Recreation

Flathead National Forest issues permits to run into grizzly bears

by

Photo credit: How to survive a bear encounter (and what to do if it all goes wrong)

“Do not run. You’re acting just like prey.”

For a long time, the best available science has shown that the worst thing for grizzly bears is to mix them with people.  That has led the Forest Service to restrict access and otherwise manage human activities in grizzly bear habitat.  Now the Flathead has decided that it is more important to get people into grizzly bear habitat, and it is issuing special use permits for long-distance running races and mountain biking shuttles.

Here’s the forest supervisor’s rationale:

“There’s a broad public out there with needs to be served and not just the needs of the few,” Weber said. “We think that greater good for the greatest number will be served. That fosters connectivity with wildlands and a united group of people that can support conservation. And the best conservation for bears is served by figuring out how to have these human activities in ways that are as safe as they can be, understanding you can never make anything perfectly safe.”

Here’s the opposing argument:

“Weber has set up a straw man here, as though this debate is about ending mountain biking or trail running on public lands,” Hammer said. “What it’s about is educating the public to act responsibly if they choose to engage in those activities. It’s not about letting the public do these activities if that’s what their choice is. It’s about sending the wrong message through special-use permits for risky behavior and the government endorses it.”

“It increases risk that results in bad public attitudes toward bears and increases risk of injury or death to people and bears,” Hammer said. “That’s not conservation. People are free to ignore the advice, but they shouldn’t be getting a special-use permit from the Forest Service that allows them to make money running 200 or 300 people through bear habitat, and using that commercial promotion to imply that’s safe and appropriate activity in bear habitat when the experts, including the supervisor’s own staff, have said this is not responsible behavior.”

A key question here seems to be whether a special use permit is viewed as an “endorsement.” In any case, this is the kind of hard decision forest supervisors get paid the big bucks for.  It’s unfortunate that this one misinterprets the opposition as being about “the needs of the few” (and also about “a narrowly focused, discriminatory and exclusionary agenda lacking in intellectual and philosophical integrity”).  This is actually about his duty under the Endangered Species Act to “carry out programs for the conservation of” listed species like grizzly bears, which according to Congress are of great value “to the Nation and its people.”   With his anti-bear bias, he is starting in the wrong place to make a well-reasoned decision.

In the social-media era, Washington’s public lands are being destroyed. What can be done?: Seattle Times

by

(I like the above video, which is shown on ferries to Washington islands, as it includes both safety and “leave no trace” ideas, and reasons for all the rules)

Thanks to Brian Hawthorne for finding this piece from the Seattle Times.

Lots of info and ideas for fixes in this article, e.g. info on trasher shaming on public media. Here’s how it begins:

Here’s a “wow” statistic from the U.S. Forest Service: In 2018, wilderness rangers buried more than 400 piles of human waste found scattered throughout the Enchantments near Leavenworth, which, minus the poo, is one of the loveliest wilderness destinations in all of Washington.

A bonus “wow”: The Enchantments camping zone, because of its immense popularity, is equipped with nine privies, all intended to make improper plopping avoidable. Nevertheless, on more than 400 occasions last year, according to a Forest Service spokesperson, visitors decided to plop with impunity and just walk away.

What is going on?

“It’s unbelievable how much surface pooping is going on out there,” said Craig Romano, a year-round hiker and author of 20 hiking guides for The Mountaineers Books. “I’m coming across it in places I never expected, even remote areas. I find it in the middle of a trail. And toilet paper. Streams of it! What I’m seeing is incredible. It’s absolutely disgusting.”

.. and then on to the end.

Perhaps most vital to the cause: Lots of volunteers who keep visitors in line.

“What’s really unique is there are so many folks out here who are incredibly passionate about this landscape and protecting these lands,” Teague said. “There’s a lot of eyes and ears on the land right now. They’re doing their best to engage with folks and share what’s appropriate and what’s the best outcome for the land. We have a whole bunch of people willing to be out there in force.”

Marcia deChadenedes, manager of San Juan Islands National Monument, says a group of roughly 30 volunteers have kept an eye on Lopez Island for almost three decades.

