much, so in the 6.75 years caching has been around no progress has been made toward this. So, rather than standing idly by and allowing the systematic elimination of many outdoor recreation opportunities

 

Many? I'm assuming we can still use the land for hiking, camping, rafting, etc. If not - then yes, I'd be opposed. But if I'm correct, then I wouldn't call geocaching "many". Just one.

 

I'm all for lobbying to add caching to the list of acceptable activities. But would caches hidden in these places be properly maintained? I can think of a dozen improperly maintained caches in the heart of LA, let alone miles from civilization. This is why "vacation caches" aren't allowed.

 

text

 

Are you saying that we're running out of land for people to live on?

 

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but these are just questions I have. Just trying to understand. Thanks.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

In the current state of environmental awareness, i feel that any effort to protect wilderness areas is a GREAT thing. it does stink that we might not be able to cache in those places anymore, but that is just too bad. if the law doesn't pass, then we could end up with new roads criss-crossing our wild areas...and we all know what that means...more park and grab micros!

i think i understand where you are coming from (i think), but i feel that your effort is misplaced. caching should NOT be the only reason you go out and enjoy nature. sorry, i can't back you up on this one.

 

Caching is a secondary, or even tertiary way for me to enjoy the outdoors. I like to trail ride with my 4x4 club, participate in trail conservation efforts as both part of a club and as an individual, cache, fish, and even mountain bike from time to time. In this venue, to keep it on-topic, I presented it as an adverse impact to cachers. However, it affects nearly every outdoor recreation activity in a negative manner. Part of my problem with this is my children. Neither can handle the distance I can hike, let alone my wife. So we take trips in using our vehicles, and make a smaller trip of it, so everyone can enjoy equally. With every acre given the designated wilderness status, is another acre that my family and I cannot enjoy as a family anymore.

 

Plain and simple, this robs many of the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, when the wilderness designation is applied. Those who have the physical means and financial capability to back-country hike for days/weeks at a time will be among the only folks who will get to enjoy the lands once they are taken from everyone else and given this designation.

[+HangnMoss]

...traditional uses such as hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering and some motorized uses, continue.

 

...focus on removal of excess and unneeded roads, reduction of soil erosion, and restoration of native vegetation and water quality.

 

...Native fisheries and wildlife populations will be rejuvenated.

 

 

I don't see a problem with any of that. I wish someone would step in around here. A lot of local land that was taken over by eminent domain back in the 60s is now being sold off at huge profits to influential developers. Some of the land that's being sold has parks, boat ramps, and other public resources on it. If I'm going to lose my rights to land, I'd rather it be because the land was turned into a preserve, rather than lakefront condos.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

duplicate post

Edited February 8, 2007 by Brian - Team A.I.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

No, I don't think we'll run out of land to live on, but we'll lose significant amounts of land to recreate on unless you meet certain criteria. That criteria limits access to hikers...

 

While I love to hike, if I have to hike 20 or 30 miles to get to someplace that was previously accessible by say, a 5-mile hike, I will get to visit these areas much less frequently, if at all. One of my favorite areas to visit is becoming this example. No longer will I be able to 4-wheel on the old Jeep trail to the area known as Balancing Rock, like people in covered wagons did many, many years ago. I'll need to hike in for miles that before I could drive (or even bike into). My family will never get to see that land, as I learned about it on a trip my buddy and I went on. This is the ultimate problem I see here, since the decision to create millions of acres of new wilderness is akin to using a .44 to kill a fly on the wall. My entire family also loves to cache, so we would be stuck shuffling around on more sidewalk/asphalt than the beauty of the outdoors as this trend continues.

[vermontcathy]

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me.

 

If your family can't keep up with you, could you use horses instead of ATVs?

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

...traditional uses such as hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering and some motorized uses, continue.

 

...focus on removal of excess and unneeded roads, reduction of soil erosion, and restoration of native vegetation and water quality.

 

...Native fisheries and wildlife populations will be rejuvenated.

