Wilderness

[McRat]

Looking at the threads and polls around the topic of Designated Wilderness, it is interesting reading all the different viewpoints about the practical and management aspects as it relates to the hiking experience.

I know I get excited on many of these issues, but they are all hiking related. This post may not be - and mods feel free to delete it if deemed such.

I'd like to discuss the concept of Wilderness itself, with a deliberate effort to exclude hiking ramifications. As much as I have complained, commented, and joked about these elements - I realize my own bias and try to step back.

Isn't it great that at some level, people are respecting the earth enough to leave parts of it alone? A place where nature can follow it's course with minimum interference. That there are some places where the nobler traits of humankind have declared we recognize the wonder of our last wild places, and endeavor to keep them that way. It gives me hope for the future.

Sure, it is idealistic to the point of unrealistic that we could ever fully prevent our impact - but maybe the only way to leave it wild and free long after we're gone is to set an example of such respect to future generations.

I'm conflicted... when I stop bemoaning the blaze removal decision I find that the message of forest service is clear and comforting for keeping these places beautiful for future generations.

Each point of the wilderness plan, if allowed enough exceptions and enough time, could weaken the document to the point where its original intent is lost. Will the current actions of forest service set the precedents that will strengthen the Wilderness Act in the long run. Is the Act itself overreaching in its ambition, or is it long overdue?

Let's take off our boots and gear and talk about this more generally.

 

[Pig Pen]

Can't resist...

It's pretty easy to recommend that land be left alone when it benefits only us as people who like to walk around in the woods. Very few people benefit from land being left alone and there also is very little environmental gain. The land is owned by the state so there is no tax income. There is no logging so there is no benefit to the economy. And I believe the wilderness vision is for very few trails so only nutty bushwhackers like me will be using it.

Land is best used as a working forest that benefits everyone. Intelligent logging, Snowmobile and ATV trails where appropriate, and hiking trails. This way it's not a dead weight on the local economy. The economic impact IS important, because that's how people make a living.

The Pemi was a clearcut wasteland 50 years ago and became what it is now. What's wrong with that?

 

[psmart]

Very few people benefit from land being left alone and there also is very little environmental gain.

We need to remember: The WMNF was created by the Weeks Act not for logging, not for recreation, but to protect watersheds and river systems. In other words, for "environmental gain." We don't have to be actively "using" the land, or even visiting it, for it to be of great value.

The few lands that we "leave alone" also serve as a scientific reserve for aspects of nature that we may only come to realize and understand in the years ahead. (New species of plants, the role of soil micro-organisms, etc.) The world still holds more unknowns than knowns, and we should try not to obliterate all of them.

 

[Pig Pen]

We need to remember: The WMNF was created by the Weeks Act not for logging, not for recreation, but to protect watersheds and river systems. In other words, for "environmental gain." We don't have to be actively "using" the land, or even visiting it, for it to be of great value.

I was watching another thread and was very impressed by the wealth of knowledge that you have on this subject. And I would tend to defer to you for the most part on this. I'm not an expert on the WMNF wilderness stuff, but I have been watching the issue fairly closely here in Vermont. I haven't heard much talk about protecting watersheds. In Vermont there are fairly specific rules about banning "non-conforming" structures, road and trail building, ATV's, no new snowmobile trails.etc... Many of the hiking trails are now "Grandfathered in", that is, they would be illegal if weren't for their previous existence. I'm not sure what "non conforming" structures have to do with watershed problems.

When it comes to wilderness designations it's not just a matter of banning the evil ATV's and snowmachines, it's about all human activity including hiking. We see evidence of this already when we have rangers running around removing blazes and taking down cairns. I think people should be aware of this.

And now the moderator can shut the thread down before psmart posts again and shows how dumb I am.

 

[Paradox]

We need to remember: The WMNF was created by the Weeks Act not for logging, not for recreation, but to protect watersheds and river systems. ... We don't have to be actively "using" the land, or even visiting it, for it to be of great value.

