“PROTECTED WILDERNESS”: IDEAL OR OXYMORON?

[Ten Bears]

“PROTECTED WILDERNESS”: IDEAL OR OXYMORON?

Does designating federal land as Wilderness really protect that land? Ideally, it would seem so. Wilderness prevents road building, logging, mining. It makes grazing unprofitable. It limits man’s activities so strictly it’s hard to imagine that land so protected can be at risk.

But it is.

The primary effect of Wilderness designation is the reduction of access and recreation. The phrase, “Wilderness Protection” is used by Wilderness advocates to portray lands as threatened with uncontrolled development and degradation. This is not true. Development on public lands is extremely limited and subject to a myriad of laws and regulations designed to protect our natural resources and our environment.

True protection for public lands comes from sensible management. Wilderness designation precludes most management actions. It allows for very little discretionary decision making from local land managers.

What happens when land isn’t managed? It stays in Wilderness condition. But that doesn’t mean it stays pristine. It doesn’t mean insects and disease or the catastrophic fires they precede will not devastate it. It doesn’t mean that its watershed won’t be eroded by severe storms that might follow the fires. It doesn’t mean the rivers will be free of silt or that fish won’t be harmed. In fact the severe restrictions on management imposed by Wilderness designation make all those things more likely, not less.

As Wilderness advocates increase their calls for more designated Wilderness in Idaho in such places as the Owyhees and the Boulder-White Clouds, perhaps it’s time to look a little more closely at the “protection” Wilderness designation provides….

Wilderness and recreation

Often, Wilderness is touted as a place for recreation, yet the Wilderness Act recognizes very limited opportunities for recreation. Central Idaho’s Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, for example, attracts tourists – yet fewer than one out of ten ever ventures more than a quarter mile from the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. If you’re dreaming of taking your motor home on a tour of the Wilderness, forget it. Motorized recreation is forbidden, as are roads. Snowmobiles and ATVs are taboo. Even mountain biking is out. Pack trips on horseback are allowed – if your pocketbook can stand it. Wilderness designation doesn’t increase recreational opportunities. Instead, it limits them severely.

Wilderness and money

Using even the limited management tools available, managing Wilderness takes funding. For more than a decade, the money hasn’t been there to care for the Wilderness we already have. Forget the user education programs of the 70’s – they’re nonexistent. Every facet of Wilderness management has been going downhill since the early 1980’s. Trail systems aren’t being maintained, so users go around obstacles, setting the ground up for erosion. Bridges are deteriorating – remember, only hand tools can be used to maintain them. Fire management planning and implementation are beyond agencies’ capabilities and budgets – no roads mean no early access to fires with adequate equipment. The lack of balance in land management agency programs has placed and impossible funding burden on resources such as recreation and wilderness.

Wilderness and science

One rationale put forward for Wilderness is that it can be used as a touchstone – a reference to see how well we’re managing the rest of the land. That, however, requires two illogical assumptions: that the environment, absent mankind, is static, and that America was uninhabited before Europeans arrived. Evolution continues to happen, rapidly in some instances and more slowly in others, and man is a part of it, not apart from it. Environmental purists propose to return a major portion of America to what it is perceived to have been prior to the establishment of the United States and the Western expansion, according to Candace Ricks-Oathout, Chair of Citizens Against Recreational Eviction of Minnesota. The conventional wisdom is that these lands were untouched by human influence until they were “discovered” by Europeans. Though Indians had their sacred places, they felt no need to set aside vast acreages as preserves. They saw themselves as part of the environment.

Wilderness and rural communities

Rural areas suffer from two directions because of Wilderness and the political attitudes behind it. Even when there is no Wilderness nearby, the conviction in some quarters that no logging, mining or grazing should take place on public lands has chopped away the base of the rural economy. The promised “recreation-based” economy never materialized, in part because the public lacks access to their lands. And the added burdens of increased costs to infrastructure, search and rescue, fire protection and other services can be massive.

Wilderness and public health and safety

Tight restrictions on land management tools in Wilderness mean dangerous buildups of dry fuel. And that’s not just in Wilderness; severe cutbacks in timber harvests over the past decade mean non-Wilderness forests near human habitations are also choked with fuel. Catastrophic wildfires, once rare, are now annual phenomena. Hundreds of thousands of acres burn each year, and millions more are at risk. Firefighters risk their lives on these huge fires. People in far away cities face increased risk from smoke that pours into the valleys.

Neglect is not protection

More than a century of fire suppression left America’s forests with a surplus of trees. This was manageable with sustained-yield harvesting techniques. While it may not have left the forests in their “natural” state, the system was in balance. Wildlife thrived, habitats were varied and productive and recreational access was open. Now, this surplus is burned rather than harvested, and when it burns it – and everything around it – is destroyed. The fires destroy wildlife and their habitat. Barren hillsides are susceptible to slides and erosion by subsequent rains. Streams fill with silt, creating intolerable conditions for spawning fish. These are aggravated by the removal by fire of stream-side shade plants, raising water temperature to levels that won’t sustain aquatic life.

Wilderness has its place…

…but often other, less restrictive designations offer more protection, better economic conditions, more access for all types of outdoor recreation and healthier forests.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten bears, the atv riding author of that hack job, better get informed.

Where does anyone with a basic grasp of land management even start. This is like beating up a 3rd grader...

Wilderness designation most certainly is a land management decision, on a landscape size scale. As far as things remaining "static" in wilderness, according to this educated and well esteemed author, is a joke. The idea of the science behind wilderness is to pretty much let the landscape change without influence by man. This allows a land manager, who is observant, to see how their decisions in highly managed areas compares to those of whats going on in the wilderness. Your hack author is also wrong about management keeping things static, thats just crap. The land changes all the time, both in highly managed lands and in wilderness. Most people with any type of common sense can see that.

