Wilderness

[Amicus]

Thank you, Willie, for your informative troll through the legislative history. One quibble:

The Weeks Act has two purposes, namely, to obtain “favorable conditions for water flows” and to furnish “a continuous supply of lumber for the citizens of the United States.”

I don't see your quoted words in my copy of the original Weeks Act, which I got from Statutes at Large of the USA, Vol. XXXVI, Part 1, Ch. 186 (Wash., Gov. Printing Office, 1911). Maybe they made it into the US Code version from some later source (or maybe my version, just three paragraphs long and ending a page, is not complete).

More to the point, I think you are right to emphasize "use and enjoy," as I do every chance I get.

 

[psmart]

Today, however, the WMNF is required to be managed for multiple uses, except for those areas that are designated as wilderness

Actually, Wilderness areas ARE multiple use. Although they don't provide certain uses (such as timber), they do provide others (such as watershed, recreation, and wildlife.) So they are still part of multiple use management.

In other words, not every acre has to support every use, but they are still part the multiple use concept.

 

[Willie]

One quibble:

I don't see your quoted words in my copy of the original Weeks Act, which I got from Statutes at Large of the USA, Vol. XXXVI, Part 1, Ch. 186 (Wash., Gov. Printing Office, 1911).

Amicus, thanks for catching that error. I referenced the Weeks Act of 1911, as amended by the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 653, ch. 348. The Weeks Act, as amended, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to identify and purchase certain lands for the purpose of promoting or protecting the navigation of streams and promoting the production of timber.

 

[forestgnome]

The point of my poor analogy is that both a zoo and a WMNF Wilderness is an attempt to create an illusion.

Enough politics from me... 'whack-on brothers!!

Perhaps it's an illusion that the entire world is a polluted, urban mess on the brink of human-caused destruction. When I'm deep in the WMNF I sense nothing but forest and wildlife and atmosphere. When I took a nap recently with a bull moose while listening to wind and birds it was really happening, and there was no trace of anything but wilderness, and it wasn't even in Wilderness. Why is it an illusion if I sense nothing but wild, untamed nature? Just because I'm on the same planet that has cities doesn't make the forest an illusion. It's really there, and I'm going in tomorrow night to watch meteors and moose.

Happy Trails

 

[arghman]

Perhaps it's an illusion that the entire world is a polluted, urban mess on the brink of human-caused destruction. When I'm deep in the WMNF I sense nothing but forest and wildlife and atmosphere. When I took a nap recently with a bull moose while listening to wind and birds it was really happening, and there was no trace of anything but wilderness, and it wasn't even in Wilderness. Why is it an illusion if I sense nothing but wild, untamed nature? Just because I'm on the same planet that has cities doesn't make the forest an illusion. It's really there, and I'm going in tomorrow night to watch meteors and moose.

Well put.

My objection to Wilderness is not against its goals and its management, but rather its abruptness and absoluteness. Picture one of the Wilderness areas on a map. You have a region comprised of thousands of acres where every square inch of it is the most heavily-restricted area of the WMNF. Step one foot outside that area, and it may not be restricted at all, so technically (but extremely unlikely) the areas outside of Wilderness could be clear-cut, mined, sold to developers, and paved. Never mind if there is a 100ft x 100ft area somewhere within the designated Wilderness that gets heavily used and might have been better off to be excluded from some or all of the Wilderness restrictions -- the way Wilderness is today, you can't have "holes" in the area, and USFS in the WMNF seems to allow not a single relaxation of its Wilderness philosophy for the manmade appurtenances (trails, signs, bridges, shelters, etc). All or nothing, in Wilderness or out, never mind if that introduces conflict in the heavily-used WMNF. If that complete and absolute stamp of Wilderness is what it takes for some people to feel content about the land being "protected", then I don't think there will be much agreement in the future to add more Wilderness in the Whites.

