# Does CO need more wilderness?



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

It's a basic question. One that may or may not fit in the boaters forum. (mod's - move if necessary) A topic that you feel passionately for or against. 

There is a proposal being circulated in Colorado's central mountain areas that would increase the size of existing wilderness areas. This expansion would put many area's that WE use to recreate into a designated wilderness area. No more snowmobiling, no more mountain biking and no more atv, moto or 4wd. I know many on this forum are against these uses anyway, but if one area is taken away, more area's will follow. 

This is being proposed by a private group and will be sponsored by a jr. congressman from the 2nd CO district, Jared Polis. Please contact Congressman Polis to express your opinion on this matter. Contact Link

This is not being done in a typical manner and the group working on the proposal has figured out how to make an end run push for wilderness. If *WE* do not act now, the proposal will be a done deal by the end of this year. Please take the time to show your opinion on this matter by talking to every politician you can think of. This includes your City Council, County Governing board, Senators and Congressman. *DO IT NOW* or you may not be able to use YOUR public lands in the way you would most like to.
For more info,
For the area: Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign

Against the area: White River Forest Alliance
*
*


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Dear God Man, are you serious? 

Wilderness makes up less than 1% of the total public land in the entire U.S. and you're up in arms because someone wants to make some small portion of Colorado motorless?

You are a real gem man. Take your damn quads and snow runners and ATVs and drive them up your...


----------



## ridecats (Aug 8, 2009)

Let me re-phrase it this way... Does Colorado need more development?


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

Thanks for this info. I kayak, hike and camp, ride mountain bikes and dirt bikes. I help two different trail clubs clear Gunny and Pikes Peak NF trails with chain saws every year. IMO we have enough wilderness areas. I'm all for areas where there can be no mechanized access and we do have plenty of those - including plenty of places where I love to climb and camp and am glad I know I can go there for a pristine wilderness experience. I'm also for other areas where responsible users can ride a mountain or dirt bike as long as they are good trail custodians, hopefully doing their share to maintain those trails and observe all closed areas.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

There are different types of Wilderness. Not all prohibit mechanized vehicles, just motorized.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

hotch kiss regardless how much wilderness is in the us.. colorado does have some but could use more. but may not need it because its colorado and pretty much all ready ruined. id say leave it be. let them ride.


----------



## Meng (Oct 25, 2003)

Want to understand more about this and the negotiated wilderness rule? Good article in yesterday's CB News: The Crested Butte News - Roadless rule debate ends up back on the teeter totter

This proposal gives much more than it takes away.

Roadless rule debate ends up back on the teeter totter   Written by Evan Dawson Wednesday, 26 August 2009 *“These lands belong to all Americans”*

Former President Bill Clinton created the National Roadless Rule in early 2001 as one of his last acts in office. Nine years and three presidential administrations later, people still question whether the rule is valid. 



The Obama Administration has now entered the discussion, and many environmentalists hope that with the president’s support the rule can be implemented once and for all. 
With several roadless areas surrounding Crested Butte (see map), the rule could have an impact on businesses operating in the local forests—in particular, the Mt. Emmons Project, Gunnison Energy, and Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s expansion onto Snodgrass. 
The history of the rule is anything but straightforward. For the full timeline check Roadless Area Conservation Policy Chronology | The Wilderness Society.
The 2001 roadless rule prohibits road building and timber harvesting on inventoried roadless areas of the nation’s national forests. It was suspended under the Bush Administration in 2005.
In September 2006, U.S. district court judge Elizabeth Laporte ordered the government to rescind the Bush decision, and the rule was put back into place. But in April 2007 the Forest Service and several timber industry representatives appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals—and lost. 
On August 5 this year, after two years of courtroom discussions, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion in support of the original roadless rule, with a few exceptions.
That’s because an August 2008 decision by a judge in Wyoming prohibited the use of the roadless rule in three states—Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. A coalition of environmental groups started an appeal of that decision in the 10th Circuit and the discussions are ongoing. The Obama Administration is also looking to join the battle. 
On August 13 the Department of Justice filed a notice in the 10th Circuit preserving the Obama Administration’s right to appeal the Wyoming decision. The Administration has not officially joined the appeal, but on August 15 U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack issued a moratorium on all development in roadless areas. President Obama also campaigned in support of the roadless rule. 
“What we’re now seeing is the Obama Administration getting involved and advocating on behalf of the roadless rule,” says High Country Citizens’ Alliance conservation analyst Lawton Grinter. 
Meanwhile, in 2006 Colorado began developing its own roadless rule as an “insurance policy” in case the 2001 rule was repealed again. The process of developing the state rule has been ongoing, and a new draft was issued on August 3. 
But if the 10th Circuit judge decides that the decision to enjoin the rule from three states was incorrect and the 2001 rule becomes law of the land, Grinter says he thinks the state’s version will be voided. Idaho is the only state that successfully passed its own roadless rule into law. Colorado is the only other state that started one. 
“Colorado started the process of developing a state roadless rule but they didn’t get it finished by the time Obama took office… There’s this weird limbo in Colorado that doesn’t exist in any other state,” Grinter says. 
Furthermore, Grinter says the state’s rule, as drafted, provides protection for fewer acres of forests and grasslands, and allows for mining, power utility, and ski area development in roadless areas. 
“Ultimately a national roadless rule is critical because these lands belong to all Americans. They deserve a national rule that preserves them for future generations of all Americans,” Grinter says. 
“If we get a favorable ruling in the 10th circuit it pretty much seals the deal.” Grinter says. He thinks that decision will come within the next six months. 

*The local effect*

If the 10th Circuit issues a favorable decision in the appeal and the roadless rule becomes final, it could affect several Gunnison County businesses. There are more than a half-dozen inventoried roadless areas within 25 miles of Crested Butte.
Mount Emmons Project community liaison Perry Anderson says the mine proponents won’t know just how the roadless rule could affect the operation until an upcoming feasibility study is complete. “Until we get some ideas out in the feasibility study we don’t know how it will affect us,” Anderson says of the rule. 
Anderson says the study has been pushed back, but the Mt. Emmons project mangers still believe it could be complete by the end of the year. 
Gunnison Energy Corporation has several natural gas operations on National Forest lands to the west of Crested Butte. Gunnison Energy president Brad Robinson says, “The 2001 rule will restrict or cause modification to certain of our operations. However, these impacts are not nearly as significant as the impact of the permitting and regulatory delays caused by not having a final rule and the continued litigation brought by environmental groups.”
The company is currently building a natural gas transmission pipeline, the Bull Mountain Pipeline, which crosses or runs adjacent to three roadless areas. Robinson says the pipeline will not be affected by any future decision regarding the roadless rule. The pipeline is nearing completion. 
Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s development of the Snodgrass terrain expansion also glances through the Gothic roadless area. 
CBMR vice president of real estate and development Michael Kraatz says even if the 2001 rule is fully reinstated, “The 2001 roadless rule does not prevent timber removal and road building inside special use permits issued before enactment of the rule in 2001. The Forest Service added Snodgrass to CBMR’s special use permit in 1982, long before the enactment of the 2001 roadless rule.” 
U.S. Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison district external affairs officer Corey Wong agrees. He says unless a future ruling alters the 2001 roadless rule the Snodgrass project would essential be “grandfathered” in. 
“The 2001 roadless rule is not an issue with Snodgrass, and no matter what happens with it, it is not likely to affect Snodgrass,” Kraatz says.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

I don't know Casper, that sounds pretty defeatist. I say, to heck with their destructive toys, make 'em ride a horse if they're too lazy to hike. Can't ride a horse? Get a donkey... or a mule or a llama, heck, they can ride those 300 lb wives they left back at the campsite in their "Wilderness" 5th wheels.

Casper, I think you'd be amazed at how quickly an area can recover for the destruction those vehicles create. In 50 years, you'd never be able to tell they'd been there. I don't think it's too late for Colorado.


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

Hotchkiss,

I could care less about Florida, or Oklahoma, etc.

There are 41 wilderness areas or Natl Parks in Colorado, totalling 3,839,935 acres out of a state total of 66,383,000. That's 5.8% of ALL Colorado including the flat east 1/2. More pertinently, wilderness areas cover about 25% of all Colo nat'l forests and over 60% of areas above timberline.

I've ridden a mule, and I've camped with llamas. I've hiked all of the Appalacian Trail and much of the Cont Divide Tr and Colorado Tr. But I also ride dirt bikes and pay my taxes. The same ones which help pay for the road maintenance to get your car to your kayaking spots. There should be plenty of Colorado for all of us to enjoy.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

Thanks for the heads up and links! I particularly appreciated how the White River Forest Alliance (against) warns that this will keep you from 



> doing some _knarley_ mountain climbing


 LOL

I just sent e-mails to my state and national representatives in support of the wilderness expansion, so thanks again! :mrgreen:


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Does CO need more wilderness? Of course, but the designated areas would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis (which is what they are doing now). To flat out oppose any new designated wilderness so you can have even more areas to build roads, drive your ATV or snowmobile is assinine. There must be thousands of miles of trails where you can already do this...more than you could travel in a lifetime. 

Most of Colorados once vast defacto wilderness will be gone in 20 or 30 yrs so lets preserve what we can now.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

FrankC said:


> Does CO need more wilderness? Of course, but the designated areas would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis


The Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign site provided earlier details every parcel of land in the proposal with maps, descriptions, "what's special" about it and potential threats. Really an excellent resource...


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

Brendo,Thanks for posting. IMO, way too much wilderness designation in this state already. I encourage anyone who disagrees with this, if you haven't done so already, to at least dig out an atlas and start looking around the Central Mtns. region at the existing wilderness boundaries. I'll admit it's "sectional-ized", but other than a few corridors here and there, there are large sections set aside in most regions. To me, there was significantly more out there than you first might think. Especially at the 12,000 and above elevations.My beef is that the designation is way too restrictive. I feel the shift in status has the greatest restrictive impact to recreational users because the land in subject's existing status already prohibited commercial development. Think about all the places we like to go visit. Usually you drive a distance, then travel on foot from there. If something changed and now you can't drive as far, is the distance that you would have to travel on foot now so great that a weekend overnighter isn't possible anymore? The change in designation means a lot of places are off the list for me unless I take my already spare vacation time to extend the weekend.Also, the mtn. biking thing, I will never understand the argument that ball-bearings mean mechanization. Ditto with hang/paragliding. What if the Monarch Crest ride was proclaimed wilderness? It's a 30 mile trail that's perfect for mtn biking. That would be a tragic loss of a wonderful, low-impact way to enjoy the outdoors.I realize this next statement is crossing up bureaucratic definitions, but also think about how we can't boat inside Yellowstone? Why not, what would it hurt? What is protected by that statuate? I strongly suspect this is a ruling established just because the NPS doesn't want to have to regulate this user group, so they just say it's off limits instead. Ditto back east with the Chattooga Headwaters area.[Will a mtn buzz admin tell me why my post won't show line spacing?]


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

*Yes.* Roadless areas protect water quality, preserve wildlife migration corridors and wildlife habitat. And... healthy, intact forests are better able to absorb carbon dioxide.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Thank you Frank. I'm in awe. It's a sad day when the boating industry becomes pro-motorized because they want to rip past my family and I on their loud, destructive carb-mon-toys.

It's hilarious to me that taxes came up. Do you know what it costs to maintain wilderness areas? VIRTUALLY NOTHING! They're self-sustained! The whole idea is to LEAVE NO TRACE. 

Standard Forest Service and B.L.M. land take TONS of money to continually maintain. 

One last question: why do you want to prevent beautiful wilderness-esk areas from being designated wilderness? Already destroyed all the beauty in the places you ride now? Tired of being around other people with obnoxious toys? Want to get out by yourself far, far away from them?! See the slippery slope your stand... riding on?


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

i will never understand this concept that you need to be able to drive into every square foot of land in this country. 



Schizzle said:


> Brendo,Thanks for posting. IMO, way too much wilderness designation in this state already. I encourage anyone who disagrees with this, if you haven't done so already, to at least dig out an atlas and start looking around the Central Mtns. region at the existing wilderness boundaries. I'll admit it's "sectional-ized", but other than a few corridors here and there, there are large sections set aside in most regions. To me, there was significantly more out there than you first might think. Especially at the 12,000 and above elevations.My beef is that the designation is way too restrictive. I feel the shift in status has the greatest restrictive impact to recreational users because the land in subject's existing status already prohibited commercial development. Think about all the places we like to go visit. Usually you drive a distance, then travel on foot from there. If something changed and now you can't drive as far, is the distance that you would have to travel on foot now so great that a weekend overnighter isn't possible anymore? The change in designation means a lot of places are off the list for me unless I take my already spare vacation time to extend the weekend.Also, the mtn. biking thing, I will never understand the argument that ball-bearings mean mechanization. Ditto with hang/paragliding. What if the Monarch Crest ride was proclaimed wilderness? It's a 30 mile trail that's perfect for mtn biking. That would be a tragic loss of a wonderful, low-impact way to enjoy the outdoors.I realize this next statement is crossing up bureaucratic definitions, but also think about how we can't boat inside Yellowstone? Why not, what would it hurt? What is protected by that statuate? I strongly suspect this is a ruling established just because the NPS doesn't want to have to regulate this user group, so they just say it's off limits instead. Ditto back east with the Chattooga Headwaters area.[Will a mtn buzz admin tell me why my post won't show line spacing?]


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

Wilderness designation also blocks development of dams in these areas.

Holy Cross Wilderness has blocked huge amounts of water diversion from the west slope to the front range (Aurora & Co. Spgs.; Homestake II project). This has been disputed since 1980ish, but has blocked this project to date...

"I believe that the Wilderness System serves a basic need of all Americans, even those who may never visit a wilderness area--the preservation of a vital element in our heritage."....Gerald Ford


----------



## chixon (Dec 21, 2004)

Check your facts before you start in on this one...



hotchkiss said:


> There are different types of Wilderness. Not all prohibit mechanized vehicles, just motorized.


*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; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

I don't know where you get the idea that their are "different types" of wilderness, but according to the government and land use agencies its pretty cut and dry. Wilderness = nothing mechanized, that includes MT. Bikes. Colorado is approximately 5% wilderness currently with most of that land being National Forest. Currently their are many different proposals to bring the statewide percentage up to 7% wilderness. Most of that land would be land that is currently BLM (I think the number jumps from 3% to 18% of BLM land becoming wildnerness.) This info is from the Colorado Citizens Proposed Wilderness site or www.canyoncountrywilderness.org if you want to check for yourself.

IMO if these areas, which many are, fit the bill of "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation" which to me means areas that have no roads, mine tailings, trails, powerlines or other signs of modern man then sure, they should be wilderness and be protected for future generations to experience. What I find ironic is that many other areas that are proposed as wilderness areas have had historic mechanized access within the past 10 or even 5 years. So if it is supposed to have no signs of man, then why would we want a wilderness are with a powerline, old mine, railroad grade or 4wd road through it? 

I understand with time that nature can reclaim many of the scars left by modern man, but overall I am definetly against the closing or limiting use on OUR public lands. We as users need to "expect and respect other users" not get on a pedastal and preach my use is the greatest...no one else deserves to be here unless they can Mt. Bike it, Walk it, Kayak it, Raft it or do whatever your particular use is...take your use and stick it....where Hotchkiss? 

What is scary to me is where will it end? This is just proposed wilderness, not trails or roads that are proposed being closed to Mt. Biking, Dirtbiking, 4WD, and ATV's users. It sounds like a small number, but I fear that it just opens the door for more and more closures and limited use. Honestly I could go on and on on this one...but I won't.

-Chad


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

I have inherited a 1958 D4 bulldozer (seriously). I live in town and was hoping for some public land to mess around on this thing. Every time I approach a motorized access group, they want nothing to do with me. I find it frustrating that they get to decide where the line is drawn. I guess I just find it a bit hypocritical.


----------



## emptypockets (Apr 11, 2009)

caseybailey said:


> I have inherited a 1958 D4 bulldozer (seriously). I live in town and was hoping for some public land to mess around on this thing. Every time I approach a motorized access group, they want nothing to do with me. I find it frustrating that they get to decide where the line is drawn. I guess I just find it a bit hypocritical.


A D4 might be fun for a joyride around Granby.


----------



## mlmercer (Aug 1, 2008)

more wilderness...more human power excursions...just my preference


----------



## Redpaddle (Jan 10, 2007)

I believe Edward Abbey had some things to say on the matter:

"We need wilderness whether or not we ever set foot in it. We need a refuge even though we may not ever need to go there."

“Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread"

"My job is to save the fucking wilderness. I don't know anything else worth saving."

"The idea of wilderness needs no defense. It only needs more defenders."

"I come more and more to the conclusion that wilderness, in America or anywhere else, is the only thing left that is worth saving."


Once you start saying land is there to be enjoyed by all, by however you wish to see it, you end up with asphalt jungles of National Parks. 

I just moved to OR from CO and miss, more than anything, the abundance of wilderness in Colorado that Oregon is missing. Logging roads and ATV trails have tunneled into a tremendous amount of pristine mountain areas here in the PNW. Sure, there is easy boating and biking access but at what cost?


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

I posted this in the hopes that people would take action. I, personally, am against the proposal, as it takes away ares that I have been snomachining in for years. 

I posted links for for and against just so that YOU would do SOMETHING.

To all you that are for wilderness. Do you get into these area's often? , or is this a knee jerk reaction because you think wilderness is a good idea. I think that WILDERNESS is a great "idea", but not so good for the general population that exists along it's boundaries. As we limit the mechanized recreational area's, other area's get more populated and polluted. We need are's to recreate in. If they designate some of these area's, people will continue to utilize them in bandit fashion. I support more area's being designated as road less, thus curtailing development by the oil and gas industry and stopping urban sprawl. BUT designating such area's as wilderness makes the area's elite and abstract.

Just because this area is not in YOUR backyard, does not mean that groups such as wilderness workshop will not come in and try to take away your recreational areas in the near future.

Wilderness use: Link

edit: By the way, and we have had this discusiion before, I put out less hydrocarbon on my snomachine that you do driving 30 miles (60 round trip) to the ski resort and using a chairlift all day. So you better have a better beef than protecting air quality. I/me/we are not against the protection of watersheds.


