Yellowstone in Winter - constraints of a tour

I would like to see and photograph Yellowstone National Park in the wintertime, however, about the only way I can imagine doing this is as part of a tour group. My concern is that I work slowly, in fact, glaciers look fast compared to me. I would be very disappointed to feel like I was being hurried from one highlight to the next. I suppose it would depend on a lot of different things - leaders, other tourons, etc, but can anyone comment on my concern.

Pete D.

I don't know what you are willing to pay but you can rent a snowcoach out of West Yellowstone. They are pricy but if you can find another person or persons to share it with
you can go at your own pace.
Just Google West Yellowstone and start the hunt if your interested. John Gerlach also conducts snowmobile photography trips (2 or 3) a year . He's one of the best as its for photography only and goes from early morning till Dark. His prices includes everything from lodging, food, clothing etc.

Dale Franz and Jess lee both run tours out of either location and Gardiner as well,

I can recommend Jess Lee's tour. We went with him in February 2006 and had many great photo opportunities, including wolves. We spent more time looking for wildlife than actually photographing it, as would be expected, and with five days to cover the area, we were never rushed. We had one day with our own snowcoach, and that was great for getting in to areas otherwise inaccessible, but our best wildlife images were made close to the road and close to Jess's vehicle (which we were glad to have since the temp was -25 one morning and - 35 the next morning).

We stayed in Gardiner for that tour, since the road between Gardiner and Cooke City is the only road open in the winter.

Originally, Yellowstone was accessible only by the Northern Pacific Railroad, which built the best hotels. Only very wealthy people could afford to go there, mainly because of the transportation costs. My wife & I last went there about six years ago one winter. The place is virtually deserted and is pretty, if you like winter (like I do.) We stayed in the park at the Snow Lodge most nights. We used various ways to get around. We did a snowcoach tour one day, which was the BIGGEST waste of money I've ever had on any trip before or since. You are there with a bunch of tourists with point & shoot cameras whose goal is to travel 80 miles and see everything they can. Make that glimpse everything they can. By the time you have your tripod set up, they are back in the vehicle glaring at you for holding things up. These snowcoach things are great if you're 80 years old and just want to be driven around for a day. If you are a photographer, they suck, to put it bluntly. We rented sowmobiles for two separate days. I have never owned a snowmobile and am not at all a snowmobile guy. However, realistically they are the ONLY way you can get around such a huge place. There is no other transportation for a serious photographer. On two days we snowshoed or use X-country skiis. Wife & I both are experienced with these and in good shape, but there's just NO WAY you can cover much ground with them, especially in the deep fluffy snow there. It's exhausting to travel at 1.5 mph-don't forget you're at 8,000 ft.

The way things are set up now, you have to be a wealthy person if you want to get around there. There is NO system for you to get where you want. You either have to get on one of those stupid tour things where you don't call the shots, or you have to pay mega money to hire a baby sitter to go around with you. I don't need some photo tour guy to tell me how to take my kind of photos. None the less, if I go back I'll have to pay them huge money to sit on a machine while I'm a couple of hundred yards away doing my thing.

Yellowstone started out as a playground for the wealthy, for only they could afford the transportation there. Modern "environmentalists" have returned the park to that status--a playground only for those wealthy enough to afford to hire the babysitters. There was a vote in Congress last month and 86 of them voted to completely ban snowmobiles. Note that ALL of them were from states FAR from the park. Thank goodness they didn't get what they want. Some (certainly not all)"environmentalists" have the goal of driving everyone from the parks. The result is regular folks like us pay a thousand bucks a day where we used to pay a fourth that.

My advice to you would be to forget the snowcoach until you are 80 years old. Stay at Snowlodge and see what you can around there on foot. Hire a licensed babysitter to take you out one day to a spot you really want to get to. Forget the photo tours--you are stuck doing what the group wants to. If they want to take yet another hundred shots of buffalo, that's what you have to do too, even though you'd rather see something spectacular like Fairy Falls. The place, is really, really screwed up at the moment. And expensive. At one time we were being promised a sort of snow bus service would make regular loops around, and you could get off and on when you wanted, including before sunrise and after sunset. That never happened as far as I know. Obviously that plan would allow more "regular" people to have access, and that's the last thing elite "environmentalists" want.

