Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
Its national forest managed by the USDA.
What is gained by moving the management to an even-more-underfunded agency?
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
That depends on who you assume is doing the gaining? If its the pro-.gov, anti-access, tree hugging, animal anthromorphistic-types that you're talking about, well then.....There's lots to gain.
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
Hey Escopeta,
Nice shot. Nice shot, man.
Feliz Año Nuevo,
El Chancleteo Zapatista con motosierra grande.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
If that area, after all these years of use (and purported overuse), is still pristine enough to qualify to be put into wilderness, wouldn't that be an indication that its been managed pretty good up till now?
Well put, and as Mr. Spock would have said, most logical.
But remember how they designated the Domelands as wilderness and closed off 90% of the old access roads after they were done logging the crap out of it?
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Yeah, I remember that. I had to replace my bolt cutters like, 3 times or so in one year.
The government seems to have an endless supply of padlocks. Thankfully I have a pretty respectable cache of bolt cutters.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
The entire concept of wilderness as the BLM defines it is an abomination. Whoever decided that cows and wilderness can co-exist in the same space is clearly not in touch with their faculties.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
^^^
True, but that's a separate issue. This issue is kind of close to me because I own a place in the area. In fact, I just got back from spending a week in the area. Personally, given the additional "protection" Joshua Tree received in the form of lots of new pavement, parking lots and crowds as a result of its park status, I can't say that that making that putting the area under the Park Service management would be an improvement. Either they have the funds to "preserve" the area, they pave, grade, sign the area into submission, or they lack the funds and deny access to protect it.
It's interesting in that people from outside the area seem far more interested in NPS management than those actually in the area. Having said that, the locals seem to believe that NPS management would be bad based upon some ill founded belief that logging is needed to protect the area from fire. However, that's really a wish for former times when logging was more of an employment factor in the area. They also resent what would be a new prohibition on hunting, offroading, etc., in their backyard. While I have reservations about new management, I do think the Sequoia groves in the area need additonal protection. Some of the surrounding forest has been logged right up to their perimeters, which makes them susceptible to getting knocked over by winds, erosion and other problems.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Fat Dad, it may be a separate issue but the premise is the same. .Gov designating land to be managed in a specific way (i.e. Wilderness) is usually a farce.
Let's never confuse proper forest management with our government as they rarely go hand in hand. Good forest management does indeed involve logging and prescribed burns (within some really well defined guidelines)
But then again, that's assuming we don't want to simply let Ma Nature have her way and let the chips fall as they may. Which is fully acceptable as well.
You mentioned Josh, I distinctly remember after one of the particularly bad fire seasons how the NPS or some other collection of government functionaries decided that any/all fires on public land that weren't endangering structures where just going to be allowed to burn them selves out.
The very first fire that started in J-Tree and burned for about 6 hours they threw that right out the window and started bombing it because they knew it would burn till spring. Wasn't a building within 60 miles in every direction.
Regardless of the designation, when your piece of heaven garners the attention of the managers of public lands, you can kiss it goodbye.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Fat Dad, I think the locals' objections to monument status go far beyond logging, although that's certainly a part. The conflagrations that could be avoided by intelligent logging adversely affect our air quality, to be sure, but that's a relatively minor consideration.
It seems particularly absurd to make the area a monument when the high Sierra between the parks is already designated wilderness. We suspect that the area is, in fact, more like a real wilderness than the Parks precisely because, lacking the glamour of National Park status, they remain farther from the beaten path (well, other than the Muir Trail).
The current status of the southern Sierra outside Yosemite and Kings Canyon/Sequoia allows for varying uses based on congressional wilderness and wild and scenic river designation. That means that areas outside those two designations can be used by what the monument proponents consider the "wrong kinds of people" for for the "wrong purposes."
In effect, the monument proponents consider the area they wish to be a monument as "their" land, and since they can't convince congress to exclude the "wrong kinds of people," because those people elect representatives who get a voice in congress, they wish to impose that exclusion using their political clout with the current administration, which has no check from dissenting opinion.