Mtn Bikers will be the most influenced by this decision by the way. many of these are's are not viable places for snomachines and moto's.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Chad,
You're right, I made several mistakes. I did say that there are different types of wilderness, there aren't, there are just exceptions to the rules. Alaska is most famous for these exceptions. I was also wrong about wilderness constituting only 1 percent of the U.S., it's actually 2.5% if you include Alaska. 
However, these rules change constantly, especially from generation to generation. I have been a part of several reclamation projects in wilderness areas. These projects were designed to restore areas of wilderness to their original state. Projects I have been a part of have including two damn removals, the removal of head-gates, a number of cabins...
I think that the N.F.S. is taking steps in the right direction. I understand that you and yours can't appreciate a wilderness setting and you think that if you can't take your loud, destructive toys with you wherever you want to go, ruining everyone else's experience while your there, then life in the outdoors just isn't fun.
I just disagree and you know exactly where you can shove those motorized vehicles of yours.


----------



## boatmusher (Jun 18, 2008)

Redpaddle,

I couldn't agree w/ you and Ed Abbey more! Well put.

He also said, "God bless America. Let's save some of it."

Abbey also had a strong opinion on the value of leaving it all at home and going for a walk. "Little boys love machines; girls adore horses; grown up men and women like to walk." Relevant still in this era of SUVs, ORVs, 4 wheelers, Dirt Bikes and whatever else can tear around spewing noise and fumes and completely destroying the wilderness for both animals and other humans.

The fact that other places are getting crowded doesn't mean we need to open up the few existing places that are still pristine. In fact, we need to act to preserve more of the land. The population is only getting bigger and more aggressive in how use our existing land dedicated to muti-use. May as well save some for our grandkids to enjoy.

It is a bit arrogant and simply foolish to think that our generation has the right to destroy what we have and not allow other future generations to have the same enjoyment of their natural world as we have. Who are we to make that decision?


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

hotchkiss if they designate the entire state of colorado as wilderness you'd only have say 3 percent. whats the percent of wilderness in the state.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

5% of Colorado is wilderness. That means in 95% of Colorado someone has the legal right to ruin your outdoor experience with noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution, soil erosion... all in the name of, "their right to recreate as they please." In 95% of Colorado, it doesn't matter if my recreational experience would be more pleasant without their toys. So don't act as if 6% of Colorado being designated wilderness is going to ruin their recreation experience and, "infringe on their right to have fun however they want." 

It's funny though. All you guys think that the sole purpose of wilderness is to recreate. Recreation is the least valuable part of wilderness. It's amazing how ignorant you people truly are. It's all about what's in it for you right?


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Double Post -


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Hotchkiss,

I can see you are passionate about your position. Now piss off and let some other people join in the discussion with out you jumping on their backs. 

As for getting so personal...


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

you're right, I've been too personal.

one the other hand, think of the irony: you think I should give people space on the internet, but you don't think they have a right to space in the wilderness. Ride on Red Rover!


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

More wilderness for all the reasons mentioned. Our natural resources need to be protected and from all I've seen motorized users are poor stewards of the land they already have access to. 

Coloradans Express Strong Support for Wilderness Protection


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

hotchkiss said:


> you're right, I've been too personal.
> 
> one the other hand, think of the irony: you think I should give people space on the internet, but you don't think they have a right to space in the wilderness. Ride on Red Rover!


Look at the thompson creek / McClure pass section. It's not wilderness.. It's near country with plenty of oil riggs and gas wells very close by. It's an area that should remain open to mecahanised use. Hell, half the area's proposed, I support. BUT IT"S AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSAL>

It's about personal freedom. It's about a land of many uses. Me= pissed off that the local Mtn bike trails and snowmo area will be shut down. yea.. i'm a tool for ridding my snowmachine in the BNC


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

_Personal freedom_ to subject other backcountry users to noise and fumes? Uh, OK. What about my personal freedom to avoid that crap? Hey, here's a solution: I'll go to the wilderness and you play outside in the Ntl Forest. Deal?


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Like I said, it's all about you. What about the guy that wants to camp with his family and not hear your motorized antics? What about the guy that thinks that the government restricting your right to terrorize me with your snow machine is a good thing? Health care? Stay focused man. No one cares if you are pissed because you can't use your snowmobile on 100% of Colorado's public lands. You are being selfish. Like I said, you think it's all about you. As for that feeling, get off your ass and hike to the top of a mountain. Now THAT'S a feeling.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

hotchkissmyass, you are talking about pollution. if you are not living in the wilderness which is stated as uninhabitated by **** sapiens, how do you get there? whats that shit on the bottom of your shoe made out of? noise pollution? priorities. how about you pull those fullgrain wheat fruitloop bars out of your ass and straighten up. ever look through that cloud of smog as you drive through the "prestine" hills of the front range. if you are worried about noise pollution you should get a grip. #2 air pollution is coming from those cities on the front... 

"noise pollution. it hurts my inner soul to hear a motor caring another human being to an undisclosed location but i don't like it cause it ruins my day" "erodes the soil" and ruins the water? don't get this one.... if you want wilderness go find it don't take someone else heart warming pastimes. as you said, everybodies in it for their own interests. whats yours? not nature or you wouldn't walk and erode help erode the forest into trails you hypocrite what do you drive? VW?

i agree with rip. hotchkiss you are terrbily wrong if rip and i are in agreement.

go cry like a little b*T*H somewhere else. you are talking about colorado, dumbass if you can't put up with "noise Pollution" than raise the gun and pull the triger all ready. you live in 2009! and in america of all places(freedom for me to ride what ever the hell i want legally) . you should try afganistan i hear the electricity has yet to be established


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Wow. It would have been really cool if *any* of that made *any* sense.


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

I support wilderness expansion, if you want to ride in tear sh$t up, go to Atlanta.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

> i agree with rip. hotchkiss you are terrbily wrong if rip and i are in agreement.


 Mikey, did you notice that my post *immediately* followed your post? We are not in agreement.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

about personal freedom.


----------



## SBlue (Jun 5, 2007)

Good thread. I love reading MountainBuzz. You get extremely intelligent and insightful commentary, angry flamers and outright stupid comments all in one discussion. Sometimes all by the same person over the course of a thread. Great theatre. 

Brendo's making a good point here that's maybe getting lost in the static. 

Yes, I believe more wilderness designation is a good thing. But are these mapped areas ALL really the right pieces to designate wilderness? I took a pretty good look at the maps and the website. Not much science included on the website to support any of the proposals, so I assume this has essentially been a political, as opposed to scientific, selection process.

Some of the areas seem to merit wilderness designation, at least to me. So this is a good effort deserving my support? Not so fast. Some of the sites are heavily impacted by highways and are currently heavily used by motorized recreationalists/hunters. What criteria was used to merit Wilderness designation? My feeling is some of the anti groups are using this process to shut down some of the uses they don't like. That bothers me. 

So I need to see some intelligent thought/criteria about the selection process. And I can't support an all or nothing approach.


----------



## bjett (Jun 30, 2005)

good topic, and more informed posts than I thought there would be...I helped work on these campaigns for many years, hiked a lot of these areas and hope Colorado can get more than Dominguez Canyons and RMNP desginated as new official Wilderness. 
Keep up the good work, balance on our public lands is a good thing. They are not just for people, but wildlife too. Conservation efforts like this are visionary, but they need to be supported and grown locally. Colorado does a good job of this.

The Hidden Gems were picked after many years of debate, lots more acreage out there that's worthy, especially lower elevation BLM lands.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

I grew up in an area that had some pretty cool places that used to be accessible to it's population and it's population enjoyed them respectfully. We loved it because we were left alone to enjoy it. The typical weekend trip used something motorized to get us to a place where the hiking or skiing began, basically out of the lowlands. Then we'd ski or hike for miles. So it wasn't like we weren't there for the human-powered aspect, it was just impossible to do these trips in a weekend if you had to hike 20 miles of logging road before the real hike began. It's the difference in experience between skiing on a groomed loop versus out a windswept ridge.Brendo, you're point about the fuel usage is appropriate in this context, too. I could ride my dirtbike all day and it would use about 4 gallons of gas, but I ride the same bike to work and get 60 MPG. You guys that drive for miles to someplace to go hiking and think that's so pure need to think about that recreation commute if you're going to bring up the hydrocarbon thing.At the end of the day, I'll just smile and wave to the other folks I meet outside. I'd rather see them on a dirt road in their D4's (jeezus), then think they're shopping at the mall or watching TV inside.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Listen to what you are saying! You can't leave five percent of the land noise and pollution free? You have to ruin it all?!!! Listen to yourself, you're a mad-man!

I don't live on the front range. I don't live within 150 miles of an interstate. I don't live within 5 miles of a highway! My road is dirt! A VW? Wish I had one... low emissions. 

Casper, I'm in a ranching family. I know the value of a 4 wheeler, snow machines and Fords. Do go acting like you know me at all. The difference between you and I is a matter of intelligence and foresight, not differing interests. My quads will outrun yours and so will my snow machines, guaranteed so don't talk to me about heart warming past times. I hunt yotes off a snow machine, but I also ride horses, all the time. You obviously don't. 

I want a place where I can ride my horse without people like you around. That's the wilderness. God forbid I actually want more room to ride without a city slicker like you.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

For the general concept of wilderness but it needs to be approached with foresight of how it will impact stakeholders. Much has been learned over the last 20 years about how wilderness designation affects direct and indirect users. Even more importantly, we are seeing how it affects the socio-economics of counties around newly designated wilderness. Home prices go up, job market changes, etc. None of these changes are inherently good/bad but they need to be studied to fully understand the implications of change. Its a shame that many of the recent studies are proprietary to academic journals and hard/impossible to access by non-students. 

They only thing I am against, is the cliche flame-wars that happen over these issues. We seem to have been taught to demonize and antagonize our "opponents" at any given occasion. Wether they be oil riggers, "motoheads", or "wilderness fruitcakes." Not much respect out there for diverse opinions.


----------



## Redpaddle (Jan 10, 2007)

Good point Blue, perhaps a distinction needs to be made between wilderness preservation and the use of wilderness designation as a political tool? I believe strongly in wilderness preservation but can also see that without sufficient access to land set aside for motorized and/or mechanized use you shut out desires of some of the community and encourage "bandit" use of the protected areas. 

I do disagree, however, with the argument that if a wilderness cannot be reached by weekend warriors it is without value or excessive. Anyone who has been on an extended wilderness backpacking/paddling trip knows the value of large and remote wilderness areas. 

Lastly, I think that fuel consumption, greenhouse gas and global warming have little bearing on this argument as they are a global issue with little direct effect from wilderness vs national forest designations. The vast majority of our environmental impact comes from our day to day lifestyle rather than our outdoor recreation.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

hotchkiss go to a national forest. theres an idea.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

simple answer.

NO.


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

Ah yes, the old wilderness argument. Yes, we need more wilderness, but wilderness must be clearly thought out and a balance must be brought forth to include both conservation and recreation. I am not in support of creating large amounts of new routs however I strongly believe those that do exist should be protected for recreational use. There are a few very isolated exceptions that should be reviewed and acted on due to environmental concerns such as high rates of erosion. These can usually be fixed through preventive measures in certain section of the trails as opposed to complete closure. 

I pains me to see the arguments in this thread, most are simply lies that have been spued from one uneducated hypocrite to the next. I’ll comment on a few:

Just because an area is not wilderness does not mean that it is torn to bare dirt by drunk red necks on over powered ATV’s. 

OHV users are some of the most environmentally conscious stewards of our environment. There is an amazing amount of activity in that group revolving around cleaning up and protecting our environment for future generations. 

A single dirt road does not constitute destruction of the environment. 

Most mechanized travel is not loud, obnoxious and polluting.

Mechanized travel does not significantly impact wild life. Currently use outside of suburban areas is so limited that interactions are minimal and often uneventful for wildlife when they do occur. Concentrating use due to closures will increase the occurrence and severity of interactions. 

You have no more “right” to NOT hear my engine as I do to use it. 

If you so much hate being near me and my rig then walk somewhere else, Colorado is big, the area directly surrounding 4wd trails is small. 

OHV use as a whole has a completely insignificant impact on water quality. Anti access groups like to use the argument but finding substantiated scientific data to back up the claims is almost impossible. The FS buckles under the claim so it’s effective and used often. Lefthand canyon outside of Boulder is an excellent recent example. 

I burn more gas and thus emit more pollutants driving my Subaru to work than I do traversing most trails in my Jeep. 

I enjoy hiking, 4 wheeling is a different way to see a different area. Different folks, different storks. We can all get along. 


Oh yea, and despite what you are lead to believe. It is law that OHV’s stay on designated trails, and believe it or not, 99.9% of us do. Over snow is obviously different since there is no impact to the ground. Every user group has bad apples, don’t judge us by what you have seen by a few. If you are a dick to them they will probably reciprocate appropriately, try having an open mind and being kind. 

Oh yea, one more thing. I don’t care how much of Colorado is wilderness, I care how much of Colorado public lands are wilderness. Here’s a statistic for you, almost 54% of Colorado National Forest is currently roadless, weather through” wildness” or “roadless” designation. On top of that somewhere around 13% of BLM land is off limits. All of this totals up to about 39% of our public lands in Colorado. An incredibly small amount of the remaining 61% are actually open to motorized travel since you can only legally drive on designated roads.


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

caseybailey said:


> I have inherited a 1958 D4 bulldozer (seriously). I live in town and was hoping for some public land to mess around on this thing. Every time I approach a motorized access group, they want nothing to do with me. I find it frustrating that they get to decide where the line is drawn. I guess I just find it a bit hypocritical.


This is the one completely fucked up post that I will quote and respond directly to. 

You are suggesting the use of a bulldozer to alter and deeply impact the environment. OHV enthusiasts are not out to destroy nature, but rather enjoy it. We do not alter it to suit our needs, we make use of existing roads to explore with very little impact. 

In the case that new roads are created (very rare) it is done under the guidance of the governing agencies after extensive environmental studies. 

Your comparison is akin to that of suggesting that if you Kayak then I should be able to damn up the river so I can water ski on it. Why do you get to draw the line?


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Gotta love the people who jump into a thread and repeat something some other *******, goat roper said 2 pages back, but I guess I'll give in and respond:

"Just because an area is not wilderness does not mean that it is torn to bare dirt by drunk red necks on over powered ATV’s." 
-Name a place that is used by quads that doesn't suffer from soil erosion, noise and air pollution and an over population of drunk ********. I can't think of one: Moab, Hartman's Rocks, Rabbit Valley, they all look like hell and I've named .00001% of the places in Colorado/Utah that are open to quads. 

"OHV users are some of the most environmentally conscious stewards of our environment. There is an amazing amount of activity in that group revolving around cleaning up and protecting our environment for future generations."
-Wildly irresponsible generalization. According to what standards? Certainly not "Leave No Trace."

"A single dirt road does not constitute destruction of the environment."
-Then what does it constitute? It that non-impact? Is that Leave not trace? Is that reclamation? What exactly is that dirt road then?

"Most mechanized travel is not loud, obnoxious and polluting."
-Oooooops, showing your ignorance, laziness and complete lack of education. You're bad. You've just shown why people suffer at the hands of people like you who take a stand because they think they're "entitled" to an opinion. Mechanized travel makes NO noise and NO pollution. You mean "MOTORIZED." That's the argument you're trying to make, for MOTORIZED vehicles. AND YES THE DO CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. Can't hear the engine roaring with your helmet on? I can hear your quad from over 5 miles away. THAT'S NOISE POLLUTION.

"If you so much hate being near me and my rig then walk somewhere else, Colorado is big, the area directly surrounding 4wd trails is small."
-Yea, I see, it's all about you. I have to avoid you.

God I wish I could, but you just keep riding up my ass with that quad because you're too lazy to walk, to poor to buy a horse and to dumb to think about the future.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Motorheads and self-propelled folks are never going to see eye-to-eye. One group like to "experience" the backcountry as a green blur from the seat of their motortoy. The other group has a complete sensory experience. I consciously avoid places where ATVs congregate so I can see, hear and smell the forest.



> Mechanized travel does not significantly impact wild life.


 Yeah. Bambi actually enjoys the sound and smell of ATVs. 



> OHV users are some of the most environmentally conscious stewards of our environment.


 And cigarette smokers are some of the most health-conscious members of society.



> Different folks, different storks.


 OK, I agree with you on this one. Not all folks are the same, nor are storks. Now, can we get those storks to stop bringing so many damned babies? It's getting kinda crowded on this planet of ours.


----------



## Mut (Dec 2, 2004)

hotchkiss said:


> Like I said, it's all about you. What about the guy that wants to camp with his family and not hear your motorized antics? What about the guy that thinks that the government restricting your right to terrorize me with your snow machine is a good thing? Health care? Stay focused man. No one cares if you are pissed because you can't use your snowmobile on 100% of Colorado's public lands. You are being selfish. Like I said, you think it's all about you. As for that feeling, get off your ass and hike to the top of a mountain. Now THAT'S a feeling.


Hotchkiss, FUCK YOU you wanna be elitist savior of quiet trips in the outdoors. I bet you are a fat lazy uneducated fanatic. If you want your "wilderness experience" then go farther off the trail, ski dense trees and generally take the time and effort to find yourself somewhere quiet. You stop being lazy and find the many, many places that machines can't go (even if they are allowed to). 

I say that anywhere they let a horse or pack animal go they should let a motorcycle go. You horse smells like the shit it leaves all over the trail, ruins the trail if it is even a little wet, is a pain in the ass to pass on tight trails, and gets carried around by some Ford F-850 diesel belching gas hog. Again, fuck you you elitist wannabe. 

If you really cared about the environmental benefits from wilderness areas, you would be advocating for areas that are closed to everything except the "wild". No people, dogs, horses, motorcycles, sleds, or bikes. Totally wild, totally closed areas. Short of that, you are simply advocating your use over someone else’s. Its the same dumb attitude as "go home texans" or "Colorado Native". You’re not trying to help water quality or wolf populations or anything else, you just want easy access for your preferred mode of travel. Why should motorized users have to avoid you? I see, it’s all about you.

Basically, I'm calling BS on your hierarchy of backcountry uses. Go stick one of you sheep’s dick in your mouth and shut up. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Quick answer, NO. A wilderness designation takes away a lot of mtn biking and bolted climbing options. Also, national forest which is not wilderness is not necessarily open to motor usage, and with the exception of over the snow vehicles, machines are required to stay on official routes. Not all do but that is an enforcement issue. I live in Pitkin county, which is pretty much surrounded by wilderness and more is proposed. There is not a single legal dirt bike trail to my knowledge, and this area hosts the people pushing forth even more wilderness. 

When I want a quiet wilderness experience, I go to the wilderness. Pretty simple. When I want to bike or dirt bike I like the option of not having to drive six hours to Utah. It is nice to have both options locally. There needs to be a balance, but I feel the current "wilderness Gems" proposal in the White River Forest leans too far towards the environmental side. I can't believe I wrote that but it is in response to a pretty exclusionary ethic which is gaining popularity.


