Congressional Legislation nightmare

[+What rock?]

This has been tried before. In the early to mid 90s there were recreational use areas closed and the roads and trails allowed to revert to nature. Even selective logging was eliminated. This made it virtually impossible to fight forest fires and many acres were destroyed and animals killed that otherwise might have been saved if firefighters and equipment had the access the roads previously provided. There needs to be some sort of compromise between total back to nature and public use.

[+Renegade Knight]

This has been tried before. In the early to mid 90s there were recreational use areas closed and the roads and trails allowed to revert to nature. Even selective logging was eliminated. This made it virtually impossible to fight forest fires and many acres were destroyed and animals killed that otherwise might have been saved if firefighters and equipment had the access the roads previously provided. There needs to be some sort of compromise between total back to nature and public use.

 

Good point. The need for access doesn't just mean OHV's. It also means access to repair hiking trails, erosion areas, seeding, and other purposes.

[+T F T C]

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.

 

...actions to date have not provided adequate protection for the habitat and existing populations of the Arroyo Toad, and the risk for harming one of these endangered creatures is high. The killing of a single toad is a violation of the Endangered Species Act, under which forest managers are held personally responsible.

 

Sounds like a good reason to me.

[+Bad_CRC]

they should bulldoze and pave the whole area, perhaps make it into a giant raceway so everyone can enjoy it.

 

no forest fires in a parking lot, amirite?

[GermanSailor]

Hi,

 

during my time in the US I enjoyed so many State Parks, NPs, National Forest, Wilderness areas and whatever those jewels are called. I completely understand that pristine nature should be consvered before it is to late.

 

I completely understand that they don't want geocaches here, not so much because of the effect of cacheing but more for legal issues. If you allow geocaching, you are in a bad position to prohibit other things which might have a bigger impact on the area you want to conserve. There are just to many lawers in this country...

 

Why does GC.com not allow a kind of virtual just for those areas. There are plenty of opportunities to read the signs, learn about the park and answer questions to get the permission to log. Ok, no logbook makes "cheating" easier, but I don't care for somebody elses numbers anyways.

 

Earthcaches would be great as well for those areas.

 

Yes, I know about Waymarking, but this site is just horrible and I want to have everything in one place.

 

GermanSailor

[+StarBrand]

I am not certain some folks understand the scope of this. We are not talking about a neighborhood or park or local wooded perserve. The land area in question is not the size of yellowstone or any other national park - we are talking a land area about the size of the state of Maine being set aside in between just a few states. A really big amount of area.

[+T F T C]

I am not certain some folks understand the scope of this. We are not talking about a neighborhood or park or local wooded perserve. The land area in question is not the size of yellowstone or any other national park - we are talking a land area about the size of the state of Maine being set aside in between just a few states. A really big amount of area.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Wilderness designations are granted by an Act of Congress for Federal land that retains a "primeval character" and that has no human habitation or development. Approximately 100 million acres (400,000 km²) are designated as wilderness in the United States. This accounts for 4.71% of the total land of the country; however, 54% of wilderness is in Alaska, and only 2.58% of the continental United States is designated as wilderness.

[+Kit Fox]

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.

 

...actions to date have not provided adequate protection for the habitat and existing populations of the Arroyo Toad, and the risk for harming one of these endangered creatures is high. The killing of a single toad is a violation of the Endangered Species Act, under which forest managers are held personally responsible.

 

Sounds like a good reason to me.

 

I guess you hug animals more than I do.

 

Those toads were found near the stream bed, meanwhile thousands of acres of mountainous terrain are off limits, because of one amphibian. That is a fine example of what the fed govt is capable of regarding land.

[+T F T C]

If you use the slippery slope argument with the Feds, pro-Arroyo Toad people could use the exact same argument against you - "If they won't protect the toad, before we know it bald eagles will be extinct!"

 

This spring and summer the forest will conduct additional surveys and monitoring efforts to determine the precise location of Toad populations, as well as other listed species, within the closed area.

 

The stream bed you're talking about can't be the only place they - and other animals - live.

Edited February 9, 2007 by chimbisimo

[+The Jester]

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 don't quite understand this. Your ATV, trailer and gear makes a lot bigger mound than my backpack (and I tend to carry way too much).

 

While I can't say anything about your kids as I don't know them, during the thirty years I've worked with Jr/Sr High youth groups, I've seen the "ability" of the kids go downhill. When I first started some of the hiking trips we took were 10-15 miles for a weekend/three day trip. Now if it's two miles it's too far for them to go. As a young kid (early grade school) my family took hikes that were many miles long, why can't the kids of today do the same thing? I don't really believe that kids can't do as much - it seems more like the leaders perception of what they can do has changed.