Most of us who live near enough to the area to make day trips feasible are the "wrong kinds of people" in the eyes of the monument proponents. We have that independent streak that people who know what's best for everything and everybody so fully detest. We have this strange idea that National Forests belong to all the people, not just the "right kinds" of people, and we still see sharing as a virtue.
Moreover, we like our ability to use the area without getting permits months in advance. We know how to get a real wilderness experience without all the regimentation that NPS-administered areas require.
The ability to make spontaneous trips there is irrelevant to most of the monument's boosters, who live in urban areas far enough removed from the southern Sierra to require considerable planning to get there in the first place. Thus, to them, adding NPS-style restrictions is no big deal.
I think what most locals really oppose and fear in a monument designation is the removal of any remaining local influence over land use decisions. We see the monument's most likely effect as exclusion of people who have used the area wisely (i.e. have conserved), so that those with greater political clout -- because they have a lot more money -- can make it part of their growing, exclusive, playground.
My perception of the locals' feelings, and my own feelings, aren't something entirely rational. Then again, neither are the arguments of the monument's proponents.
John
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm not sure that the "use v. them" arguments fully capture either the proponent's or the opponent's of the proposed Sierra National Monument project, though it is useful rhetoric to use to create an political atmosphere that prevents a rational consideration of the points.
If you view the land as a "commons" then we are presented with the classical problem of how to maintain that "commons" in the best interest of both what the it provides, and for the users.
The area is already under the management of the federal government, the designation of the land dictates the management policy. In general, we as users, like the National Forest management policy because it gives us the most freedom, who doesn't like to just wander out into the forest and setup camp with no real restraints. We might have to show a "fire permit" to a rare NFS ranger... but usually we're all alone.
Logging roads into remote areas provide access, logging being one of the permitted activities (though logging-road building may still be subject to the Clinton era moratorium, I don't know if this was rescinded).
The main issue being that many of us would prefer unregulated open area to the more regulated use prescribed in Wilderness Areas.
That is, of course, paradoxical, at least in the sense that as we use areas they become less of a wilderness. Wilderness is, after all, a place where humans are not running the show. The very fact that you drive in on a logging road should tip you off to that distinction.
Roughly 14% of the area of California is designated wilderness. The total national value is 4.5%. One can make the argument that that is enough, but I'm not sure what the argument is based on. If the argument is simply that Federal control of local resources is anathema, one might pull the thread a bit on that... posted above is the claim that Federal control degrades the area, if that is so it can be shown.
Mostly, however, the chafing is due to "lost access," and usually more finely put, loss of a particular type of access, which is motor access. Motor access makes it convenient for us to travel to these places quickly and does not require the physical effort to walk into the area carrying the stuff we need for the visit's duration.
Restrictions on access are intended to reduce the human impact in an area and are generally based on an estimate of the impact of the human visits.
As the size of the population increases, the restrictions impose a large impact on our use of the land. Seeking land with relatively few restrictions becomes a way to "enjoy the wilderness" and so the opposition for changing the status of land from less to more restrictive management.
We loose a type of access and are subject to use quotas in the transition.
What do we gain in the transition?
For the most part the lands designated as "wilderness areas" are managed with the idea of preserving the "wilderness" which is defined in the Wilderness Act as:
“an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain"
and specifically:
"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."
The fact that an area is a "wilderness" is why we like going there in the first place. The tension of management is already apparent, the land managers (whoever they are) need to both allow access and preserve the "wilderness aspects."
Wilderness is maintained, we retain the ability to experience it.
Now this is premised on the idea that we want "wilderness" areas, but humans invariably want the deck stacked in their favor... no one wants to be some predator's meal... but in some ways, the ideal "wilderness" involves adventure in that the outcome is not predetermined, that there are risks, and that doesn't seem to be acceptable. Further, and especially in California, we want to drive to the wilderness, an exquisitely contradictory concept.
"We" may not want any of this, of course... "we" may just want to keep on doing what we were doing 40 years ago. "We" might wonder why, if the issue is over use, "we" just don't keep the "others" from using "our" place. And this leads to the classical game theory encounter...