 

 

I don't see a problem with any of that. I wish someone would step in around here. A lot of local land that was taken over by eminent domain back in the 60s is now being sold off at huge profits to influential developers. Some of the land that's being sold has parks, boat ramps, and other public resources on it. If I'm going to lose my rights to land, I'd rather it be because the land was turned into a preserve, rather than lakefront condos.

 

The second and third options you mention are good things, but the top one seems to only apply to that section regarding the national park designations and doesn't apply to the rest of it.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me.

 

If your family can't keep up with you, could you use horses instead of ATVs?

 

That would involve thousands of dollars in additional expenditures, such as a tow rig, trailer, horses and upkeep of all of the above. Why should that be necessary? We have an issue just like the one you mentioned involving an area known as the Crazy Mountains. 50% of the range is wilderness, while the remaining 50% is under a Travel Management Plan. There was a push to increase the amount of wilderness significantly, shutting out all other forms of recreation except foot and horse traffic. Why? There was distinct separation before, yet that didn't seem to be good enough. In fact, during the required federal meetings during the comment period, it was learned from the forest service officials that the chief complaint about noise was one that had no backing whatsoever. There wasn't a single complaint that had come into their offices regarding too much noise, and appears to be nothing but a fabrication based on a perceived possibility. Hikers involved in the TM plan efforts have asked other hikers on the trail whether or not they've had noise problems. Aside from planes flying overhead at altitude, it's been dead silent. I know this isn't the case in all situations, but the issue of hikers and noise realistically has a very small occurrence rate. If it does, and the area is deemed 'multiple use', such interactions are possible, but not necessarily likely. During a trip to the Little Belt Mountains, we saw nobody but us the entire day.

[vermontcathy]

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me.

 

If your family can't keep up with you, could you use horses instead of ATVs?

 

That would involve thousands of dollars in additional expenditures, such as a tow rig, trailer, horses and upkeep of all of the above. Why should that be necessary? We have an issue just like the one you mentioned involving an area known as the Crazy Mountains. 50% of the range is wilderness, while the remaining 50% is under a Travel Management Plan. There was a push to increase the amount of wilderness significantly, shutting out all other forms of recreation except foot and horse traffic. Why? There was distinct separation before, yet that didn't seem to be good enough. In fact, during the required federal meetings during the comment period, it was learned from the forest service officials that the chief complaint about noise was one that had no backing whatsoever. There wasn't a single complaint that had come into their offices regarding too much noise, and appears to be nothing but a fabrication based on a perceived possibility. Hikers involved in the TM plan efforts have asked other hikers on the trail whether or not they've had noise problems. Aside from planes flying overhead at altitude, it's been dead silent. I know this isn't the case in all situations, but the issue of hikers and noise realistically has a very small occurrence rate. If it does, and the area is deemed 'multiple use', such interactions are possible, but not necessarily likely. During a trip to the Little Belt Mountains, we saw nobody but us the entire day.

 

If I was hiking and bothered by the noise and fumes of an ATV, and yet ATVs are legally allowed on the land, I would figure there's no point lodging an official complaint - their allowed to be there, and whoever set the rules knows that they make noise. I would simply hike somewhere else from then on. So that's probably why you don't see hikers - they don't want to be anywhere near ATVs. Allowing ATVs essentially eliminates the area as a pleasant place to hike. Oh - and the wild animals don't tend to lodge noise and pollution complaints, for some reason.

 

And just so you don't think I'm just an east coast person who knows nothing, I've spent a lot of time in the Wind River Range of Wyoming, and after spending a day hiking in to set up camp, I'd be pretty upset to see an ATV drive up.

 

And in terms of a ban hurting the economy, I dissagree. There will fewer ATV riders spending money in the nearby towns, but more hikers and horseback riders. The moment Yellowstone finally bans snowmobiles for good, I will be booking a xc ski vacation there. The economy will change, but it won't be worse.

 

You complain about the cost of horses, but ATVs aren't cheap either. Sell the ATVs, ATV trailers, and buy horses and horse trailers. I bet your kids would be psyched. Besides, in a decade or two, when we run out of oil, the horses will be much more useful.