 

Maybe some of those sights will now become goals to achive, not mundane, every weekend sights.

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps this is an issue of preservation Vs. conservation? Preservation eliminates the vast majority of use for a particular plot of land. Conservation meets a middle ground between land use and land protection. This issue should be resolved by those folks who would be affected by it, not by a bunch of hand wringing bed wetters in DC.

[+Kit Fox]

I always find it suspect that the NIMBYS are always quick to support land grabbing for the purpose of "wilderness," because it has zero effect on them.

 

Interesting info I found regarding the UN and US Land Grabs.

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/arti...s_gone_wild.htm

 

Another perspective that I find interesting.

 

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

 

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

 

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

 

The hidden agenda of making areas wilderness are clear, no geocaching, no motorized "anything," and reduced access to the taxpayers. This equates to less enforcement costs by the govt (little need to patrol closed areas), as well as the "religous" benefits of "environmental stewardship."

Edited February 9, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+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.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, you're throwing one heck of a twist on my words here. I wouldn't want to see that either, but the bottom line is ACCESS. The term access applying to all people, not just an elite group.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Interesting info I found regarding the UN and US Land Grabs.

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/arti...s_gone_wild.htm

 

I always find it suspect that the NIMBYS are always quick to support land grabbing for the purpose of "wilderness," because it has zero effect on them.

 

Yep.

[+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.

I don't quite understand this. Your ATV, trailer and gear makes a lot bigger mound than my backpack (and I tend to carry way too much).

 

While I can't say anything about your kids as I don't know them, during the thirty years I've worked with Jr/Sr High youth groups, I've seen the "ability" of the kids go downhill. When I first started some of the hiking trips we took were 10-15 miles for a weekend/three day trip. Now if it's two miles it's too far for them to go. As a young kid (early grade school) my family took hikes that were many miles long, why can't the kids of today do the same thing? I don't really believe that kids can't do as much - it seems more like the leaders perception of what they can do has changed.

 

Maybe some of those sights will now become goals to achive, not mundane, every weekend sights.

 

Camping equipment, especially that of the light, long-term back country hiking variety, is expensive. To purchase this equipment for a family of 4 is going to have a serious impact on the finances of most people. Currently, I don't own ATVs and I'm fine with that. My wife and I both own Jeeps, and we take those to go play. Besides the requisite recovery gear (tow ropes, snatch blocks, tree savers, etc), I pack lunch, some extra clothes, and the equipment the forest service mandates. Those items are: shovel, axe and a water bucket. If we take both vehicles, we don't take two of everything, except for the FS required gear, because that is a per-vehicle requirement. My children are also incredibly active, but just not capable of what I am...yet. If you expect a 6 year-old to handle a 30-mile hike, I've got news for you. Now, on many of our four-wheeling trips, we cache if they are in the area. As a result, my family gets to see some of the most gorgeous back country in the nation, we have some great bonding time, and we find some caches. If bills like this pass, in order to take what was previously a day-hike/drive, it becomes a 3-4 day (or more) ordeal to get in/out and back home. We would all lose out on some wonderful memories, including those the cacher who placed the cache we're seeking, who is trying to portray that vision to us through their cache placement. Areas I never would have seen or known about to go visit, I've discovered through caching. Some of that was seen through driving, and some through hiking, but most often a combination of both. Not only would we lose out on getting to those caches due to wilderness designation, but we wouldn't even be able to place those caches anymore. I really like how RK put it as far as land valuation for/from the people. That's probably the best way I've seen it phrased.

[+Snifferhound]

 

Unfortunately, you're throwing one heck of a twist on my words here. I wouldn't want to see that either, but the bottom line is ACCESS. The term access applying to all people, not just an elite group.

 

I also see access as the key here. I've read too many times that because somebody doesn't like a particular activity (OHV), it should be banned. What makes any activity better than another? ALL activities have an impact, in one way or another. This also eleminates some people from enjoying parts of this country. I know about handicap access, but it is very limited. I for one am distubed by banning OHV use, because for me, I can't hike miles into the woods because of physical limitation.

I for one oppose this type of "land grab" for the reason that is is about control, not preservation.

[The Vargman]

*Shaking head* Here I go being odd again and asking an odd question/proposing something weird that has probably been brought up before...