----------



## emptypockets (Apr 11, 2009)

A "wilderness area" is just government double speak for land set aside so Mexicans have a place to grow low quality pot. 

This whole thread reminds me of people who blast their stereos all the way down the river--I'm sure they drove their gas-pig SUVs to the put-in and everyone knows those rafts are NOT RECYCLABLE!


----------



## MCSkid (Feb 27, 2008)

Mut, if I ever need to sue anyone I definitely would want a hard ass, asshole lawyer like you to represent me, what's your number?


----------



## MCSkid (Feb 27, 2008)

Mut said:


> Hotchkiss, FUCK YOU you wanna be elitist savior of quiet trips in the outdoors. I bet you are a fat lazy uneducated fanatic. If you want your "wilderness experience" then go farther off the trail, ski dense trees and generally take the time and effort to find yourself somewhere quiet. You stop being lazy and find the many, many places that machines can't go (even if they are allowed to).
> 
> I say that anywhere they let a horse or pack animal go they should let a motorcycle go. You horse smells like the shit it leaves all over the trail, ruins the trail if it is even a little wet, is a pain in the ass to pass on tight trails, and gets carried around by some Ford F-850 diesel belching gas hog. Again, fuck you you elitist wannabe.
> 
> ...


Mut, correct me if I'm wrong but I recall you getting on my case for a previous post of mine which I had made into personal attack. Thanks for that, I was definitely wrong to make my post a personal attack, and it made me realize that I could have articulated my opinion in a much better manner and that I should apologize, which I did here on the buzz. However, at no point did I ever come close to stooping so low as to tell anyone to fuck off or to stick a dick in their mouth. I can only imagine how truly proud your kids must be of you. Take care, Mike Catura (Mike C)


----------



## BmfnL (May 23, 2009)

Good spicy dialogue here.

I love wilderness areas. As a lover of those, I buy maps and know where to find them. I have always thought that the wilderness areas are justified and their position enhanced by the existence of other sections of forest designated for other uses.

To get specific, I mountain bike in the proposed Elk Creek parcel of the Hidden Gems, north of New Castle. There is MUCH to lose in terms of access here. 

If you are a mountain biker, you need to go ride the Cherry Creek trail and the Mansfield Ditch trail in this area. These are among the best rides in the state. 

As an obvious side note, mountain biking did not exist when the wilderness act was drafted in 1964. Hard to say whether the framers of that document would have excluded that activity if it had existed then. 

Horses tear the ever-living hell out of trails and leave poo. Lame.


----------



## MCSkid (Feb 27, 2008)

Brendodendo, thanks for starting this post and having the balls to post links to both sides, you sir are a better man than I(or most of us on the buzz). This post actually got me to write Rep. Pollard in support of his bill(sorry brendo). However, i did ask him about the mnt. biking issue. Yeah they have ball bearings but they are definitely not mechanized forms of travel. i know it's an act of congress and would be a pain in the ass to change but it seems like they could do an AK type of exception for mnt. biking and gain alot more support.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tread Lightly, the non-profit for "ethical", primarily motorized, travel, was actually started years before LNT. We can argue wether this was because of degredation issues but it is fair to say the USFS and mechanized stakeholders we teaching "standardized" conservation techniques before human-powered recreationists. This has been taught in every recreation and management class I have been a student in. I may be an advocate of non-motorized adventure but I will not ignore the large number of folks constantly making motorized travel on our public lands less detrimental to other users and the land. These people are to applauded for their hard work and mentoring. 

That said, public land management is not a static element. Over the last two decades the American public has become increasingly interested and committed to preserving lands in a natural, non-motorized state. This seems highly correlated with the dramatic increase in OHV sales of the last decade plus. To say there is too much "wilderness" already is to intentionally ignore the changing American ethic. It will reach a plateau sometime in the near future. It is not a "viral" entity that will absorb every morsel of land in the American west as so many people seem to stereotype it as. Such stereotyping is inaccurate and grossly generalized. "Wilderness" designation will always affect locals more and the feds need to understand that and develop better mechanisms for handling the concerns of diverse stakeholders. People need to be feel empowered but they must also be taught to cope with change. Its a delicate balance. Locals have no more right to dictate policy than "outsiders". Federal land managers are charged as stewards of the land for everyone, not those that just reap direct, consistent benefit from the resources. Unfortunately, the feds have a long history of either ignoring the challenges associated with locals and changing access or intentionally satiating their needs at the cost of the resource and other users. This has left both sides disenfranchised and often unwilling to trust the otherside or the managers. We all feel like we are the losers in the long battle and fight viscously for every scrap of land we consider "ours."


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

MCSkid said:


> Brendodendo, thanks for starting this post and having the balls to post links to both sides, you sir are a better man than I(or most of us on the buzz). This post actually got me to write Rep. Pollard in support of his bill(sorry brendo). However, i did ask him about the mnt. biking issue. Yeah they have ball bearings but they are definitely not mechanized forms of travel. i know it's an act of congress and would be a pain in the ass to change but it seems like they could do an AK type of exception for mnt. biking and gain alot more support.


I would have to disagree with the statement that bikes are not mechanized vehicles. They have bearings, cogs, chains, levers, calipers, lever arms of the cranks and mechanical brakes and wheels (which are banned). The only thing that makes them different from a dirt bike are the propulsion. A bike uses a number of leg muscles and a motorcycle used a ignited puff of gas and air. 

Mountain bikers need to realize that they have a lot to loose with the hidden gems wilderness proposal. While we tend to be environmentally aware, we should not be allied with the Sierra club on this issue. I would also oppose re-writing the wilderness bills to allow bikes. When I venture into our wilderness areas, I do not want to dodge freeriders bombing down the trail. If it were legal, I'd ride my bike to many high passes, so that scenario is not far fetched. The best option is to keep the wilderness laws as they are, but be very selective what new areas are added to our wilderness. 

The current Hidden Gems proposal is a very ambitious proposal which unfortunately has been rubber stamped by the Summit County commissioners. I do not think the writers of the proposal, the Wilderness Workshop, envisioned that all the areas would be in the final submission. The idea was to propose more than expected and then negotiate it down to what was realistically envisioned If you are a biker or oppose these expansions, now is the time to voice your opinion. Same goes for their support, that is how our system works.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Hey Mutt, I'll take a sheep dick and a "fuck you" and raise you one. Do a little research, decide what is best for everyone's future - I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Wilderness," - and get back to me with a rant that makes sense. You know no more about me than you do about the concepts of sustainability, preservation, carbon footprints and environmental responsibility.

Let me spell it out to you without being vulgar or crass: you don't think clearly, you write poorly, and the sum of your deductions are completely irrational. I pray you continue to advocate... whatever it is your bumbling, ramble was meant to promote, because if you have any voice what-so-ever, your cause doesn't stand a chance.

Personal shots aside, you're right, I do believe my modes of travel make less of an impact on the world than yours. Horse manure smells, true, but nothing like carbon monoxide. My horse can't be heard from 50 yards away, let alone 5 miles and yes, I think there should be land in the United States, including Colorado, where NO ONE CAN GO - unless of course they ride a horse or walk. 

Ahhhhh, that's right, that's wilderness! Yes, Yes, more wilderness!


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

hotchkiss said:


> Hey Mutt, I'll take a sheep dick and a "fuck you" and raise you one. Do a little research, decide what is best for everyone's future - I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Wilderness," - and get back to me with a rant that makes sense. You know no more about me than you do about the concepts of sustainability, preservation, carbon footprints and environmental responsibility.
> 
> Let me spell it out to you without being vulgar or crass: you don't think clearly, you write poorly, and the sum of your deductions are completely irrational. I pray you continue to advocate... whatever it is your bumbling, ramble was meant to promote, because if you have any voice what-so-ever, your cause doesn't stand a chance.
> 
> ...



wow.

SO this is the type of rabid zealot that is puling for this type of expansion, great.

The world won't be right till you eliminate anyone who doesn't think the way you do & recreate the way you do. Not the type of people I choose to spend my time around.

People like you make me want to go out & buy an atv. I despise them btw, but as long as they stay on the trails, who gives a fuck (oh yeah, you.)


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Hoping that Colorado will increase the amount up untrammeled, unpolluted, quiet, natural space we have by an amount that won't even put a dent in the hardly 2.5% of land the U.S. has reserved for wilderness: that hardly qualifies as a rabid zealot. 

Interesting how so many people believe that if they aren't using wilderness, then that must mean wilderness is useless. Designating an area wilderness it the only way to prevent logging, mining, the damming of rivers, oil and natural gas wells... it's so clear, wilderness designation is the only way to save what little wild we have left in Colorado.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Ge over the stupid percentages, we both know they're a pitiful representation of the facts.
When someones back yard gets turned into wilderness & they can no longer do anything but hike or buy shit machines to ride there, it doesn't matter what percentage it is.


If we want to keep out the logging mining, damming rivers, oil... then work to keep the type of people that we voted in to office - in offfice. Keep from voting in morons like the whacko right & it won't be an issue. Proper land management is what we really need. 

btw, if we don't clear some beatle kill you're going to see a lot of that pretty red wilderness burn soon. Dont even get me started on the negative effects that NOT selectively logging in certain areas is going to have on our environment pretty darn soon.


----------



## dograft83 (Jun 16, 2008)

hotchkiss. Dont walk on the dam trails! That causes an scare in the ground. Walk off the fu%^ing Trail. Motor usage have to stay on trail. There really are not much trails you can take any motor on! 
I love all my toys! Dirt bikes, my wheeling rig, my mountain bike, hell I even really like my hiking boots and use them were nobody will every see me or I wont ever see anybody. So grow some ball leave the trails and go talk to a bear or something. Wait dont talk to the bear cause he would tear you apart because you bitch to much and he would have to be put down 
Ok and you say 5% off colorado is wilderness. Ok I could see that. What about this 95% of colorado for people that you say can tear it up. I think You are wrong here again. From looking around I think people own a shit ton of land that no one can go on. Try to find out how much is public land that is open to any one or anything and how much is closed to motors and bicycles.
Screw your horse. They impact the ground way more that my mountain bike does.


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

hotchkiss said:


> -Name a place that is used by quads that doesn't suffer from soil erosion, noise and air pollution and an over population of drunk ********. I can't think of one: Moab, Hartman's Rocks, Rabbit Valley, they all look like hell and I've named .00001% of the places in Colorado/Utah that are open to quads.


News check. Soil erosion is a natural phenomenon. Sure, human presence accelerates it, be it on foot, horse back, in a truck or on a quad / bike. Obviously you have drawn the line of acceptable impact with how you chose to recreate. Realize others draw that line elsewhere. 



hotchkiss said:


> -Wildly irresponsible generalization. According to what standards? Certainly not "Leave No Trace."


According to how I have personally observed various user groups act. Every user group has shining stars and bad apples. OHV enthusiasts (especially 4 wheelers, were taking trucks not quads) are very active in improving the condition of our forests through clean up and restoration projects. 



hotchkiss said:


> -Then what does it constitute? It that non-impact? Is that Leave not trace? Is that reclamation? What exactly is that dirt road then?


A dirt road is simply a trail, just like the ones you ride your horse on. A bit hypocritical to call it out as having an impact and leaving a trace when your trails do the same is it not? By they way, your dirt driveway is in no way different. Guess you are not allowed to drive on it anymore. 



hotchkiss said:


> -Oooooops, showing your ignorance, laziness and complete lack of education. You're bad. You've just shown why people suffer at the hands of people like you who take a stand because they think they're "entitled" to an opinion. Mechanized travel makes NO noise and NO pollution. You mean "MOTORIZED." That's the argument you're trying to make, for MOTORIZED vehicles. AND YES THE DO CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. Can't hear the engine roaring with your helmet on? I can hear your quad from over 5 miles away. THAT'S NOISE POLLUTION.


Wow, let me introduce you to google. Here you can search for the meanings of words. Type in “mechanized” and I’m sure you will find that mechanized refers to all forms of mechanical travel. This includes cars, motorcycles, boats, planes, bikes and even wheel chairs. I'll resist the urge to respond in an equally as childish manner. 

Oh by the way, I don’t ride a quad, I do not like them therefore I choose not to own one. I do not however feel that since I don’t like them that no one should be allowed to operate one. That would be arrogant and elitist. 



hotchkiss said:


> -Yea, I see, it's all about you. I have to avoid you..





hotchkiss said:


> "I want a place where I can ride my horse without people like you around. That's the wilderness. God forbid I actually want more room to ride without a city slicker like you...


No, it's all about you. You have made that very clear. 



hotchkiss said:


> "God I wish I could, but you just keep riding up my ass with that quad because you're too lazy to walk, to poor to buy a horse and to dumb to think about the future.


Yea, I don’t own a horse because I’m too poor. It couldn’t possibly be any other reason. 

Let's talk about horses though. Let’s talk about the erosion they bring on. Let’s talk about the incredibly high pressure created under their feet which compacts the ground (yes, it’s less under my Jeep). Let’s talk about the shit and piss you leave on the trail that I have to walk through IT FUCKING STINKS. Get your lazy ass off of your damn horse and pick it the fuck up. I pick up my dogs shit, why don’t you pick up your horses shit? 

For the record, I do not dislike horses, just most of the people who ride them. I however respect their right to recreate how they choose and when I see one coming up on the trail I step aside and smile as they go past enjoying their day. 

I know I'll never convince you to open your mind and accept that other people enjoy different activities and choose to enjoy the outdoors in different ways. I know I’ll never convince you that an OHV user can in fact be responsible and care for the environment. I know that no matter what is presented you will always believe that motorized travel is the devil and the demise of your environment. That’s ok though, if I ever do come across you on the trail I won’t know who you are but you can be sure I’ll smile and wave, even if you are on your horse.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

emptypockets said:


> This whole thread reminds me of people who blast their stereos all the way down the river--!


and there's something wrong with that?


----------



## boatmusher (Jun 18, 2008)

Wilderness is not about our recreation. In fact, it is about trying to leave something relatively untouched by human. The larger the wilderness the more likely there will be pockets of it that are seldom if ever seen by humans. As hard as it may be to comprehend, there are things in this world that are more important than our horses, our mountain bikes, our atv, our dirt bike and yes even our bull dozer. We as the "higher species" our entrusted with being stewards of the land. It is our job to protect the unprotected. It was our predecessors that nearly wiped out wolves, grizzlies, and bison. They also drove the elk from the plains to hiding out in the mountains, as well nearly destroyed, more than is conscioubaly, countless enviromental homes for many other species. Do we want to be the generation who followed in the foot steps of the earlier 19th century jack asses that thought nothing about the impact they had when they slaughtered, butchered and harvested whatever they wanted and could care less what they left us?

Therefore, we must set aside land not for the priority of our enjoyment. Rather, the enjoyment and survival of the rest of our natural world. Is nothing to be untouched by humans? Has anyone ever been to Europe? We cetainly do not want to live in a place where no stone has not been touched at some point by a human.

There is more to being here in Colorado, the US, and in our entire world than simply wanting or feeling we have the right do whatever we want regardless of the effects of our actions. We have to step back and see what is right for our environment not just our enjoyment. There are bigger things out there than our immediate self-gratification.

Not saying all of the mentioned activities don't have a place. They do! However, the more wilderness we have and the more we protect, the more we will have a truly wild place. And most importantly we will then always have a beautiful place to escape when we need a break from the world of concrete and glass.

Isn't that what WILDerness is? A place that is wild?


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

> Wilderness is not about our recreation. In fact, it is about trying to leave something relatively untouched by humans.


Precisely.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

WWPR- Since you skirted the issue, I'm going to restate it for you: only designated wilderness areas are not susceptible to NOISE pollution, on-site air pollution, oil and gas MINING, DAMS... you honestly have no appreciation for untrammeled parts of the world? Untrammeled parts of Colorado? You want 100% of Colorado open progress?

GPP33- You should be ashamed at how dishonest your arguments are. You honestly have the gall to compare foot and horse travel to that of a quad and a truck? Look at Moab, UT and HONESTLY tell me that what you 4X4 fanatics do leaves an impact comperable to that of a horse. It is incredible to me that you would even fain and attempt to make that argument.

Sorry to get personal, but retard, I don't care how google defines mechanized travel. Tard-boy, I care how the USFS defines mechanized travel. In their lexicon, there is a HUGE difference between the three types of travel. Veg, God I hope you know what the two other modes of travel are and you didn't just jump into this discussion not knowing ANYTHING about the issues. 

You're ok with someone destroying what few acres of wild we have left because you ride a carb-mon-toy and you don't want to be arrogant, elitest, hypocite if someone else wants to destroy wilderness with their carb-mon-toy? You not wanting to be a hypocrite isn't a good enough reason for me to want to sacrifice more wild and believe me man, you're never going to be an elitest. 

You're right, you'll never convince me that those destructive little toys you little boys raid the national forests with are in the best interests of nature.

Boatmusher- Damn you're good.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

The argument is is not "wilderness for wilderness sake". I can completely agree with the FACT that wild area's are needed. I can completely agree that Wilderness is a great idea. What I do not agree on is that historical uses should be thrown in the trash because some elitist thinks that they have more of a right to any area than me and how I want to recreate. As I said previously, some of these area's should be included in the Hidden Gems proposal, while others do not

It's people that get on a bandwagon for an environmental cause that have NO CLUE what is actually proposed. You LOVE the IDEA of wilderness. That means that you will support any wilderness designation. Thomson Creek is not a good canidate, while the Hay park area is great. These area's need to evaluated on a case by case basis and not lumped together in a massive bill that will not only cause people to loose the areas and recreation potential, but economic hardship as well. 

Hotchkiss, kiss my bum... I heard your limited point. I'm sick of your single dimension thinking and would appreciate it if you would write your politicians rather than flaming me or anybody else in this thread. Your point of view is WILDERNESS. That's great, now why don't you go out and get some. And while were at it, I hope that you live Off the grid, do not own a car/truck and have a completely trash free life... if not, you sir, are the hypocrite.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

Looking at the "Hidden Gems" map, it appears that these proposed wilderness areas are mostly located along the I-70 corridor, one of the most used and abused pieces of backcountry in the entire state. Frankly, I cannot think of a more appropriate place to protect. The "I don't want the Sierra Club/gubment/enviros to keep me from my backyard motorplay areas" sentiment strikes me as NIMBYesque at best.