Wife & I would like to go back, but I'm starting to think we'd have a lot more fun going to the geysors in Iceland. I think China has some too. They don't have anti-photographer elistists running the show over there. I also think it's cheaper and more exotic.


Kent in SD

Yellowstone started out as a playground for the wealthy, for only they could afford the transportation there. Modern "environmentalists" have returned the park to that status--a playground only for those wealthy enough to afford to hire the babysitters. There was a vote in Congress last month and 86 of them voted to completely ban snowmobiles. Note that ALL of them were from states FAR from the park. Thank goodness they didn't get what they want. Some (certainly not all)"environmentalists" have the goal of driving everyone from the parks. The result is regular folks like us pay a thousand bucks a day where we used to pay a fourth that.

For those in the Western States, this is an important issue. We are losing our access to wild places by road and trail closure and most of the Congressmen backing this type of legislation live nowhere near the states that would be affected (WY, UT, AZ, CO, ID, MT).

Closing trails can lead to the following consequences. One, people are concentrated into the most popular remaining open areas causing even greater damage to the most precious gems in our nation. Two, the wilderness becomes a place where you'll see nary a person because you have to take two weeks of vacation to even reach the place.

An example of such a bill is the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act." H.R. 1975 which would designate 23 million acres of land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, as Wilderness. This means each of these 23 million acres would be made permanently off-limits to motorized and mechanized recreation, including off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, 4x4s, snowmobiles and mountain bikes.

On the list of cosponsors for this bill, there are zero from ID, WY, MT or UT and only a handful from CO and AZ. The primary sponsor is from NY.

If you want to help fight this, consider joining the Blue Ribbon Coalition. While I don't believe that they are the perfect representative organization, they are what we have.

Mel Ladewig-

I'd highly recommend Dale Franz's Yellowstone Photo workshops. I have been to the Winter one last year, the spring one this last spring, and am taking 3 friends on the spring one this upcoming May.

Last winter, we spent an hour photographing a wolf pack on a bison kill, full frame shots with a 500 mm. We also got moose, many grizzlies, black bear, Big horn, coyotes, elk, bison, great landscapeshots, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting. Worth every second.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=20027&b=vf9&st=0&la=138&ph=38&sid=28056&u=28056

Sandy r

"Closing trails can lead to the following consequences. One, people are concentrated into the most popular remaining open areas causing even greater damage to the most precious gems in our nation. Two, the wilderness becomes a place where you'll see nary a person because you have to take two weeks of vacation to even reach the place. "

If I venture into the wilderness and see nary a person...I'll be happy as a clam!

If I venture into the wilderness and see nary a person...I'll be happy as a clam!

There are thousands of places you can do that. You can do that right here in South Dakota too, if you want, and not travel far from home.

Closing trails can lead to the following consequences. One, people are concentrated into the most popular remaining open areas causing even greater damage to the most precious gems in our nation. Two, the wilderness becomes a place where you'll see nary a person because you have to take two weeks of vacation to even reach the place.

And a third. People's lives are put in jeopardy. Even under the looser restrictions of a few years ago, my wife and I had to take some serious chances. Because the road to a waterfall was closed, we got up at 4 AM to begin hiking to it in the dark, using lights. I'm experienced doing this at home and we have the clothing & gear for it. Not everyone does though. Lives are put at risk when they go off into the dark in deep snow and below zero temps.

The bottom line is there is no good way for a serious photographer to get around there in winter. The obvious solution is to plow the roads and charge a daily pass fee large enough to pay for it, but the fanatics are even against that. Another tactic my wife & I did was find a snowcoach driver and pay them (bribe them actually) to drop us off and pick us up at predetermined times. We simply gave them a hundred dollar bill and they quietly stuck it in their pockets. They likely made more from these surreptitious deals than they did from their salary. That's right, we actually paid a hundred bucks to NOT go on the dopey tours, LOL! And really, that's all I want--a way to get to places and not have to pay some photo tour guy who doesn't live around there big $$, or get on the bus with the 80 years olds. Tours just don't appeal to me at all, and I don't want to do a photo "workshop." I want to do things on my own. I'm just not a "group" guy. I'll take my chances on my own. I can take care of myself in the woods--I don't need a babysitter.