Do these lands belong to the locals? to the citizens of California? to those of the United States? to the world? what is the nature of ownership, anyway, and what of being a steward? and does it matter at all?
We generally like the idea of "wilderness" until it affects our activities directly. Unexamined in this is the internal conflicts. The continent long ago ceased to have much real wilderness, as realized by the legislation conserving land written over 100 years ago. It seemed a wise and far sighted act.
What has happened in the intervening time to cause so many to oppose this sort of conservation?
My guess is that there are so many more of us now...
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Thoughtful points from Ed and John as usual. In many ways, I believe does boil down to an "us vs. them" dichotomy that John referenced:
Most of us who live near enough to the area to make day trips feasible are the "wrong kinds of people" in the eyes of the monument proponents. We have that independent streak that people who know what's best for everything and everybody so fully detest. We have this strange idea that National Forests belong to all the people, not just the "right kinds" of people, and we still see sharing as a virtue.
A big part of the problem lies in the fact that there are people currently living in or at the edge of a wilderness area who view the area as their backyard. People like to do what they want to do in their backyards and generally object when an outsider tells them they can no longer do that. If someone were to tell me that I could no longer do something in my backyard in LA, I'd probably have similar objections.
However, there are already limits to what I can do. I can't dump toxic materials that will leach into a watershed. I can't make too much noise at certain times. I can't build a structure of a certain size unless I get a permit first. If I'm thinking correctly, I should not discharge a firearm. These are all reasonable restrictions. In light of that, I don't completely buy the "this is our backyard argument" as a response to some controls. When you live in a rural area, particularly when you know that it abuts Forest Service land, you have to assume there are going to be some restrictions on your use of your property. Also, despite where you live, you do not "own" the surrounding area. Despite that belief that it belongs to the people, that does not mean you can do whatever you want. You can't log it illegally. You can't hunt or fish without a permit (though I have seen yahoos shooting rifles in the parking area of a popular trail, shooting the direction of the hiking trail, which was just over the small rise they were firing at). I'm not saying that John is guilty of this in any way, but I do see locals who are ignorant of the limitations of their use of the land as a basis for their current activities and, as a result, their opposition to shifting management to the NPS.
If this were a pristine, unpopulated area, I don't believe we would be having this discussion.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2016 - 11:03pm PT
|
The Monument proposal bypasses the wilderness and wild and scenic river designation process. Much of the area proposed as a monument is already wilderness. The areas with logging, dispersed camping, etc. are largely not designated wilderness, since we have no motorized access to designated wilderness.
The monument status allows those who don't want to share to exclude miners and loggers, and also their disfavored recreational users such as hunters, off-roaders, mountain bikers, snowmobilers (all activities in which I do not engage)and car campers (an activity I prize highly). It serves no other purpose since, as Ed points out, the federal government already administers all the land in question.
I would add, however, that wilderness should mean more than pretending that the land bears no impact from human activity. It should also promote spontaneity and adventure (meaning at least some uncertainty), rather than regimented itineraries more suited for a guided tour.