----------



## boatmusher (Jun 18, 2008)

The immature personal attacks (by many) as well as misinformed dialogue (by a few) on this post is a little perplexing. I was hoping for a bit of adult like behavior and conversation. It is sad that people can't make their points w/out resorting to middle school level insults. How very sad.

Back to the topic on hand...

I do love the idea of wilderness! It is a special place set-up for our natural environment first, human recreation second (at best). This whole topic of wilderness is off target if all we think about is personal recreation. The land is not for our personal enjoyment, rather, the betterment of our natural habitat, environment, urban living (b/c how can you have civilization if you do not have wilderness. Impossible to have one w/out the other), and overall quality of life. Just look at the other post talking about killing bears in Deso. All animals have a right to make a life for themselves. As I said earlier, it is our duty to be stewards of the land. In doing so we must provide a natural habitat for animals to not only live but to thrive.

The argument could thus be made that Thomson Creek, Hay park or wherever should or should not be wilderness. Regardless, of which is a good candidate or which isn't, it is unbelievably important that we all understand why wilderness exists and that there is no such thing as to much wilderness. 

It is upon us to do the right thing and set aside places that are regardless of the GNP, economy, recreational opportunities, and whatever personal short sided view we may initially desire. Having too much wilderness would be like having to hot/cool of a lady friend, to sweet of a river trip, to nice of a day, or to good of a dog. There is no such thing as to much. 

So with that I would prefer to error on the side of caution and would rather regret making something wilderness vs. watching something that should have been wilderness destroyed by people's personal agendas.

So regardless of where or how much my answer would 99% of the time be: make it wilderness. Especially when I see the government selling off our non-wilderness public land to the highest (oil and gas) bidder. Our public land is not safe in our current governmental stater unless it is deemed wilderness. 

Yes, I know that I do leave a carbon footprint on a daily basis. However, it is not a all or nothing approach. Until we have (realistic)alternatives to oil we all are hard on the environment. Does that mean we should say "the hell with it all" and start the total consumption, destruction and overall neglect of our earth? I don't think so....


----------



## farp (Nov 4, 2003)

It's unfortunate that the ATV enthusiasts disregard our public lands to the point a wilderness is the only way to protect them. 

ATVs, OHVs, and offroad motorcycles are a threat to every segment of our public lands. 

It is a threat that has far-reaching implications. 

If we don't ban them now, future generations will regret our inaction. 

I'm not talking about making more wilderness areas. I'm talking about a full ban of all OHVs, ATVs, and offroad motorcycles on ALL public lands. 

It's time. No more excuses. Bannish them now.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

farp said:


> It's unfortunate that the ATV enthusiasts disregard our public lands to the point a wilderness is the only way to protect them.
> 
> ATVs, OHVs, and offroad motorcycles are a threat to every segment of our public lands.
> 
> ...



SOrry hotchkiss, I thought you were the biggest whack job on this thread, 


the prize now goes to farp.

How bout we ban all you douchebag city morons from coming up I70, that would protect the mountains better than anything else. If nobody can play in the mountains then they won't be in danger.

I get sick of the moron right wing whackos on the snowmobile site that brendo & I are on, but people like you are WAY scarier.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

LOL, I AM the biggest wack job in this thread. Crazy or not though, I just love the fact these people are beginning to hammer on you. You can't agree with anyone in this forum, you're fighting with people in a snowmobile forum. Maybe that's an indication of who YOU are, not who we are. 

What's really funny is that I'm a Republican, grew up on a ranch, probably have more quads than you do, I don't live within 150 miles of I-70 and I love hunting 'yotes off a snow machine. 

All that said, I KNOW THE VALUE OF WILDERNESS. I'm educated. I work to understand the issues that face our state. You don't. 

You are some little kid still living off of Mom and Dad's dime who obviously isn't getting an education with your hand-out or you'd be able to proof read your posts and realize, "obviously I sound retarded because of what I'm saying, but even more, I sound like a 'douche bag' because of the way I say the stupid thinks I'm saying.'"

Stop fighting with everyone and read a book. It will improve your writing, your poor vocabulary, your grammar, the irrational poo you spew and if you read the right books, you might realize you're fighting for the wrong cause.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

O Hotchkiss, I see your point now. A Utah wilderness ranger with a brother that is a Cop (in Vail). I got to agree. Let's make all of Colorado and Utah wilderness and you can go live in Kansas. By the way, I'm reading a good book right now on the position of Yellowstone in regard to the history of winter use policy and over snow travel. Might open your eyes to not be so one sided every now and then. I'll still have a beer with ya at the bar after you bitch me out while while I ride by and your cross country skiing. ( and I agree that your horse is doing more damage than my bike or snowmobile to the trails) If you do not like machines, recreate in the existing wilderness or on trails where there is no OHV use allowed. It's what I do when I'm out with my family in the woods. 

Dgo Steve... Are you kidding me? I-70 should be protected. How about we turn every last fringe of Durango and Bayfield into wilderness. No more driving past Lemon or Vallacito. Perrins peak and all of La Plata's. No Mtn Biking. No Climbing. Lets see how long you survive in that nice little town when no body cares to visit because there is limited or no recreation. Not a personal attack, and I don't see my attitude as nimby at all. I just don't want all of CO to become wilderness. I enjoy being a multi sport guy. I'm environmental conscious, and try to be a good steward of the area's that I travel in, be it in my truck, my raft, my snomo, a bike or in my boots. I buy wind credits at home and recycle. I use high efficiency and energy star appliances and light bulbs. I feed my family as much Organic food as I can afford. 

THIS SAYS IT PRETTY WELL - 
From the Unitah Forest Service website: Recreation is by no means incompatible with a healthy forest. However, a thoughtful, proactive approach is essential. Several conservation education and restoration programs are already in place across the Wasatch-Cache. As the Forest Service carefully balances diverse recreation opportunities with conservation efforts, visitors are encouraged to learn more about forest ecosystems and tread lightly while recreating on land. Working together, we can safeguard the land and beauty of the Forest for many generations to come.


You know my position is not all or nothing. Lets see some reciprocity.


----------



## farp (Nov 4, 2003)

brendodendo, you don't understand. 

I'm advocating multiple use. I want logging, hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, climbing, birdwatching and mineral extraction to take place on our public lands. And I'm a journalist who covers these issues extensively. 

Without a doubt, ATVs, OHVs and off-road motorcycles threaten the future of our public lands more than all the aforementioned activities combined. 

Luckily, intelligent people (many of whom are responsible OHV owners) are beginning to see what a wasteland of destruction is being left in the wakes of OHV enthusiasts.

When the unmitigated damage caused by OHV, ATV and off-road motorcycles overshadows the effect of energy companies, ranchers, and loggers on our public land, it is time for the public to respond. 

Our nation’s air, land and cultural resources are being devastated at rate that exceeds almost any other time in history. 

The culprit is OHVs, AVTs, and off-road motorcycles. 

Republican, Democrat and Independent political leaders across the west agree. 

You can call me any name you want. The curtain is slowly closing on the unregulated use of ATVs, OHVs and off-road motorcycles. The question is: what will be left when they are gone and how do we make OHV, ATV and off-road motorcycles pay fund the multi-billion dollar mitigation effort that must follow.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

farp said:


> brendodendo, you don't understand.
> 
> I'm advocating multiple use. I want logging, hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, climbing, birdwatching and mineral extraction to take place on our public lands. And I'm a journalist who covers these issues extensively.
> 
> ...


Farp, your have to be one of the most biased "journalists" ever. The quote is because slanted news is hardly reputable. Your whole statement could be a number of headlines in Mother Jones magazine. Try to not let your dislike or hatred of OHV's show through if you want to make a point. 

I really doubt OHV's are worse than all extractive industries combined. The worst offenders are people who trample cryptobiotic soils, which could take 100 years to revegetate. Most random tracks are gone in a season if no one follows them. Take a look at the Climax mine outside leadville and its associated settling ponds and tell me dirt bike usage comes any where close to this scale of devastation.


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

farp said:


> I'm advocating multiple use. I want logging, hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, climbing, birdwatching and mineral extraction to take place on our public lands. And I'm a journalist who covers these issues extensively.
> 
> Without a doubt, ATVs, OHVs and off-road motorcycles threaten the future of our public lands more than all the aforementioned activities combined.
> 
> ...




I hate to say it but you do bring up an interesting point. While you are however 100% incorrect in stating that OHV use is unregulated, enforcement is seriously lacking in many areas which gives the impression that it is unregulated. The FS and BLM do need to do more to enforce existing laws and educate users as to what is right and what is wrong and why it is that way. 
I would 100% support a licensing program (for the drivers) and steeper annual registration, including usage fees for non green stickered vehicles such as licensed trucks to help offset the costs associated with higher rates of patrols. The fines generated would surly cover any remaining costs. 
Bottom line, the solution isn’t in banning it is in enforcement of existing laws. 
Your statements regarding OHV use having a greater impact is comical at best. Surly not what I would expect to come out of a respected reporter.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

GPP33 said:


> This is the one completely fucked up post that I will quote and respond directly to.
> 
> You are suggesting the use of a bulldozer to alter and deeply impact the environment. OHV enthusiasts are not out to destroy nature, but rather enjoy it. We do not alter it to suit our needs, we make use of existing roads to explore with very little impact.
> 
> ...


Gotcha! I knew some would get the tongue in cheek and some would think they were getting the tongue elsewhere. I guess it's hard to have a sense of humor when you are a boater from Longmont.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Farp - I think completely banning motorized vehicles from public lands is a bad idea. But... limiting their use to the aged, the infirm and the morbidly obese might be a good idea. These unfortunate folks have no other way to see our public lands. When I see healthy, fit people riding ATVs/snowmos/dirt bikes I smugly and self-righteously shake my head. Sometimes I even sigh audibly. Of course, the motorheads never hear it 'cause they're making so much gawdawful noise...


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

hotchkiss said:


> LOL, I AM the biggest wack job in this thread. Crazy or not though, I just love the fact these people are beginning to hammer on you. You can't agree with anyone in this forum, you're fighting with people in a snowmobile forum. Maybe that's an indication of who YOU are, not who we are.
> 
> What's really funny is that I'm a Republican, grew up on a ranch, probably have more quads than you do, I don't live within 150 miles of I-70 and I love hunting 'yotes off a snow machine.
> 
> ...


The problem with not being a whack job liberal or a whack job neo-con is that both sides are going to disagree with you. 


My point in the last post was that moderation is what's missing here. Regulated use, intelligent land management... The asinine statements made by farp are exactly the type of thing that makes all the right wing, "if I don't have a motor strapped to me it's not worth doing" types get together & actually start to take a stand against ANY changes. 
The same can be said the other way, the morons on their atv's & Dirt bikes that can't stay on the trail get the other side so frustrated that they end up all sounding like farp.:mrgreen:

btw, well done on the generalizations, you were SPOT on. I've been living off of a trust fund & have had my life paid for from the start, I'm 21 years old & I also can't & don't read. 

Btw, it's easy to advocate closures in an area where you don't recreate, is my attitude a bit on the nimby side? Of course, because it IS my backyard, or it will be in the next round of closures.


I'm gonna go buy a bulldozer & hang out with caseybailey!!


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Waterwindpowderrock said:


> I'm gonna go buy a bulldozer & hang out with caseybailey!!


Can I bring my skid loaders???? we could have races. :mrgreen:


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

caverdan said:


> Can I bring my skid loaders???? we could have races. :mrgreen:


Only if they're T series skids, wheels just don't tear up the earth enough!!


----------



## chixon (Dec 21, 2004)

Seriously Farp? Do you work for the Onion?

The question is: what will be left when they are gone and how do we make OHV, ATV and off-road motorcycles pay fund the multi-billion dollar mitigation effort that must follow. 

Currently OHV registration funds go directly into the management and maintenance of the trails which they are allowed to use, and trails which they might be excluded from. Mountain bikers, horseback riders, hikers, BC skiers etc. pay no registration fees to use many of the same areas. For example the Monarch Crest Trail gets hammered by Mt. Bikers (I being one of them) yet they are not really contributing to the fund that maintains and manages this area. Should all users have to pay registration fees? Where would you put a sticker on a horse? I hope that never happens, but if we give the government more money I am sure everything will work itself out.

-Chad


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

caseybailey said:


> Gotcha! I knew some would get the tongue in cheek and some would think they were getting the tongue elsewhere. I guess it's hard to have a sense of humor when you are a boater from Longmont.


 
I got your toung in cheek. You a trying to make a point and be funny about it only you missed your mark. 

And yea, it's funny how when the rare combination of living in Longmont and ejoying kayaking come together all sense of humer is lost. Again, I realize you were trying to be funny, again you missed your mark.


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

*citiots*

Well, sad to say almost 70% of YOU think we should SAVE more land, already designated as blm/ nat. forest etc, for use by a few groups, ie equestrians and hikers. Too bad you dont mtn bike, or ride motorcycles, or god forbid, Kayak. Lets see if we the people, empowered by the warm fuzzies of the OBAMA-NATION, can save all vacant land in the world from being used at all, by anyone who may enjoy it for more than a hike, or horseback ride. Sleep well, if you can.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Badswimmer - your "grasp" of wilderness is, uh, pretty damned limited. Good luck with that.


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Whats an Obama Nation, badswimmer?


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

GPP33 said:


> I got your toung in cheek. You a trying to make a point and be funny about it only you missed your mark.
> 
> And yea, it's funny how when the rare combination of living in Longmont and ejoying kayaking come together all sense of humer is lost. Again, I realize you were trying to be funny, again you missed your mark.


Who is Mark?


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Neil Gustafson said:


> Whats an Obama Nation, badswimmer?


Maybe Colbert sold him Texas or Alaska at a good price.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Riparian said:


> Badswimmer - your "grasp" of wilderness is, uh, pretty damned limited. Good luck with that.


Riparian, what exactly is he failing to grasp? 
What really IS pretty damned limited are the user groups that have a place in a wilderness area.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Wilderness is much bigger than recreation. It's about protecting wildlife habitat, fragile ecosystems and watersheds. Of course recreation has to be limited in wilderness areas. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wilderness. I'm sorry that you won't be able to motor-recreate in these new wilderness areas. The good news? There's plenty of public land available to you for internal combustion fun.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Riparian said:


> Farp - I think completely banning motorized vehicles from public lands is a bad idea. But... limiting their use to the aged, the infirm and the morbidly obese might be a good idea. These unfortunate folks have no other way to see our public lands. When I see healthy, fit people riding ATVs/snowmos/dirt bikes I smugly and self-righteously shake my head. Sometimes I even sigh audibly. Of course, the motorheads never hear it 'cause they're making so much gawdawful noise...


Rip, I am an avid skier, mtn biker, road biker, backcountry skier, and I consider myself fit. I also ride dirtbikes, and NONE of the above activities will leave you as sore a a day on a dirtbike. It may not emphasize the aerobic side of fitness, much like alpine skiing, but do not be under the impression that it is for lazy people.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Riparian said:


> Wilderness is much bigger than recreation. It's about protecting wildlife habitat, fragile ecosystems and watersheds. Of course recreation has to be limited in wilderness areas. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wilderness. I'm sorry that you won't be able to motor-recreate in these new wilderness areas. The good news? There's plenty of public land available to you for internal combustion fun.


Well, the plenty of land thing is debatable. The big problem with squishing the motorized people in a smaller area, or more realistically in fewer areas, is that they will then do more damage than they already do. The damage will be more extreme & less likely for the area to recover.

The thing that has been mentioned in here before though is that even in a motorized area (unless it's very poorly managed) the impact is minimal. The roads/trails take up such a small amount of the total land that in reality the majority of even a motorized area IS protected. I'm sure there are places where the land is just plain overtaken by trails or free roaming ohv users, but I've never seen an area like that. Living up high in Clear Creek I see the mining roads that people jeep/bike/mtnbike/whatever on & we have elk, sheep, goats, and other animals everywhere that could care less.


----------



## farp (Nov 4, 2003)

Allow me to retort:

Believe it or not, journalists do have strong opinions about issues. They even, on occasion, allow their opinions to slant their coverage. This latest election (where then Sen. Obama was lauded as a savior) is all the proof I need. 

My editor is very familiar with my opinions about OHVs. So are my readers who have read my editorials denouncing OHVs. 

Addressing my assertion that OHVs, ATVs and off-road motorcycles should be banned on all public land; I stand by that. 

A long time public land manager, who must remain nameless, told me: a full ban would "reset the standard of use." In other words, OHV users would be required to lobby for areas that allow OHVs instead of public land managers having to create areas that disallow OHVs. 

Concerning the exisiting level of enforcement of OHVs on our public lands: the rules are much stricter and easier to enforce in urban wilderness areas such as Colorado's the Front Range and I-70 corridor. But rural areas in western Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana - the areas that still retain pristine undeveloped lands - are being decimated. 

Finally, to address the comparison between modern mineral extraction and the nightmare created in Climax: there is no comparison. Climax is tragic and unfortunate result of past land use practices.
Modern extractive industries are strictly monitored by federal agencies. On site and off site mitigation is often used to balance use. Mineral companies do not act without extensive directions, expectations and oversight. 

By contrast, OHV enthusiasts often drive wherever their beer goggles take them.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

brendodendo said:


> To all you that are for wilderness. Do you get into these area's often? , or is this a knee jerk reaction because you think wilderness is a good idea. I think that WILDERNESS is a great "idea", but not so good for the general population that exists along it's boundaries. As we limit the mechanized recreational area's, other area's get more populated and polluted. We need are's to recreate in. If they designate some of these area's, people will continue to utilize them in bandit fashion. I support more area's being designated as road less, thus curtailing development by the oil and gas industry and stopping urban sprawl. BUT designating such area's as wilderness makes the area's elite and abstract.


I finally dug into the paperwork and websites a bit more. There are a fair number of roads in this area, but many wilderness areas have incorporated such impact before. This will greatly affect those who recreate via motorized means, but to be honest, our society values conserving these lands more for primitive means now. The list of organizations supporting this effort highlight that fact. They are diverse, interdisciplinary grouping of organizations who all know the value of wilderness, and I assume from their support they have investigated these areas. 

I was shocked, since when are citizen movements that are capable of raising substantial cash a bad thing? That "against" website was trying desperately to demonize their fundraising success. A fact that I have to laugh at. These people are citizens working for non-profits standing up for what they believe in, not for profit industries seeking land in some greedy, back alley manner.

>>>"As we limit the mechanized recreational area's, other area's get more populated and polluted. We need are's to recreate in. If they designate some of these area's, people will continue to utilize them in bandit fashion."