[+StarBrand]

Brian - Team A.I,

 

Just as you and I cannot begin to understand why far away politicians are deciding the fate and use of public lands near where we live ---> they cannot understand the grave implications of shutting these huge tracts of land off. I have seen it happen and seen the roads get blocked and the access restricted.

 

Your arguments will not win them over as much as thier's will not persuade us.

 

Lands along both coasts have been allowed to prosper and grow - now they seek to strangle and restrict our lands because they have never been able to control lands there. Sigh.

Edited February 8, 2007 by StarBrand

[+StarBrand]

..... The moment Yellowstone finally bans snowmobiles for good, I will be booking a xc ski vacation there. The economy will change, but it won't be worse.....

If you lived in West Yellowstone and depended on those businesses to feed your kids - you would think differently.....

[+CM-14]

I have no problem with additional National Parks. There are plenty of other places to cache.

[vermontcathy]

..... The moment Yellowstone finally bans snowmobiles for good, I will be booking a xc ski vacation there. The economy will change, but it won't be worse.....

If you lived in West Yellowstone and depended on those businesses to feed your kids - you would think differently.....

 

You're not listening - I would be going there, spending plenty of money, which would support the locals. Perhaps snowmobile shops would have to close, but other businesses would open and prosper. That's why I say the economy would change, but not necessarily be worse.

 

There is just something wrong when the park rangers at the entrance booths have to wear gasmasks.

[top con]

oh man...this topic is larger and more personal than this forum has room for i think. we could argue this back and forth (and i'm sure many will) until we are blue in the face. i see both sides of the argument, however, arguing that you want more land for "outdoor use", but then complaining when some forward thinking politicians propose a plan that would do just that. yes, you may be restricted on what you can do there, but that is specifically the point. if areas like this did not exist, then you would be riding your snowmobile on logging roads, and instead of a wide open view from a mountainside, you would see a highway with trucks billowing smoke into the air...and there is enough of that already. someone said in there post that there is already enough land to cache on, and they are right. and i would go further and say that there is already enough space for poeple to ride snowmobiles, start fires, and drive cars. but if things like this don't go forward, then there will be NOWHERE to enjoy absolute solitude and absence of vehicles, and every park will be filled with people who are too lazy to get out of their cars and take a hike. (notwithstanding handicapped people, or others who are physically not able to do that. and to those poeple i would say "have you ever driven the 'going to the sun highway'?"

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Besides, in a decade or two, when we run out of oil, the horses will be much more useful.

 

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

 

and aside from that,

 

Always love to hear the argument... "I don't like what you're doing, so let's make it illegal". Always nice to have someone holier than thou tell us how it should be.

 

Sorry, not out to start a flame war, but I find that repugnant.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

..... The moment Yellowstone finally bans snowmobiles for good, I will be booking a xc ski vacation there. The economy will change, but it won't be worse.....

If you lived in West Yellowstone and depended on those businesses to feed your kids - you would think differently.....

 

You're not listening - I would be going there, spending plenty of money, which would support the locals. Perhaps snowmobile shops would have to close, but other businesses would open and prosper. That's why I say the economy would change, but not necessarily be worse.

 

There is just something wrong when the park rangers at the entrance booths have to wear gasmasks.

 

On the contrary, you aren't considering that land is needed for the horses, laws need to permit them where you live, and the upkeep that far exceeds that of maintaining sleds, bikes, quads, 4x4s...

 

There is a situation going on right now with the east entrance of Yellowstone. The officials are looking at closing it permanently during the winter, which has the strong potential of destroying two towns who rely heavily on this type of activity to survive. Not only would it affect snowmobilers, but anyone in a vehicle wishing to drive into the park from that entrance. Riding horses through several feet of snow is not a really functional way to get into those back country areas, so your argument for horses is really only applicable in non-winter months. Depending on where one lives, that can be a very short period of time, or an extremely long period where one can use horses for access. Horses as the alternative is not really a viable alternative in the long term. At the same time, there are those involved in the politics of these decisions that believe horses will be banned within the next decade, alongside all other OHV access.