Kent in SD

If I venture into the wilderness and see nary a person...I'll be happy as a clam!

We'll see how you feel about that when something bad happens and nobody passes your way for a month.

Your experience would likely be much different here in the mountain west than it is on the east coast. There are already vast areas in the mountain west where you can go without seeing other people for a day or two and many places where you might not see others for a week. Even in Colorado, one of the most populated states in the region, there are places where you can go where you'll not see anyone else on a trail system. No matter how the law changes or access is restricted, places like the Cirque of the Towers in the Wind Rivers or The Crestone Needle will always have alot of visitors. It will either be allowed as it is, or they'll start to put people on a waiting list to restrict access like the permit system for the Wave. Colorado's 14ers will always draw big crowds, but you can climb almost any 13er in the state without seeing another person.

The other big difference between the mountain west and the midwest or east coast is the size of the public land tracts. I believe 50% of the state of Colorado is federal land. Most of the states out here have even higher federal land ownership percentages. In Wyoming, humans are outnumbered by elk, and there are probably 3 antelope to every person in the state.

Mel-

Pete, its relaly not that big of a deal and you have a very simple set of options,
1, hire a photo guide,,and go with him, use his knowledge of the interior, and you will be able to stop anywhere and anytime you want.

2. go to either mammoth or west YS, just take a ticket and get on a group ride and stop where they want you to stop,

3. ask if anybody from this forum or other popular photo fourms are going to be there when you are gonna be there, meet up, and call one of the tour group operators, one that comes to mind, is yellowstone safaris, then the driver will take you where you want to go, stop where you want to stop and stay where you want as long as you want. The only differenece here from the photoguides, is the lack of knowledge of the photoguides experience of the area.

or snowmobile, and i just woundnt do that due to equip limitations you will encounter.

afa the wilderness areas being cut off from atvs, ofvs, etc. so what is so wrong with that, letting the wild be wild without a noisy engine ripping up the terrain, restricting it from cattle and sheep, preventing suburban sprawls, and making it, well WILDERNESS that you have to walk in. Guess i dont see the problem there,

Pete, its relaly not that big of a deal and you have a very simple set of options,
1, hire a photo guide,,and go with him, use his knowledge of the interior, and you will be able to stop anywhere and anytime you want.

2. go to either mammoth or west YS, just take a ticket and get on a group ride and stop where they want you to stop,

3. ask if anybody from this forum or other popular photo fourms are going to be there when you are gonna be there, meet up, and call one of the tour group operators, one that comes to mind, is yellowstone safaris, then the driver will take you where you want to go, stop where you want to stop and stay where you want as long as you want. The only differenece here from the photoguides, is the lack of knowledge of the photoguides experience of the area.

or snowmobile, and i just woundnt do that due to equip limitations you will encounter.

afa the wilderness areas being cut off from atvs, ofvs, etc. so what is so wrong with that, letting the wild be wild without a noisy engine ripping up the terrain, restricting it from cattle and sheep, preventing suburban sprawls, and making it, well WILDERNESS that you have to walk in. Guess i dont see the problem there,

Pete,
Now, don't take this wrong, but I've probably spent more time in Yellowstone than anyone else in this forum. Here's my thoughts on what you're asking.

Jess Lee and Dale Franz have both been recommended, and you couldn't go wrong with either one. Both have many years in the Park, know the locations and timing, keep up with current happenings, and are fun to be with. They're good friends of mine and I've photographed with them for years. You may not get anything, but then again you may get a trip like Sandy had. It's a crapshoot.

If you want to go to the interior of the Park for photography, the snow coach option is your best bet. I would avoid tours that aren't specifically for photographing (like Jess and Dale's are). The best way to do it is to get 3-4 other people who you're comfortable photographing with, and rent a snow coach and driver. Make sure they know you want to be there for early and late light (Days are short, so this isn't a big deal). Spend most of your time in Hayden Valley and around Old Faithful. The cost of this is not prohibitive, but is still significant - probably a couple hundred/day/person. Try Yellowstone Alpen Guides out of West Yellowstone.

Snow coaching to Old Faithful and the snow lodge is an option. On most years you can get around the boardwalk areas without either snowshoes or skis. There's generally bison and maybe elk in the area, but the geysers are the best photo ops.