That is fear mongering and not very logical. It is the rhetoric of "special interest groups," this time motorized. It is ironic b/c the "against" website is trying to demonize the other side but they are employing the same techniques. Stand up for the values and recreation you believe but respect the opposition as well. Same goes for the wilderness groups that try and demonize the user groups they disagree with. Stick to the fact and stay away from the rhetoric and fear mongering. 

There will be a shift in use, but that is the case with any user group. Demographics shift constantly, they are rarely statics. I don't understand the pollution argument, doesn't seem to fit with anything I have ever learned. 

The "bandit" argument isn't an excuse not to designate in my book. If we followed that logic we would never limit access or change management regimes. Ironically, I also believe it provides legitimacy to the "bandits" of the motorized crowd that so many motor-friendly groups and advocates have tried to distance themselves from. The bandit argument to me just exemplifies the need for early and aggressive monitoring and outreach. Enforce the rules, educate, and penalize those who do not follow the travel plans. Simple enough to me. I have worked for the USFS and we provided some leniency the first year but after that they could not plead ignorance. Make the penalties fair but affective.

Sorry this designation affects you so much but sometimes the resource is managed for more people than just locals. This doesn't make it elite or abstract by any means, but that is another story.

Best of luck to all sides.

Phillip


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Farp, being a biased reporter of news works fine with a select audience, kind of like preaching to the choir. An impartial reader would be more likely to dismiss your facts. As far as banning all OHV usage on public lands, why not to that with hikers, bikers and horses also? That would be the same thing that you condone, just a different crowd.

As far as new industries being more regulated, I've been reading a lot on frackin recently, which is an oil and gas extraction method. It seems to be affecting a lot of water supplies. It wasn't too long ago that cyanide from a Canadian companies gold mine in Colorado sterilized a river. In contrast to that, My riding a dirt bike on recognized trails (sober by the way) seem pretty benign

Your last statement is pure stereotyping and prejudicial. If you used the same logic with an ethnicity you'd be labeled a racist.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

If you don't believe in protecting wilderness you are simply on the wrong side of history. You are supporting segregation and are anti-women's suffrage. You are just like people who don't think gays should marry. Your grandkids will look at you and be embarrassed. I love sledding, mtn biking and dirt biking too, but we can never get more wilderness.

Just don't close the Lead King Basin road to the N Fk Crystal put-in.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

craporadon said:


> If you don't believe in protecting wilderness you are simply on the wrong side of history. You are supporting segregation and are anti-women's suffrage. You are just like people who don't think gays should marry. Your grandkids will look at you and be embarrassed. I love sledding, mtn biking and dirt biking too, but we can never get more wilderness.
> 
> Just don't close the Lead King Basin road to the N Fk Crystal put-in.


I have to say, I do not follow your analogy. I think I'm for equal for all, with reasonable restrictions as needed. Wilderness would be the equivelent of segregation since some users are excluded. Better would be enforcement of existing laws before a blanket exclusion is implemented. In ten years of riding dirtbikes, I have never run across a ranger or been asked for registration. Even better would be enforcement of the new sound restrictions

I'm an amnesty international member, kind of into human rights, I think you are reading me wrong about the suffrage and gay rights issues.

However, I think we need to be selective in choosing more wilderness areas, and the Hidden Gems is a grab-all. I do believe in protecting wilderness, I just don't think it is right to re-label areas with roads, trail, mining and grazing history as wilderness, when it is not wild. 

What makes the Crystal access any less wild than, say, the Redtops road which is proposed as wilderness. I used to like driving up there to hunt. I think a little boat hike to the North Fork might do you good.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

rec.. I do appreciate thoughtful constructive criticism and comments. Thank you. What I do not get is the the proposal is being billed to legislators as an all or nothing proposal. I still think some of these area's need protection, while some should stay within their historical use designation. What I would like to see is proper oversight and guidance from Congress and the NFS. Then each parcel should be evaluated thouroly and taken through the steps outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. I do not agree that a private party (Wilderness Workshop) should be playing as the primary lobbyist for designating wilderness.


----------



## farp (Nov 4, 2003)

ZGjethro said:


> Farp, being a biased reporter of news works fine with a select audience, kind of like preaching to the choir. An impartial reader would be more likely to dismiss your facts. As far as banning all OHV usage on public lands, why not to that with hikers, bikers and horses also? That would be the same thing that you condone, just a different crowd.





ZGjethro said:


> As far as new industries being more regulated, I've been reading a lot on frackin recently, which is an oil and gas extraction method. It seems to be affecting a lot of water supplies. It wasn't too long ago that cyanide from a Canadian companies gold mine in Colorado sterilized a river. In contrast to that, My riding a dirt bike on recognized trails (sober by the way) seem pretty benign
> 
> Your last statement is pure stereotyping and prejudicial. If you used the same logic with an ethnicity you'd be labeled a racist.


Comparing OHV use to hiking and horseback riding is disingenuous at best. 

I assume you have spent enough time in the mountains to know the difference. If not, you can take my word for it. Or call your local cowboy and tell him your four wheeler is no more damaging than his horse. 

I applaud you in your knowledge of modern gas production, but I doubt that your research is as well founded as you believe. Google articles by Abrahm Lustgarten from ProPublica to bolster your arguments about hydraulic fracking. It’s a very important issue that is a perfect, almost parallel, example of the dangers created by under-regulated use of our public lands. I’m glad to see that you have a vested interest in our public resources. Unfortunately, research documenting fracking’s effect on ground water is much less inconclusive than research showing the negative effects of OHVs on surface water. 

But again, I’m happy you are so sensitive to possible environmental degradation. If you’re that worried about hydraulic fracking you must be very proactive in your OHV community to limit the amount of damage caused by OHVs. 

By the way, throwing racism into your argument is amusing but not effective. 

The fact is OHV use must, and will, be limited – it’s happening right now and many of us support it every step of the way.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

rec.. I do appreciate thoughtful constructive criticism and comments. Thank you. What I do not get is the the proposal is being billed to legislators as an all or nothing proposal. I still think some of these area's need protection, while some should stay within their historical use designation. What I would like to see is proper oversight and guidance from Congress and the NFS. Then each parcel should be evaluated thoroughly and taken through the steps outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. I do not agree that a private party (Wilderness Workshop) should be playing as the primary lobbyist for designating wilderness.

Crapordon, you speak crap. nuf said.

Farp: "inconclusive than research showing the negative effects of OHVs on surface water". 

Put it in writing big boy.. Lets see that paperwork. I also think that you don't know that much about this issue, journalist or not. I hope you ride your horse to work, but you probably drive to much and water your lawn every night.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Farp, 

I have changed my mind. Burn the wilderness to the ground and run over it with a skidloader and a D10. I changed my mind because you are a bias writer, a bigot and a liar. Admit it, admit that OHVs are no more damaging than a pack of wild puppy dogs bounding up a trail you damn tree hugger.
Your bias is totally uncalled for. You're a journalist for Heavens to Betsy. I mean honestly, how dare you research issues and have the audacity to develop an opinion. You should be ashamed. 
Take some lessons in journalism. Let me give you a suggestion: check out Fox News. Now that's unbiased journalism. Take a page from their book and do some, "fair and balanced," reporting. 
And you're a racist pig too. You no good ****** bigot, hatin' on all them po' hillybills, disn der sno runrs n der kwads. Whi don u getn yurself un edjamakation n lern yurself sumfun bout der rites tu wreckreate? 

brendodendo,
I'll have a beer with you anytime, but we're never going to see eye to eye on this issue.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

brendodendo said:


> rec.. I do appreciate thoughtful constructive criticism and comments. Thank you. What I do not get is the the proposal is being billed to legislators as an all or nothing proposal. I still think some of these area's need protection, while some should stay within their historical use designation. What I would like to see is proper oversight and guidance from Congress and the NFS. Then each parcel should be evaluated thoroughly and taken through the steps outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. I do not agree that a private party (Wilderness Workshop) should be playing as the primary lobbyist for designating wilderness.


I have a lot of sympathy for those who deal with the bundling, aka "all or nothing", practices associated with land management and designation. I am often very troubled by the same issues in Utah. That said, it comes down to the deficits that are inherent in the political structure. I am not a big fan of how it works but it is how "both sides" of any given issue present projects like this. Make it big knowing full well that some of it will be sliced. It gets ugly and once again both sides become jaded and embittered. I have seen it disenfranchise many people who might be able to support a bill. 

The law and process has come a long way since 1964. The Wilderness Act itself was reduced much more so than many of its founders wanted. But they settled for something with the art of compromise knowing that it would be expanded and amended by future generations. Even during the early years the founders were often not associated with the federal agencies that would actually manage the land. Much of the impetus came from the outside through non-profits. This is a long and important history in public lands management. Agencies are often too constricted budget-wise to actually inventory there lands for wilderness designation. Money, and more importantly man-hours, must pour in from the outside. It a sad statement but all too often true. I only worked for the USFS for two years but I saw first hand how most agencies have their hands tied. The status-quo is often the case b/c of the budget and bureaucracy, often despite having well-intentioned and educated staff. That is why I support third-party organizations trying to push bills such as this. If we didn't have them and simply waited for the agencies to follow their own laws so many of the lands we value now would be hardly recognizable. Grand Canyon would be flooded. We would have lost Lodore Canyon. Just to name a few places protected by non-profits, not the agencies. 

Motorized access is shrinking, as many of us consider it should. Land policy since the 1980s has intended this to be the case. Most laws supporting motorized access actually tend to be fairly archaic interpretations. The goal is to reach a balance that was often ignored leading into the 2000s. I for one have faith that there enough people who support motorized access as a legitimate endeavor that guarantee continued access. I dissent from the BS that is thrown at motorized users and believe it has its place on public lands. That said, it will not stay at the levels of the past. How we value land has changed and most of us believe, and have significant evidence, that it does affect the various ecosystems negatively. 

I am sorry these issues can be so divisive. I think you started an articulate and vulnerable dialog that at moments exposes the pettiness of people's views. We all have valid perspectives but sometimes we devalue our own causes with the methods we employ. Best of luck in how this turns out, even if we disagree on specifics.


----------



## arizona_kamakazi (Sep 1, 2009)

About 30% of the White River N.F. is already Wilderness. Another 30% is designated "Roadless". Of the 40% remaining, much is inaccessable do to topography. Therefore, very little is actually open to diverse recreational uses.


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

*THINK*



Riparian said:


> Wilderness is much bigger than recreation. It's about protecting wildlife habitat, fragile ecosystems and watersheds. Of course recreation has to be limited in wilderness areas. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wilderness. I'm sorry that you won't be able to motor-recreate in these new wilderness areas. The good news? There's plenty of public land available to you for internal combustion fun.


Think of every situation as if you are entirely outside, looking in. Reality is perception. Empathy is the only true understanding. If you can understand your enemy and avoid the quarrel, all involved prosper. I am all for equal rights to advocated user groups, politics aside. How long, Riparian, has it been since you failed to drive your beloved Prius to go playboat 10 blocks from your duplex? My only quarrel with the new wilderness designations is that we have lost many a mile of beautiful singletrack to ride bicycles on. The best of all mtb trails in the world were built with tireless enthusiasm by motorcyclists on existing pack trails. These guys mostly lost the right to ride these trails, and I am concerned that there will be no legal, public singletrack for anyone to ride a dirtbike, or mtb on in 20 years. I hope we can all get along, hippies, hicks, hotrodders, hucksters. Stop Hatin.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Badswimmer,

Look, we have a different view of wilderness _and_ recreation. That's OK. No hate here. I don't understand motorized backcountry recreation. That's fine. I don't have to. I don't do it. I'm of the opinion that more wilderness is good for everyone and the aforementioned watersheds, wildlife and myriad species that inhabit those wilderness areas. I am far more interested in protecting those things than motorfolk losing a little bit of access to public land. If that makes me a tree-hugging elitist, fine.

As for mechanized recreationistas being completely shut out of public lands, I think that's a gross, baseless exaggeration.

We have our different views and different approaches. I can deal with that. Can you?

Riparian

PS - 47% of the folks who participated in the poll think we need more wilderness areas in Colorado... a more than 2-to-1 margin. Guess I'm not alone.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

farp said:


> Comparing OHV use to hiking and horseback riding is disingenuous at best.
> 
> I assume you have spent enough time in the mountains to know the difference. If not, you can take my word for it. Or call your local cowboy and tell him your four wheeler is no more damaging than his horse.
> 
> ...


Farp, I've enjoyed these exchanges. First, I do not have an atv, I dirt bike. Huge difference! There is probably no distinction to you but I believe atv usage is more damaging than dirtbike usage.. I also know both are worse than horses or cattle.

I have not researched gas fracking, but it seems to be in the news a lot recently. I am no expert there, but it is a relatively new (20 years?) technology which is damaging well water quality. As far as OHV usage affecting surface water as well as particulate pollution in the form of exhaust and dust, that is a given. I believe the solution is education and enforcement. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, I have never run across a ranger checking registration, trail usage or noise decibels. Less off trail or road usage would reduce erosion and its effects on surface water. 

I too see restrictions on OHV usage as necessary, and I realize they will be inevitable. I think a blanket ban on OHV usage is way to strict and elitist to be implemented though. 

I hope you or anyone else were not offended by my comparing your comments about drunken OHV users to racism. I was in no way implying anything ugly about you, I was mere comparing what I feel is an ignorant and stereotypical view to a more ignorant and stereotypical view. I personally try to not voice such views and I try to judge each user (OHV or anything else) or person on their actions or merits.

As far as your statement before that OHV usage is worse than the extractive industries and all other recreation combined, maybe you could share your knowledge with the residents of Crested Butte. They are fighting a proposed molydenum mine near town. Little do they know that the true menace are the dirtbikes zipping around the beautiful trails near there


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

hotchkiss said:


> Farp,
> 
> I have changed my mind. Burn the wilderness to the ground and run over it with a skidloader and a D10. I changed my mind because you are a bias writer, a bigot and a liar. Admit it, admit that OHVs are no more damaging than a pack of wild puppy dogs bounding up a trail you damn tree hugger.
> Your bias is totally uncalled for. You're a journalist for Heavens to Betsy. I mean honestly, how dare you research issues and have the audacity to develop an opinion. You should be ashamed.
> ...


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

hotchkiss said:


> Farp,
> 
> I have changed my mind. Burn the wilderness to the ground and run over it with a skidloader and a D10. I changed my mind because you are a bias writer, a bigot and a liar. Admit it, admit that OHVs are no more damaging than a pack of wild puppy dogs bounding up a trail you damn tree hugger.
> Your bias is totally uncalled for. You're a journalist for Heavens to Betsy. I mean honestly, how dare you research issues and have the audacity to develop an opinion. You should be ashamed.
> ...


Hotchkiss, you are absolutely right. Fox news is hardly reputable, mostly because of their bias. I get the impression that farp leans even further to the left that Fox does to the right. If you combined both side's reporting you could probably get all the facts if you could sort through the bullshit. I do not know if farp reports news or if his position is writing about his views or editorializing. There is lots of room for opinion in the latter two but I prefer my news straight up, with no spin either way.

I want to make it clear, I in no way implied anyone was racist. I did point out that stereotypical and predudicial views are also shared by racists. The point was that such views are ugly and best left unsaid if a rational discussion is desired.


----------



## arizona_kamakazi (Sep 1, 2009)

If some of you were in charge I'm sure you would desolve capitalism and develop a new society based on love, nature, hugs and fairy dust. That's precious.
Yes, I get anoyed at the extreme ignorance of many self-proclaimed environmentalists in the U.S. For background, I'd like to state here that I have a bachelors in Science in an ecology related field from NAU, am near completion of a masters in Science in an ecology related field from USU, have worked in an ecology related profession for 6-years and frequently read scientific publications from sources such as Journal of Forestry, Journal of Ecology and from the Ecological Restoration Institute. Wilderness areas do not mean that they are in a better ecological condition than non wilderness areas. In fact, many scientists support active management, such as logging, prescribed burning, or using heavy machenery to 'restore' a system to a condition that is within what is called its "natural range of variability". A perfect example of this is in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Here, before European settlement, fires would burn at frequent (3-7 years) intervals, killing most young trees but burning at low enough intensities that older trees would not be harmed. Because 100-years of fire suppression, forests became overgrown and now burn at high intensities that kill all trees. When this happens, watersheds, soils, wildlife habitat, etc, are damaged to an extent never seen at an evoloutionary timescale. In addition, ponderosas have no adaptations that enable them to regenerate following these disturbances. These are effects not from Direct impacts (such as logging, mining, off-road driving) but the more often overlooked indirect impacts from fire suppression. In wilderness areas that contain ponderosa pine, there is nothing that can be done to reverse this trend because logging is prohibited. Its increadibly sad to see forests where I used to frequent basically converted to scrub oak (following stand-replacing fire) because somebody thought that "Wilderness" was good because the sound of the word made them feel fuzy inside. In areas not designated as wilderness, however, concious logging has benifited ecological systems. Look it up at the Ecological Restoration Institute. Plenty of info.
As for local issues that pertain to this proposal...currently there is what has been termed a mountain pine beetle 'epidemic' in Summit County. Basically, research estimates that about 90% of the mature lodgepole pine will die. By and large it is within the natural range of variability of this ecosystem because lodgepole pine adapted, over an evolutionary timescale, to be able to respond to stand-replacing disturbances. Following the die-off, expect fires at the scale of what happened in Yellowstone during the 1980s. Yellowstone had beetles wipe out the old trees before the fires, just like what will happen sometime in Summit County and many other places accross the U.S. and Canada. Thing is, just because it is natural doesn't mean that locals don't want to do something about it. In wilderness, they can't.
Also, the areas of spruce in this proposal look healthy now. But forests change. If a windthrow event were to occur, spruce beetle could cause as much mortality as the mountain pine beetle. If in a designated wilderness, nothing could be done. This may not happen in my lifetime, but why set ridgid policies that do not provide people with the flexibility to address current environmental issues?
In close, your environmental justification for designating wilderness is garbage. Ecosytems have evolved with disturbances. Fires have burned, mudslides, tornados, avalanches, floods, insects, diseases and more have occured at evolutionary timescales and as a result these ecosystems have develop adaptations that allow them to respond to disturbances. If the disturbances caused by direct effects such as logging, mining, off-road driving, etc. are within an ecosystems natural range of variablity it doesn't necessarily mean that that system will be degraded. It may just be different that what you may be used to in the short time frame in which you think. You may ask "how can you say off-road driving is within the natural range if trucks didn't exist 200-years ago?" Easy, the effects of the truck would be sedimentation. The same thing that happens during a flood. The ecosystem doesn't know if a storm is causing the sedimentation or a truck. The important thing is that the sedimentation is within a range of conditions where the ecosystem can sustain itself.
Aside from environmental issues are social issues. Some enjoy solitude, some enjoy bikes/trucks/etc. I like both..although Wilderness areas rarely provide solitude because once they are named, everybody from Denver wants to go there. Current management is based on the community comming together and creating a plan for how the area should be used. It is a grassroots approach. Wilderness areas are designated from the top down and are often made so that a political can appease enviros and put a feather in their cap without regard to what locals think is best.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

> If some of you were in charge I'm sure you would *desolve* capitalism and develop a new society based on love, nature, hugs and fairy dust. That's precious.