What I'd like to see is some serious and open discussion among the Powers That Be about what has worked in Wilderness, and what hasn't; and perhaps come up some new ideas that would serve to keep what's worked and reduce the conflicts and costs of the present Wilderness designation. Maybe it's to add several "grades" of Wilderness, some being more strict (e.g. no trails at all) and some less so. Maybe it's a realization that "holes" aren't so bad after all, that there ought to be some large core areas where Wilderness exists without exception, and surrounding that are some buffer areas where the coverage of Wilderness is less complete, so that it's not such an abrupt geographic change. (I think RoySwkr mentioned something about concentric rings or zones.) Maybe it's a policy that allows limited exceptions for low-impact uses in certain small designated areas, as long as those are spelled out clearly and have consensus among the different stakeholders in this debate.

 

[NewHampshire]

The problem with "designated" WIlderness areas is that if you think about it, what was designated could some day be "de" designated. Highly unlikely, but possible. The point of that statement is to show that Wilderness is more a state of mind than what is shaded dark green on a map, or written on a piece of paper. I like the way the SPNHF handles things. I like the way they balance selective logging and human use. In conjunction with the Fish and Game department they manage lands to best maximize human/wildlife balance. And this is what I find more important than carte blanc protection of large swaths of land. Here in the North East I believe it is imposible to have a "true" wilderness. Alaska? Yes. New Hampshire...mmmm, no. So While ANWAR is a good thing, in my opinion, I also feel that the Wildernesses in New Hampshire are just a flase creation. I would much rather see these lands managed to maximize "wilderness" by balancing tree/human/wildlife.

But hey, its all JMHO!

Brian

 

[arghman]

The economic argument against is excellent, but look at what remains of old growth forest in NH. So long as there are no protections, some people will only see them in terms of unharvested board-feet.

I think maybe you should do some more research on what is meant by "old growth forest" and "no protections". Some (if not a majority) of the most significant stands of old growth forest are, in fact, very well-protected. A large tract of old-growth forest is in The Bowl which is not only designated as a Research Natural Area in the WMNF, but is also part of the Sandwich Wilderness. Other sections are in the Great Gulf Wilderness. Another large tract is in Mt Sunapee State Park and was protected by the Society for the Protection of NH Forests in 1911 and donated to the state in the 1940's. I'd be surprised if there weren't some kind of legal restriction attached to that land transfer, which permanently protects this area -- but even if there aren't legal protections, if there were even the slightest hint of the state trying to cut that area, I can guarantee that there would be such a huge backlash from so many environmental groups that a timber sale couldn't happen unless the state government were completely taken over by Darth Vader or Donald Trump.

The vast majority of our forest in NH is second growth, even in the Pemi Wilderness, where you can still see the scars of clear-cutting from 80+ years ago on the slopes of North and South Hancock. What's still old-growth is usually on steep slopes that renders it a moot point, since it's not economically feasible to harvest anyway.

If you're going to argue about "protecting the forest", first take a look at a few things:

(1) Figure out how many thousands of acres are already protected either by Wilderness or by conservation organizations which manage areas as natural areas (e.g. TNC or Audubon, or the portion of SPNHF's holdings which are designated as "eco-reserves").

(2) Figure out how much of the forest that's being managed for sustainable timbering (under the control of WMNF or SPNHF or private companies like Lyme Timber) is actually impacted (edit: by this I mean the % of the land that's impacted at any one given time) by timber operations, and decide if your threshold for "impacted" is aesthetics (forests grow back in a few decades; if you want big trees many forestry techniques do leave a fair number of large seed trees) or ecology (herbaceous understory takes quite a while to recover from the disturbance).

(3) Look at how many thousands of acres in southern and central NH, in smaller chunks of 100-1000 acre blocks, are being decimated for residential development.

(4) Look at unsustainable timber operations, like T. R. Dillon's in the Mahoosucs, and how they are affecting the ecology and aesthetics of the forest.

I wish those of you concerned about protecting the forest would concentrate your energies on (3) and (4) rather than on WMNF which is better-protected than most places in the state.

 

[psmart]

Maybe it's to add several "grades" of Wilderness, some being more strict (e.g. no trails at all) and some less so.

What you're describing is very much the "Zone system" that was implemented in the new WMNF Wilderness Management Plan. From the trail-less A-Zone, to lightly used trail corridors (B-zone), up through moderate and heavy use zones (C and D). The intent is to allow for variations based on usage levels, rather than treating it all the same. This allows trail maintenace standards and other aspects to match the usage, rather than one-size fits all.