[+wiseye]

You mentioned South Florida aways back. The federal & State gov. has mandated that large areas be returned to more natural setting, such as uncanalizing rivers, stopping drainage of the everglades, not allowing new salt water canals, buying up large areas of land to forever remain undeveloped, and puting large areas of underwater lands under federal control. Just to name a few South Florida things that are going on. You might want to concieder that what happended to much of the east coast before you deciede that all wilderness designation is problematic. I would gladly see Miami returned to Panther habitat than see whats there now. Miles and miles of blacktop bordered by housing subdivisions.

I can of course understand your feelings of lose, but I don't really believe Montana is running out of places to camp or cache.

[+NorthWes]

The original post was pointing out the exclusion of caching from lands proposed for designation as 'wilderness' under the bill in question, and calling for cachers to appeal to their Congressional electees to allow caching in these areas (paraphrased). Narrowing the discussion to that focus, what's really the root cause of problems for geocaching in these areas (even more than the access-mode issue) is the land manager's perception of how the cache itself fits into land use regulations. Lay aside the 'for more' or 'for less' wilderness debate and look instead at seeing if geocaching is a compatible land use with 'wilderness'.

 

For example, National Forest land use regulations describe the following as 'prohibited activities': "36 CFR 261.10 BUILDING STRUCTURES OR CACHING MATERIALS, subsection E): Abandoning any personal property." Any caches found to be on National Forest lands are, under 36 CFR 261.10 (E)'s narrowest interpretation, abandoned personal property and subject to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both (under provisions of 16 USC 551). Many national forest land managers have taken a more relaxed view of caches and allowed their placement in travelled areas with the understanding that the cache will receive regular maintenance etc.

 

Thus, for geocaching, the debate focuses quite narrowly on whether a geocache is 'abandoned personal property' in the eyes of the land manager and/or LEO resource ranger. This is a real obstacle to gaining permission for geocache placements on any land, but it's codified as a prohibited activity on National Forest land unless you get permission from the local land manager. Under no circumstances will a federal land manager issue any kind of placement permission for a cache on lands with any sort of 'wilderness' designation' - and although I'm sure there's a few examples existing to challenge that absolute statement, the fact is federal 'wilderness' designation makes no accomodation for left-behind personal artifacts (such as a geocache).

[+Renegade Knight]

No sport - even geocaching - is THAT important.

 

What exactly did that mean?

[+Lightning Jeff]

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me.

 

If your family can't keep up with you, could you use horses instead of ATVs?

I'm generally in favor of wilderness designation, but have to cringe when I see comments like this because I feel it gives wilderness opponents ammunition. There is a supreme arrogance to the "my way or nothing" attitude reflected here.

 

The fact is, no one is proposing that more land be opened to ATV and snowmobile use. The movement has been entirely in the other direction. People who just can't stand multi-use trails already know where to look for hiker/horse-only trails, and those aren't going anywhere.

 

As cachers, we come from a lot of different recreational backgrounds (wilderness hikers; equestrians; ATV riders; sedentary), and this sort of "you ruin my experience" stuff is a disservice to everyone. As a cacher, I have been introduced to many new wild places, many of which are multi use. I don't see a problem. I also see that factionalism when it comes to land access is really, really short-sighted, especially in areas where the alternative isn't so much wilderness designation (which is really pretty rare, acre-for-acre), but development and being locked out altogether. You might rather no caches, no nothing but hikers and horses. I would rather caches, hikers, horses, mountain bikes, ATVs and pogo-sticks, instead of housing tracts and strip malls. I'm thankful for any wild place and appreciate all of the groups that work to keep those places open. So while I am a proponent of wilderness designation to protect pristine or fragile areas, I am wholly opposed to recreational arrogance.