“They thank people for having their dogs on a leash, or if the dog does not have one, they will hand the owner a leash they brought with them,” she said. “The American public is much in debt to the locals of the San Juan Islands for how well these lands are managed, because these people put all kinds of energy into it.”

How do volunteers deal with contentious visitors? Use an earthy answer to turn away wrath, Teague says.

“Leave No Trace has done a really good job of figuring this out,” Teague said. “We focus on the authority of the resource and what’s happening to the resource due to visitor behavior. We can talk about songbirds that nest close to the trail and how their patterns might be affected if people or their dogs go off trail. It’s not really about the rules, it’s about how they’re affecting the resource.

“It’s a really good technique,” Teague said. “It doesn’t work in every scenario, but it has a lot of power. It’s definitely an art in applying that on the ground in real time. We have a lot of success by smiling and sharing information.”

Watts likewise believes a considerate approach is better than a combative one. “What we’ve found is, if we can have meaningful interactions with people and provide that ‘why’ — why we’re asking them to follow these principles and guidelines — that really makes a difference when it comes to altering behavior and swaying people to protect the land,” she said.

I think that maybe the presence of obvious volunteers has some kind of psychological legitimacy just short of actual law enforcement visibility. Also the fairness concept might creep in (as in why should I keep my dog on leash when no one else does?). The whole question of “the best way to keep people in the backcountry from doing bad things) sounds like a great place for social science research. If anyone has any cites, please put in the comments below.

Rabbit Valley Recreation: The Dangers of Some Ruining it For All

by

Owl333’s comment here reminded me of the recent news stories about the BLM changing policies in Rabbit Valley, Colorado due to bad recreationist behavior.  I like how the author of this op-ed in the Grand Junction Sentinel, Jim Cagney, a retired BLMer,  characterized it as the need for an upgraded land ethic. a few excerpts:

The recent BLM proposal for revised management of the Rabbit Valley entails the construction of new campgrounds, with a prohibition on dispersed camping once the campgrounds are completed. Some people like to stay at campgrounds, but not me. I don’t want a requirement to pay to for a site that entails enduring other people’s raucous behavior, generators, music and lights when I’ve always been able to pick out my own spot, and use it for free. I never camp in the Rabbit Valley because it’s so close to home, but I enjoy dispersed camping, so it’s sad to see yet another area getting closed. Regardless, I’ll probably have to live with those new rules, because they’re a sign of the times.

Long years ago, when I first started working for the Bureau of Land Management, a veteran warden from the Wyoming Fish & Game offered me some profound insight. He said the freedom to utilize natural resources is divisible by the number of people attempting to use those resources. If I were the only person hunting, all the rules associated with modern game management would be pointless.

….

Meanwhile, increasing use and a lack of land-use ethic, associated with the more remote dispersed camping I prefer, carries a nasty progression these days. The landscape is dotted with big fire rings full of ash, broken glass and half burned garbage. Wishing to avoid the soot, trash, and ring of toilet paper on the perimeter, the next group builds another campsite nearby, creating a new route if necessary. Route proliferation causes erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and degradation of legally protected cultural sites. Soil disturbance in desert environments causes dust-on-snow issues that reduce our water supply. No doubt the BLM is acting on the premise that outdoor recreation is a core economic driver for the Grand Valley, so we can’t afford to let our key attractions deteriorate.

I’m with Cagney on the preference for dispersed camping, and the hope that the behavior of some doesn’t ruin it for the rest of us. There’s also concern about the environmental impacts of the new recreation economy, including the carbon emissions from folks driving out to recreate. But who would want to try to keep people recreating on our public lands? And should people pay something for dispersed camping?

Forest Service monetizes endangered species

by

This just seemed noteworthy.  Maybe it could be replicated for other species …

Kirtland’s warbler tours will be offered daily from May 15 through May 31, 7 days a week at the Mio Ranger District of the Huron National Forest. The Kirtland’s warbler tour costs $10 per adult and is free for children. Funds from the tours help cover costs associated with the tours.