 

Has the proposal of a "Geocaching License" for wildlife type areas been brought up? If so, sorry I missed it... But it would seem (although perhaps odd to legislators at first) that it's not unreasonable. When game wardens check on fishermen and the like, they'd better have their license and legal equipment. A Geocaching License could be set up similarly I would think. Seems like this might be a way for all to win?

 

Note: I'm not weighing this against the whole ATV/Snowmobile portion of the thread, to me that's a seperate issue, although this might add to that debate.

Edited February 9, 2007 by The Vargman

[+T F T C]

*Shaking head* Here I go being odd again and asking an odd question/proposing something weird that has probably been brought up before...

 

Has the proposal of a "Geocaching License" for wildlife type areas been brought up? If so, sorry I missed it... But it would seem (although perhaps odd to legislators at first) that it's not unreasonable. When game wardens check on fishermen and the like, they'd better have their license and legal equipment. A Geocaching License could be set up similarly I would think. Seems like this might be a way for all to win?

 

Note: I'm not weighing this against the whole ATV/Snowmobile portion of the thread, to me that's a seperate issue, although this might add to that debate.

 

I don't think it's an issue with the geocachERS but with the geocachES. Perhaps they can implement a registry for hidden caches that require the cache owner to log in (physically/manually) to show evidence that the cache is current and in operation.

 

Although, being a hiker myself, I can't say I'd like to see people wandering off trails looking for caches. This causes erosion, the creation of "false" trails that can endanger confused hikers, etc.

 

Sure, this can be cured by having to register each hidden cache and having it "okayed" by a ranger but I don't see this as being feasible.

[The Vargman]

I don't think it's an issue with the geocachERS but with the geocachES. Perhaps they can implement a registry for hidden caches that require the cache owner to log in (physically/manually) to show evidence that the cache is current and in operation.

 

Although, being a hiker myself, I can't say I'd like to see people wandering off trails looking for caches. This causes erosion, the creation of "false" trails that can endanger confused hikers, etc.

 

Sure, this can be cured by having to register each hidden cache and having it "okayed" by a ranger but I don't see this as being feasible.

Thanks for helping me clarify. I meant to include the cache placement approval as part of the process in my original post. As far as the feasible part of it, I have no clue, I kinda guess that's why I threw the idea out there. For those that may be better informed as to how feasible the idea is.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Exactly. I find it incredibly disturbing how the environmental causes have no interest whatsoever in compromising for the benefit of all, while the OHV enthusiasts are all about compromise to give everyone equal opportunity to enjoy the land. When groups in this state get together with the various FS officials during discussions regarding the TM plans, the ultimate goal is to maintain a designation of 'multiple use' for trails wide enough for a full-size vehicle. This shuts out nobody as far as who gets to enjoy that same area. More narrow foot trails can remain human/horse access only, and I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. Other trails can become a combination of motorcycle/ATV use, if they are too narrow for a full-size vehicle to drive on. There will always be some degree of use segregation, and I believe to some degree it is necessary. But to segregate the land from 99% of the population is ludicrous. We all deserve to enjoy those lands, and not just when we can meet certain criteria.

[+Kit Fox]

 

I don't think it's an issue with the geocachERS but with the geocachES. Perhaps they can implement a registry for hidden caches that require the cache owner to log in (physically/manually) to show evidence that the cache is current and in operation.

 

Although, being a hiker myself, I can't say I'd like to see people wandering off trails looking for caches. This causes erosion, the creation of "false" trails that can endanger confused hikers, etc.

Sure, this can be cured by having to register each hidden cache and having it "okayed" by a ranger but I don't see this as being feasible.

 

This speaks volumes on your perspective.

 

Would you prefer caches be placed only in urban areas, and the removal of caches in natural environments?

 

Please share some examples of caches where geocachers have caused erosion problems, i'd love to see one. Regarding false trails, I don't advocate nor do I participate in cutting switchbacks. I can say with confidence, that most false trails are created by lazy hikers, not geocachers.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

I don't think it's an issue with the geocachERS but with the geocachES. Perhaps they can implement a registry for hidden caches that require the cache owner to log in (physically/manually) to show evidence that the cache is current and in operation.

 

Although, being a hiker myself, I can't say I'd like to see people wandering off trails looking for caches. This causes erosion, the creation of "false" trails that can endanger confused hikers, etc.

 

Sure, this can be cured by having to register each hidden cache and having it "okayed" by a ranger but I don't see this as being feasible.

