Wilderness?

[Calif. Hunter]

Arizona alone -

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Arizona is responsible for 47 wilderness areas totaling 1.4 million acres. Congress established these areas through the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990.

Colorado: State acres: 66,386,000 Largest wilderness: Weminuche Wilderness (492,418 acres)
Acres of wilderness: 3,389,935 Smallest wilderness: Platte River Wilderness
Wildernesses: 41
Managing agencies: BLM, FWS, FS, NPS

Here is a site with wilderness areas by state:
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_wilderness_area/main.htm

 

[BuzzH]

Cali,

1.4 million...WOW, thats a lot in Arizona.

In particular when you consider theres only 72,960,000 acres of land in Arizona or 114,000 square miles.

I think I'm being locked out of Arizona by the wilderness act, I cant find a place to camp.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Are you finding yourself crowded on those 1.4 million acres, Buzz? Feeling cramped on those 4 million acres in Colorado? How much more do you want to add in order to feel alone?

I think you could find a lonesome spot or two in either state to walk to your heart's content.

 

[BillyGoat]

Damn, where are all the OHV-lovers and recreational shooters on this site? You guys are hardcore. I love it.

"...Congress has banked 110 million acres as Wilderness. This represents five percent of our country's landmass -- an are larger than California."

That number includes Alaska though, I believe, as well as National Parks and Monuments.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Arizona is responsible for 47 wilderness areas totaling 1.4 million acres.

One thing that became obvious after moving to ID from AZ is that ID may have far more wilderness but it is all lumped into the massive Frank Church, Gospel Hump, Hells Canyon, Sawtooth, and Selway-Bitteroot. Far less accessible than all the little pockets in AZ.

 

[BuzzH]

Calif. Hunter,

Sure seems like 1.4 million acres isnt much of a compromise when you consider the total land mass of Arizona.

Same with Colorado.

Same with Montana.

Same with Idaho.

Same with Wyoming.

I'd settle for a 50-50 split on all public lands being either roadless or wilderness.

Sound about fair to you?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

What percentage of an entire state should be roadless wilderness? Should this apply to all states? What percentage of the population uses wilderness areas, since the whole point seems to be to keep people out? (Not that this figure means anything related to how many acres, but it is a consideration at some point.) After all, no one wants too many people using the wilderness areas, do they?

How many acres of public land are there in the entire US of A? BLM, Forest, Nat Park, State Lands, Nat Monuments, etc. all combined? I don't think 50/50 of all that land being roadless is reasonable. I think there should be fewer roads on most public land, no doubt about that. Hunting in Colorado on NF land a few years back was a real disappointment for me - roads and ATVs with pumpkins all over the hills, elk running around scared shitless and yahoos blasting them as they ran hither and yon. I was most appreciative of the roadless, closed area we actually ended up hunting. But I think having the road through the BLM land to get to the trailhead was nice.

 

[BuzzH]

Calif. Hunter,

Why should more than 50% of the publics lands be open to ATV's and roads?

I dont think it should be.

Anything less than 50% and I'm having to compromise. I dont compromise anymore.

Compromise is why only 1 measly acre for every 73 acres of land in Arizona is designated wilderness.

Time for someone else to compromise. Wilderness advocates have given up way, way, way too much as it is.

Also, you seem confusued on the intent of wilderness. Its not to keep people out. Its to limit the impacts of mining, roading, atv's, logging, etc. Its there to provide hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, camping, and any other non-mechanized recreation. Nobody is excluded from using wilderness.

Whether you make the choice to use it or not is up to you. Its there for your enjoyment. Like my buddy said, "One doesn't need to be physically present in wild country to appreciate its existence."

 

[BillyGoat]

I don't want to have to buy a horse, feed and medicate it all year for huting season. I don't even like horses. I don't even think they should be allowed in wilderness areas. They crap all over, people build "temproary" corrals for them, they eat vegetation that could be feeding wildlife, make erosive trails and for what?

This is one beef I have with wilderness. Mtn bikes are not allowed because they are "mechanical". Bullshit. Horses do far more damage than mtn bikes. Skis, firearms, stoves, etc, are "mechanical" and you can bring those into wilderness. As well as airplanes flying overhead and in some areas motor/jet boats cruisin' the rivers.

What percentage of the population uses wilderness areas, since the whole point seems to be to keep people out?

"The existing 110 million acres of Wilderness recieves 12 million visitors annually as compared with 155 million acres of USFS land (not designated Wilderness) receiving 200 million visitors each year. Do the math and you'll see that the non-Wilderness public land attracts 12 times the visitors."