This explains a great deal to me. Thank you.

 

[psmart]

I haven't heard much talk about protecting watersheds

Quite right. Although watershed protection was the core reason for creating the National Forests, it's not really a significant issue with the recent designation or management of Wilderness, which is done for other (additional) reasons.

Fine thread BTW. Glad to see a more general discussion of the topic, rather than focusing on just a few inflammatory issues. I certainly don't want to inhibit the discussion. I'm just trying to keep the facts straight so we can talk about some of the real issues. Wilderness is a complex and important issue, and there's still plenty of room for different views.

 

[Jay H]

NJ has a watershed protection act without specific wilderness areas in the form of the Highlands Act (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/highlands/)

It not only encompasses land but also developed areas in terms of future development. It's fairly new and pretty controversial down here...i.e. balancing the need for development/property taxes/ versus protecting the watershed areas for most of the major metropolitan areas.

I live in the region that is affected by the Highlands Act and think the benefits outweighs the cons but it's an ongoing process that needs to be tweaked and stuff. On one hand it does make developing watershed areas more difficult (good) but it also sometimes affects things like a town's firehouse from expanding in size which is desperately needed (bad). The jury is still out on the issues down here.

Jay

 

[McRat]

Lots of food for thought here, thanks.

When I step back from the situation, I am glad that we are committed to having some lands left natural. Perhaps we have too many acres, or the wrong ones - but in principle, I favor the idea.

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 support logging and industry, but must we make every last acre available for it?

I would like to make it clear that I do not see these regs as creating a private hiking ground for myself, but am grateful that LNT hiking is considered low impact enough to be allowed. It's quite the responsibility viewed in that light.

That said, I do hope that land declared Wilderness is a well thought out decision, and not driven by budget problems maintaining public lands.

 

[onestep]

I'd like to discuss the concept of Wilderness itself, with a deliberate effort to exclude hiking ramifications.

"Wilderness" = warm & fuzzy.

It's kind of like the Boy Scout helping an old lady to cross a street. The woman ends up hitting him with her purse as she yells "leave me alone". The warm & fuzzy crowd applauds the Boy Scout. Some of us know how the lady feels!

Wilderness is an illusion... it's a state of mind. It's government regulation that restricts individual freedom with smoke and mirrors.

If you want "wilderness", set aside an area and BAN ALL HUMANS from it. If it burns, let it. If disease plagues the forest, or if the animals overpopulate to the point of starvation, so be it. Then you'd have wilderness, otherwise you only have a "park".

The WMNF "Wilderness" is nothing more than a man made regulated environment that resembles a city zoo. Who thinks the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston is wilderness?

"Friends around the campfire and everybody's HIGH... Rocky mountain high"

 

[psmart]

Lots of food for thought here, thanks.

When I step back from the situation, I am glad that we are committed to having some lands left natural. Perhaps we have too many acres, or the wrong ones - but in principle, I favor the idea.

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 support logging and industry, but must we make every last acre available for it?

I would like to make it clear that I do not see these regs as creating a private hiking ground for myself, but am grateful that LNT hiking is considered low impact enough to be allowed. It's quite the responsibility viewed in that light.

That said, I do hope that land declared Wilderness is a well thought out decision, and not driven by budget problems maintaining public lands.

For background: 18% of the WMNF is now Wilderness, up from 15% before the New England Wilderness act of 2006. About 40% of the WMNF is managed for timber. (Sorry, I don't have the immediate statistics for Vermont.)

There have been studies that actually show a significant economic benefit to Wilderness designation. Even for the majority of the public that will never set foot in a Wilderness area, it still forms a core that can add to the appeal of an entire area, with many kinds of economic benefits.

I can assure you that Wilderness designation is not motivated by budget cuts or attempted cost-savings. Although it can be argued both ways, I believe management and maintenance costs are about the same for Wilderenss and non-Wilderness areas.