Thanks for helping me clarify. I meant to include the cache placement approval as part of the process in my original post. As far as the feasible part of it, I have no clue, I kinda guess that's why I threw the idea out there. For those that may be better informed as to how feasible the idea is.

 

This idea is really a non-issue, simply for the fact that caches are not possible in 'designated wilderness'. Some federal officials have gone ballistic even with virtual caches, because they either can't be made to understand, or simply don't want to understand that a virtual is exactly what it sounds like it is. A registry on open NF land is a good idea, and is implemented in various ways throughout the US. But to approach this same concept in 'designated wilderness' is simply impossible without some monumental changes. In 43 years, the Wilderness Act of 1964 has remained what it was created as in 1964.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

 

...actions to date have not provided adequate protection for the habitat and existing populations of the Arroyo Toad, and the risk for harming one of these endangered creatures is high. The killing of a single toad is a violation of the Endangered Species Act, under which forest managers are held personally responsible.

 

Sounds like a good reason to me.

 

Based on what you quoted here are some questions.

 

1) What actions have been taken?

2) If the science was valid in those actions why didn't they work?

3) If nothing can save the toad then why try to protect it at all? (It's a lost cause and you can better spend the time, money and resources working on things you can save)

4) Are there actions that could be taken that would in fact provide adequate protection? If so why have those not been taken?

5) What actions are compatible with at least some recreational use of the area? Why are they not being taken and allowing recreational use?

6) Who makes the determination that 'adequate protection' has not been met? Are those criteria agreed upon so that an independent board could come to the same conclusion given the same information as those making the decision.

7) The killing of endangered species is in fact allowed under the Endangered Species Act. To make a blanket statement such as that is factually wrong. This throws suspicion on the rest of the assessment.

 

You would be amazed at how much by gosh and by golly there is in these kinds of decisions. I'm not sure they have good reason, have done all they should do, or have even done the right thing. I have no doubt of their intension, but big doubts about their results. Closing the area did nothing. Therefore leaving it closed would continue to do nothing.

[vagabond]

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.

 

Well said.

[+Renegade Knight]

[...Although, being a hiker myself, I can't say I'd like to see people wandering off trails looking for caches. This causes erosion, the creation of "false" trails that can endanger confused hikers, etc....

 

A cache could only cause harm by being toxic. An abandoned cache while not desirable is not harmful. I'm also not in agreement on going off trail I don't want my world to be limited to small paths where I can not feel the waterspray from the waterfall that I just hiked too.

 

The entire concept of 'staying on trail' is artifical and man made. Normally from a man made problem. Take Yellowstone. They made it into a park. Then they made improvments, then invited people there, the people came and saw it was good and so more people came. So many in fact that they had to create trails for them to walk on and post signs that say "stay on the trail". By artificially creating a popular park they created the throngs of people to where they would have an impact and therefore had to do something to limit that impact.

 

A cache is not yellowstone. Not even urban caches. They do not generate the type of concentrations and throgging masses it would take to have a noticlable impact to the world once you are outside the urban environment. A few close to roads may have a slight social trail One that will recover shortly when the cache is gone.

 

A cache in a field by a subdivision may cause a worse trail, but that field being the only open space already is trampled beyond belief by all the people who use it for what it is. Open space.

[The Vargman]

Thanks for helping me clarify. I meant to include the cache placement approval as part of the process in my original post. As far as the feasible part of it, I have no clue, I kinda guess that's why I threw the idea out there. For those that may be better informed as to how feasible the idea is.

 

This idea is really a non-issue, simply for the fact that caches are not possible in 'designated wilderness'. Some federal officials have gone ballistic even with virtual caches, because they either can't be made to understand, or simply don't want to understand that a virtual is exactly what it sounds like it is. A registry on open NF land is a good idea, and is implemented in various ways throughout the US. But to approach this same concept in 'designated wilderness' is simply impossible without some monumental changes. In 43 years, the Wilderness Act of 1964 has remained what it was created as in 1964.

 

Ahhh, I see. So the issue is more directed at the 'designated wilderness' areas and the fact that it would take an act of congress to alter the specified guidelines in place. Thanks for clarifying. So if you wouldn't mind educating me further...

 

Is fishing/hunting permitted in these areas (with a license) and is that part of the wilderness act as well (like an exemption or something)?

[+Kit Fox]

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.