 

I'm reminded of an experience a number of years ago, when I used to ride a dirt bike in a large trail system that was open to that use, horses, mountain bikes and hikers. There were hardly ever any problems, pretty much everyone got along and had fun in their own way. Motorcyclists were particularly attentive to horses. When we would see horses ahead we would immediately shut off, move as far as we could to the side and remain quiet and still to allow the horses to move by. Most horse riders appreciated that and it was no skin off our backs. But one time we did that, and a big, loudmouthed woman on the back of her horse kept screaming at us as she went by, about being on her trail and that we were going to spook her horse. She was making more noise than we were. I'm always reminded of that when I hear the "you ruin my experience" stuff. Who allowed their experience to be ruined? Have fun and quit worrying about how others have fun.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Plain and simple, this robs many of the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, when the wilderness designation is applied. Those who have the physical means and financial capability to back-country hike for days/weeks at a time will be among the only folks who will get to enjoy the lands once they are taken from everyone else and given this designation.

 

That's the simplifcation of it. It's about access. White water rafting is great. It's a bit more difficult if you have to hike in 30 miles carrying your raft to access the river to raft on.

 

vermontcathy says she's ready to book a trip to Yellowstone as soon as they ban snow machines. But as soon as they do...she has so much less area she can cover from her base of operations. She may support the locals, but the 10 others she repaced is 9 less than before. (I'm for snow machine access to all the same areas you can already drive to).

[+Renegade Knight]

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me.

 

If your family can't keep up with you, could you use horses instead of ATVs?

 

You need a bigger truck to haul the horses. You need a better job to pay for the truck, plus feed the horses, plus stable them if you live in town. Horses are nice, I suspect they will make a comeback, but they have their own issues including tearing up trails.

 

The thing about hiking is that you can do it eveywere. There is no reason to ban it in areas that allow OHV's. Anyone who can't stand OHVs and avoids them is making a personal choice. Because a lot of people don't like jerks doing motocross on their hiking trails, OHVs are banned in a lot of areas, and they are generally limited to trails. 500' off the trail and your walk is starting to get peacful again.

 

Without some kind of transportation your peaceful walk is limited to something like a 25 mile radius around your house. With transporation you can expand your ability to take peaceful walks, and yes your ability to find OHV areas as well.

[vermontcathy]

...

vermontcathy says she's ready to book a trip to Yellowstone as soon as they ban snow machines. But as soon as they do...she has so much less area she can cover from her base of operations. She may support the locals, but the 10 others she repaced is 9 less than before. (I'm for snow machine access to all the same areas you can already drive to).

 

I'm not sure about the 10 to 1 thing. If you look at how many people in the US own snowmobiles, vs. how many own xc skiis, I doubt 10 times as many own snowmobiles. If snowmobiling gets banned, people (and their businesses) will adapt, as they have for centuries. It's like when they ban smoking in bars - bar owners say they'll go out of business, there will be unemployment, no one will visit that town or state anymore. But it's not true. All the people who didn't go to bars to hang out, eat, listen to live music before, because of the smoke, now do go out to bars, and they are actually doing better than before. When one door closes, another opens.

 

And I admit, I'd like there to be snowcoach access into the park, for my xc skiing trip. Several national parks have banned private cars and visitors must use shuttles.

 

And enough about my horse suggestion! I was just asking. I didn't say "use horses", I just asked if that would be an option.

 

Cathy

[+Bad_CRC]

Great law! Thanks for the info, I'll write in to support it now.

[+pacatak]

Glad to see the congresswoman was from New York. Blue stater imposing her will on red states.

 

Everyone can have their own opinion, but please don't say that more people will enjoy it after it is turned into wilderness. The purpose of the wilderness designation is to limit the use of the area.

 

Island Park in Idaho is a great example of how I think we should manage the out of doors. A little bit of everything for everyone. Atv and horse trails, person only trails, some areas with tons of people and some out of the way secrets you have to work to get to. And a ton of great caches.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

...

vermontcathy says she's ready to book a trip to Yellowstone as soon as they ban snow machines. But as soon as they do...she has so much less area she can cover from her base of operations. She may support the locals, but the 10 others she repaced is 9 less than before. (I'm for snow machine access to all the same areas you can already drive to).

