poll: WMNF Wilderness deconstructed

[sleeping bear]

Unfortunately I have come to believe that most "people" prefer even more stringent Wilderness rules, because most people never visit Wilderness and don't care what hikers like. I am not talking about only extreme environmentalists but also typical urban dwellers who are easy to sell on the concept of a preserve where plants and animals aren't disturbed.

Well, that's an assumption-

Many "people" think that a true wilderness is a waste of precious resources (ANWR?), or that all land should be accessible to everyone.

Additionally, many "hikers" (myself included) think that true wilderness is a great thing, and may prefer it to more developed areas.

I was an intern for the Forest Service in MI, there were two wilderness areas in that forest, one that was heavily used and the other not. The heavily used one was getting so bad they were going to impliment a permit system. Use was more or less discouraged in the other, as it lacked trails and was one of the few places in that area that people really didn't go to.

The governmental agencies that are responsible for maintaining our public lands catch a lot of crap for trying to do their jobs- maintaining our public lands. It's public, everyone's, think about the range of opinions on what to do with it.

Why can't we have a little where there is nothing?

It balances all of the land that is jam packed with other stuff. The idea of perserving wilderness was brought about by urban areas.

 

[Jasonst]

Unfortunately I have come to believe that most "people" prefer even more stringent Wilderness rules, because most people never visit Wilderness and don't care what hikers like. I am not talking about only extreme environmentalists but also typical urban dwellers who are easy to sell on the concept of a preserve where plants and animals aren't disturbed.

Lots of wisdom in that statement.

 

[jjmcgo]

Sleeping Bear is a great writer

as are several other posters on this thread, one of the best ever. Contrasting opinions are well expressed. Arghman has done a lot of work and discovered -- bureaucratic fog.
Something to think about: There is a lot of -- what, underutlized? -- Wilderness already in New England. Hardly anybody uses the wilderness campsites at George Aiken in Southern Vermont or at -- dig this name --
Federated Women's Club State Forest in Petersham, Mass., on the northeast side of Quabbin Reservoir.
Isn't that a referendum on what forest users want? Want Wilderness? Go North, my son, to the Cohoes Trail, Umbagog and a billion places in Maine.
Try to think of the expansion of the White Mountains-area Wilderness not as an ethereal positive but rather the destruction and programed neglect of years of hard work by past dedicated lovers of the outdoors.
Foresters, snowmobilers, hikers, peakbaggers, skiers and etc. have compromised and lived with each other for years and can continue to do so.
You can't get away fast enough when someone says, "I'm from Washington and I'm here to help you."

 

[arghman]

I guess I would just encourage everyone to be open-minded about the various sides of the issue, & if you're going to debate something please try to stick to the tangible aspects of Wilderness rather than any value judgements (on which we're never going to agree).

I'm not sure I would classify the information I've researched as a "bureaucratic fog"... certainly Wilderness is not a black/white, good/bad issue as some organizations seem to have painted it.

I called the Androscoggin district & yesterday spoke with Rebecca Oreskes who is one of WMNF's Wilderness gurus (I forget her actual title). She cleared up a few details:

1) The stuff in the Management Area section of the Forest Plan are policy determinations (standards and guidelines -- if you see S-1, S-2, etc. next to an item, it is a standard and must be followed, if you see G-1, G-2, etc. it is a guideline and the districts/rangers have some amount of discretion. examples: "S-1 Roads are prohibited." is a standard, "G-1 Parking lots for trails that access Wilderness should not be expanded or constructed solely to accommodate increased recreation use." is a guideline.) which ultimately derive their authority from the Wilderness Act or somewhere else in the federal regulations (specifically stuff within 36 CFR).

specifically re: shelters--
2) There is a change in the Forest Plan from the 1986 Plan, in which the policy on shelters is to remove them when they are in need of maintenance (I guess they weren't maintained at all?). The new Plan no longer has this policy. Instead the shelters will be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether to retain or remove them. Prior to decisions there will be an opportunity for public comment, so if you feel strongly about keeping / removing a particular shelter, you should take the opportunity to comment to the Forest Service.

(Given the poll #'s, many of us would consider this policy change an improvement.)

 

[arghman]

Why can't we have a little where there is nothing?

It balances all of the land that is jam packed with other stuff. The idea of perserving wilderness was brought about by urban areas.

Something to think about: There is a lot of -- what, underutlized? -- Wilderness already in New England. Hardly anybody uses the wilderness campsites at George Aiken in Southern Vermont or at -- dig this name --
Federated Women's Club State Forest in Petersham, Mass., on the northeast side of Quabbin Reservoir.
Isn't that a referendum on what forest users want? Want Wilderness? Go North, my son, to the Cohoes Trail, Umbagog and a billion places in Maine.

both valid points... but don't forget that "wilderness" and "Wilderness" are not the same thing. Wilderness with a capital-W is designated by Congress and has particular restrictions. Of the above areas mentioned only George Aiken Wilderness is a Congressionally-designated Wilderness. Little-W wilderness is a slippery, hard-to-define term that has different meanings in different people's minds... I don't think I could define it, myself. The best we can probably do is to evaluate particular areas by their present state (distances from private dwellings, public roads, roads of any kind, timbering history, etc.) or clear expectations of restrictiveness (through legal deeds/easements, or landowner policies e.g. Baxter Park's restrictions, or the Nature Conservancy which does not, I believe, permit camping/motorized vehicles, etc). Maine's unincorporated townships which have no dwellings almost certainly form an acreage at present much larger than WMNF in its entirety. However their future is unclear, and I'm sure there would be a large difference of opinion for counting them as little-W wilderness when they are working forests under active timber management and some of the landowners use unsustainable forest practices. Are these areas in the North Maine Woods useable as a counterpoint to the developed areas of the world crammed with people and signs and noise and machines? Many people would say yes and many others no.