 

...actions to date have not provided adequate protection for the habitat and existing populations of the Arroyo Toad, and the risk for harming one of these endangered creatures is high. The killing of a single toad is a violation of the Endangered Species Act, under which forest managers are held personally responsible.

 

Sounds like a good reason to me.

 

Based on what you quoted here are some questions.

 

1) What actions have been taken?

2) If the science was valid in those actions why didn't they work?

3) If nothing can save the toad then why try to protect it at all? (It's a lost cause and you can better spend the time, money and resources working on things you can save)

4) Are there actions that could be taken that would in fact provide adequate protection? If so why have those not been taken?

5) What actions are compatible with at least some recreational use of the area? Why are they not being taken and allowing recreational use?

6) Who makes the determination that 'adequate protection' has not been met? Are those criteria agreed upon so that an independent board could come to the same conclusion given the same information as those making the decision.

7) The killing of endangered species is in fact allowed under the Endangered Species Act. To make a blanket statement such as that is factually wrong. This throws suspicion on the rest of the assessment.

 

You would be amazed at how much by gosh and by golly there is in these kinds of decisions. I'm not sure they have good reason, have done all they should do, or have even done the right thing. I have no doubt of their intension, but big doubts about their results. Closing the area did nothing. Therefore leaving it closed would continue to do nothing.

 

I have first hand knowledge on what "measures the forest service took," because I used to fish in the canyon.

 

The forest service wanted to restrict access to the creek, to protect the breeding toads. They erected flimsy fences near wide spots in the road. These spots were used by "weekend swimmers" for parking. The signs posted the closures in English, but the "weekend swimmers" didn't speak English as there primary language. They tore down fences, so they could go swimming.

 

The Forest Service rarely patrolled the area, but when they did, they cited offenders. In response to the torn down fences, they closed thousands of acres of hunting, hiking, as well as any other type of recreactional activity that occured in this canyon. Rather than increase patrols, and deal with the troublemakers, they closed the area indefinately, in essence screwing the law abiding citizens out of their land.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

Thanks for helping me clarify. I meant to include the cache placement approval as part of the process in my original post. As far as the feasible part of it, I have no clue, I kinda guess that's why I threw the idea out there. For those that may be better informed as to how feasible the idea is.

 

This idea is really a non-issue, simply for the fact that caches are not possible in 'designated wilderness'. Some federal officials have gone ballistic even with virtual caches, because they either can't be made to understand, or simply don't want to understand that a virtual is exactly what it sounds like it is. A registry on open NF land is a good idea, and is implemented in various ways throughout the US. But to approach this same concept in 'designated wilderness' is simply impossible without some monumental changes. In 43 years, the Wilderness Act of 1964 has remained what it was created as in 1964.

 

Ahhh, I see. So the issue is more directed at the 'designated wilderness' areas and the fact that it would take an act of congress to alter the specified guidelines in place. Thanks for clarifying. So if you wouldn't mind educating me further...

 

Is fishing/hunting permitted in these areas (with a license) and is that part of the wilderness act as well (like an exemption or something)?

 

Hunting/fishing are permitted under the Wilderness Act, except in places like national parks. Fishing isn't so much an issue as hunting is, because your average fish isn't going to weigh hundreds of pounds and have to be quartered and hoofed out (pun intended) in several trips because you couldn't drive your pickup or ATV in and load it up to take it out. The irony of all of this is mining claims. For those who had mining claims in existence before the designation being changed to wilderness, they can still access those claims with a vehicle such as an ATV, truck or snowmobile. There are several such claims near Cooke City, MT near Goose Lake and Grasshopper Glacier.

 

Not trashing on hunters or anything, but I have to argue some logic. I enjoy hunting. But part of the issue among the environmentalists pushing for more wilderness is noise. A rifle report carries much farther than say, my Jeep idling up a two-track at 3mph, or even an ATV running a bit higher RPM. Since noise is apparently a critical issue, why isn't rifle hunting banned as well because of the noise disturbance a .303 or something would create?

Edited February 9, 2007 by Brian - Team A.I.

[+karstic]

So if you wouldn't mind educating me further...

 

Is fishing/hunting permitted in these areas (with a license) and is that part of the wilderness act as well (like an exemption or something)?

 

Yes, hunting and fishing are allowed in WA's.

 

As long as the access is by foot or horseback.

 

No bicycles, you can't even bring in a game cart to take out your kill.

