Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the responses. I expected more like Toyman's. Namely, that wilderness serves too few. Keep 'em coming.
Most people have no idea what the definition of wilderness actually means. Nor do they spend time in the forests enjoying multiple use activities. They get their idea of the backcountry from a Sierra Club magazine.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition is a great group. They do a lot of collaborative work encouraging multiple use and work to reduce conflicts between user groups.
As an avid hiker who is familiar with all of the various categorizations of national lands, from a practical standpoint I don't really see the necessity of categorizing public lands as they do. I think it's largely redundant and they should reduce the number of categories. The government can say each category is distinct, but it's still somewhat arbitrary. Whether four categories, three, five, eight, or two, the distinctions are not set in stone and can be revised.
I've read some controversies in the past where government land managers decided to rip down historically significant structures in Wilderness areas, as well as other categorizations. I don't know how common that is, but if the larger goal is land and cultural/historical stewardship, I'd say that's a pretty bad implementation. Old structures that they don't deem ultra-historical enough to want to maintain them should generally be left to at least stand and rot for sake of historical posterity, and to serve as an attraction for backwoods travelers who may want to catch a glimpse of a past homestead, former industry (old mines and factories, watermills an sawmills, etc..), or other remnant of history gone bye.
I find eminent domain use against inholders, be it in a Wilderness area or otherwise, to be a one of its more odious uses. That Wilderness should not come at the price of somebodies long established homestead. I think the Wilderness Act requires a more difficult process to do a taking as agencies have less latitude than they normally do to act unilaterally, but nonetheless this inholder issue is a well known problem nationwide. Government has made many peoples lives hell, trying to cleverly chase them out of their property by almost every means possible, short of outright condemnation; one of the more common tricks is by making it increasingly more difficult for the inholder to even get to his home by cutting off as many access routes and means as possible.
I think National Monument status is another very problematic category prone to abuse, and its been that was since its inception (and the abuse only gets worse as time goes on).
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 12-09-2011 at 01:02 PM..
Might as well discussion National Scenic Trails, while you are at it. I post this for the benefit of those who have never heard of such things or didn't know they existed. These are basically foot trails that span great distances, upwards of several thousand miles, that were built and maintained by volunteer trail coalitions. I think most people are at least familiar with the Appalachian Trail, as it is arguably the most well known:
We need to protect some public lands from extensive development, priviatization and to be decent stewards of the land. Public lands provide places for people to recreate, enjoy the outdoors, and also can provide an economic base for local communities. Designated wilderness often fails in all these regards.
Most national forest lands provide for heavily regulated, controlled logging, which contributes to fire suppression (and long term forest health) and provides income for local communities. The limited number of roads constructed provide access for recreation. Camping, ATV operation and dirt bike use provide wonderful opportunities for people to see and access their public lands.
Designated wilderness...fails on many counts. Human usage of designated wilderness areas is very limited. Elimination of motorized recreation oportunities hurts users of the land and local economies. Even mountain biking is banned as "mechanized" operation. Designated wilderness areas are often devistated by wildfire, with such fires spreading to adjacent property. Only a very tiny portion of the population hikes or rides horses in wilderness areas. Ironically, bicycles, ATVs and motorcycles are banned, but horses, which do more damage to the land, are allowed.
There is a need for some wilderness, but there is also a need for a designation of protection that limits development but allows use and recreation. There are various proposals for a "backcountry" designation, one that would protect habitat but still allow motorized recreation, human access and wildfire protection.
Forget those things you enjoyed if you are talking about designated Wilderness. Cars (and travel trailers), as well as roads and bicycles are banned in those areas. Those are all things I enjoy as well. My favorite way to spend free time in the summer is to throw a load of camping gear on the dual sport (motorcycle) or ATV, and spend some days exploring and camping in the backcountry. They are also opportunities that are being taken away at a rapid rate, as more areas are designated wilderness, and more roads on National Forest and BLM lands are being destroyed in the name of "environmentalism".
This has been an enjoyable period of reading written by people who really do support wilderness. It is now time for the old party pooper to enter the discussion with some means of showing that most of what you people use will be pure wilderness, some day.
i have never lived near a treed area which is what wilderness,is to most along with the rugged ground of mountain type areas. My home will become something that most wouldn't want to see someday once the UN and others have created their controlled population areas. They want the US to hold no more than 500,000 people and want to turn most of our territory over to nature. However, they don't intend to allow people into too much of that territory.
OK, I am bringing Agenda 21 into a place where it shouldn't be but I have to keep trying to tell people what they want to happen to us. I won't post a link to find their map of the US as they want it to be but will tell you that few lovers of the areas being discussed here will be very happy if they ever look at one. None of you live near an area where they want people to live in their rack 'em and stack 'em areas. They want to control where people can live, where they can go, and what they can do with the land. They do not believe in ownership of private land and will use whatever force they have to use to enforce what they want.
Get yourself a map of the US as Agenda 21 proposes it to appear and see if I am lying. Too many of you like the forested areas of the west coast and only one or two populated areas will be allowed. Your homes will go the way of mine if they ever manage to install this system.
Lets get together against this system and try to protect what we have. The best way to do that would be to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US as soon as possible. Anybody here willing to take part in my movement?
I like them, but that doesn't mean I support spending a bunch of money on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
How do you all feel about federal wilderness? Those are the large, remote areas "untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor who does not remain." I would add that the wilderness act prohibits motorized recreation, though horses and some domestic livestock graze there.
How much does it cost to maintain this land? That's the question, IMO.
Frankly, I don't care if 99.9999% of the population never takes the opportunity to venture into a wilderness area because I would hate to see them turned into Yosemite Valley.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
