Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 06:37am PT
|
I don't really get what you're saying. Keeping those types of projects out of special areas is the main reason to establish a monument or a wilderness as opposed to minimally protected BLM or USFS land.
I'm glad you support multiple user groups. Entitlement is a problem on public land, often people seem to think they are the special user who uses it best.
I understand wanting simple rules, but most of the more complicated rules are a result of case law. Every law works that way, it gets more complicated as the courts interpret it to attempt to eliminate subjectivity. This includes the Constitution.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 06:58am PT
|
Crunch is right about southern UT...it's getting loved to death. And the same goes for Cali. In Moab last year on busy weekends, the line of cars to get in to Arches stretched all the way back into town.
And leaving stuff with the BLM designation sometimes isn't enough. I enjoy recreating on the BLM land as much as the next guy. But I'm pretty low impact. Cattle and ATVs are not. And a not insignificant population wants to take those BLM lands for themselves.
Like Bluering...maybe there's a need for a designation between BLM and Monument?
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 07:50am PT
|
The reason it is called a monument is because it was incorporated from preexisting public lands via the Antiquities Act which designates monuments. The president can do this without congressional support.
Historically, Monuments and parks were both run by the NPS. They were managed similarly, using the same laws. The only difference was that Monuments only took executive action and parks took an act of congress. It became fairly common place for the president to make a monument without congressional support, only to have congress decide to make it a park years later (Like Joshua Tree).
It should be noted, that the glory days of Joshua Tree free camping and new routing took place while it was a monument and still run by the NPS. The Monument designation itself doesn't rule out free dispersed camping or most other similar activities. Those things usually only get disallowed once visitation gets high enough that they aren't practical (if ever).
I don't know much about new monuments administered by the BLM or USFS. It seems like there are very few rules in regard to recreation on those lands. Maybe they are the middle ground you are talking about.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 08:39am PT
|
Cattle and ATVs are not
I see cattle and ATVs as two completely different impact scenarios. ATVs that are limited to established roads have little to no impact (over and above regular vehicle traffic that is). Where as cattle by their very nature impact the lands. That's not to say the impact is also negative, so let's not just assume all cows are bad. But having some public lands restricted to mechanized travel on existing roads only while others can sustain a free-for-all is a perfect blend.
Why close roads in the name of wilderness? Its stupid and nothing more than a way for certain people to fulfill their agenda - namely the environmental terrorists. (Figured I'd throw that in there since apparently terrorism is the new term for activist)
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:16am PT
|
Many people disagree with you that closing roads is silly. Most backpackers and day hikers try to get as far away from roads as possible since solitude is often one of the primary goals. If a road or two is the only thing keeping an area from being wild, closing those roads seems pretty reasonable as long as road-dependent users still have places to go. It seems like the government should strive for the best balance between these uses (usually they seem to do a pretty good job, considering the difficulty of compromise).
Anyway, most new Wilderness designations result in minimal road closures. If a Wilderness requires closing lots of roads, it probably is pretty low on wilderness character.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:18am PT
|
steep:
Like Bluering...maybe there's a need for a designation between BLM and Monument?
They are trying to become more flexible. One example is the National Conservation Area concept. Run by BLM, designed to allow appropriate and flexible zoning within each NCA, with rules decided (in theory) by consensus of (or at least input from) stakeholders. Generally, motorized vehicle use is restricted and no land is allowed to be leased for mining.
Red Rocks National Recreation Area (near Las Vegas) is one.
There's also National Recreation Area araes. A big expanse around Lake Powell is one, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Unfortunately, while Lake Powell itself is a free for all, there are strict and poorly thought-out regulations about climbing and anchors.
In theory both designations feature flexibe and pragmatic management. In practice deliberate under-funding of the BLM coupled with recent anti-BLM rhetoric is undermining the ability of the BLM to adapt and change.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:30am PT
|
That [elimination of accommodations and services for the general public] may be in Idaho, but my impression is that is NOT the case in Ca.
Really? Have you been to Yosemite in, say, the last 25 years?
I still await the restoration of the campgrounds we lost after the 1996 flood. Even in the antideluvian Ditch, the NPS reduced the number of campsites in each campground except Camp 4 over the years. Outside the Valley, the campgounds at Porcupine Creek, Glacier Point, Hardin Lake, Smokey Jack and Tenaya Lake were closed and never replaced.
Service stations at Chinquapin and now Tuolumne Meadows, as well as three in the Valley, were eliminated and not replaced.