Colorado Wilderness and the CORE Act: Hearing From Those Left Out of the “Consensus” Corrected Version

by
The Lost Lake Road and trailhead near Vail would be adjacent to one of the proposed wilderness areas under the CORE Act.

Thanks to Patrick McKay for this guest post. Note that this post has been updated as of 3/11/19, thanks to Patrick getting more information from Conservation Colorado. Thanks to Patrick and Conservation Colorado![/caption]

Lately I have been seeing a steady stream of articles and editorials in publications around Colorado advocating for Senator Bennet’s Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act, based on the fiction that there is a strong consensus among stakeholders in favor of this bill. There is no such consensus. The CORE Act is simply a combination of failed wilderness bills that were each too unpopular to pass on their own. Those who support multiple-use of federal lands for all forms of recreation, rather than locking them up for the exclusive use of a single user group, unequivocally oppose it.

The motorized recreation community especially opposes the bill, because it would convert thousands of acres of land currently open to motorized use into wilderness. Almost every area of proposed wilderness is either currently open to motorized use or is considered a motorized expansion area under current Forest Service travel planning.

This bill will be devastating to snowmobilers, dirt bikers, Jeepers, and mountain bikers, who will all either immediately lose access to existing recreational opportunities or potentially lose opportunities in the future as a result of the bill. Snowmobiles would be hurt the most, as vast tracts of land that are currently open to that activity would be closed. In one of the most callous corporate land grabs imaginable, the popular Sheep Mountain area near Silverton would be closed to mountain biking and snowmobiling (which has been allowed since 1983) but would remain open to a private heliskiing operation.

This comes amidst an ongoing feud between local snowmobilers and the outfitter, which has long sought to secure exclusive first-tracks usage of the area for its clients. The CORE Act picks a firm winner in that conflict, favoring corporate interests over the public (including quiet use) in giving the company the exclusive right to mechanized access. Members of the public would be forbidden to even fly toy drones in the area, but a corporation would still be allowed to land noisy helicopters in what would otherwise be managed as a wilderness.

While it will not close them directly, the bill threatens several important Jeep trails including Imogene Pass between Ouray and Telluride (a Jeep Badge of Honor Trail), and other routes that would be “cherry-stemmed” by the bill. The wilderness boundaries would be placed within 50 feet of the edges of these roads, making future trail maintenance or re-routing impossible. Requests by the motorized community for larger buffers surrounding existing trails have been rebuffed.

These boundaries are based on the Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps, which are frequently inaccurate regarding the actual locations of roads on the ground. With so little buffer, any mapping errors could result in the permanent closure of some of the best off-road routes in Colorado. Moreover, there are no additional protections in the bill ensuring cherry-stemmed routes will remain open in the future, which is a significant concern given that roads cherry-stemmed by past wilderness legislation have frequently faced immense pressure for closure in subsequent travel planning due to conflicts with the surrounding wilderness areas.

Even where this bill does not directly close trails, permanent wilderness status will preclude any future expansions of existing trail systems. It will also deprive the Forest Service of much-needed flexibility in caring for forests already suffering from poor health, beetle infestations, and wildfires.

While I agree that wilderness areas are important and I enjoy hiking and backpacking in them myself, Colorado has plenty of wildernesses already. The CORE Act claims to promote recreation in Colorado while in fact decreasing existing opportunities for recreation. This site has previously covered the issue of manufacturing wilderness by kicking out existing users, and that is exactly what is occurring here.

If new wildernesses are to be designated, that should be done without closing areas currently open to other incompatible forms of recreation. If not, wilderness proponents should at least be honest about the fact that they are deliberately sacrificing certain forms of recreation in order to promote others, abandoning any pretense that they are anything other than a majority steamrolling a disfavored minority. Consensus, that is not.

Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that this bill would directly close motorized trails in the Spraddle Creek and Tenderfoot Mountain areas near Vail and Dillon, and would put wilderness boundaries next to the Holy Cross City trail near Leadville. After a discussion with one of the proponents of the bill, I discovered these statements were incorrect, and were based on inaccurate information in my source material as well as low-fidelity maps that made it difficult to determine the precise boundaries of proposed wilderness relative to nearby motorized routes. I apologize for these errors.