Dude! Try some Birks and hemp clothing, organic vegies and tofu, and _really_ try to lay off the human growth hormone and steroids. Just sayin'...8)


----------



## arizona_kamakazi (Sep 1, 2009)

Riparian said:


> Dude! Try some Birks and hemp clothing, organic vegies and tofu, and _really_ try to lay off the human growth hormone and steroids. Just sayin'...8)


By the way, I'm a huge fan of yours Lebowski!


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Arizona Kamakazi. Your last two posts were very factual. Thanks for pointing out some of the percentages of the White river national forest. Too often people assume that just because an area is not wilderness, that motorized vehicles can run wherever they want. This is not the case. The amount of off road (legal trails) in this forest is surprisingly small. You can get to some very wild places by foot only in this forest without being in an official wilderness

I think a lot of the support for wilderness comes from folks who do not want industries such as logging and gas drilling and ohv usage in their woods. That sounds fair. The reality is that ohv's cannot go everywhere, and their usage can be regulated. Valuable minerals and timbers are not everywhere also. Having said that, I do not support all of the Hidden Gems wilderness proposal, but since it is all or nothing I have to oppose this wilderness expansion.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Even though I'm a shameless tree-huggin' Birk-wearin', tofu-gobblin' communist, I grudgingly agree that the all-or-nothin' approach is not the best. 

Did I just say that? Ooops. Fuck.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Riparian said:


> Badswimmer,
> PS - 47% of the folks who participated in the poll think we need more wilderness areas in Colorado... a more than 2-to-1 margin. Guess I'm not alone.


Keep in mind the type of site we're on. Kayakers tend to be pretty strongly to the left, Mtn bikers are somewhere in between, and sledders are, well you know where they are!

I just think it's interesting, if this affected put in access for a number of our kayak runs (which we get to via motorized access let's not forget) we'd ALL be up in arms. How would you like to have to hike every kayak run you do?

How much are you, me, any of us willing to give up for protection of the land around us?


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Waterwindpowderrock said:


> Keep in mind the type of site we're on. Kayakers tend to be pretty strongly to the left, Mtn bikers are somewhere in between, and sledders are, well you know where they are!
> 
> I just think it's interesting, if this affected put in access for a number of our kayak runs (which we get to via motorized access let's not forget) we'd ALL be up in arms. How would you like to have to hike every kayak run you do?
> 
> How much are you, me, any of us willing to give up for protection of the land around us?


Good points. On the other end of the spectrum is the degradation that can occur when an are becomes "protected". Some of our parks are being loved to death, with no motor usage allowed. By putting them on the radar as a desirable place, more people go to check them out. Just wait until some favorite run of yours becomes a national park and the park service gets to decide what sports and what number of users is appropriate. It could have happened with the Black Canyon of the Gunnison.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

> On the other end of the spectrum is the degradation that can occur when an are becomes "protected". Some of our parks are being loved to death, with no motor usage allowed.


There's some truth to this. Canyonlands Ntl Park is a perfect example. I'm an old fart, and I knew it well LONG before there was a visitor center. Long before the desert was "cool". It was better back then.

But you're still going to hell for riding a dirt bike. Period.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Riparian said:


> There's some truth to this. Canyonlands Ntl Park is a perfect example. I'm an old fart, and I knew it well LONG before there was a visitor center. Long before the desert was "cool". It was better back then.
> 
> But you're still going to hell for riding a dirt bike. Period.


I hope its hot and sandy there. Just like Moab. I loves the slickrock! The old days were definitely better. The mtn biking in the mid 80's in Moab was great and relatively undiscovered. I bet mtn bikers have screwed the area up more than all the uranium prospecting combined. My moto brethren have not been too kind either.


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

Riparian said:


> Even though I'm a shameless tree-huggin' Birk-wearin', tofu-gobblin' communist, I grudgingly agree that the all-or-nothin' approach is not the best.
> 
> Did I just say that? Ooops. Fuck.



Whoa, did you just get edjamacated from Arizona Kamikazi? Does the truth spewing out your mouth taste unnatural? Momma is so proud.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

"Fortunately, I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug, uh regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh limber."


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

Riparian said:


> There's some truth to this. Canyonlands Ntl Park is a perfect example. I'm an old fart, and I knew it well LONG before there was a visitor center. Long before the desert was "cool". It was better back then.
> 
> But you're still going to hell for riding a dirt bike. Period.


Hell? Have you tried it? Right up there with sex, drugs, rocknroll!! So judgemental, you must be a blessed virgin, sent here to save us sinners.
Hopefully you are clear of my flying debris when I tear out of the takeout on my dirtbike causing erosion by tossing rocks into your granola, and saving the planet by shuttling with my motorpsycho( over 60mpg bitches) Enjoy.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Badswimmer lives with his Mom.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Hotchkiss, not sure that talkin' about Badswimmer's mom helps raise the level of discourse here. She too is a victim. We need to show the hyperactive lad some compassion (and perhaps offer up a dose or two of Ritalin). Afterall, he's going to hell for running roughshod over Gawd's creation with his noisemaker. We must pray for his salvation... and put a little corn syrup in his gas tank and fine grit sand in his crankcase. Dee-vine monkeywrenching, if you will. Ay-men.


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

hotchkiss said:


> Badswimmer lives with his Mom.


Only cause she changes my poopy and cooks so good, at least she still loves me for who I am. Will you pay my mortgage, and cook and change my poopy and be my Dada. My mom moved in cause she got tired of waiting for the free-ride from Obama, and figured she should get it from me, an actual productive American. Shit, my mother in law just called, she wants a handout too, better build another dungeon. Ryan, is it good being asian? I here your mommy gives great ,uh, happy endings, but only for family, and its not incest, its tradition, if you are the oldest. You lucky(???) dog.


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

*drugs are bad*



Riparian said:


> Hotchkiss, not sure that talkin' about Badswimmer's mom helps raise the level of discourse here. She too is a victim. We need to show the hyperactive lad some compassion (and perhaps offer up a dose or two of Ritalin). Afterall, he's going to hell for running roughshod over Gawd's creation with his noisemaker. We must pray for his salvation... and put a little corn syrup in his gas tank and fine grit sand in his crankcase. Dee-vine monkeywrenching, if you will. Ay-men.


So hatefull, too bad you cant kick my ass and beat me into submission for my evil ways, too bad I stay on trail and advocate responsibility from all user groups. When is the last time you had the balls to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, hurtful, illegal, or immoral, outside of the net? My guess is, never, To quote Bloodhound Gang-"your just a dick with no balls" Sabatoge my bike, if you have any balls, But, watch out for Sasquatch, he's on my team, and he's hungry for vegans.


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Get the gloves out. three, 3-min. rounds, say uncle its over, no bitting, kicking or scratching. Protect yourself at all time, no hitting below the belt, lets have a clean fight gentlemen.

Then we can get back to the topic?


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Neil Gustafson said:


> Get the gloves out. three, 3-min. rounds, say uncle its over, no bitting, kicking or scratching. Protect yourself at all time, no hitting below the belt, lets have a clean fight gentlemen.
> 
> Then we can get back to the topic?


 

Hey now, what fun would that be?? (gettin back to the topic that is, not watching them beat each other up, that'd be fun!)

A topic like this is a simple "I'm right, you're wrong" argument anyhow & agreeing to disagree would be boring as hell.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

Well shucks, I suggest that Badswimmer needs our compassion, and suddenly I'm a hater. My feelings have been hurt. I'm going to have a yummy vegie burger and ponder the abject unfairness of it all. Then I'm going to pray: "Dear Old God, please bless us with a litte old precision lightning strike right on top of Badswimmer's dirtbike. Amen."


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

Riparian, you aren't a hater. I think they were talking about me. I'll chill on the personal attacks, no one wants to get into that. So, since I took us off-track, here's my attempt to re-rail us:

I wish there was a way to allow mtn. bikers, dirt bikers, four wheelers... all the recreaters in an area without that meaning that big business can exploit the area as well.


----------



## badswimmer (Jul 13, 2006)

Neil Gustafson said:


> Get the gloves out. three, 3-min. rounds, say uncle its over, no bitting, kicking or scratching. Protect yourself at all time, no hitting below the belt, lets have a clean fight gentlemen.
> 
> Then we can get back to the topic?


Finally, a reasonable, civilized way to decide our fate. I propose, no gloves, or rules, strict survival of the fittest. Too bad our medical technology keeps all these weakling types alive. What happened to natural selection? Lets put all our energies into stewardship and see what happens when we all work towards the same goal, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, swim, boat, and a world where it is just as sinful to ignore evil misuse as to misuse the earth yourself. I also propose that we outlaw practiced medicine, and let nature take its course, then there will be oh so many less people to spoil nature that those of us lucky enough to live through it may again enjoy it fully, and to the greatest extent the aliens who put us here intended. Just one question:: Why is it OK to STEAL water from its natural drainage, the Wilderness? Then pump it through the Divide (via 27 transcontinental diversions) to sustain a desert metropolis never fit for substantial human habitation, just so YOU can live with a green lawn outside your cute little box, just like your neighbors. If this outrage upsets you as much as me, join together, kill yourselves and your loved ones for the unsustainable lives they lead, or lobby to decommission the diversions and die of thirst. I will be at home in the woods, may my urine trickle down in what little water you find to drink.
Thank God for Roberts tunnel and Denvers thirst, may the faucet turn on and keep me content in my hypocracy.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Other way around.

Get rid of big business & let the ohv users go play at all the abandonded mine sites. There's some great terrain there anyhow.

The water side of things is an even uglier argument. I'd love for all the developements/ cities that wouldn't survive on their natural water supply to be eliminted, it really would get rid of this problem quickly.

As for natural selection, not nearly enough of it these days. Something should be done.

Let's go boat bailey now!!!


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Gotta have gloves and rules, the noble thing to do.
Honnor. Respect. Control.

The natrual depravity of man, the all might dollar.
Of course, if your givin money to a curvey gal, is all good, ''Just sayin''.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

arizona_kamakazi said:


> If some of you were in charge I'm sure you would desolve capitalism and develop *a new society based on love, nature, hugs and fairy dust.*


You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## asherj (Oct 27, 2003)

So... 

There seems to already be some pretty off the mark suggestions and asertions being floated around about not only the proposal and wilderness but the manner in which its being approached. 

First, The 1964 Wilderness Act created an ability of Congress to designate federal lands which meet certain criteria (spelled out in the wilderness act) as an area to be managed to keep its wilderness charachter, all the specifics of which have been solidified not only in the orriginal act but in hundreds of subsequent court decisions and wilderness laws. 

The current proposal you're talking about "the hidden gems" is being evaluated just as any other wilderness proposal that has ever been proposed in our country: The Forest Service, BLM, or National Park reccomends areas that have wilderness quality, wilderness supporters and everyday citizens develop a proposal and congress puts that proposal in the form of a bill which is then voted on (a process that can take years and decades). 

Currently, they are in the "citizens develop a proposal" phase where the lands being talked about have started out as large acreges and are being whittled down to accomodate bike trails, snowmobiliers, atv users and the like in a completely open process... in fact if you visit the hidden gems website and/or talk to the campaign organizers and have a problem with one of their boundaries i bet they'd be willing to look at changing it or at least have a good discussion about why the areas and boundaries are where they are... 

As for urgency or some secret new way to get wilderness past without propper vetting.... this is a scare tactic and completely false. As if after 45 years some group in Colorado suddenly found some amaizing new super sneaky loophole for world domination...as if... 

I urge everyone who has a question to contact the hidden gems campaign (links are above in earlier posts) and have a good heart to heart. 

You can also ask Rep. Polis's office about this, as i did, and learn that the part about it being done soon is total bs! They don't even have a bill yet and aren't even fully signed on, they are just starting to talk to all the local groups now and are seeking input... anyone who might have a problem and bringing their concerns to the table, so instead of posting false posts you might actually want to try just talking to their office first. 

Someone else posted about the roadless issue. While designated roadless areas (already in place under Forest Service managemet created in 2001 but modified under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and currently in limbo with the state of Colorado developing its own rule hanging in the balance) are good ways to lead to future wilderness designations they aren't the same thing, and the current roadless debate is fully removed from the several wilderness proposals out there from other Colorado reps and senators. 

As for the orriginal post on this chain, looks like a special interest post likely from any number of wilderness opposers, opposed not to specific areas but ideologically, who instead of getting more info and opening dialoge with wilderness supporters decided to incite fear in the uninformed. Very Sad. 

Again I hope anyone who has questions or concerns about a process that is very much in its infancy will contact the campaign's organizers with their concerns, I would bet they will be very receptive as they have already. Or if you dont want to talk to the organizers then talk to the Rep., that's his job. 

Also, before posting misleading rehtoric about natural resources issues on a site where the main audience is people who live and breath things like land and water laws... its good to do some extra fact checking.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

asherj said:


> As for the orriginal post on this chain, looks like a special interest post likely from any number of wilderness opposers, opposed not to specific areas but ideologically, who instead of getting more info and opening dialoge with wilderness supporters decided to incite fear in the uninformed. Very Sad.


Actually, I am pretty stoked that I posted this. We've had a great debate, that has gotten personal and come back on topic. I don't agree with everybody on this board and they do not have to agree with me. At least we are talking about a current topic that concerns peopole, be it one way or the other. 



asherj said:


> Again I hope anyone who has questions or concerns about a process that is very much in its infancy will contact the campaign's organizers with their concerns, I would bet they will be very receptive as they have already. Or if you dont want to talk to the organizers then talk to the Rep., that's his job.


Um.. Had you read the whole thread and not just the parts you wanted to see, You would see that I Posted in the original post links to both sides of the story. I also asked people to get involved and ask question / make comments , be it for or against.



asherj said:


> Also, before posting misleading rehtoric about natural resources issues on a site where the main audience is people who live and breath things like land and water laws... its good to do some extra fact checking.


So, You really gave us NO NEW INFORMATION. And your corrections are totally off base. Thanks for the comments. You made my night.


Hotchkiss, I think we may have found some common ground.


----------



## BmfnL (May 23, 2009)

hotchkiss said:


> I wish there was a way to allow mtn. bikers, dirt bikers, four wheelers... all the recreaters in an area without that meaning that big business can exploit the area as well.


So, an update:
The latest proposal maps on whiteriverwild do not include the Elk Creek portion (home to my favorite rides). I heard through the grapevine that this may be because of gas industry pressure in that district. 

If so, bike ride access is intact but it's a hollow victory.

Once everyone feels like they lost, that's probably when the balance is struck, eh?


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

The moment Brendo and I find some common ground, I'm running to the left again, as far as I can get. Bmfnl, Brendo, Farp, that's exactly why we need more wilderness area. As much as I love mountain biking, I'd give up a few of my favorite trails, (or ride them at the risk of having to pay a ticket,) to save my favorite places from big business's destruction.

Brendo, can you see why it's in our interests to hope for wilderness designation? Or, is Bmfnl right, we all have to lose something before it's a fair compromise?

B.t.w., I don't think you've said anything, "off the mark," factually Brendo. I don't know what that guy was refering to. Maybe he was talking about me, in fact probably. I just find that my argument is stronger if I exaggerate my facts and insult my opponents. Shame on me.


----------



## arizona_kamakazi (Sep 1, 2009)

asherj said:


> So...
> 
> There seems to already be some pretty off the mark suggestions and asertions being floated around about not only the proposal and wilderness but the manner in which its being approached.
> 
> ...


You should do some fact checking of your own. Your correct that the Forest Service, BLM and National Parks recomend Wilderness. This is based on public input and environmental analysis. I looked up the White River's "Recommended Wilderness Areas" in their Forest Plan. There are no recomended wilderness areas in the Breckenridge area and two very small areas northeast of Silverthorne. Hardly anything in the Flat Tops. Really, all of the Forest Service's proposed areas are small extensions of current Wilderness areas with the exception of Hardscrabble Mountain south of Eagle. Having lived in Eagle, I don't think locals would support Wilderness on Hardscrabble. Eagle is trying to become "the new Moab" for mountain biking. Eagles best mountain biking trails are on hardscrabble mountain. Lots of good off-roading in the Hardscrabble area that provides access to elk/deer hunting. A network of current roads and trails, heavy use, doesn't really sound like a reasonable place to make a Wilderness Area. None of the other areas that the Hidden Jems are proposing are based on local input. They are a fanatic group out of Aspen that are pushing their own adgenda.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

arizona_kamakazi said:


> None of the other areas that the Hidden Jems are proposing are based on local input. They are a fanatic group out of Aspen that are pushing their own adgenda.


Just because you oppose their ideas does not make them a "fanatic group." In fact, if you read the "About Us" page on the website you realize they are supported and created by a group of diverse, interdisciplinary organizations. Hell, their steering committee is made up of the Colorado Mt Club and The Wilderness Society. Rarely do fanatical groups have such a respected following. 

And when does local economic interest trump national priorities? Isn't that just their own "agenda"? The "Hidden Gems" folks are following a legal process that exists for this very reason. Maybe the local economies and clubs should rally a little harder are start presenting facts about how the current management regime is better. Actually present figures about # of routes, percent of economy based on ecotourism, etc. Maybe its time they got organized and constructively fought for what they want.

But until then it only hurts your side to try and demonize the opposition.

Phillip


----------



## arizona_kamakazi (Sep 1, 2009)

restrac2000 said:


> Just because you oppose their ideas does not make them a "fanatic group." In fact, if you read the "About Us" page on the website you realize they are supported and created by a group of diverse, interdisciplinary organizations. Hell, their steering committee is made up of the Colorado Mt Club and The Wilderness Society. Rarely do fanatical groups have such a respected following.
> 
> And when does local economic interest trump national priorities? Isn't that just their own "agenda"? The "Hidden Gems" folks are following a legal process that exists for this very reason. Maybe the local economies and clubs should rally a little harder are start presenting facts about how the current management regime is better. Actually present figures about # of routes, percent of economy based on ecotourism, etc. Maybe its time they got organized and constructively fought for what they want.
> 
> ...