 

I'm not sure about the 10 to 1 thing. If you look at how many people in the US own snowmobiles, vs. how many own xc skiis, I doubt 10 times as many own snowmobiles. If snowmobiling gets banned, people (and their businesses) will adapt, as they have for centuries. It's like when they ban smoking in bars - bar owners say they'll go out of business, there will be unemployment, no one will visit that town or state anymore. But it's not true. All the people who didn't go to bars to hang out, eat, listen to live music before, because of the smoke, now do go out to bars, and they are actually doing better than before. When one door closes, another opens.

 

And I admit, I'd like there to be snowcoach access into the park, for my xc skiing trip. Several national parks have banned private cars and visitors must use shuttles.

 

And enough about my horse suggestion! I was just asking. I didn't say "use horses", I just asked if that would be an option.

 

Cathy

 

Cross-country ski ownership vs. snowmobile ownership is purely a regional thing. For example, in Arizona, you'll find few people owning sleds. But in Montana and places where snow is prevalent, sled ownership is actually quite high. In this state, I would put money on the ski-to-sled ownership being more of a 20-to-1 ratio or higher.

[+karstic]

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me.

 

 

Driving my Jeep is the experience for me.

 

Every year more and more lands are designated as Wilderness. Every year the OHV enthusiast has fewer and fewer places to enjoy their hobby. I know of no new areas that have been opened to OHV recreation, but can cite millions of acres of newly created Wilderness.

 

There are plenty of areas for you to enjoy your pursuits.

 

I see mine diminish every year.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

I agree wholeheartedly. I see it as a one-sided issue of take, take take, and no give, give, give. Don't even mention compromise, because it's clearly an all-or-nothing thing for the finalized designation. This effort, while under the guise of preserving the lands for future generations, couldn't be further from the truth.

 

In all honesty, I believe that the ultimate goal of this effort is to protect the land from future generations, unless you are affluent enough to be able to afford the time off and mounds of equipment necessary to be able to enjoy those lands that are so remote due to the increased access closure as a result of more wilderness.

[+Kit Fox]

I agree wholeheartedly. I see it as a one-sided issue of take, take take, and no give, give, give. Don't even mention compromise, because it's clearly an all-or-nothing thing for the finalized designation. This effort, while under the guise of preserving the lands for future generations, couldn't be further from the truth.

 

In all honesty, I believe that the ultimate goal of this effort is to protect the land from future generations, unless you are affluent enough to be able to afford the time off and mounds of equipment necessary to be able to enjoy those lands that are so remote due to the increased access closure as a result of more wilderness.

 

I can name several places here in Southern California where entire areas of forest land were locked up, with no provisions for public recreation. I understand completely your concerns about this bill, and I hope it isn't passed in it's present state.

 

Sadly, are point of view will never be understood by environmental extremist who are happier to see areas locked up.

 

"Wilderness, the Land of No Use."

[+NorthWes]

I'm hoping the issue here is 'can geocaching be included as a permitted use in the lands being set aside in the Rockies?' Geocaching is fun because it works across the entire spectrum of outdoor recreation - walking, skiing, kayaking, equestrian, dogwalking, four-wheeling - there's room for everyone's brand of play.

 

When local land use is further restricted from afar (as occurs in most western states - and yes, even in places out east like Southern Florida!) there's concern that 'traditional land uses' will be taken away - in this case, geocaching. Granted, the communities impacted will adjust (no choice there, eh?). Does the geocaching community want to see geocaching banned on federal lands? The federal government owns 21% of land in the lower 48 states... and in places like Nevada that ownership level rises to over 80%. Residents of states such as Connecticut (.2% federal ownership) or New York (.26%) or Rhode Island (.25%) may not experience the degree of angst that occurs in states like Montana (29% federal ownership), Utah (63%), Florida (12.5%), Washington (27%) or Wyoming (48%) when federal agencies make major changes in land use designations.

