22 replies to this topic

[generubin]

I think there are plenty of roads on public lands already -- enough for my use, anyway. Providing an opportunity for more people to drive on more roads in no way improves my enjoyment of the outdoors.

Declaring an area off-limits to vehicles in no way locks it up. On-foot is the best way to travel if you want to experience what an area is like in its natural state. Not physically able to travel by foot? Well...I don't believe that everything needs to be made handicap accessible. I'm not in good enough shape to hike/climb to some places in the some wilderness areas, and that's fine with me -- it's enough to just know that they're there -- protected.

Well said!

[Barko1]

I agree that certain lands should be designated wilderness, no vehicles but what pisses me off is some groups that deliberately lie and distort what the legislation is proposing yet wrap themselves in such a sanctimonious manner.

[EdoHart]

I agree that certain lands should be designated wilderness, no vehicles but what pisses me off is some groups that deliberately lie and distort what the legislation is proposing yet wrap themselves in such a sanctimonious manner.

I have to agree. The idea that this bill would privatize certain public lands is simply not true.

I read the text of the bill and no where did I read that public lands would be turned over to private owner ship. What I did read was that because the lands in question hadn't been designated as wilderness, they would continue to be managed under the regulations under which they are currently managed - by Forest Service regulations on Forest Service Lands and BLM regulations on BLM lands.

[billharr]

BS, the Wilderness release act does nothing to sell off land and this is a great case of many environmental groups distorting the legislation to restrict our use of public lands.

“The bill that was referenced is H.R. 1581. Under this legislation, there is no ‘sell-off’ of land. The bill simply opens certain land to multiple uses, while keeping them under federal ownership. The Department of the Interior has studied these lands and has deemed them unsuitable for wilderness designation.

If you want to use your camper to access the public lands in a responsible manner you should support this bill. Many areas were declared wilderness simply as a way to lock up the land without meeting the legal definition of wilderness, this bill seeks to restore responsible use.

Agree 100% areas I used to drive and ride to have been put off limits. I rode dirt bikes in my youth and many of the dirt roads I rode on now require you to be street legal. (Slick Rock Road in Alpine C0.) The areas that have not been closed have been paved so you can take a Winnebago to them. (Road to Spicers Rev in Alpine Co.)

We do need areas open to 4 wheel drive use and not closed off except to hikers. The road less act and Presidents declaring areas National Monuments, closed too many area and open others to only street legal autos. I will write my repetitive to support HR 1581.

[DirtyDog]

And remember the golden rule: whether you are for or against it, civil discussion on the topic is beneficial to everyone involved.

[craig333]

I haven't read this bill but I will make a comment about wsa's. It does bother me that you can make a defacto wilderness just by declaring it a wsa. Either its Wilderness quality land or its not. Either recommend it to congress for Wilderness designation or return it to its previous designation. I'd think something like five years should be plenty of time to study an area.

Paved roads. Another example of wasteful government spending.

[Lighthawk]

Well said!

+2

Opening land to many (ab)uses has already been done to tens of millions of acres. Let's set aside a few for the next two hundred years, and then some!

Think of Yosemite Valley, the Warner Mtns. or pick-your-favorite spot and imagine if it was wide open to OHV use for the last twenty years. What would that be like today or in another fifty years? I've seen what OHV guys leave behind and it ain't pretty and it doesn't go away in a few years.

From my experience: Anywhere you can drive, there will be trash and abuse. Anywhere you can hike? Not so much.

Conservation of land can mean not using it with motorized vehicle which means it will be relatively pristine in the future. If it's not perfectly pristine today, does that mean we should not protect it for your grand kids, and what about their grand kids? It seems to me we are in the golden age of 4wd exploration with lot's of amenities plus GPS & internet research. There's very few places left untouched or lightly touched. How about we agree to leave them that way?

[highz]

Something else to consider: There is increased pressure from the large growth in the number of off-road vehicles. As a single example, look at the sales growth for Polaris (in a poor economy, no less):

http://www.polarisin...11-Results.aspx

Off-road vehicles dominate their product line and profits. I can understand, and maybe even support disabled folks using these machines, but we all know the majority of new buyers are able-bodied. Why don't they want to get out and hike or trail run?

The ads and commercials for these machines tell the real story - adrenaline, power, noise... Not an attitude I personally appreciate in the backcountry. I know there are exceptions to this - some of 'em frequent WtW and are responsible good people. But, I am afraid they may be in the minority, based on the number of rude, clueless, noisy, exhaust-fuming jerks I've encountered on the local FS roads and trails. Sorry to say it. I put a lot of blame on marketing and even X-games.

Finally, if more areas are designated for off-road vehicle use and the sales numbers continue to grow, what areas will be sacrificed in the next bill? Where will this stop?

So much for being a peacemaker, I guess.

[highz]

But, I think I went off on a tangent and it is important to remember that many organizations think this bill is really about opening lands for resource extraction. Certainly, some of the areas designated in the bill in my neck of the woods - the Sacramento mountains - already allow access by motorized vehicles. However, they don't allow new roads, for say, logging (although logging is ongoing elsewhere in the Sacramentos). It's also good to remember that one of the bill's sponsors has a lot of petroleum industry contributions, and one of the bills lobbyists is the Independent Oil Producers’ Agency.

Just sayin' that it's really not about OHV access. That's pretty much a smokescreen.

[ski3pin]

highz, thanks so much for your posts. It just reaffirms to me that I'm hanging around in a good neighborhood here.