 

[JoseCuervo]

What percentage of the population uses wilderness areas, since the whole point seems to be to keep people out?
.

That might be one of the more unedjumacated statements I have ever read. The only way one could make a statement like that is if they have never spent any time in the Wilderness Areas.

The Frank Church is like a Zoo at times with so many people in it. We have to run permits just to allocate the usage of the Frank as if left unpermitted, it would be loved to death by people wanting to use it.

I always laugh at people that are scared of wilderness, don't want to be "without access" to a hospital if they stub their toes...

Spend time in the Wilderness areas and you will never want to camp, hunt, or recreate in roaded areas again...

 

[BuzzH]

What part of NON-MECHANIZED travel in the wilderness act is so difficult to comprehend?

I've never had a problem with the intent or understanding of the definition.

 

[BillyGoat]

What part of NON-MECHANIZED travel in the wilderness act is so difficult to comprehend?

Airplanes that drop folks off in the middle of the Frank Church for one. Another would be motorboats hauling people through the Grand Canyon.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I'm glad I finally posted something you could attack, Jose. Always happy to oblige.

The attitude of many seems to be elitist - and here you even state that

The Frank Church is like a Zoo at times with so many people in it. We have to run permits just to allocate the usage of the Frank as if left unpermitted, it would be loved to death by people wanting to use it.

Obviously, you don't want everyone to use it, or why would you limit it? That sounds to me like you want to keep it as your personal playground and resent others using it.

Obiously, for those who can't come to the conclusion themselves -

The number of people using a wilderness area has to be limited in order to keep it wild. Thus, people have to be kept out and difficulty of access is part of that limitation process. So is a permit process or a campground reservation process - it limits access and "keeps people out."

They ought to ban all motorized recreational boats off most "wild" rivers, too, as far as I am concerned - oil, gas, exhaust, noise all are harmful to the fish populations and disrupt my quiet enjoyment. Take the jetboats off the Rogue, Snake, etc.

 

[BuzzH]

Billygoat,

Airstrips were negotiated in the Wilderness act, same with boats.

Ever heard of a travel corridor?

 

[JoseCuervo]

The attitude of many seems to be elitist - and here you even state that



Obviously, you don't want everyone to use it, or why would you limit it? That sounds to me like you want to keep it as your personal playground and resent others using it.

Uhhhhhhh.........maybe you need some edjumacation on what defines "Wilderness". The Law passed in 1964 defines as follows:

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

How would you follow the LAW if you didn't restrict overuse so as to not have man's "imprint" noticeable? The use has to be limited in order to comply with the Law.

If you don't like the Law, quit voting for stupid Texans.

 

[BillyGoat]

Ever heard of a travel corridor?

Yup, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies because I want to ride my mtn bike around the Seven Devils Loop. That and it's annoying as hell to be on a multiday backpacking trip deep in the heart of the Grand Canyon and have to listen to the near constant drone of tourist helicopters and airplanes flying overhead. I think the "non-mechanical" should have been "non-motorized". Btw, is it legal to take one of those game carts into wilderness? How about your kid in a stroller?

 

[BigHornRam]

Billygoat,

I for one would have no problem "compromising" future wilderness designation by grandfathering in currently used mountain bike routes in areas under wilderness consideration.

 

[Bambistew]

How many have or realistically could hike 10 miles into wilderness and hunt for 10 days? I bet it is way more than 6 or us.

There aren't many wilderness areas that you can't hike all the way across in 10 miles. The two main ones I hunt you'd have to walk in a circle for a few miles to even make it 10 miles.

The last wilderness area I was in, I needed a camping permitt because its so popular.

I'm all for more roadless or wilderness areas.

 

[Tom]

Every place there's no road, its roadless, way more than 50%. I've heard of road hogs, but what we really have is roadless hogs. How far do you have to be from a road to be roadless? I don't want 50% covered by roads, its sure not that way down here.

 

[BuzzH]

Billygoat,

Its too bad what you want. ATVers want to be able to ride their atv's into wilderness as well. A line was drawn in 1964...some airstrips were grandfathered. Done deal, get over it.

In 1964 nobody cared about mountain bikes, at least not enough to negotiate their use in wilderness areas.

If new areas are designated, I wouldnt mind if arguments were heard regarding using mountain bikes on designated routes (corridors) within the new wilderness boundaries.

Calif Hunter,

Seems to me that wilderness must be pretty popular if it has to be restricted or on a permit basis is some areas. Maybe if we had more wilderness, the "pressure" from people would be spread around more and we wouldnt have to restrict or force people to permits in Wilderness Areas.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Some folks just don't get it. Tom, holy shit are you for real?