Edited February 9, 2007 by karstic

[+karstic]

 

Hunting/fishing are permitted under the Wilderness Act, except in places like national parks. Fishing isn't so much an issue as hunting is, because your average fish isn't going to weigh hundreds of pounds and have to be quartered and hoofed out (pun intended) in several trips because you couldn't drive your pickup or ATV in and load it up to take it out. The irony of all of this is mining claims. For those who had mining claims in existence before the designation being changed to wilderness, they can still access those claims with a vehicle such as an ATV, truck or snowmobile. There are several such claims near Cooke City, MT near Goose Lake and Grasshopper Glacier.

 

 

Curious, are these cherry-stemmed routes to mining claims/private land or are the claim owners allowed to travel across Wilderness Areas?

 

When the California Desert Protection Act was passed, a few of the new Wilderness Areas and some areas of the newly created Death Valley NP had cherry-stem routes created to allow access to mining claims/private property. One of those routes (Suprise Canyon in the Panamint Mountains) has now been closed and is now focal point of the federal v. local authority battle.

[The Vargman]

 

Hunting/fishing are permitted under the Wilderness Act, except in places like national parks. Fishing isn't so much an issue as hunting is, because your average fish isn't going to weigh hundreds of pounds and have to be quartered and hoofed out (pun intended) in several trips because you couldn't drive your pickup or ATV in and load it up to take it out. The irony of all of this is mining claims. For those who had mining claims in existence before the designation being changed to wilderness, they can still access those claims with a vehicle such as an ATV, truck or snowmobile. There are several such claims near Cooke City, MT near Goose Lake and Grasshopper Glacier.

I see. So THIS is where the issue turns to the ATV/Snowmobile access debate. But as far as legalizing cache placement in this designated wilderness areas, an act of congress, literally, is involved. Probably needing outlined REALLY specifically and such, so on and etc. etc.. Now I understand why the "geocaching license" thing is basically a lost cause for these areas. Thanks!

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

 

Hunting/fishing are permitted under the Wilderness Act, except in places like national parks. Fishing isn't so much an issue as hunting is, because your average fish isn't going to weigh hundreds of pounds and have to be quartered and hoofed out (pun intended) in several trips because you couldn't drive your pickup or ATV in and load it up to take it out. The irony of all of this is mining claims. For those who had mining claims in existence before the designation being changed to wilderness, they can still access those claims with a vehicle such as an ATV, truck or snowmobile. There are several such claims near Cooke City, MT near Goose Lake and Grasshopper Glacier.

 

 

Curious, are these cherry-stemmed routes to mining claims/private land or are the claim owners allowed to travel across Wilderness Areas?

 

When the California Desert Protection Act was passed, a few of the new Wilderness Areas and some areas of the newly created Death Valley NP had cherry-stem routes created to allow access to mining claims/private property. One of those routes (Suprise Canyon in the Panamint Mountains) has now been closed and is now focal point of the federal v. local authority battle.

 

There is road access to the claims as I understand it. Where we have to go now, is a parking area at the end of the Goose Lake trail, and hike in from there. I really don't mind that too much, because I certainly wouldn't want to hike all the way in. The road is so rough, not many stock 4x4s will make it through unscathed (absolutely no 4x2 vehicles or passenger cars). But it's absolutely breathtaking once you get to the formal end to the OHV trail. Just on the other side of a rock crossing is the continuation of the road that up until several years ago, was accessible by OHVs. You could drive a little bit farther to Goose Lake itself, giving you a wonderful starting point for any number of hikes. Grasshopper Glacier is filled with...grasshoppers, and it a 5-mile or so hike in from Goose Lake. It's another couple miles from where we now have to park.

[+briansnat]

 

I don't think it's an issue with the geocachERS but with the geocachES. Perhaps they can implement a registry for hidden caches that require the cache owner to log in (physically/manually) to show evidence that the cache is current and in operation.

 

Although, being a hiker myself, I can't say I'd like to see people wandering off trails looking for caches. This causes erosion, the creation of "false" trails that can endanger confused hikers, etc.

 

This is a mantra I've heard from the anti-geocaching crowd and its an argument with little merit. The more remote a cache is, the fewer the visits. Ask Tahosa how many visits his CO backcountry caches get in a year. I have caches that get 2-3 visits a years and I'm smack in the middle of the most densely populated region in the nation. Put a cache in a WA and you're probably talking a handful of visits over the lifetime of the cache.

 

You'll find that the parade of geocachers creating widespread trails and erosion is largely a myth. Yeah there may be a little of it at popular caches (read short walk from parking) near major population centers, but its not and would not be an issue in any place that would qualify as a wilderness area.