Do not go hiking out into the Park on your own.

Renting a snowmobile/guide would be the least favorable option for photography unless you're a snowmobiler. I don't know of any groups that specialize in photography, and it would be more of a hassle with equipment. And, unless you're used to it, spending a day on one is a long time.

You can rent a car in Bozeman and drive to Gardiner. The road to Cook City is open all winter, and you have just as much access to the Park as anyone else. It's just like being there in the summer, only colder. Staying in Cook City would cut down on driving time to the best areas for wildlife photography. There's ski and snowshoe trails throughout the area.

I teach a winter photography course over Presidents Day for the Yellowstone Institute and we snow coach into OF for a couple nights, so that's another option.

The snowmobile restrictions have been controversial, but I think the Park Service was right to limit numbers. The noise and stink of the 2-stroke engines was becoming oppressive and ruining the experience for evereyone else. I think having to have a guide is a bit much, but some bubbleheads were chasing wildlife and going off the roads. It's the typical case of a irresponsible few ruining it for the rest.

Hope this helps.

The worst weather is the best weather for photography. You want below 0 temps with lots of snow.

I'm pretty much with Pete on snowmachines. The last time I was in Yellowstone, there was a haze and stink of snowmachine exhaust hanging over many areas, and the noise was terrible. It was about as much of a wilderness experience as an LA freeway exchange. If anything, the NPS restrictions were strong enough.

I've hiked and cross-country skied in Yellowstone many times. In the winter, it can be as lovely as any place in North America. It can also be brutal. Storms can blow up quickly, the altitude can hammer you even if you are in decent shape, and the powder snow takes getting used to. See my article on some of these issues.

Go with a good guide your first few times. Watch how the guide copes with adverse conditions. Mistakes in the wilderness - and back country Yellowstone is wilderness - can be fatal. No photo is worth your life.

<<We'll see how you feel about that when something bad happens and nobody passes your way for a month. >>

I'll just add that wilderness areas are not really designed for people. Are they not created to protect the environment and leave a few areas untouched by man? Individuals may choose to venture into these areas, but they also have the option to not go there if they do not want to deal with the consequences.

No wonder it is so hard to protect lands when so many people demand easy access to lands to photograph them. I understand you concerns, but come on guys..

Another person you might consider to get off the beaten path would be Tom Murphy. tmurphywild.com. I saw him on either the National Geographic channel or Nature on PBS.

Hi,

I did Yellowstone on snowmobile two winters ago and it was great. I would agree that you are more rushed since you are in a group though. I went on two seperate days. One the second day I told the guide (Who was the same one we had the first day) what I wanted to concentrate on that I didn't shoot the first day and with the addition of a $20 tip PRIOR to the tour going out he was glad to oblidge. My tour went out of the Three Bear Lodge in West Yellowstone. Good luck and if you have questions just ask.

Thanks

Don

The problem with ANY group is you end up compromising what you want to do on an important trip. I honestly don't care about the wildlife there much. I have the same critters here in my home state. I would be bored to tears if I had to photo buffalo because someone else in the group thought they were somehow special. Same for muleys and everything else. I'm not crazy about birds either, with a few exceptions such as the American Dipper. Again though, I have those at home. What I would go to photo are very specific frozen waterfalls, most of which require a serious hike to get to. All I want is to be dropped off at the trail head and I'll take it from there. I don't need a guide, I can read a map and have an excellent compass. I don't want to pay somebody I don't even know to tell me how I want to take my photos. I'd rather explore it on my own. All I want is to be dropped off and picked up when I want, or close enough. If I want to spend most of a day taking abstract photos of mats of thermophilic bacteria, that's what I'll do. No way anyone else in a group is going to sit through that. Now that I have my extensive remote flash system, I will want to take some night shots of geysors etc. I likely have 10 times more experience than any of the guys doing the tours with this kind of photography. Why should I be forced to fork over two days' pay to them so I can do this? And to people who aren't even locals at that? That just isn't right. I don't get that many vacation days and when I do I'm not going to burn the clock doing something or not doing something because of the whims of a group. I'm just not.