 

Without ongoing advocacy geocaching will not be allowed on any federal lands, regardless of 'wilderness' status - simply because of the left-behind property nature of a geocache. It's a multi-part effort - communication with land managers and elected officials, self-policing in terms of quality placements and attention to the 'leave no trace' ethic when hiking, and giving back to the land in use through activities such as organized CITO projects. Without advocacy the geocaching community will end up being regarded as little more than a public nuisance by federal land managers whose agenda for land use is set from Washington DC. When a piece of legislation with this much land-use impact is brought before Congress, all geocachers should be concerned about its impact on their own game. It's not just wilderness that's being regulated under this bill - almost all federally owned lands in this Rocky Mtn Region will be affected.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

[+T F T C]

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

 

I still fail to see why this would be bad. Don't label me insensitive but I don't want to see a paved "Handicap Access" road leading to the top of every pass.

[+NorthWes]

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

Yeah - we're really not looking forward to more new Federal land management "help" from Washington DC up here in Alaska... I see more federal fish and whale cops (not the same thing, by the way - fish cops are USFWS and whale cops work for NOAA) on a weekend out fishing here than I see state troopers! And with over 80% of lands in government ownership (and a huge chunk of the rest under Native Corporation ownership with strict access restrictions) we Alaskans know well what it's like to be treated like a colony rather than a self-governing state.

[+NorthWes]

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

 

I still fail to see why this would be bad. Don't label me insensitive but I don't want to see a paved "Handicap Access" road leading to the top of every pass.

I don't think you're insensitive at all - nor do I want to see something like a paved "handicap access" road to the top of every pass (although that fits in neatly with how the federal government 'develops' an access site in the wilderness - thus containing human impact to a small footprint). I simply believe local folks need to have a larger voice in their local land management decisions than what will occur with the passage of this type of legislation. More wilderness isn't "bad" - but shutting out the local population's existing land use without their input or compensation of any sort isn't 'good government' either. A sensitive approach to this issue would advance the goals this legislation has at its roots (habitat protection for the lower 48's remaining premier large land mammal populations - an admirably good thing) while also accomodating non-conflicting traditional land usages (such as geocaching).

[+T F T C]

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

 

I still fail to see why this would be bad. Don't label me insensitive but I don't want to see a paved "Handicap Access" road leading to the top of every pass.

I don't think you're insensitive at all - nor do I want to see something like a paved "handicap access" road to the top of every pass (although that fits in neatly with how the federal government 'develops' an access site in the wilderness - thus containing human impact to a small footprint). I simply believe local folks need to have a larger voice in their local land management decisions than what will occur with the passage of this type of legislation. More wilderness isn't "bad" - but shutting out the local population's existing land use without their input or compensation of any sort isn't 'good government' either. A sensitive approach to this issue would advance the goals this legislation has at its roots (habitat protection for the lower 48's remaining premier large land mammal populations - an admirably good thing) while also accomodating non-conflicting traditional land usages (such as geocaching).

 

Now THAT sounds good.

[+Kit Fox]

Remember, right now it's only this part of the Rockies. Should this bill pass, look for this momentum to expand to the rest of the country.

 

I still fail to see why this would be bad. Don't label me insensitive but I don't want to see a paved "Handicap Access" road leading to the top of every pass.

 

Wait until the feds close your favorite hiking area indefinately. I've been patiently waiting for eight years to revisit this area, yet it's still closed.

[+The Herd]

I'm in full support of this bill. There is an intrinsic value in knowing these last great places are being preserved.

[+gh patriot]

The man is keepin us down.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm in full support of this bill. There is an intrinsic value in knowing these last great places are being preserved.

 

The value comes from people. If people can not access and enjoy the land there is no value. Nature is indifferent.

 

Preservation for the people has value.

Preservation from the people has none.

 

As an aside, if you don't manage lands for access you don't need the lands to be managed at all. Let nature take its course and either sell all the land for private uses, abolish the land managing agencies or both. Personally I'd rather have the use of the lands.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Renegade Knight