Having been part of a 10 year Wilderness designation process, I can tell you that the real motivator is public demand for Wilderness designation. It's one of the few pieces of legislation that isn't motivated by financial interests, and doesn't doesn't involve any Federal budget appropriations. Although there are still a lot of bearaucratic and legislative hurldes, it's pretty amazing what can be accomplished by concerned citizens.

 

[RoySwkr]

We need to remember: The WMNF was created by the Weeks Act not for logging, not for recreation, but to protect watersheds and river systems. ... We don't have to be actively "using" the land, or even visiting it, for it to be of great value.

I agree with your second sentence. Can you cite a source for the first?

The first National Forests (out west) were "Timber reserves" to be managed for continued wood production so it is amusing to watch the Sierra Club try to ban logging on lands that were often set aside specifically for their timber growing potential.

The Forest Plan for the Arapaho-Roosevelt NF once defended clearcutting because it generated more runoff for the parched Denver metro area but the public didn't bite on that one and it's gone from the ~1990 Plan.

 

[RoySwkr]

There have been studies that actually show a significant economic benefit to Wilderness designation.

That was true when Wilderness was rare and visitors would flock to an area, the exact opposite of what Wilderness should mean. There is so much Wilderness now that the effect is probably less.

I can assure you that Wilderness designation is not motivated by budget cuts or attempted cost-savings. Although it can be argued both ways, I believe management and maintenance costs are about the same for Wilderenss and non-Wilderness areas.

I would in fact argue the Wilderness costs more, there are high-GS-level Wilderness managers in the WMNF without the equivalent for non-Wilderness. And I suspect there is more patrol time per trail mile.

Having been part of a 10 year Wilderness designation process, I can tell you that the real motivator is public demand for Wilderness designation. It's one of the few pieces of legislation that isn't motivated by financial interests, and doesn't doesn't involve any Federal budget appropriations.

You forget the national pro-Wilderness groups that are like any lobby and would go defunct if they failed to hype the need for more Wilderness.

 

[psmart]

The WMNF "Wilderness" is nothing more than a man made regulated environment that resembles a city zoo.

I'm not sure where you've been hiking, but I spent the last two weekends in the Sandwich Range Wilderness (on trail) and saw a total of TWO other people.

There is a lot of confusion that stems from the very term "wilderness". Little-w wilderness means something different for each of us: It's an experience, a state of mind. For some, anyplace with trees is wilderness, while others need to get 100 miles from the next human being.

But big-W Wilderness, especially in the east, was never claimed or expected to be pristine. It's a knowing compromise that attempts to establish a few areas where "natural forces prevail", without excluding human presence or history. And that's exactly what the Eastern Wilderness act of 1975 was about: Finding a way to preserve some lands in the most heavily populated part of the United States.

 

[psmart]

I agree with your second sentence. Can you cite a source for the first?

A google search on "Weeks Act" provides plenty of informtion.

Here is the first hit: http://www.foresthistory.org/Resear...y_Organization/NF_System/weeks_law/index.html

"The law authorized the federal government to purchase lands for stream-flow protection, and to maintain the acquired lands as national forests..."

 

[psmart]

You forget the national pro-Wilderness groups that are like any lobby and would go defunct if they failed to hype the need for more Wilderness.

I can only speak for the group I've worked with: The Wilderness Society. I don't think they're "like any lobby", in that they have no financial interest or gain from the designation of more Wilderness. Sure, organizations will generally try to sustain themselves, but at it's core it's a group of individuals that are working for what they believe in, and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss their goals or motives.

PS: I can give you references for ecomic strudies, management costs, etc, but I think it will really tend to pull this thread off-track and cause many folks to tune-out.

 

[onestep]

The WMNF "Wilderness" is nothing more than a man made regulated environment that resembles a city zoo. Who thinks the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston is wilderness?

I'm not sure where you've been hiking, but I spent the last two weekends in the Sandwich Range Wilderness (on trail) and saw a total of TWO other people.

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!!

 

[Amicus]

We need to remember: The WMNF was created by the Weeks Act not for logging, not for recreation, but to protect watersheds and river systems.