What's needed is either plow the roads and charge a daily vehicle fee for that, run a loop of buses that come by once an hour or two to pick you up when you flag them down or at stops 2 miles apart, or have snowmobiles with very small 4stroke engines and speed governers on them available at the interior lodges. As for 2stroke machines, they are now ancient history and a bogus argument. Even if they came out with a small electric vehicle you can bet money the fanatics would be against it. They aren't against vehicles, they are against PEOPLE.

Not sure why Pete advises to not go snowshoeing. If you are acclimated to the temps and have the gear, I just don't see the problem with going to the waterfalls etc. that are off the road a bit but on decent trails, such as Fairy Falls. Wife & I did some of those trails in the dark even. I'd much rather do that than be on some group thing. I have zero interest in a photo workshop in a place I paid big money to get to. I'd rather spend the time doing what I wanted. That's the whole issue. I don't care about snowmobiles or snowmobilers. I'd be happy riding a horse. Oops. Can't even do that! All your allowed to do is pay big money to a handfull of tour operators to go where others want you to, or take your chances on foot and see how far you can get.

Wife & I were considering moving to Gardiner when we retire. I would go through the hoops to get a guide permit, and then only guide myself. She now is considering buying a house on Hawaii (Big Island,) LOL!

Kent in SD

Hey Kent,

Exactly what is an 'elite environmentalist' and who might be one? Can you name one? I'm curious.

You seem to make many contradictions in your posts. You said (due to this absence of snow mobiles) "Lives are put at risk when they go off into the dark in deep snow and below zero temps." Later you say, "I just don't see the problem with going to the waterfalls (snowshoeing) etc. that are off the road a bit but on decent trails, such as Fairy Falls." One minute you're all upset about the banning of snow mobiles, next you say "I don't care about snowmobiles or snowmobilers."

"They aren't against vehicles, they are against PEOPLE. "

This is talk-radio stuff, i.e., meaningless. Yellowstone gets in the vicinity of 10 million visitors a year. Who in their right mind could argue that anyone's proposing anything that is against PEOPLE?

I agree photographing in big country is really hard without a vehicle. Most folks have no idea how hard it is when you're on foot. But I don't see that as reason alone to allow anyone and everyone to run helter-skelter across the plains/tundra/hills/whatever on their snow mobiles/ATVs/Motor bikes/mountain bikes/even horses if that produces an unsustainable impact on the landscape. IMO there are far too few places where this kind of thing is restricted, not too many.

I agree it might be nice if the Park ran a shuttle bus thing, like in Denali, or something that makes it more accessible for people who don't want to do a tour. Also, allowing snow mobiles only with guided tours rankles me. There could be some other system it would seem. But illogical, irrational and nonsensical arguments pointed at some invisible 'elitist environmentalists' is just absurd. I don't know how critical it is that snow mobiles be banned in the park, but I know what you've posted isn't any reason not to.

Hey Mel,

Currently, less than 5% of the total land in the US falls under the federal designation of "wilderness". Most of that is in Alaska, and only 2.5 percent of the land in the Lower 48 is "wilderness". Two point five percent. Some of these parcels are tiny, like the 5 acres on Pelican Island, Florida. 97.5% of land in the Lower 48 is NOT wilderness. There are probably less than 3 "wilderness areas' in the Lower 48 that you can't walk across in a day. This bill would increase the percentage of wilderness in the US from 4.7 to 5.7%, and in the Lower 48 states from 2.5% to 3.6%. Can you please explain why anyone would choose to "help fight" a bill which seeks to protect land from the deterioration that so typically is the product of motorized and mechanized recreation?

Secondly, can you please point me to a place, any place, where "you have to take two weeks of vacation to even reach the place"?

Cheers

Carl

Currently, less than 5% of the total land in the US falls under the federal designation of "wilderness". Most of that is in Alaska, and only 2.5 percent of the land in the Lower 48 is "wilderness". Two point five percent. Some of these parcels are tiny, like the 5 acres on Pelican Island, Florida. 97.5% of land in the Lower 48 is NOT wilderness. There are probably less than 3 "wilderness areas' in the Lower 48 that you can't walk across in a day. This bill would increase the percentage of wilderness in the US from 4.7 to 5.7%, and in the Lower 48 states from 2.5% to 3.6%. Can you please explain why anyone would choose to "help fight" a bill which seeks to protect land from the deterioration that so typically is the product of motorized and mechanized recreation?