The exclusionary nature of, and motivation for, monument status causes me to employ the "us" vs. "them" model. When I say the land belongs to all of us, I don't mean that the land constitutes a "common." I mean that no particular group should have an a priori right to use it to the exclusion of all others. The specific land uses require compromise and consensus. The monument designation constitutes an end run around that compromise and consensus required for equitable use of public lands. I oppose it for that reason.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2016 - 11:18pm PT
|
bump
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2016 - 06:50am PT
|
As soon as it becomes a monument it will be like the valley. Only concessionaires who kiss government ass will be allowed to do business. Locals will be excluded. Marriot food service will take over. People from far away will copyright the names of places in it. They will start putting up Starbucks and big parking lots. They will have shuttle busses and miniature golfcourses. Forrest management will turn into parking tickets and speedtraps. Fishing will require an additional special daily lisence. Hunting will be prohibited. Gold panning forbidden. Prop 215 doesnt count in National Monuments so dont spark up. We will have Federal Magistrates adjudicating our "crimes." Hiking off trail will be banned. Tourists will come in droves with cameras and wearing Mickey Mouse ears. OHV access will be closed. The Rubicon will be closed to all vehicles. Mountain bikes will be prohibited on trails. USFS cabins will lose their leases so that concessionaires and government VIPs can help themselves. This is another crooked idea coming from a government that wants to regulate us for our protection. They see dollar signs and then here come the regulations, restrictions, fees, fines, assessments, backroom corporate deals like what is happening with the Awahnee. Fulk big government. They dont want to protect anything. They want CONTROL. Roll rocks down on these turds. The only way to keep them out is if it isnt worth any money to them. The only difference between government and pigs is ties and lipstick. Actually pigs smell better and do less damage. They will tear down the Strawberry Lodge and Kirkwood Inn for non ADA compliance (Scott Johnsons already trying). Californias Sierra is one of the last places left they havent put a chokehold on. I love camping up 42 mile tract in my car. That will be over. I love chillin on Saddleback. Now there will be a parking fee with ranger. It will be just like Castlerock with men like Miles Standish and Jason Rule out bullying everyone. As it stands, f*#ksticks like them are afraid to even enter the sierra forrests and I prefer to keep it that way. Big government spells big trouble for anyone who prefers to have freedom. Keep Obama out of our forrests. Theres no Starbucks here. Rednecks Unite!
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2016 - 08:18am PT
|
We have the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in SoCal. I was opposed to it. The powers that be professed that there would be an influx of money for maintenance projects.
So far, the only thing I have seen are a few new signs.
|
|
Deanna Wulff
Sport climber
Mariposa, CA
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 01:41pm PT
|
Hi -
I am the director of the project formerly known as the Sierra National Monument Project. I've recently reviewed these posts from a couple of years back.
At the time that many of these posts occurred, there was a big misinformation campaign, and it took a lot of time to inform folks who were/are interested in learning about the threats to the Sierra National Forest. I just didn’t get to this one, and a friend recently brought it to my attention.
Someone made a comment "this is my line of work" and expressed how the project ought to be run.
In that regard, you should understand that there is quite a lot of background work required to do this. You have to do the technical and scientific research, analyze the budget, develop policy, build the grassroots campaign across a vast area, form political relationships across the state and nation, start a nonprofit organization, form a coalition, build the web site, build a map... and then, there is showing up at meetings, giving speeches, and so on. And we haven't even gotten to managing the internet. And there is so much more...and all of that done at an economic loss. (Perhaps, I should fundraise more – yes, I agree – but even that requires significant time.)
And that is why I also must work, even though, all that I mentioned above is an incredible amount of work. I'm just telling it like it is. I love the Sierra Nevada, and I'll do what I can to save it. Its beauty inspires me to keep going, and I am so grateful to the friends I’ve made along the way.
If you are interested in learning more about the area and my work to save it, please contact me at director@unitetheparks.org. I’d be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you,
Deanna
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 02:16pm PT
|
I remain confused as to what needs to be "saved". All of the things advocated for, already exist. But it seems like a re-designation will result only in restrictions in access/activities.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 02:36pm PT
|
Having barely dodged the Aspen Fire, the French Fire and 2 smaller burns in my area, what the Sierra needs to be saved from are emotional pundits bent on saving every sapling that sprouts.
The decades of overgrowth and fire suppresion have direct correlation to the frequency and intensity of burns.
Add to this that the dense and overgrown canopies have allowed the Western Bark Beetle population to explode to the tune of 200 million dead pines.
So what exactly do you intend to save now?
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 02:59pm PT
|
This photo shows only 3 of 7 piles of dead trees prepped for burning this winter. Over 2000 20 foot pines from less than 7 acres.
Another 5000 are down and awaiting their turn once we clear this burn zone. That leaves another 2000 or so we will be cutting over the winter.
Whatever your opinion of logging...the death of so many trees requires that logging be done anyway.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2017 - 04:33pm PT
|
That seemed to be the only actual action that would be taken by this action: prohibition of logging for any reason.
I'm a volunteer on that forest, and I think we need MORE logging, and less would be a near disaster.
Why do you cover those burn piles, if they are only going to be burned? I'm not familiar with that technique.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!