28 replies to this topic

[searching for nowhere]

After my brother had to move his camping site in Colorado (from State Trust land to BLM land), I’m on a casual search to update my understanding of the rules related to the public land in the West.  Wilderness areas have puzzled me.  They have seemed like random plots of land, managed by various federal agencies with unknown rules.  I now have clarity.  Look at the wonderful web site managed by the University of Montana.  Wilderness Connect   Go to the interactive map and click on a wilderness area and then click “more”.  Eureka! There is a summary of the area and the rules.  

 

And I learned the purpose of the wilderness areas: “…for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness…”.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

[ski3pin]

The Wilderness Act of 1964 is a landmark piece of legislation. We have Howard Zahniser of The Wilderness Society for his eloquence in the Act's definition of Wilderness -

 

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his 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."

 

searching, thank you for your post reminding us of the value of lands untouched by man.

[buckland]

That is a great resource to have ... thanks for posting. 

Rob

 

PS and a great quote!

Edited by buckland, 06 June 2022 - 04:35 PM.

[Wallowa]

Not wishing to inflame this discussion....but Wilderness designation does not necessarily mean "untrammeled"....once on a through hike in the Trinity Wilderness I came to the only spring for miles around for water.  The spring and meadow were destroyed by cattle.  Later a pack train passed me on the trail and low and behold the #2 person, a lady, from Department of Interior and the head guy for that wilderness stopped to talk to me.  I voiced my dismay at the torn up meadow and lost spring to which the guy said that they were honoring the traditional use of the wilderness to graze cattle.  Good for rancher, not good for wilderness.  I also believe existing mine claims are also allowed.

 

Anyway....in my almost 8 decades of roaming, the access to what used to be called 'public' lands have been squeezed, reduced and limited by an ever increasing plethora of restrictions and mandates.  But not surprisingly a few are privileged and are exceptions to the rules.  Money talks.

Edited by Wallowa, 06 June 2022 - 05:19 PM.

[Smokecreek1]

As one of those "Interior" types" who worked on, helped develop, consulted on and even worse , tried to manage "Wilderness Areas(WA), other protected areas' and those even more problematic " Wilderness Study Areas(WSA's) [ area's proposed as Wilderness Areas and awaiting Congress to OK the designation, but managed as WA's as such [Sometimes for many years] until then or not] , agree that the whole process (sort of like this sentence) is long, complicated, confusing and necessary because it seems that every interest ($ too) gets a say in the process. All that said, it is amazing that there are any protected areas at all out on our public lands.

Generally every WS,or WSA , is managed for certain qualities and have some existing uses (grazing, roads, hunting, etc) that are allowed to remain for a certain time period with or w/o other restrictions. Sometimes it gets really complicated. For example, vehicle access into Little High Rock Canyon (Now part of a National Conservation Area -then a WSA and National Register Historic District) was closed because of many important cultural resources. Vandals destroyed the protective closure at the mouth of the canyon , drove into it, looted and vandalized several caves and shelters, then left with their haul. We (BLM) on the other hand, had to follow the law and were not allowed to drive in and evaluate and repair the damage and had to use helicopters to fly in new metal grating and out gear to protect the caves and shelters-at a pretty hefty and unplanned for expense. Yep another day of fun and adventures in BLM!

Smoke

Edited by Smokecreek1, 06 June 2022 - 08:14 PM.

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

Thanks Smoke for that info/view.

Frank

[searching for nowhere]

Smoke:  Thanks for the description of what a Wilderness Study Area is.  I had always thought that it is an area where a special plant or animal was being studied.  ha ha.  Got it very wrong.  

[DavidGraves]

Another example of the complicated circumstances associated with wilderness designations.

 

I once volunteered in such an area and had the joyful task of backpacking broken car and truck parts out of a protected area where criminal activity had wrecked their drug running truck.

 

Ever carry a Monster Mudder on a pack frame ?

 

David Graves

[Foy]

The status of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) has been a hot topic in Montana for quite some time.  The 1964 Wilderness Act established around 3.5 million acres of mostly National Forest lands as wilderness in Montana.  In 1977, further Federal legislation established an additional 663,000 acres as potential wilderness areas marked as WSAs.  The intent was to provide for further study of the WSAs for inclusion in designated wilderness areas OR for recommendations for ongoing management as non-wilderness areas or some alternative management plans.  The mandated studies were concluded in 1982 with some WSAs recommended to be tacked on to adjacent wilderness areas, established as separate stand-alone wilderness areas, or returned to general NF non-wilderness management plans. As I understand it, further action by Congress and signature of the President were required to remove the areas from WSA designation or to return the lands to NF management.  Some WSAs did revert to non-wilderness status, some received more limited access status (such as allowing winter and summertime motorized access), and some remain in limbo today, 40 years after the conclusion of the WSA studies.  

Montana legislators introduce legislation in Congress in 2018 intended to force a "fish or cut bait" resolution for the remaining WSAs which then remained locked up and in limbo. Wilderness advocates complained that the 2018 legislation was introduced without public input.  Other potential users of public lands (motorized recreation groups,  mining, logging, and oil and gas interests) complained that the studies central to the WSA designations had been completed decades ago. To the best of my personal knowledge, the legislation never got out of Congress and now, with a ban on most mineral leasing on Federal lands more and more firmly in place, one might suspect the status quo will remain in effect for the forseeable future.  

For my part,  while I'm very familiar with the territory around some of the WSAs I am wholly unfamiliar with other areas, so I stake no territory in either camp.  But the situation does bring to mind some reasons for the clearly expressed frustrations with and distrust of the Federal government and its management of vast swaths of public land. I think most folks would expect resolution on situations first brought to the surface by the Wilderness Act 58 years ago and by the WSA legislation 45 years ago.  I sure do.  I'd enjoy hearing more from Smoke, the only "boots on the ground" rank & file (retired) Fed I am personally familiar with, concerning an agency's view of the present status, timelines between legislation, recommendations, and actions being taken.

 

Foy

[AWG_Pics]

The executive branch proposes, the legislative branch disposes. An old but too true saying about government in the USA.