 

Sure, this can be cured by having to register each hidden cache and having it "okayed" by a ranger but I don't see this as being feasible.

 

Many state park systems have a similar system in place, so it would be quite feasable.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

West Rosebuzz

 

23 finds in 3 1/2 years, but this isn't even a back country cache. You have to drive a ways to get to the parking area, near a 100+ year-old hydro-electric power plant, but it's also the trail head to Granite Peak, the tallest peak in the state. It's about 1/4 mile down the trail, just off of a fork from the main trail. It's also the stepping stone for a back country hike that takes you to a lake an average of every 3 miles. This may become one of those areas that is going to be off-limits to caches if a wilderness designation is ever applied, and that would be a real shame. It gives cachers the reward of seeing this area they might not otherwise visit, and can also give hikers a reward on the way to, or on the way from their hike to wherever they chose to go.

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

RK, I thought I'd let you know that you're fast becoming a cult icon for your statement about value and preservation. I posted the comment to a mailing list specifically dealing with getting the word out on legislation meant to damage the ability for recreationists to...recreate. People are talking about how profound the statement is, and I agree. What you said in so few words has quite an impact. PM me when you get a chance.

[+T F T C]

I leave you guys alone for a few hours and I have just about another page of comments to read. Geeze!

 

About the "leaving the trail" thing: This is just something that I've been taught in the BSA, by park rangers, and wilderness books. If your information is better, awesome! You better let everyone else know (see above list) so they can correct their information.

 

About registering caches: I wasn't aware registration of caches in state parks was a system currently in place. Where in the Geocaching website is this mentioned? I've read about placing caches and haven't come across it - please post the link, or put that info in! It sounds kind of important.

 

In general, it sounds like a better mode of attack would be to address and change the definition of the "Wilderness" designation, instead of trying to prevent any more land from becoming so designated. This way you address the illness and not the symptoms.

 

While I may not be 100% in agreement with the stipulations of the wilderness designation, I find it much more agreeable than the alternative (logging, construction, large scale development, loss of animal species, etc). I would, however, agree with changing the Wilderness designation stipulations to include OHV and such.

[+Kit Fox]

I leave you guys alone for a few hours and I have just about another page of comments to read. Geeze!

 

About the "leaving the trail" thing: This is just something that I've been taught in the BSA, by park rangers, and wilderness books. If your information is better, awesome! You better let everyone else know (see above list) so they can correct their information.

 

This problem is primarily an issue with hikers, and less so for cachers seeking remote caches.

 

About registering caches: I wasn't aware registration of caches in state parks was a system currently in place. Where in the Geocaching website is this mentioned? I've read about placing caches and haven't come across it - please post the link, or put that info in! It sounds kind of important.

 

It's not an issue here in SoCal, but a good portion of the East Coast, where open space is in short supply, has a permit process. Permits aren't cheap either.

 

In general, it sounds like a better mode of attack would be to address and change the definition of the "Wilderness" designation, instead of trying to prevent any more land from becoming so designated. This way you address the illness and not the symptoms.

 

While I may not be 100% in agreement with the stipulations of the wilderness designation, I find it much more agreeable than the alternative (logging, construction, large scale development, loss of animal species, etc). I would, however, agree with changing the Wilderness designation stipulations to include OHV and such.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that once the land is converted into wilderness status, you can't change it back, ever! They have yet to ammend the Wilderness Act as far as I know.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+T F T C]

I leave you guys alone for a few hours and I have just about another page of comments to read. Geeze!

 

About the "leaving the trail" thing: This is just something that I've been taught in the BSA, by park rangers, and wilderness books. If your information is better, awesome! You better let everyone else know (see above list) so they can correct their information.

 

This problem is primarily an issue with hikers, and less so for cachers seeking remote caches.

 

So you agree it's a problem. This is good. But convincing the government to tell hikers "no, you guys can't leave the trail" and then tell geocachers "yes, you guys can leave the trail" won't fly. This is why you need to change the designation's definiton.

 

About registering caches: I wasn't aware registration of caches in state parks was a system currently in place. Where in the Geocaching website is this mentioned? I've read about placing caches and haven't come across it - please post the link, or put that info in! It sounds kind of important.

 

It's not an issue here in SoCal, but a good portion of the East Coast, where open space is in short supply, has a permit process. Permits aren't cheap either.

 

I'm surprised no one has brought this to Geocaching.com's attention. This sounds like info they need to include, if it's so important.