Northern Region Regional Forester talks about bikes in recommended wilderness

by

I’ve excerpted the portion of the Regional Forester’s objection decision on the revised forest plan that addresses this issue, dated August 15, 2018 (p. 46).  It upholds the Flathead Forest Supervisor’s decision to designate recommended wilderness as not suitable for mountain bikes.  I’ve highlighted the language in the regulation that addresses the question about whether the only concern should be physical impacts.  The objection decision also indicates that the decision to recommend wilderness or not took into account existing mountain biking.  It also addresses the alleged bias towards this solution in the Northern Region.  This probably pretty much summarizes the current state of the debate from the Forest Service perspective.

Some objectors requested that bicycle use (mechanized transport) be allowed in recommended wilderness, along with chainsaws (motorized equipment) for the development and maintenance of trails, as long as these uses do not preclude wilderness designation.

The areas recommended as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System are allocated to management area 1b. This management area has plan direction in the form of desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and suitability to “provide for…management of areas recommended for wilderness designation to protect and maintain the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for wilderness designation” as required at 36 CFR 219.10(b)(iv).

The suitability component MA1b-SUIT-06 indicates, “Mechanized transport and motorized use are not suitable in recommended wilderness areas” as a constraint on these uses to help achieve desired condition MA1b-DC-1 that states, “Recommended wilderness areas preserve opportunities for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Forest maintains and protects the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for wilderness recommendation” (revised plan, p. 9).

As one of the key issues identified from the public scoping comments, the draft EIS analyzed a range of alternatives for managing mechanized transport and motorized use in recommended areas. Alternative C included the suitability component MA1b-SUIT-06 and alternative B did not. The intent of varying the direction was to assess how this plan component would help the Forest achieve the desired conditions for recommended wilderness. After considering the analysis and the public comment on the draft EIS, Forest Supervisor Weber found the MA1b-SUIT-06 component analyzed in alternative C was the appropriate first step in ensuring the protection and maintenance of the areas he decided to recommend in the draft decision (draft ROD p. 19).Therefore, he modified alternative B to include MA1b-SUIT-06.

The intent of suitability component MA1b-SUIT-06 is to not establish or authorize continued uses that would affect the wilderness characteristics of these areas over time (draft ROD pp. 18-19). By deliberate design, the areas being recommended for wilderness in alternative B modified do not currently have significant mechanized transport use occurring. Per public comment on the draft EIS, boundary adjustments were made in the final EIS to remove areas from recommended wilderness that currently allow mechanized transport and over-snow motorized vehicle use (FEIS, pp. 27-28). As there is some over-snow motor vehicle use allowed in one recommended wilderness area (Slippery Bill-Puzzle) (FEIS, section 3.15.3; appendix 8, p. 8-261), Forest Supervisor Weber has endeavored to accommodate this desired recreation opportunity by changing the desired recreation opportunity spectrum in another area of the forest for potential site-specific designation of additional snowmobile areas 2. With these changes between draft and final EIS, the decision maker found that the eight areas recommended represent high-quality areas on the Forest capable of maintaining their unique social and ecological characteristics, while considering the tradeoffs regarding public desires for other uses of the land.

At the resolution meeting, some expressed a concern regarding an “unwritten rule” in the Northern Region that precluded Forest Supervisor Weber from exercising his discretion to choose the appropriate management of recommended wilderness on the Forest. Although previous Northern Region staff drafted guidance for management of recommended wilderness during land management planning, this was prior to the 2012 planning rule and associated implementing directives. I would like to assure objectors and interested parties that I allowed and encouraged Forest Supervisor Weber the discretion to determine management direction for the Forest per the forest-specific conditions, public engagement, law, regulation, policy, and the direction in FSH 1909.12, chapter 70. As a result, per the discretion described in the Agency’s direction at FSH 1909.12 chapter 74.1, option 2, Forest Supervisor Weber did analyze allowing existing uses to continue (DEIS, p. 26). However, as indicated in the draft ROD, he found the best strategy to protect the wilderness characteristics was to eliminate existing uses per chapter 74.1, option 4.