I’ve taken some time to write these posts and try to explain my point of view.

First, I'm not against existing wilderness areas. I think the current allocation provides sufficient diversity in recreational opportunities on public land. There are 5842 square MILES of wilderness area in the state of Colorado. That is nearly 4 million acres in Colorado alone. Much of this is the very best land in the state. That is great! I'm even one to park the jeep, get out and hike out into these wilderness areas. And I do it often and without begrudging the fact that I’m entering a wilderness area where I can no longer drive my precious jeep or ride my mountain bike.

Making an area more difficult to access does not create greater value in that place. It does not create a greater love among the citizens for that place. It does not lead to lasting fame for artists who capture that place on film or canvas. What it does is often decrease the familiarity of a place and decreases the opportunity for exploration and discovery that can lead to new ideas about that place and values associated with it.

Someone mentioned that wilderness areas are for the animals, not people. I believe nothing could be further from the truth. Wilderness areas are for people who don't want to hear motors or the other noises of modern life and they are about preventing the exploitation of those areas for natural resources. Both are fine purposes, but we should be honest about them. If you spend time around animals, you'd know that few care about a running car. But if you stop that engine and get out, the animal will be gone in a flash. It is people who are bothered by passing automobiles, bicycles and snowmachines.

Counting wilderness area as a total of the land area in the US is a bit disingenuous. The is a post here on the ICF Pro Tour talking about Texas. Texas is 94% privately owned and therefore not eligible for designation as a wilderness area. A good portion of the whole of US is privately owned and wilderness designation is simply not applicable. A truer measure would be to express the acres of wilderness area as a percentage of federal land eligible for wilderness designation. I would think this would exclude military installations, but would include all land administered by the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture under the national forest or national grassland programs.

In Colorado, wilderness areas comprise approximately 5% of the state's land as it currently stands. About ½ of the state is plains, privately owned by cattle ranchers and farmers or covered by the big Front Range cities. Regardless of the fact that this is not listed as wilderness, this part of the country is extremely important to wildlife and there are projects like CRP and soil conservation districts that help support wildlife and a stable stock of native grass. If you look at just the western half of the state, comprising of the mountains (where all of the wilderness and most of the federal owned areas exist), then you are up to 10% of the land. Subtract out the inhabited valleys, which are mostly privately owned, just like the eastern plains (North Park, Middle Park, South Park, San Louis Valley, etc...) and highways and you're looking at more like 25% or maybe even 30% of the mountains are already set aside as wilderness. This map shows the rough coverage of the wilderness areas. http://www.coloradowilderness.com/wildpages/map.html

This doesn't count Wilderness Study Areas or Roadless Areas, other designations of areas similar to Wilderness Areas where OHVs are prohibited. This doesn’t count national park backcountry areas, which are even more restrictive than general wilderness areas in that you must have a permit to camp overnight. It does not count CRP lands, which are essentially the same thing, roadless areas in the plains not used for agriculture. It doesn’t include state wildlife areas, which are similar to wilderness areas, though generally small in size.

Before this next section, we have to define what a reasonable person can hike in a day. Certainly there are cases where people have hiked/run 100 miles in a day. There are people who run from one rim of the Grand Canyon to the other and back in a day, a distance of 46 miles and roughly 12,000 vertical feet of climbing. These are not reasonable expectations for most people, even ones in very good shape. Most fit people can hike 10-25 miles in a day in challenging terrain at alititude with a day hiking pack. With a backpacking load, I think 10 miles per day is a reasonable expectation for most people in good phyisical condition on moderately difficult terrain at altitude.

You want three wilderness areas that most folks could not walk across in a day? I’ll give you five in Colorado. Weminuche, South San Juan, West Elks, Flat Tops and the Maroon Bells/Snowmass. Sure, you might be able to cross a finger of one of these wilderness areas in a day, but if you go straight for the core, you won’t be able to. And if you try to go from end to end on any of these you are looking at a multi day hike.