 

In general, it sounds like a better mode of attack would be to address and change the definition of the "Wilderness" designation, instead of trying to prevent any more land from becoming so designated. This way you address the illness and not the symptoms.

 

While I may not be 100% in agreement with the stipulations of the wilderness designation, I find it much more agreeable than the alternative (logging, construction, large scale development, loss of animal species, etc). I would, however, agree with changing the Wilderness designation stipulations to include OHV and such.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that once the land is converted into wilderness status, you can't change it back, ever! They have yet to ammend the Wilderness Act as far as I know.

 

The designation's only about 40 years old, and this is the first time I've ever heard of it. Additionally, according to the gov't (http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/btnf/offices/kemmerer.shtml), OHV use has been on the rise especially in the last 5 years - meaning it wasn't as popular back in 1964.

 

Sounds like it's just about time to amend it

[+CheshireFrog]

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.

 

Isn't the reverse just as true? "I want to do it, therefore it should be legal."

[+Kit Fox]

 

So you agree it's a problem. This is good. But convincing the government to tell hikers "no, you guys can't leave the trail" and then tell geocachers "yes, you guys can leave the trail" won't fly. This is why you need to change the designation's definiton.

 

It's a small problem, but it is not primarily geocacher created. Feral animals cause far more damage to natural habitats then geocachers ever will.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+T F T C]

 

So you agree it's a problem. This is good. But convincing the government to tell hikers "no, you guys can't leave the trail" and then tell geocachers "yes, you guys can leave the trail" won't fly. This is why you need to change the designation's definiton.

 

It's a small problem, but it is not primarily geocacher created. Feral animals cause far more damage to natural habitats then geocachers ever will.

 

lol that's how they live. They can't live any other way. They've been living that way since the earth existed, and there's never been a problem until we came along. And what's your definition of "damage"?

 

But I digress.

[+Renegade Knight]

I leave you guys alone for a few hours and I have just about another page of comments to read. Geeze!

 

About the "leaving the trail" thing: This is just something that I've been taught in the BSA, by park rangers, and wilderness books. If your information is better, awesome! You better let everyone else know (see above list) so they can correct their information.....

 

Leaving the trail is only a problem when there are enough people to where they needed to create an improved trail to begin with. This tends to happen in developed parks. Note that park rangers tend to range in parks that are developed. The BSA would of course talk to park rangers in creating their manauls and teaching their kids, but perhaps not so much hunters who have to follow a blood trail in the middle of nowhere.

 

It's 100% valid for humans to not be on a trail. It's 100% valid for humans to be in a place that doesn't even have a trail to be on.

 

Perhaps we are not thinking of the same thing when we think of what trails are created for or what a trail really is?

Edited February 10, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

....lol that's how they live. They can't live any other way. They've been living that way since the earth existed, and there's never been a problem until we came along. And what's your definition of "damage"?

 

But I digress.

 

We are a problem? My barefoot and naked ancestors who ran untamed in the wilds for thousands of years before they even thought to invent park rangers and trails may not agree.

[+T F T C]

....lol that's how they live. They can't live any other way. They've been living that way since the earth existed, and there's never been a problem until we came along. And what's your definition of "damage"?

 

But I digress.

 

We are a problem? My barefoot and naked ancestors who ran untamed in the wilds for thousands of years before they even thought to invent park rangers and trails may not agree.

 

lol you guys kill me. I'm out.

 

Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention; I'll be sure to tell my friends and my scouts' parents to support it.

[+Snifferhound]

As far as park permission or permits go for hiding caches, it varies from location to location. Here in Iowa, each county has different rules, and some have no rules. We even have some parks that have their own guidlines, different than the county. Some parks require a permit for just that park, but you travel ten miles, and no permit of any kind is required. It does make it confusing when you decide on a place to hide a cache!

[Clan Riffster]

Feral animals cause far more damage to natural habitats then geocachers ever will.

 

lol that's how they live. They can't live any other way. They've been living that way since the earth existed, and there's never been a problem until we came along. And what's your definition of "damage"?

Just to clarify: When someone refers to animals as being "feral", they are not talking about spotted owls or tufted field mice. A feral animal is one whose species has been domesticated, and a small percentage run loose. They have not been that way since the earth existed. Feral animals did not exist until mankind learned to domesticate animals. A good example of this are pigs. Ask any Australian environmentalist how they feel about ferals. Wild hogs are a natural part of the environment, where as feral pigs are a destructive force similar to a drunk teenager on a bulldozer.