As to the money, thats another joke, wilderness per acre, is a lot less costly to maintain. Most wilderness areas require nothing more than trail maintainance. On any Ranger District, its likely that there is only one or two people in charge of wilderness related maintainance.

The fire risk in wilderness, because of the landscape found in them, is normally not putting anything at risk. What risk is there to human life of a fire burning in the middle of the Frank Church? Its not in anyones best interest to be fighting fires in wilderness, or much of anywhere else, in my opinion. Fire suppression has had a much worse impact on the land than wilderness designation ever will.

Ten bears, dont bore us with this hack "journalism" promoted by your local ATV club. Its a joke, and makes you look dumb.

 

[Ten Bears]

Forgot to show the link.
http://www.atvidaho.info/editorial_list.php?e_id=8

Grow up BUZZ, if that offended you, then you really do have more problems then anybody here could possibly help you with.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, I notice you neglected to give us a source for that assinine crap. You don't expect us to give it any credibility, do you?

Buzz wasn't exactly right when he said, "Its a joke, and makes you look dumb." You already look dumb. Posting that article makes you look even dumber (Something that is hard to accomplish, but you pulled it off. Congratulations.).

 

[Ten Bears]

IT, please refer to my post JUST ABOVE yours, an then tell me who looks "dumb".

 

[JoseCuervo]

That is the most ridiculous piece of writing I have ever seen, and the author is not only an idiot, he (or she) is a lousy researcher.

Central Idaho’s Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, for example, attracts tourists – yet fewer than one out of ten ever ventures more than a quarter mile from the Middle Fork of the Salmon River.

I would love to see the data on that one... Try driving into Big Creek on the opening day of Elk Season. Try driving into Snowshoe on Opening day of Elk season. Shepp and Polly B. are all more than a 1/4 mile from the Middle Fork, and they rotate huge amounts of tourists. And what about all the recrecators on the Main Salmon? They all get more than a 1/4 mile from the MFS.

That claim is just WRONG, and is as idiotic as most of the other claims. I really think Helmets should be mandatory for ATV riders.

 

[1_pointer]

I'd like to know when and where resources have been degraded because of wilderness designation? I know I've never ran across proof of such. I can show or prove through literature sources the degradation of resources both plant and animal though too much unfettered access.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Well, Thanks for the link, Ten. Now we know ATV Idaho is a bunch of looney tunes who allows misinformation like that crap above to be published under their name! What a fast way to lose all credibility. Even most fatassed ATV riders should be able to recognize the article was written by an idiot, even if you didn't.

 

[Washington Hunter]

What an idiot!! I wonder if the author of that article truly believes all that crap? Nobody could possibly be that stupid, could they? Everything he says is so ridiculous it's funny. For instance the article says "Tight restrictions on land management tools in Wilderness mean dangerous buildups of dry fuel." Duh!!! Isn't that the purpose of fires? All that is needed is a little lightning and the buildup of fuel will be taken care of, and everything will NOT be destroyed as he says. Just look at Yellowstone...where would it be now if it hadn't burned up in '88? It sure wasn't destroyed...it was rejuvenated, and the wildlife are better off because of it. I could go on but I won't. All I know is the only literature I've ever read that is as ridiculous as that was put out by PETA.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I suspect the only two people who think that article has any credibility are the author and Ten Bears. And I'm not too sure about the author.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I don't even think Ten Bears believes in that garbage. Just think about it...about the only official wilderness areas we have in the west are places that are so steep and rugged that motorized vehicles couldn't access them anyway, even if it were legal. And building roads into these types of areas is not economically feasible. It would cost more to get any resources out than they are worth. Humans have screwed up 99% of the environment as it is. Why do some people think it necessary to ruin the little wilderness we have left?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Because they're selfish lazy fatassed slobs who want to ride an ATV everywhere they go.

 

[RockyDog]

Thats was incredible. Thanks gawd there arent many people that retarded.

 

[Ten Bears]

I thought the article was a good laugh, and a great parody for the EG, IT, and crew mindset.

That they would be so offended and accusatory is nothing more then a bonus chuckle.

 

[1_pointer]

So you don't believe that? It was just posted as a joke? Rrrriiiggghhhtttt! Mike Jackson teach you his 'Moonwalk'?

I sure hope the website putting out this information states it as a joke, but I doubt they do. That is grasping for straws, and VERY SHORT ones at that.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

That is friggin hilarious that you now are distancing yourself from the crap you post from ATVIdahoForum....

You believe every bit of that crap, and only after having everybody completely dismiss that crackpot who wrote it, you now "let us in on the joke"? Please..........

But, if you thought it was a good laugh, why don't you point out the "funny" parts, you know, the ones you laughed at.....

You probably still ain't smart enough to see all the "funny" parts.

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, they are serious about that stuff.

EG, your response to; make accusations, point fingers, attempt to belittle, was expected, and almost as funny as that article. Your limited ability amuses me. (funny faces enough for you)

 

[JoseCuervo]

As I thought Ten, you don't know what the "funny" parts are, as you actually believed it. And when asked, you can't produce even a hand-full of the alleged "funny" parts.

C'mon Ten, share with us the parts that were "funny".

 

[1_pointer]

Beings that they are serious about that kind of chit, they will get no support from me. I am fighting for just the opposite, as I want to ensure that my kids (if I'm lucky/able to have some) and grandkids have a few wild places to visit. That is important. Being able to ride an ATV where one wants isn't.

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, I am not one of their supporters either. Many times when I send them emails to ask questions, they don't even respond. Like many here, they lack the ability to accept views of others.

EG, maybe less smoke and more of your prescribed medications.