The Peculiar Symbiosis of the Outdoor Recreation and Oil and Gas Industries

by
14er parking lot

To me, as well as others in my home state, the question of which environmental impacts of which industries are examined in detail, and how that is, or is not covered in the news is always a bit mysterious. Because there is oil and gas production here, we can read op-eds from voices you might not otherwise hear from.
From 2018 here in the Denver Post.

Western Energy Alliance welcomes the Outdoor Industry Association and its Outdoor Retailer show to Denver. The oil and natural gas industry is full of outdoor enthusiasts like myself who love to hike, camp, hunt, fish, paddle, climb, etc. We appreciate the myriad products that enhance the outdoor experience and protect us from the elements.

We’d also like to say you’re welcome. Without oil and natural gas, the outdoor industry and its customers couldn’t enjoy the great outdoors. Most obvious is the fuel to get people to remote wilderness areas or far-away national parks and to deliver goods to retail outlets.

What’s not so obvious is that just about every article of outdoor clothing and piece of gear is made from oil and natural gas. Spandex, nylon, fleece, Gore-Tex, plastics, high-tech lightweight fills, and other synthetic materials used in outdoor recreation products are engineered from petroleum.

Despite that symbiotic relationship, the Outdoor Industry Association and some of its member companies are often at odds with the oil and natural gas industry. From advocating against hydraulic fracturing to opposing responsible energy development on non-park, non-wilderness public lands, the outdoor industry often opposes the oil and natural gas on which it depends. Is it a cynical “greenwashing” ploy to sell more of its petroleum-based products while hoping the public doesn’t notice the hypocrisy?

(Personally, I don’t believe that’s the case).

As an advocacy organization, the outdoor industry often makes the point that outdoor recreation provides $887 billion in consumer spending and employs 7.6 million people. The association likes to tout its job numbers and argue that outdoor retailers’ economic impact is larger than the oil and natural gas industry. However, using similar economic modeling PricewaterhouseCoopers finds, in a study for the American Petroleum Institute, that oil and natural gas supports 10.3 million jobs and $1.3 trillion in economic impact.

All jobs and economic opportunity are to be applauded. The good news is it’s not a zero-sum game. A job in the oil and natural gas industry doesn’t mean one less in the recreation industry. In fact, the prosperity brought on by producing oil here and not importing it from Russia or Venezuela ultimately leads to more Americans who can afford the latest high-tech climbing gear or a vacation to put it to use.

Even if the OR industry brought more into the economy than O&G, they necessarily depend, as right now, we all do, on O&G production and use for those jobs and spending. Personally, I don’t believe that buying or selling stuff made from oil and gas, in stores heated with oil and gas, for people who drive to recreate in vehicles powered by gas and lubricated by oil, is essentially more virtuous than providing oil and gas for transport, heating and electricity for everyone, young and old, rich and poor, disabled or not, who shop at Walmart or REI. I can’t understand the idea that industries that consume energy based on fossil fuels are more virtuous that industries that produce it. Especially since people need heat and electricity, and probably don’t need marijuana, a lift ticket, or even, this one’s tough.. beer.

Mountain bikes in existing wilderness (redux)

by

I try to not get too involved in the wilderness debates (there seem to be enough people there already).  But I follow planning, and this started out to be a post on the status of wilderness recommendations on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, as part of their forest plan revision process, but there was also this:

“Two places in particular really stand out,” he said. “One is the north side of the Pioneer Mountains. The southern half is in the Sawtooth National Forest and is already recommended for wilderness, and the area around Borah Peak in the Lost River Range. Those two areas we find to have exceptional wilderness character, a lot of scenic values, great wildlife habitat, opportunities for solitude and other things that fit the definition of wilderness character. These areas have been managed as wilderness areas since 1979.”