You want some Wyoming ones? How about the 428,000 acre Bridger, which shares a continuous boundary with the Fitzpatrick and Popo Agie totaling approximately 700,000 acres (not to mention the Indian Reservation these wrap around. How about the Teton and Washakie which share a continuous border and total almost 1.5 million acres of uninterrupted wilderness. There is the Absaroka Beartooth which totals 943,626 acres in Montana and Wyoming by itself. Even the relatively small 300,000 acre Gros Veture wilderness averages 22 miles across and would be a significant challenge to hike across in a day considering the terrain.

The largest wilderness area in Colorado is the Weminuche. In this particular wilderness area, the Continental Divide Trail travels 80 miles from one end to the other without leaving the wilderness area. Not quite two weeks, but certainly not a day hike to get out either. It is bounded by roadless areas, which are for all intents and purposes also wilderness areas. So based on the averages for backpacking distances people can cover, you're looking at 8 days minimum to cross the wilderness area (or get to the middle and back out). So if you're including travel time to Colorado (it takes a good part of a day to drive from Denver to the San Juan Mountains) + 8 days hiking + a couple days reserved for shooting, here is one where you could be looking at nearly 2 weeks. Now lets look at the range people can cover in the winter. Most people who are reasonably fit could probably do 6 miles per day on snowshoes in our backcountry conditions. To cross the Weminuche in winter via the CDT trail would take on the order of 14 days assuming that you could still reach the trailheads, which would probably require snowmobiles. I will admit that the Weminuche can probably be approached by routes that can make this distance much less and that if you knew your position and needed to get to a road, you probably could reach one in a day or two hiked from most points within the wilderness, but it is still a vast area.

If you look at the cluster of the West Elk, Raggeds, Maroon Bells, Collegiate Peaks, Hunter-Fryingpan, Mount Massive and Holy Cross wilderness areas, the only thing preventing these from becoming one mass 120 miles from end to end is the slivers of roads and towns. Towns like Aspen and roads like Independence Pass. In many places it is only a 30 second walk from one wilderness area into another here and some of them are just divisions within one continuous area reflecting the random political boundary of a national forest.

So a lawmaker suggesting that they want to come into the mountain states and set aside double the current acreage of wilderness areas, is going to cause a big impact on people who use this land for recreation. The percentage of our mountains that are now falling under wilderness ruling increase from 25-30% to 50-60%. The Weminuche suddenly becomes 120 miles across, and yes, for most people, the hike across would take 2 weeks not including travel time to the wilderness. To drive from Denver, where most people in Colorado live to the Weiminuche takes about a day.

If wilderness areas were going to be such a good thing for the intermountain states or the people who live in them, you'd think that more of our representatives would be co-sponsoring the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act." H.R. 1975. But there are 4 local representatives from primarily urban districts in Colorado and Arizona supporting this measure, none from ID, WY, MT or UT and none from what I’d consider a rural district. You asked who the elitist environmentalists are. I propose that they are the sponsors who live nowhere near any of the lands or people being affected. People like Carolyn Maloney from New York, the primary sponsor of this bill. I propose that they are the lobbying groups who ask an out of state representative to sponsor such a bill. Why an out of state representative? Because the residents of the areas that are being affected have no voice in the matter. Can you get more elitist than that?

In the first response, I tried to explain how much wilderness there is in Colorado and Wyoming. In this segment I’ll talk about mechanized vehicle use in the backcountry.

A common misconception is out there that all offroaders are out there driving wherever they please, tearing up the countryside. Another is that offroaders are consuming alcohol on the trail, acting obnoxious and putting everyone else at risk. Certainly examples of these behaivors can be found, but they are being commited by the minority in the sport and generally not by those commited to the long term existence of the sport. Offroaders is a term I don’t particulairly like as I never travel off of a designated road or legal trail. But offroader is probably the best classification to cover all of the mechanized travel options that are banned from a wilderness area, including 4-wheel drive automobiles, ATVs, Motorcycles, Snowmobiles, PWCs and Bicycles.

While it is true that there are a minority of people who abuse the land in a mechanized vehicle, the same can be said of campers. Just look at the trash cleanup efforts that have been going on at Everest over the past decade. They’ve pulled out literally tons of trash. South Colony Lakes, a popular camping spot for people climbing the fourteeners Crestone Needle, Crestone Peak, Humbolt Peak and Kit Carson, is another example of this behavior closer to home and a local hot-button issue. You can read about the conditions on Summit Post or a similar website.