... there ought to be some large core areas where Wilderness exists without exception, and surrounding that are some buffer areas where the coverage of Wilderness is less complete, so that it's not such an abrupt geographic change.

"Buffers" have a long and complex history in relation to Wilderness. The bottom line is that all Wilderness areas have a "core area" which strives for the highest Wilderness characteristics, surrounded by a less-wild area towards the boundary. However, the buffer is always inside the designated Wilderness area. Why not put the buffer outside? Basically because non-Wilderness interests felt that an external buffer would be an effective extension of the Wilderness area. Therefore we can (and do) have logging and motorized use right up to the Wilderness boundary in many places.

 

[McRat]

I think maybe you should do some more research on what is meant by "old growth forest" and "no protections". Some (if not a majority) of the most significant stands of old growth forest are, in fact, very well-protected.

I can see how you'd read that. What I had written was meant to suggest that in the absence of protection, everything was fair game.

I understand there are other conservation and protection laws and agencies, but what is it specifically about federal Wilderness designation that is lacking?

Is it a states rights thing? An excessive burden placed on already protected lands? What negatives do the additional Wilderness protections bring to table?

I openly and honestly admit I am the least knowledgeable person who has posted in this forum. I'm just looking to tap the knowledge of VFTT to learn more. Any links to recommended reading is appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[RoySwkr]

Another large tract is in Mt Sunapee State Park and was protected by the Society for the Protection of NH Forests in 1911 and donated to the state in the 1940's. I'd be surprised if there weren't some kind of legal restriction attached to that land transfer, which permanently protects this area

Unfortunately not. Although Sunapee was originally preserved to protect old growth forest, part of the old growth was included in the ski area lease.

--but even if there aren't legal protections, if there were even the slightest hint of the state trying to cut that area, I can guarantee that there would be such a huge backlash from so many environmental groups that a timber sale couldn't happen unless the state government were completely taken over by Darth Vader or Donald Trump.

I'm not quite sure how it slipped into the lease, but the ski area is trying to hold it hostage to obtain the corridor to their Goshen property. And because this is merely old-growth forest, not third-growth Federal Wilderness, the national environmental groups aren't involved.

 

[RoySwkr]

My objection to Wilderness is not against its goals and its management, but rather its abruptness and absoluteness. Picture one of the Wilderness areas on a map. You have a region comprised of thousands of acres where every square inch of it is the most heavily-restricted area of the WMNF. Step one foot outside that area, and it may not be restricted at all, so technically (but extremely unlikely) the areas outside of Wilderness could be clear-cut, mined, sold to developers, and paved.

You should read the "Concentric Wilderness" article by Phil Levin in Appalachia about 30 years ago. His premise was like yours - one should not step out of the car into wilderness but it should require effort to reach such a special place traveling through gradually wilder terrain. Think of climbing Passaconaway by the Dicey Mill Trail. First you hike up a gravel road from the parking lot, then a lesser road through the field. Continue on an old road to the stream crossing, then a moderate grade to the shelter. Finally a steep climb up to the scrubby summit. See how it gradually gets wilder and you finally arrive at an area that is notably different. I think Phil Levin would think a small Wilderness at the summit was far more appropriate than the present system of removing the shelter and blazes the whole way just so the national groups can up their acre count.

Never mind if there is a 100ft x 100ft area somewhere within the designated Wilderness that gets heavily used and might have been better off to be excluded from some or all of the Wilderness restrictions -- the way Wilderness is today, you can't have "holes" in the area, and USFS in the WMNF seems to allow not a single relaxation of its Wilderness philosophy for the manmade appurtenances (trails, signs, bridges, shelters, etc).

While the WMNF has been clever enough to designate only conterminous?? lands as Wilderness this is not true in other areas. The GMNF has private inholdings in Wilderness. There is a fly-in private resort on the Salmon River that is surrounded by Wilderness. And in CO there was a private dam in Wilderness and its owner (an attorney) drove his bulldozer across Wilderness to repair it without even asking for a permit, causing a ruckus from environmental groups but not a peep from the FS who agreed that his private property access rights superseded Wilderness designation.