In my opinion, these changes caused greater crowding and traffic congestion because of the increase in day use, and the need to drive farther to obtain basic services. I think Excopeta's characterization is spot on.
John
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:42am PT
|
Why close roads in the name of wilderness?
Some "roads" claimed under RS2477 (Mining Act of 1866) were driven, like, once, in mid-1950s by some uranium prospector. Or are merely streambeds or even game trails. The counties will sue the BLM to open these.
The existence of roads undermine wilderness designation, wilderness designation takes land out of consideration for mining or drilling.
This works both ways and environmental groups will try to claim areas as worthy of wilderness protection, when there's defunct, old mining or ranching roads to nowhere. And they will sue the BLM to stop any motorized traffic on such non-roads.
The ensuing lawsuits are expensive and stupid. Round and round and round, going nowhere.
But hey this is the State Game of Utah!
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 10:43am PT
|
Many people disagree with you that closing roads is silly. Most backpackers and day hikers try to get as far away from roads as possible since solitude is often one of the primary goals. If a road or two is the only thing keeping an area from being wild, closing those roads seems pretty reasonable
Anyway, most new Wilderness designations result in minimal road closures. If a Wilderness requires closing lots of roads, it probably is pretty low on wilderness character.
I would disagree with the notion that roads and wild places can't co-exist. But at the same time would agree with the sentiment that if you have to close a bnch of roads in the making of a wilderness area, then it would call into question the purpose and rationale for wilderness in the first place.
Again, its not that I don't agree that managing our public lands is a difficult balancing act. I simply wish that our land managers wouldn't simply strive for the lowest point (i.e. no access) and work backwards from there.
There are numerous people on this forum, whom I've climbed with at one point or another, know instinctively that the modus operandi of many Fed managers in CA is to close off access to something and wait for anyone to complain. Put up a locked gate, post it, and then see if anyone catches them and then they will feign ignorance or "it was a mistake after we closed the road following a fire and forgot to open it".
Sometimes as the previous poster indicated, its much more of an atrophy of access as opposed to a specific action to limit access. Either way, users lose access.
That, combined with the abhorrent budget and spending policies lend themselves to my opinion - that Americans deserve better and if the Feds can't manage it, then turn it over to the States.
|
|
Smoking Joe
Trad climber
Pasadena
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 01:32pm PT
|
Ever try to see Santa Cruz Island? All of it? You can't since private citizens created the Nature Conservancy and bought it. I have seen them have parties, weddings and drive trucks all over the place from my kayak that they won't allow to land.
Feds just screw it up, they needed Obama to act UNILATERALLY because people didnt want it to be taken, the idea is our Gov is supposed to compromise, he didnt
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 05:26pm PT
|
All other things held equal, a road will make a place less wild, and less remote. I don't think there is any room to argue that.
I like wild places with roads, like some of the desert ranges of california and nevada, where you can go setup a fat hunting camp and shoot chukar and mule deer. I don't think a place with a road can't be wild.
That being said, I think the few areas that aren't covered with roads should be preserved in that state, and that those places usually will be more wild than a place with a road ever could be.
Some Wilderness gets hammered with hikers and horses, like parts of Yosemite, or the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Those places are the exception and they would be much worse with a road.
John, I agree with you that changes in Yosemite have made recreation worse. However, the NPS mission is two-fold with preservation being just as important. You might choose to run the park differently, but people who have more experience with the issues involved came to a different compromise. in weighing recreation vs resource protection in Yosemite, I think you'd have a hard time claiming that they worry too much about protection. I have a lot of experience with Gas station environmental remediation by the way (working for industry, not government), and I firmly believe their existence should be minimized or eliminated if at all possible inside national parks, they are all environmental time bombs.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 06:01pm PT
|
A single regulation: No new roads
That would unilaterally leave the wild places wild and at the same time maintain access to the places that people have grown accustomed to traveling and accessing.
But you have to understand that in order for the government to "validate" the money that we entrust to them (our money as it were) they have to find new and exciting ways to drum up controversy and conflict. That's what keeps the coffers full and keeps people's attention away from the fact that they are wasting time, money and resources.
The same reason the NRA never wants the fight to end. Because that's when the funds will dry up.
Its sad, but its absolutely true.
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 06:26pm PT
|
Talking about the issues is entertaining and I think productive. However, when you invoke ideas like that, which border on conspiracy theories, that can't be discussed based on facts, the conversation devolves.
|
|
David Knopp
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 07:47pm PT
|
wow Franky could you run the park service and the forest service? please?