I wanted to find out what happened in 1979, because this suggests a policy of excluding mountain bikes to protect potential wilderness areas outside of Region 1 (the Salmon-Challis is in Region 4).  Instead I found a recent law review article discussing the bigger issue including a couple of questions that have been key in recent posts.  It includes the history of the Forest Service policy:

  • In 1966, the Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act, and defined “mechanical transport” to mean a cart, sled, or other wheeled vehicle that is “powered by a non-living power source.

  • The Forest Service later reversed course by issuing a declaration banning bicycles in 1977…

  • The Forest Service flipped one last time in 1984, after various groups, including the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, successfully convinced the agency to remove the reference to bicycles in the discretionary 1981 regulation.

There is also a good discussion of the legislative intent behind the term “mechanized transport.”  The author buys into the interpretation of a previous author liked by the Sustainable Trails Coalition, “Legislative history informs the mechanical transport issue and reveals that Congress “meant to prohibit mechanical transport, even if not motorized, that (1) required the installation of infrastructure like roads, rail tracks, or docks, or (2) was large enough to have a significant physical or visual impact on the Wilderness landscape.”  But she adds, “Even if the term “mechanical transport” in the Wilderness Act does not include bicycles as a matter of law, the management agencies have the discretion to ban them, as they explicitly have.”  (This includes BLM and the Park Service.)  She favors local discretion.

Wilderness decisions are acutely emotional and political, and what it feels like we’re witnessing is how emotions and politics shift over time, sometimes in response to technology.  I personally would rather not see mountain bikes in wilderness because it makes wilderness smaller by making more remote areas more full of people, which is not a wilderness value.  But maybe people like me are dying out.  But I’m not convinced that bikes (large numbers over time) don’t have “a significant physical or visible impact” either, on at least most trails.

So I don’t know why the Salmon-Challis potential wilderness areas may have excluded bikes since 1979.  But here is the status of planning for wilderness:

“There are groups out there like The Wilderness Society looking at us as the last best place to designate more wilderness area,” Mark said. “I’ve already got two-thirds of the forest as wilderness. I’ve got local folks, range permittees, outfitter guides and others asking ‘Well Chuck, how much more wilderness do you need?’ That’s a good question and I don’t necessarily have an answer.”

I don’t like the implication that he thinks 2/3 is necessarily a lot (especially if there are going to be more people using wilderness areas someday because they can ride their bikes there).

Protecting Wildlife and Mountain Bike Trails: The Mad Rabbit Trail Controversy

by
Caption and photo from the Denver Post “Land managers in Colorado have been unable to keep up with the evolving uses and demands like biking of mountain trails, writes Steve Lipsher. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)”

I ran across this in the Sunday Denver Post, and it seemed relevant to our ongoing discussions. What I think is particularly interesting about this is when mountain bike trails come up as an issue, and when not, on National Forests. (I noticed some anti MB sentiment in one public comment letters on the Pisgah Nantahala forest plan, so it could be a national issue).  Following my inertial theory of resource management (it’s harder to kick uses out than not to allow them in the first place), perhaps it’s just new trails that raise controversy? But not everywhere, as near Colorado Springs, we want to complete the Ring the Peak trail and so far I haven’t heard concerns about wildlife. So maybe completion and initiation are two different things?

The debate in Steamboat Springs is over a proposed network of mountain bike trails that would be funded with revenue from a local lodging tax and built in the Routt National Forest. Outdoor recreation enthusiasts, many of them mountain bikers, have hit a speed bump in efforts to add more trails — hunters and wildlife advocates who say elk and other animals could be harmed.

With tensions building, the Steamboat Springs City Council hired the Keystone Policy Center to oversee public meetings aimed at reaching agreement on the proposal the U.S. Forest Service will consider. Ahead of a March 4 meeting, tensions and frustrations remain high, people on various sides of the issue say.

“There’s a high degree of suspicion that this is a railroad,” said Larry Desjardin, who lives in Steamboat Springs and is a member of the newly formed group Keep Routt Wild.