 

[arghman]

somewhat tangential, but since forestnome asked, here are some maps [disclaimer: although the raw shape information is all from the GeoBooks in the USFS Plan Revision page, these maps were created on my computer using the free ArcExplorer and these images are therefore not from USFS.]



the light green is USFS lands, the dark green diagonal hatching is the proposed Wilderness areas. Purple is existing wilderness areas. campgrounds/campsites/shelters are triangles, trails are dotted lines except the AT which is a solid black line. They do not seem to include mountain peaks as a layer feature (they do have contour lines but you don't want me to turn those on, trust me), or other features e.g. Moriah Gorge which is on Moriah Brook and therefore apparently within the proposed Wild River area.

The fact that the AT intersects the proposed Wild River bdy does not make sense, USFS has made representation that it would not include the AT (can're remember where I read that, though) so I'm not sure I trust the bdy's completely. Also on the Sandwich map, the proposed Wilderness area includes some areas not colored light green, which tells me one of those two layers (WMNF lands or the proposed Wilderness bdy) is probably wrong (unless USFS intends to recommend Congress declare private lands within the Wilderness area?!?!?). I guess I'm going to have to call up WMNF and complain that the info they posted is not accurate. still, it's kind of cool that you can do this stuff on a computer for free.

 

[el-bagr]

WMNF plan not appealed

http://news.mainetoday.com/apwire/D8GK4R182-85.shtml

No objections were filed to the WMNF plan. 47 percent of the forest allows "high-impact activities" (campgrounds, trails, ski areas, snowmobiles). ATVs are restricted to designated winter trails and open roads. Subject to Congressional approval, 34,500 acres are set aside as wilderness (in addition to the 114,000 acres already under wilderness protection). Timber harvest caps are reduced from 35 million board feet in the 1986 plan to 24 million board feet in the current plan, though 24 mbf is closer to the recent actual harvest figures.

 

[Mattl]

No one will ever agree on the definition of wilderness in northern New England, for it is different in all. I think wilderness is not a designatedthing but more of a feeling. Yes Maine can feel very wild when you are there, but then go look at some aerial imagry and you say whoa..when you see that you can't walk most places in Maine without hitting a logging road after several miles. So thats where things differ. The problem with the White Mountains is proximity.. plain and simple. It is too close to potential develoment people and excessability. Thats why it doesnt seem wild. But I assure you, there are areas of the Whites where you feel like you are in another place far away. Particularly if you bushwhack or go in areas like the eastern pemi, central sandwhich, central wild river. Coming right off the highway causes me not to feel wild, thats why it takes a long hike or bushwhack to make up for that. The big difference is that there are some very large roadless blocks in the White Mountains, second, third and fourth to Baxter which takes first. These have had roads, but they were long ago and no longer are viewed as that. The 125,000 pemigewasset roadless block is the largest in NH which Baxter at 200,000. Other then Baxter, Maine has very little large continuous roadless land, but that is again because of the nature of the forest and because the properties of a working forest. Anyway...these roadless blocks are VERY important for maintaining a large forest ecosystem, many species are in need of that to survive. As well as backcountry ponds to stay wild, many many wonderful brook trout ponds have been ruined in Maine because of the use of atvs and vehicles to access them. This causes trash as well as overuse. The white mountain trout ponds are incredible fisheries as well as destinations, without wilderness preservation they can have roads built into them which can severely harm their waters. I fell wilderness has its greatest need around water bodies and delicate areas. Thats why I support the Sandwhich Range wilderness for Guinea, and Black Mountain ponds. I dont deny the importance or selective cutting either, it just has to be accessed by exhisting roads, like Sawyer. -Mattl

 

[arghman]

No objections were filed to the WMNF plan.

Note the appeals period had some restrictions on it, what constituted a valid appeal was a statement challenging the Forest Service's plan on legal grounds rather than for their decision itself, e.g whether there were errors or something illegal in the plan, or they didn't follow the prescribed procedure. So there may have been groups (say the Mountain Biking / ATV contingents, or NH Timberland Owners Assoc) that didn't like aspects of the plan, but it's probably agreed by almost everyone that the Forest Service did their job & followed procedure (whether or not you like the plan).

 

[arghman]

borders being clarified

I finally found something publicly accessible that talks about the proposed borders of the Wilderness areas and their relationship to trails:

Wild River
Sandwich

Most trails that are near the boundary have been left out of the Wilderness proposal to minimize conflict. (there are a few that just nip through the boundary, among them the Shelburne Trail from Wild River Campground heading up towards Shelburne Moriah, and the Basin Trail from Wild River Campground up to Rim Junction)

I will give AMC credit for posting a link to these on their website. I have to also say that I am disappointed at AMC's latest canned message they've encouraged their members to send to our Congressional delegation through the CAN (Conservation Action Network).

Thank you for introducing the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 this spring.

Wilderness is an essential component of a balanced-use White Mountain National Forest. I support wilderness because it benefits habitat protection, provides backcountry recreation opportunities, and fits in with the Forest Service's own goals for wilderness management.

Thank you for your leadership in this important issue and please do all you can to pass this bill by the end of the year!

The use of the uncapitalized "wilderness" is a very poor choice; "wilderness" (as opposed to Wilderness) isn't created by any act of Congress or the Forest Service. Last time I checked, it was trails and shelters that helped provide backcountry recreation opportunities, rather than Congressionally-designated Wilderness providing them.