Haw, I new I could make some of you crunchies cry with that last comment. Its not Wilderness, or that concept of Wilderness, that disturbs me; just the methods and reasoning behind the Hidden Gems proposal. 
They are an extremest group. Just because their website says that they are diverse doesn't mean they are well represented. They are represented by a group of people who all think Wilderness should be expanded to the extent possible. That isn't diversity. And who says that the CO Mtn Club or the Wilderness Society are respected? Often times these groups garner support from fear tactics, with no quantifiable data supporting what they claim as "destructive". See my earler post for ecological clarification. Many ignorant environmentalists join these groups with good intentions, but in the end have negative impacts on the environment and communities. If you want a environmental group that isn't extreme, try the Nature Conservancy. They look at specific situations and try to find solutions to issues, rather than applying a blanket policy, such as preservation, to all forms of land management. 
As for local vs. national. Yes, I believe local is more important. If you don't agree, then I propose putting in a nuclear power plant next to your town for the good of the country, with or without the support of the local population.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

arizona_kamakazi said:


> None of the other areas that the Hidden Jems are proposing are based on local input. They are a fanatic group out of Aspen that are pushing their own adgenda.


Truth. I know many of the supporters as well as the lead spokesman. I have done the SME helicopter accessed touring with him in Canada (heli in and then a week of ski touring). That was ok for him up there. They are going for as much as they can possibly mark on a map with little regard for prior or existing usage. I believe they want this new wilderness to be their legacy. The backers of the original wilderness are highly thought of here (Aspen), and rightly so. I cherish those lands set aside, but they have a different feel than these new areas (Hidden Gems)


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

arizona_kamakazi said:


> Haw, I new I could make some of you crunchies cry with that last comment.


Neither a "crunchy" nor crying. Just fatigued by those who constantly turn these issue and dialogues into personal attacks. Its off focus and to me always exposes the weakness of argument of those perpetuating the assault. Can't you present your ideas without resorting to such illegitimate flaming? 





arizona_kamakazi said:


> They are an extremest group. Just because their website says that they are diverse doesn't mean they are well represented. They are represented by a group of people who all think Wilderness should be expanded to the extent possible. That isn't diversity. And who says that the CO Mtn Club or the Wilderness Society are respected? Often times these groups garner support from fear tactics, with no quantifiable data supporting what they claim as "destructive". See my earler post for ecological clarification.


Explain and present some evidence that they are extremist? You are trying to counter a specific bill with way too broad accusations. The Colorado Mountain Club is extremist? The Wilderness Society? Really? Than why are they so often one of the most common players at mitigation meetings during management planning? Most of my mentors, who tend to be moderate officials who defend diverse interests, have tremendous respect for the Wilderness Society even when they disagree with desired outcomes. They do lobby for wilderness designation, that is their organizational mandate. They had highly respected founders, like Leopold, Marshall, and Zahnheiser. But to argue that they want to expand wilderness to any "extent possible" (sorry if I am misreading your reply) is illogical and unfounded. That is fear-mongering my friend. 

Much has changed since they helped pass the WA but there still is value to wilderness despite your "ecological clarification." There is strong evidence that wilderness, and other areas of non-active management, serve as source populations that can help buffer extinction, etc. Hence Bush's designation of one of the largest marine preserves before he left office. By no means is wilderness the end-all-be-all. Neither is active management. These groups are open to changes, most of the time. Hence the public comment period and meeting they are providing. 




arizona_kamakazi said:


> Many ignorant environmentalists join these groups with good intentions, but in the end have negative impacts on the environment and communities. If you want a environmental group that isn't extreme, try the Nature Conservancy. They look at specific situations and try to find solutions to issues, rather than applying a blanket policy, such as preservation, to all forms of land management.


Who gets to decide who is an ignorant environmentalist? Most PhDs I know don't have the wisdom to classify people in that manner. I know I don't, and I am one semester from wrapping up a BS in Zoology. I dare so you have a specific subset of information even within science that doesn't make you qualified to pass such judgement. Lay off the judgement and dismissal of opposing views buddy. It does you, science, and management no good. 

Agreed on The Nature Conservancy. They are a highly respected organization and I have seen some great projects and lands preserved. 




arizona_kamakazi said:


> As for local vs. national. Yes, I believe local is more important. If you don't agree, then I propose putting in a nuclear power plant next to your town for the good of the country, with or without the support of the local population.


Why resort to something like a Strawman Argument on this? Really, go from a specific wilderness bill to the flawed representation of my argument by comparing it to the orange that is "nuclear power plants"? Flawed and beyond comparison. Take my ideas as what they are not some misconstrued comparison, you are capable of that as a scientist.

If local needs are the primary concerns of management than why are the lands we are discussing Federal Land? Local socio-economics and recreation must be understand. But rarely is it the primary factor on federal lands. Instead they need to be measured against the other needs vocalized by diverse stakeholders. I do believe locals needs are often ignored during management changes and I believe this is a shame. I believe there should be mechanisms in place to help during transitions. Many "extreme environmentalist" recognized these flaws and presented economic options that have since been abandoned. But just because there are deficiencies in meeting locals needs doesn't mean we should abandon management changes.

Out of clarification, tell me how many acres of USFS land are open to active management versus land that is designated as wilderness. I don't know the exact figures, but I have an educated guess that most USFS land is managed actively and that a small portion is "hands off" wilderness.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

arizona_kamakazi said:


> Because 100-years of fire suppression, forests became overgrown and now burn at high intensities that kill all trees. When this happens, watersheds, soils, wildlife habitat, etc, are damaged to an extent never seen at an evoloutionary timescale. In addition, ponderosas have no adaptations that enable them to regenerate following these disturbances. These are effects not from Direct impacts (such as logging, mining, off-road driving) but the more often overlooked indirect impacts from fire suppression. In wilderness areas that contain ponderosa pine, there is nothing that can be done to reverse this trend because logging is prohibited. Its increadibly sad to see forests where I used to frequent basically converted to scrub oak (following stand-replacing fire) because somebody thought that "Wilderness" was good because the sound of the word made them feel fuzy inside. In areas not designated as wilderness, however, concious logging has benifited ecological systems.


Some of this is very true. Fire suppression has led to rather unfortunate management problems, most notable an increase in intensity and rate of fires. I don't know as much about Ponderosas but one technique that is used in wilderness areas is the monitoring of wildfires versus immediate extinguishment. One is going locally here. We can never offset the actions of the past, but we can learn. As for the general sentiment of your idea, not all lands are managed actively for philosophical reasons. Science doesn't put a value on this it just makes observations. To preach about active management is to preach policy, not science. Each area has different desired goals. Some are to produce timber of commercial value. Some for aesthetic value, etc. But one doesn't always trump the other. Get any honest professor or researcher to define a "healthy forest" and they will likely struggle. Why? Because ecosystems are dynamic, not static. How do you incorporate ideas of succession into you explanation? What is better, what do we restore to, etc, etc. These are questions that haunt every professional I know. And the answer is always subjective. Because science doesn't make value judgments. 




arizona_kamakazi said:


> In close, your environmental justification for designating wilderness is garbage. Ecosytems have evolved with disturbances. Fires have burned, mudslides, tornados, avalanches, floods, insects, diseases and more have occured at evolutionary timescales and as a result these ecosystems have develop adaptations that allow them to respond to disturbances. If the disturbances caused by direct effects such as logging, mining, off-road driving, etc. are within an ecosystems natural range of variablity it doesn't necessarily mean that that system will be degraded. It may just be different that what you may be used to in the short time frame in which you think. You may ask "how can you say off-road driving is within the natural range if trucks didn't exist 200-years ago?" Easy, the effects of the truck would be sedimentation. The same thing that happens during a flood. The ecosystem doesn't know if a storm is causing the sedimentation or a truck. The important thing is that the sedimentation is within a range of conditions where the ecosystem can sustain itself.
> Aside from environmental issues are social issues. Some enjoy solitude, some enjoy bikes/trucks/etc.


There is much truth to the evolutionary concepts you provide. There is much to debate in regards to sedimentation. Many of the regions are in headwater reaches of drainages that don't see the type of flashfloods that rearrange the sediment loading that any roads create. You also ignore the localized issue of soil compaction and its affect on plant and invertebrate dispersal. 

"your environmental justification for designating wilderness is garbage"? Really. What timescale are you prioritizing? What are the assumptions you make with your ecological argument? Active management and use can be great if it agrees with the desired outcomes. Sometimes it doesn't. Many people are thinking about the long term "health" of an ecosystem when they justify wilderness. This may mean we see massive die-offs of trees we favor aesthetically. This may mean that the ecosystem oscillates in it community structure. But maybe people value the ecosystem finding its own balance. Stop dismissing others arguments and rationalizing it with biased interpretations of science. Or at least admit your assumptions, and there are plenty. 




arizona_kamakazi said:


> I like both..although Wilderness areas rarely provide solitude because once they are named, everybody from Denver wants to go there. Current management is based on the community comming together and creating a plan for how the area should be used. It is a grassroots approach. Wilderness areas are designated from the top down and are often made so that a political can appease enviros and put a feather in their cap without regard to what locals think is best.


There is always special interest involved in management decisions. Trying to summarize "Wilderness" as some other "top down" approach is junk. It follows the same legal guidelines that so many other management programs must. How do you define community? Is this only local and exclude the national citizens who prefer wilderness? Grassroots approach, really? How many times do big money, county, grazing, or mineral interest come in lobby and present their case during policy meetings? Your gross simplification of "appeasing enviros" is just that. They have a legitimate spot at the table just like your glorified and inaccurate descriptions of "community coming together." Just because you have a bone to pick with wilderness advocates doesn't mean they aren't a valid stakeholder in the process. 

Be careful projecting such gross generalizations and dismissive descriptions on people with opposing views. The irony could bite you in your own *ss.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

If this thread is not dead to everyone, here is a link to the same discussion on a back country ski site called Wildsnow. The site is more moderated than the Buzz with less personal attacks, but it is more sterile in some regards also. Colorado Mountain Bikers Push Wilderness Alternative - Lou Dawson's Backcountry Skiing Blog


----------



## slavetotheflyrod (Sep 2, 2009)

Yes, but also feel the need to have some good ol fashioned common sense as to where and why. For one thing, I'm not at all for closing areas that have already been used for motorized recreation for decades. If you close one area to minimize impact, all you do is shift the impact to other areas. I'm also of the firm belief that the best way to protect our public lands and their natural resources is through education. I think more people would learn to respect the great outdoors if they knew why and how. To some, the idea of minimal impact is an abstract concept because they can't make the connections between their chosen form of recreation and the potential negative impacts. It's not enough to tell people to stay on trails because creating new trails causes erosion and expect them to take that at face value. Some just can't themselves see how. If you take the time to explain the process, then for some the light goes on and they'll understand. Some, on the other hand, have no bulb to light, or just don't care. Those folks can't be reasoned with and are best left to the rangers/law enforcement to deal with.


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

slavetotheflyrod said:


> Yes, but also feel the need to have some good ol fashioned common sense as to where and why. For one thing, I'm not at all for closing areas that have already been used for motorized recreation for decades. If you close one area to minimize impact, all you do is shift the impact to other areas. I'm also of the firm belief that the best way to protect our public lands and their natural resources is through education. I think more people would learn to respect the great outdoors if they knew why and how. To some, the idea of minimal impact is an abstract concept because they can't make the connections between their chosen form of recreation and the potential negative impacts. It's not enough to tell people to stay on trails because creating new trails causes erosion and expect them to take that at face value. Some just can't themselves see how. If you take the time to explain the process, then for some the light goes on and they'll understand. Some, on the other hand, have no bulb to light, or just don't care. Those folks can't be reasoned with and are best left to the rangers/law enforcement to deal with.


This is very true. Natures worst enemy is the one who doesn't understand and respect the impact their choice of recreation has on the environment. A hiker without a clue or a care can be worse than a responsible ATV rider.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

"A hiker without a clue or a care can be worse than a responsible ATV rider."

That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has said on this thread. Irresponsible, dishonest, inflaming comments like that are EXACTLY the reason these types of threads are reduced to personal attacks.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

hotchkiss said:


> "A hiker without a clue or a care can be worse than a responsible ATV rider."
> 
> That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has said on this thread. Irresponsible, dishonest, inflaming comments like that are EXACTLY the reason these types of threads are reduced to personal attacks.



This is such a stupid statement I can't help but think you're being sarcastic, but based on your previous threads...
You just don't get it.

Where I ride (snowmobile) there is a hiker lot & a sledder lot. It's just up the road from my house so I send a lot of time keeping the area clean. In the dirty nasty snomobilers lot, well, I don't have to clean up, there's no crap on the ground. In the hikers lot I find batteries (Great for the environment) nearly EVERY week, food wrappers, and other junk all the time. If you don't understand why there is a difference between a person that cares & a moron of ANY user type you should crawl back under that rock & wait for some 'yotes to come by so ya can shoot at 'em.


----------



## hotchkiss (Jun 17, 2006)

First off, I don't believe any of what you are saying is true. I don't believe you are being even slightly honest about what you see at trailheads.

Regardless of whether you are a liar or not- and you are- I simply can't believe you're actually making the claim, "them darn hikers iz ulways litrn n tashen da plase. Damn anti-enviros needa falla da zample uh du modorcyklers. We'z da reel 'leeve no trasers!" 

I'm done with this thread so I'm just going to say it, you're full of shit. Beyond your dishonest disposition is the idiocy of your claims. Let me get this right, what you are saying is that a Powerbar wrapper leaves a larger carbon footprint than a motorcycle tearing up ground for miles upon miles upon miles upon miles upon miles upon miles upon miles on public land?

That picture on your profile is proof you've landed on your head. What you write is proof you're retarded.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Wow, no personal attacks there.

Get out of Kansas for a while & you might see that the average Subaru driving freeheeler isn't the envirogod you think they are. (I own a Subie too, but you get the idea)

Ok, eliminate the Sledders from the mix. Head up to the top of Berthoud pass & look around...now shut the fuck up. 
I don't have to lie, the junk is all over the place, get off your ass & come pick up some trash instead of yapping on here & calling people retarded liars.


----------



## boatmusher (Jun 18, 2008)

The Durango Telegraph - The independent weekly line on Durango and Beyond

Thought this had some interesting points......


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

boatmusher said:


> The Durango Telegraph - The independent weekly line on Durango and Beyond
> 
> Thought this had some interesting points......


 
In a round about way yes. This is more directed at enforcing existing laws, it's a pretty important part of OHV management. It's sad but the reality is that most people think that if no one is looking that they can break any law they want to, this applies to all social classes in just about any situation in life, not just OHV's. 

This was a very one sided take on the issue, it's sad to see this type of reporting, we've already covered that here though.


----------



## somersboy.mt (Jul 7, 2009)

wow... i read about half of this thread and can't bring myself to read the rest. i am amazed at how many people won't budge from their extreme p.o.v and look for a solution that's a compromise. i personally don't enjoy riding dirtbikes but i'm not about to condemn and belittle those who do. i've shared many campsites with riders and they are for the most part not the ignorant ******* parasite they've been made out to be by some on this site. just like most environmentally conscious individuals aren't crazed liberal enviro-nazis. unfortunately the two extremes yell the loudest and the longest. i'm certain there is a middle of the road solution to this wilderness problem if both sides would listen to each other and respect another's p.o.v. 
confucius say "man who walks middle road gets hit by traffic going both directions"


----------



## milehighassassin (Jul 6, 2005)

I read part of this thread but couldn't make it through all of it.

I am against the Hidden Gems proposal. I have grew up in these areas, I ride mountain bikes, I kayak, raft, hike, hunt, fish, camp and yes ride my snowmobile in these areas. The Red Sandstone area (Piney) is an area that would be lablelled wilderness, this is an area that we ride in a lot, our snowmobile club grooms up there, we maintain the area, why are they targeting this area? Our club is a Colorado State Parks club (CSA). We get state money to groom, and many use our trail system. With that said, the riding in these areas is not about trail riding. Riding in the West and in the Mountains has NEVER been about trails, it is about riding the steep and deep. 

Over the snow travel is different than over the ground/dirt travel. Snowmobiles do not cause soil erosion, they are cleaner burning than most people give them credit for, they get cleaner every year, they have to. I have been riding in areas that my grandfather used to ride in, I have been hunting these same areas. Hidden Gems is a basically a private land grab. You have one group who is excluding several other groups and taking public land for their own. 

With that said, I understand some hate for motorized users. When I ride and come up on skiers, snowshoers,etc, I slow down, wave and move to the side. I have been that skier, actually even been on a snowmobile stopped to the side and have had another snowmobiller, blast past me at lightening speeds. It pisses me off, but it is not fair to think everyone is the same. I have also witnessed a member of my family get off a sled and beat the $hit out of a cross country skier who as we drove past, slowly waiving at them, seemed to think it would be funny to hit him in the head with a ski pole. I will bet he doesn't do that again (ever try and fight while you are strapped into ski bindings). The point I am making is that it is not what a person is riding, the sport they are in that makes them a certain type of person, it comes down to integrity. You have it or you don't.

With that said, I am about protecting our beautiful state, but I am not willing to give up my rights to ride, play, hike, hunt, fish, camp in my state in order to protect them. The Forest Service is against making these areas wilderness. They are the ones paid to manage it. We have gone this far and in all honesty we have done well. We have some beautiful areas. Most of these areas are in NO DANGER of being developped. The area that are being developped are private land or mining claims, both of which will still be excluded from Wilderness designation. (please excuse the spelling).


----------



## NolsGuy (Jul 20, 2009)

boatmusher said:


> Wilderness is not about our recreation. In fact, it is about trying to leave something relatively untouched by human. The larger the wilderness the more likely there will be pockets of it that are seldom if ever seen by humans. As hard as it may be to comprehend, there are things in this world that are more important than our horses, our mountain bikes, our atv, our dirt bike and yes even our bull dozer. We as the "higher species" our entrusted with being stewards of the land. It is our job to protect the unprotected. It was our predecessors that nearly wiped out wolves, grizzlies, and bison. They also drove the elk from the plains to hiding out in the mountains, as well nearly destroyed, more than is conscioubaly, countless enviromental homes for many other species. Do we want to be the generation who followed in the foot steps of the earlier 19th century jack asses that thought nothing about the impact they had when they slaughtered, butchered and harvested whatever they wanted and could care less what they left us?
> 
> Therefore, we must set aside land not for the priority of our enjoyment. Rather, the enjoyment and survival of the rest of our natural world. Is nothing to be untouched by humans? Has anyone ever been to Europe? We cetainly do not want to live in a place where no stone has not been touched at some point by a human.
> 
> ...