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 08:06pm PT
|
Ha, that would be a thankless job!
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 08:06pm PT
|
You're kidding right? There's no conspiracy theory here, its human nature. When your job is to solve problems, and you work for the government, do you really think they are out there looking to work themselves out of a job? Or better yet, do more with less? Heck I work at a company focused on trying to earn a profit and there are people in the company that aren't focused on it.
Until people are willing to look at the hard facts that public lands are run by a bunch of bureaucrats who are more focused on their level of power and how much of the funding they can absorb, then this talk is nothing more than patty-cakes.
If you are approaching this from the perspective that our federal land managers are the benevolent public servants, then you have been hoodwinked.
Sure there are some good people working hard, but there's probably more private individuals that are more heavily vested in our public lands than the actual government employees charged with managing it.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 08:18pm PT
|
but people who have more experience with the issues involved came to a different compromise
Franky, I think we don't see things that differently, but I rather doubt that the planners had any more experience with Yosemite Valley than the public that participated and provided its comments. I also find the idea of "compromise" rather far-fetched. The concessionaire retained all of its lodgings and profit centers, other than service stations. Campers lost more than half their sites, and day users driving private vehicles lost considerable services.
As a matter of background, the original public input during the 1970's followed a process skewed toward the preservationists. Ordinary visitors who were not members of special interest groups (e.g. the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society) had little notice of the process, and rather scant ability to express opinions.
Surprisingly, to me, the public preferences were at least as much to leave Yosemite the way it was. The Park planners arbitrarily chose the alternative - to remove substantial "development" from the Valley - in 1980, while acknowledging that there was no consensus for that option.
The motivation for the creation of large, new, national monuments has nothing of compromise in it. Rather, it is the politically powerful exercising their muscle to eliminate competing users from "their" public lands. From what I understand, these monuments came about with the consent of the landowners, but it would surprise me greatly if the heavy-handed monument designations contribute anything positive to any true wilderness experience, or represent any real intelligent use of limited resources.
John
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 08:25pm PT
|
I would take the perspective that the employees are hired to perform a task and they attempt to do that task well (with occasional bad apples). I take that point of view because it has been that way in every single job I've ever worked.
Most of them probably have tasks that are straightforward and hard to argue with, like cleaning toilets, plowing snow, enforcing laws, fighting fire, educating visitors, and supervising people doing that work.
I don't see how any of them could further their careers by drumming up pointless work. I don't doubt that you might find some of their work pointless. However, you are not entitled to decide that unilaterally. There is a good chance that any significant spending by these agencies was vetted by many people, not all of them friendly towards spending.
I don't really know the inner workings, but I choose to take a neutral to maybe slightly positive point of view without evidence to the contrary.
|
|
franky
Trad climber
Black Hills, SD
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2016 - 09:04pm PT
|
John,
Your point that the visitors have more experience with the valley than the planners isn't quite fair. I'll agree that they know more about the visitor experience, but that does not mean more experience with the park as a whole. Much of what goes into their experience is hidden from them, and much of managing the park doesn't involve them directly.
It seems wrong that in the effort to better protect the valley, NPS campgrounds got the shaft while concessionaires were barely effected. I wouldn't throw out the whole system because of it. Also, I admit that what the concessionaire provides might be more important to the average visitor than an NPS campground, as depressing as that is.
I don't think there is an easy answer. Going with public consensus based on commenting is not right, or even fair. Public commenting is input from those citizens who are most concerned. The voices of the rest of the country, who certainly have a stake in the matter, are left out.
I think designations like these new monuments are unpopular with certain land users, like yourself, because they skew the balance of use vs preservation more towards preservation. It seems like you either don't think preservation is necessary, or don't trust the government to do it. I would argue against either of those opinions. I think your statement about the politically powerful exercising muscle and ignoring compromise is somewhat exaggerated, while admitting that sometimes locals don't get their way.
Thanks for the post!
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2016 - 05:38am PT
|
Franky,
I'm not talking about the people that clean the toilets or the road maintenance crews.
I'm talking about the bureaucrats that are charged with managing our public lands. Most of which are appointed, political positions.
These are the same people that oversee the strategy of land management, they run the various public review processes that JE mentions above (a practice that is still shady to this day) and they are politically motivated.
EDIT: That's not conspiracy theory, its reality.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!