News of declining elk numbers in other parts of Colorado and reports from local hunters of fewer elk where earlier trails were built have prompted the group to call for a pause, Desjardin said.

“What we’re really trying to do is understand the impact that outdoor recreation has on wildlife and wildlife habitat and have a really holistic planning process,” Desjardin said. “There’s a sprawl of outdoor recreation, and we’re trying to treat that just like we do housing.”

Housing construction, mining, oil and gas drilling and transportation are bigger threats to wildlife than trails, Kelly Northcutt wrote in a Jan. 10 letter in the Steamboat Pilot and Today newspaper.

“Really, a wildlife advocate group should be looking at a lot of other issues besides a handful of trail connectors,” Northcutt, executive director of the cycling advocacy group Routt County Riders, said in an interview…
Sonja Macys, a Steamboat Springs City Council member, is representing the city in the discussions. She said those worried about the impacts on wildlife feel as though they’re not being listened to.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife has also raised concerns about the cumulative impacts of more trails on wildlife. In a 2018 letter to the Forest Service, JT Romatzke, CPW’s northwest regional manager, wrote that “outdoor recreation associated with trails influences a variety of wildlife species in multiple ways.”

Two trail options under review at that time — one 79 miles total and the other 68 miles — would affect from 44,500 to 48,100 acres of wildlife habitat, according to CPW. The estimates are based on the miles of trails and the results of studies showing how far elk and mule deer stay away from trails that are in use.

Double the Fun, Not: Recommended Wilderness and Wilderness Bills

by

Thanks to everyone for these discussions.  I would like to circle back to where I started.  Until this started in Montana (?,  I don’t know about what is happening with forest plans elsewhere), my view of how things were working was pretty much how Jim Furnish looked at it in his comment earlier.  People recommend areas for Wilderness usually that don’t have current uses not allowed in Wilderness, or the bill encompasses existing uses, so no “kicking people out.” According to this thought process, every likely area is probably already in an IRA, so is more or less protected.  We can discuss why IRA’s aren’t good enough,  since there are generally no timber sales or roads within one under the 2001, Colorado, or Idaho Roadless Rules.

Some people say, the problem is that they aren’t permanent.  As a person who worked on Colorado Roadless through D and R administrations at the State and the Feds, my view is that politically, they might as well be.  In the same way that I think the Bikes in Wilderness dog won’t hunt, I don’t think that there is a real chance of that happening.  Politicians just don’t care enough to spend the political capital when they are facing Big Environment’s lawsuits, potentially forever, over a situation that they have pretty much adapted to since 2001.

So I was surprised when I found out that at least in Montana, people are being “kicked out” of areas they are already using to make more Wilderness.. not only when the Wilderness is created, but in recommended Wilderness developed via forest plans.  When I worked on Colorado Roadless we had a bit of the same thing.  We had an effort to remove acres that did not fit the Roadless criteria and replace them with other areas that did (actually adding more total acres). The State Department of Wildlife collaborated on the acreage identification effort.  They wanted to put in acres to CRAs that had had timber sales, at the same time saying that timber sales should not be allowed in CRAs. It doesn’t take a well-funded NGO to have some kind of internal target of “more acres=better,” these were State employees with that worldview.

If we call this kind of logic (as we see, not only held by Wilderness advocates) “re-wilding”, then the question is “where does it stop?”.  It becomes a very different playing field than what I perceive (and I could definitely be wrong about this) is the case with Wilderness bills (at least in Colorado).  Here we seem to work out the deals with the different groups, counties and so on, prior to introducing the bill. From this distance, it seems as if everyone needs to be on board before Congressionals spend the horsepower.

Right now I am thinking that having battles over recommended Wilderness in forest plans involves the same groups, and only protracts the battles that rightly should be fought, and deals made, at the political level.  Does deeper analysis really help?  Or is it about corralling groups in a room until they agree? Is this ultimately a political decision (yes) and is having a pre-controversy helping or hurting?  Double the hassle for everyone, zillions of comments to be read, and definitely not double the fun.  Yes, I realize it’s required, but things have changed since 1976, including many acres added to Wilderness.