That is a GREAT post.


----------



## milehighassassin (Jul 6, 2005)

NolsGuy said:


> That is a GREAT post.


 
Yeah it is a good point but the problem is that Hidden Gems proposed wilderness is trying to make areas wilderness that are not untouched. Several of their areas, have pipelines already running through them, they have roads running through them, they have huge chunks of private property in them. Sorry but these areas to me are not pristine, nor do they deserve to be called wilderness.

On top of that designating these areas wilderness would make it near impossible to deal with forest fires. It is only a matter of time before Colorado has a major forest fire because of all the beetle bite pine. No chainsaws would be allowed, no motorized access to fight fires, etc. You wouldn't be allowed to clear out large beetle bite areas. (edit, you couldn't use motors of anykind to fight or prevent fires without a congressional vote).


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

*Colorado*

They won't be happy until they pave the entire $%#ing thing !


----------



## milehighassassin (Jul 6, 2005)

swimteam101 said:


> They won't be happy until they pave the entire $%#ing thing !


 
You see I don't think that could be any further from the truth. This it's white or black argument doesn't fly.


Why isn't t he hidden gems trying to stop ski area expansion? Why don't they try and stop Vail resorts from expanding Beaver Creek into Rose Bowl? how about Cat III? What about the Peaks in Breck? 

Lets stop the privitization of our public lands.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

I was born and raised in Aspen, not too far from milehighassis's home grounds as the crow flies. Around here, 33% of our national forests are wilderness. I love the seclusion wilderness brings, and am in it skiing or hiking/hunting almost every weekend.

The problem I have with this wilderness proposal is that in my home county, if it passes 46% of the national forest will be wilderness. I also like to mountain bike. I dirt bike. I challenge anyone to find ONE MILE of officially legal single track open to motorcycles in Pitkin County. There is none. We now are facing wilderness right down to the highways and in areas with many logging and mining roads in them. By definition these areas are not eligible for wilderness designation as they have been heavily worked by man. There needs to be a balance of usages for all people. In the very liberal and environmentally aware (definitely good) counties of Pitkin and Eagle, there is a tyranny of the majority which I fear will dictate public land usage for all. Eastern US politicians will jump on the wilderness bandwagon and rubber stamp it with no knowledge of these areas. 

Nolsguy, how's your bluegrass lawn doing, watered with pilfered western slope water? Once you live in the areas being affected you might have a different view. This is our home, while it is merely you're playground, which you will most likely never visit.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

*MY FOREST*

My crow took a while to fly from Foco (Fort Collins) to Aspen . It's everyones play ground this weekend . As a long time Aspen local I'd like to commend your work at narrowly avoiding superfund site status . Stewards of the land indeed. Maybe your sport doesn't fit into the vision Aspen has for its future. Nicest landfill I have ever seen , coed jails with pizza night but not an inch of moto track strange .


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Are you seriously bringing up the mining history of Aspen , Circa 1880, or any other western town for that matter? At 43 years of age I do not think I should be held accountable for the actions of miners a hundred years before me. Different era and considerations. Yes, mining heavily damaged the area. Yes, it was considered and defeated as a superfund site. Trying to clean up mine tailings under hundreds of homes was ridiculous and a waste of funds. I do not motocross, I trail ride, on the quietest bike I can ride with two silencers. I really try to be super considerate. I used to ride the trails around aspen, but as the mountain bikers and dog walkers discovered our trails, we have been legislated off them.

How is it you have knowledge of our jails? I have never been in one.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

I know of your jails because I have several friends that have worked for the town of Aspen and was intrigued by their ability to save money in several areas including the jail by being coed and offering the inmates unlimited food witch in turn stopping food hoarding . Have you ever been to the landfill ? I think efforts should be made to fix mistakes made in the past even if you are not directly responsible . It's YOUR home right . Aspen doesn't seem an ATV friendly town. Leadville doesn't seem to mind. I hear it's cheap.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

I go to our landfill about once a month. It is about as good a landfill as one can get. They recycle electronics, paper, tin and aluminum, glass, oil, paints, lawn debris, brush, rocks, and any other waste they can make topsoil or mulch out of. I have been picking up really nice recycled topsoil there for my yard. The dumping fees are high to encourage recycling. What the fuck does this have to do with lead bearing soils underneath peoples houses? They know it is there and do not disturb it or grow produce in it. 

The issues with dirt bikes really are not valid environmental concerns. The issue is what people find offensive or bothersome. In areas where there is a high biking/hiking usage I totally accept limits on motor usage. That is just the way it is going to b with more and more people moving into the mountains. People are the problem.The issue is the more remote areas where most bikers and virtually no hikers go, with the exception of the hardiest hunters. Who are we hurting? With only a few trails are not chasing away the game.

I am not sure what your point is about the real estate values of the two towns. They have almost the exact mining history. Just because one has become snobby and conceited does not mean they are any more correct.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

I agree and already stated Aspen has a world class landfill , I don't think dirt bikes are the end of the world I just stated the people in Aspen may feel that way and they don't seem to allocate much money for dirt bike trails. Leadville has a lot of dirt bike trails and is cheap to visit or live if you really like dirt biking also close to Aspen. I'd like to see more wilderness.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

I started this, so I might as well jump in. I have no problem with wilderness that is allocated in a thoughtful and concise way. The problem I have with the way this is being presented is that Wilderness Workshop, et al, have designated many tracts of land that they know are used by mtn bikers, dirt bikers and snowmobilers. They have done this as to propose many other areas at the same time and then win public support for areas by seeming to "COMPROMISE". Thus they give compromise a fraction of the total land mass that they are trying to coop into wilderness. Public opinion indicated that Colorado is pretty well divided on this issue. Polls conducted by WW indicate that people want more wilderness. Polls conducted by local and regional newspapers and White River Forest Alliance indicate that public sentiment says that we have enough wilderness. As I have stated before, write you letters for or against this proposal. Address them to Rep Pollis. There will also be meetings this week in 3 places. I suggest that you attend if you are for or against this proposal. See you in Edwards next week.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

Aspen is a truly beautiful place. I had a hard time watching eagle county change I bet it's the same in Pitkin I hope you find a spot to do your thing where you call home . Goodnight


----------



## Porkchop (Sep 19, 2007)

can i ask a silly question. how does "more wilderness" change what has happened to eagle county?


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

swimteam101 said:


> Aspen is a truly beautiful place. I had a hard time watching eagle county change I bet it's the same in Pitkin I hope you find a spot to do your thing where you call home . Goodnight


I went back to your original post, the one you responded to me in. You definitely were not commenting on the Pitkin County landfill but were calling Aspen a landfill since there are toxic mine tailings under a large portion of the town. Nice backpedal there. I would hope to be able to legally ride near my home also, but I do not think it will happen


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

Learn to read. I pointed out your ( nicest landfill )as away to illustrate where your Aspen tax dollars go and called Aspen a narrowly avoided superfund site. How did you miss that ???


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Some people sure get emotional about this topic (and other) with out adding anything relevant to the discussion. If that is you, take a break from typing, compose yourself, and then write a response that is well thought out and had some merit to it. Thanks, BP


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Kinda interesting but the idea that a "spring" also gives the user a mechanical advantage is getting kicked around... Not kidding..

I can see where it does give a user a mechanical advantage maybe a simple one but a advantage no less..

Some folks out there feel it is enough of a advantage to ban any form of AT or Tele ski's in wilderness area's.. Get ready caus you all are going to hear more about it...

From where I sit - it will be fun to watch this new push for what is legal and what is not in a wilderness play out..


----------



## milehighassassin (Jul 6, 2005)

Porkchop said:


> can i ask a silly question. how does "more wilderness" change what has happened to eagle county?


 It doesn't. The area that were developped in Eagle county were and have always been private property. If hidden Gems happened in 1980, the development would be the same. Everything that was developed was private property, public land that is lower in the valley or a mining claim.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

swimteam101 said:


> Learn to read. I pointed out your ( nicest landfill )as away to illustrate where your Aspen tax dollars go and called Aspen a narrowly avoided superfund site. How did you miss that ???


Sorry, I guess I am too sensitive. I thought you were calling my hometown a landfill since it is filled in with a lot of mine debris. My bad


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Those of you on one side or the other should get off your butts & make a point of coming to the meetings. I've been to a number of them & from what I've seen the supporters of these things sure as hell don't live in the places that are being designated. The local meetings that I've been to have been a solid 5:1 against with the "for" people OBVIOUSLY not being from the area.
If people from Denver want more wilderness, try Limon or Ft. Morgan, I hear they're really nice!!!

btw, if you care, here are some dates. I'm sure bitching with the buzzards is going to accomplish a lot, but on the off chance that you want to do more... come out to one of the meetings. I personally would like to see more people who are for the proposal that aren't full on whack jobs like most of the ones I've seen at these meetings. (there are whack jobs on both sides, don't get me wrong, but the "for" people stick out at these local meetings like a gay pride parade) (I voted for Polis, this has nothing to do with his sexuality)

I work in eagle county & blue river, so I'm able to go to nearly all of them.

Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010
Time: 5:30pm - 7:30pm
Location: Battle Mountain High School Edwards Colorado 


Date: Friday, June 4, 2010
Time: 12:00pm - 1:30pm
Location: Colorado Mountain College Community Auditorium - Breck
Street: 107 Denison Placer Road
City/Town: Breckenridge, CO


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

I've only read about 4 pages of this thread. Based on a quick search it appears nobody has posted a link to the actual text of the Wilderness Act. If someone has, then this post is still relevant because a lot of folks on both sides are posting information that is wrong and/or their opinions are rooted in ignorance (of the Act). That may seem harsh, but it's true. If you've never read the Wilderness Act, do yourself a favor and take the ten minutes to read it here:
http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents//publiclaws/PDF/16_USC_1131-1136.pdf


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

JHimick said:


> I've only read about 4 pages of this thread. Based on a quick search it appears nobody has posted a link to the actual text of the Wilderness Act. If someone has, then this post is still relevant because a lot of folks on both sides are posting information that is wrong and/or their opinions are rooted in ignorance (of the Act). That may seem harsh, but it's true. If you've never read the Wilderness Act, do yourself a favor and take the ten minutes to read it here:
> http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents//publiclaws/PDF/16_USC_1131-1136.pdf



You should send this to the hidden gems people, they seem not to understand a couple parts of the act themselves, namely "(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable" This part the HG people seem to prefer not to comprehend as it makes a number of their areas unfit for the designation.

That aside, whether people have read the actual act or not, the reality of how it limits recreation in these regions is rather obvious & readily understood by all.

I'd love to see the mechanical advantage angle of skis & at setups looked into, this would be humorous to see the freeheelers (I also skin from time to time) get eliminated out of wilderness as well!


----------



## Hellbender (Feb 25, 2007)

I can't launch or land in a wilderness area using a paraglider no rigid frame like a hanglider only a couple pulleys the size of a peanut. It's non motorized.Lame! Yet a raft with oar locks, witch to me are as mechanical as my pulleys gets to float through wilderness? Lame! Make it all fair not discriminatory. Their are plans for a wilderness at williams peak hanglider/paraglider launch, theres a road to top and radio towers on top.WTF? keep to your protocol!

P.S. I also cant fly paraglider or hanglider at Blue Mesa recreation area! In other words I cant even recreate at a recreation area! WTF? I know a little of topic but just trying to point out the hypocrisies.


----------



## SummitAP (Jun 23, 2007)

boatmusher said:


> Wilderness is not about our recreation. In fact, it is about trying to leave something relatively untouched by human. The larger the wilderness the more likely there will be pockets of it that are seldom if ever seen by humans.
> ...
> Isn't that what WILDerness is? A place that is wild?


Couldn't agree more!

And to answer your question, Hidden Gems is NOT a place that is wild.

I still want to hear from supoorters how this massive effort is good for the Wilderness Ethic?

The creation of nearly two dozen new small stand alone "Wilderness" areas, fraught with mans impacts and cherry stemmed roads, most of which can be walked across in an hour or two, does not seem to jive with the intent of the Wilderness Act:

“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 community of life are untrammeled by man."

It really seems to dilute the concept of Wilderness and will have a negative impact on what people will do to support Wilderness in the future.









This shows the CURRENT Wilderness areas in CO. The diamonds show areas less than 32 sq mi. There are very few. Hidden Gems aims to make more tiny "Wildernesses" than there are large meaningful ones!

Hidden Gems proposal would create many more tiny piecemeal wildernesses like the Tenmile (20sqmi) Hoosier (7sqmi) or Porcupine (13sqmi) which do NOT border existing Wilderness. Williams Fork (14sqmi) this is a standalone proposal that is 8 miles long and 1.5 miles wide! You can walk across this "Wilderness" in a half hour! It's bounded by two roads on the 8 miles sides with cherry stems every 1.5 miles. 

*New stand-alones account for half of the 20+ new proposed Wilderness areas for Summit County and Eagle County!

*Instead of making a ton of tiny new stand alone Wilderness areas mostly because certain influential enviros have them as pet projects or want to keep certain recreation groups out (this isn't about recreation, right?) why not concentrate of make a few LARGE and WORTHY Wilderness areas?


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

Hellbender said:


> I can't launch or land in a wilderness area using a paraglider no rigid frame like a hanglider only a couple pulleys the size of a peanut. It's non motorized.Lame! Yet a raft with oar locks, witch to me are as mechanical as my pulleys gets to float through wilderness? Lame! Make it all fair not discriminatory. Their are plans for a wilderness at williams peak hanglider/paraglider launch, theres a road to top and radio towers on top.WTF? keep to your protocol!
> 
> P.S. I also cant fly paraglider or hanglider at Blue Mesa recreation area! In other words I cant even recreate at a recreation area! WTF? I know a little of topic but just trying to point out the hypocrisies.


~yawn~

Let me first say I'm not necessarily pro-wilderness and I'm going to sound like an ass with the following comments but this shit is getting old. Have you read the act? Somehow I doubt it. It's totally subjective man. Take this excerpt for example:

_Water resources and grazing. (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial..._

How is that not a direct contradiction to:

_(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 Act 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..._

People, read the act and then post something intelligent. This shit is totally political.


----------



## SummitAP (Jun 23, 2007)

^Hellbender is talking about a proposed wilderness area that is about 8 miles long and 1.5mi wide, not connected to any other wilderness, and bounded by a highway on one long side and another road on the other long side. There's also tons of roads that come into that already narrow strip that would continue to be driveable and many other 4WD trails that would not. It's 6% the size of the nearest Wilderness area to it. It's a joke of a Wilderness because of its size and human scarred unwild character. You pretty much cannot be anywhere in the proposed Williams Fork Wilderness without being able to see a highway or get even 1 mile away from a road!

All of which has jack to do with his complaint about hangliding vs rafting or your comments about water wells and power lines.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

Hellbender said:


> I can't launch or land in a wilderness area using a paraglider no rigid frame like a hanglider only a couple pulleys the size of a peanut. It's non motorized.Lame! Yet a raft with oar locks, witch to me are as mechanical as my pulleys gets to float through wilderness? Lame! Make it all fair not discriminatory. Their are plans for a wilderness at williams peak hanglider/paraglider launch, theres a road to top and radio towers on top.WTF? keep to your protocol!
> 
> P.S. I also cant fly paraglider or hanglider at Blue Mesa recreation area! In other words I cant even recreate at a recreation area! WTF? I know a little of topic but just trying to point out the hypocrisies.


Hellbender, I have long thought the prohibition against hang gliders, and the newer paragliders, is ridiculous. If you hike to the top of a peak and launch, you have a much lower impact on the environment than hiking back down. This example shows how wilderness is more about human impressions and likes/dislikes than valid environmentalism. 

I hope you are poaching wilderness launch sites on a regular basis.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

ZGjethro said:


> Hellbender, I have long thought the prohibition against hang gliders, and the newer paragliders, is ridiculous. If you hike to the top of a peak and launch, you have a much lower impact on the environment than hiking back down. This example shows how wilderness is more about human impressions and likes/dislikes than valid environmentalism.
> 
> I hope you are poaching wilderness launch sites on a regular basis.


From the circles that I run in well - there are going to be a ton of people who dont know that there will be some new rules about these wilderness area's added here in the next couple of years. I will say it again changes are commin you guys who like your springs/oar locks/pulleys had better look into it.. Or dont.. 

100% agree about human impressions and I would add human entitlement...

As far as poaching - I dont rules is rules.. I wonder how many of the teleban "hang the poachers" crew will be out poachin once there gear is banned..


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

RDNEK, I am with you to a point on the rules. My snowmobile and dirt bikes do not go into wilderness, ever. For me personally, I have no problem with someone launching a paraglider from a peak, and I would never turn them in to the authorities. I actually condone the action for them as a civil disobedience. Just don't cry if you get caught.


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

JHimick said:


> ~yawn~
> 
> People, read the act and then post something intelligent. This shit is totally political.


I think the part that you're not understanding here, is that it matters not how it's worded or exactly what's in the act, but what DOES matter is the reality of how it is interpreted & enforced by the gov't. You can sound high & mighty by saying that someone doesn't understand the act & is posting drivel, but when enforcement says that a paraglider can't be here, but a rafter can... those are the rules, however the act is written. If you want to change the enforcement, more power to you or whoever puts in the effort, but it's a losing battle imo.

Poaching... great idea, nobody can see a paraglider from a distance, how would they EVER catch him...? Civil disobedience sounds like a great idea from a distance till you see the fines & confiscation that go along with getting nailed. (As a sledder I know what they are, and it's not worth it, I just can't afford that crap.)

Rdnek seems to be the only one that really gets it.


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

More development in this area.

Rep. Polis' plan whittles down Hidden Gems lands

I think that Polis has shown prudence and good judgment so far. I hope that by the time the draft is finalized, that we have paired it down to a select number of sites that truly need WILDERNESS protections and some sites that need alternative designation protections. I will not go as far as to say that I 100% support the draft as it is now, but I think that he has come a long way from the proposed / closed minded proposal presented to him by Wilderness Workshop.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

I have to agree. I truly think the WW asked for a lot knowing it would be whittled down, but it sure was a battle getting this more reasonable version. Pitkin County still has not been decided on. Another issue is Degette's wilderness bill, which she is eager to get approved. It has been in the works even longer than the Hidden Gems campaign. It is a never ending battle just to maintain the status quo. If these lands need so much protecting, how is it that they are eligible for wilderness designation? Such lands are supposed to be essentially unmarred by man.


----------