This caught my eye, as I hadn't thought of the seminal Weeks Act of 1911 in that way. So, I looked it up (remarkably short, by today's standards), and confirmed psmart's take, mostly. The gist of the Act reads:

"[Weeks Act, March 1911] – An Act To enable any State to cooperate with any other State or States, or with the United States, for the protection of the watersheds of navigable streams, and to appoint a commission for the acquisition of lands for the purpose of conserving the navigability of navigable rivers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent of the Congress of the United States is hereby given to each of the several States of the Union to enter into any agreement or compact … for the purpose of conserving the forests and the water supply of the States entering into such agreement or compact.
SEC. 2. That the sum of … dollars is hereby appropriated … to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with any State or groups of States, when requested to do so, in the protection from fire of the forested watersheds of navigable streams…."

If there is a twist, it is the limitation to watersheds of navigable streams.

I don't say this is relevant to the substance of this discussion. A lot of water (navigable or not) has flowed under the bridge since 1911, including amendments to the Weeks Act. I merely note it for others who like history.

 

[psmart]

If there is a twist, it is the limitation to watersheds of navigable streams.

But since virtually all watersheds contribute to navigable streams at some point downstream, that limitation really doesn't exclude much.

I think the reason for the wording was a matter of jurisdiction: The Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce and transporation, including navigable waters, so this was used as the authority to pass legislation governing the headwaters of the streams, which otherwise might be argued to be a strictly local (state) issue.

It's also interesting (from a historical angle) how important watershed protection was at the time. The denuded hillsides not only caused flash floods and erosion, but the quick runoff meant there was little streamflow in mid-summer, which interfered with water-powered mills and transportation just as much as public water supplies. The sediment also silted in the mill ponds, reservoirs, canals, and rivers. So there were lots of very practical aspects to "watershed protection."

 

[RoySwkr]

But since virtually all watersheds contribute to navigable streams at some point downstream, that limitation really doesn't exclude much.

There are in fact 2 definitions of "navigable" in use by the Feds today. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over what might be considered traditionally navigable for regulatory purposes, while the Corps of Engineers regulates just about every brook and wetland for dredge & fill.

I think the reason for the wording was a matter of jurisdiction: The Federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce and transporation, including navigable waters, so this was used as the authority to pass legislation governing the headwaters of the streams, which otherwise might be argued to be a strictly local (state) issue.

We agree entirely (not quite a first

People forget that until fairly recently the Supreme Court took a much more limited view of Federal powers, even ruling some of FDR's early programs unconstitutional that would raise no eyebrows today.

 

[Willie]

Let me see if I understand....

The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the United States to acquire land for purposes of establishing national forests. 16 U.S.C. § 475. 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.” Id. In 1918, the White Mountain National Forest was created through a presidential proclamation pursuant to the Weeks Act.

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (“MUSYA”) establishes the purposes for which the national forests “are established and shall be administered.” 16 U.S.C. § 528. MUSYA provides that “t is the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” 16 U.S.C. § 528. So, my understanding is that, although the WMNF may have initially have been created to preserve water and timber resources, public policy has changed and the WMNF is now managed for multiple uses.

After MUSYA was enacted, Congress made the judgment that some lands should be set aside as wilderness at the expense of commercial and recreational uses and passed the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act states that “[wilderness areas] shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). Only Congress can designate lands as wilderness. 16 U.S.C. § 1132(c). Once federal land has been designated as wilderness, the Wilderness Act places severe restrictions on commercial activities, roads, motorized vehicles, motorized transport, and structures within the area, subject to very narrow exceptions and existing private rights. Id. Okay, so Congress designates certain lands as wilderness for our use and enjoyment.

So, if I understand all of this, the WMNF, like other national forests, was initially created to protect water and timber resources. Today, however, the WMNF is required to be managed for multiple uses, except for those areas that are designated as wilderness (i.e. for your “use and enjoyment”). So, I guess we should go use and enjoy.