The truth is that leading offroaders are trying to improve the behavior of all those who participate in this activity through educational programs such as “Tread Lightly” and signage and even cabling campaigns on trails. They’re doing it by example too. Just as there are casual hikers in the world, there are casual four wheelers like hikers driving to a remote trailhead or hunters. Most offroaders allready exemplify good behavior offroad, but we’re trying to improve the way in which the minority bad apples behave. Just as there is no manditory education on proper behavior and etiquite for a hiker or backpacker, the same is true for offroaders. The trouble with offroaders is that the mark they leave is more immediately visable in the form of tire tracks, than braided trails, social trails, cut switchbacks, improperly discarded trash and human (and very often canine) waste that hikers leave behind. As a photographer, can you say that you’ve never used a social trail?
http://outside.away.com/outside/destinations/200704/ghost-tree-california.html

The article above is regarding the impact that potential PWC restrictions will have on a sport. PWC restrictions in the area discussed will eliminate big wave surfing in that area because it is unsafe to attempt to swim out in those conditions. Someone mentioned Yellowstone and snowmobiles. I haven’t been to Yellowstone in the winter, so I don’t know what the conditions are like, but I’d think it were a bit of exaggeration to describe the impact snowmobiles create as giant clouds of smog. But there is room for change here. 2 stroke engines have been used for a long time in these applications because the engines have a high power to weight ratio and because the engines are not complex. But they tend to be both loud and poluting in comparison to 4 stroke gasoline motors. But starting in the motorcycle areana the standard is changing towards quieter and less poluting 4 stroke engines. Most folks, espescially those who have some maturity will probably choose the quieter bike given the choice. And I think we’ll start to see this trend in snowmobiles and eventually PWC and motor boats. It takes time, but the conversion will happen, especially if regulation is used effectively to steer the manufacturures in that direction. We already have regulation for things like spark arresters on motorbikes and this hasn’t stopped the dirt bike industry from growing.

I can’t speak for backcountry motorcyclers, snowmobilers or any other motor vehicle type. I can only speek for jeepers as that is the particular niche I associate with. As a jeeper, my trail runs are an opportunity to spend time with friends enjoying the sites of the backcountry and the challenge of the trail. The thrill is one part of the enjoyment, but if you spent time with jeepers, you’d find that most are nature enthusiats. The thrill of jeeping is similar to the thrill of rock climbing and its accesible to many people. Jeeps (or 4wd vehicles in general) can give people with mobility problems the ability to experience the backcountry and to see the beauty of our natural world. Wilderness areas take this away from disabled people. I’ve never been in a single wheelchair accessible wilderness area, and quite frankly, I think they would violate the mechanized travel ban. Hardly seems fair to those who are already disadvantaged in so many ways.

As a mountain biker, I find the wilderness area restirctions even more frustrating. Here you can access some of the most beautiful trails and scenery, but you can’t ride a bike. We allow horses in these areas to leave behind their smelly road apples (a favorite with the hikers) and deep footprints and pulverized trails, but we don’t allow bicycles, powered by humans to enter these areas! How does that make sense? Horeses grind and pulverize trails into sand that is very difficult to walk in. Bikes can cause errosion when their linear tire tracks allow water to run down trail, but they generally don’t in the dry climate where I live.

What I hope we’ll move towards is multi-use areas. My favorite example of this is the Sand Flats Recreation area in Moab. Here, mountain bikers, hikers, jeeps and ATVs all coexist without causing conflict. The slickrock bike trail, perhaps one of the most famous in the world for the sport, crosses the Hells’ Revenge jeep trail another famous trail for its sport. Porcupine rim is shared by both user groups. Negro Bill Canyon is set aside for hikers. This relatively small area supports all these activities and there are few if any conflicts between users.

Applying this idea to other areas can be as simple as seperating a jeep trail and hiking trail. I even have an example of this. Grizzly lake in Colorado has a jeep trail that climbs up one side of the valley and a hiking trail that stays separate for most of the 3 miles to the lake on the opposite side of the valley. Having done this trail both hiking and 4-wheeling, I can say that the separation makes it so that you hardly ever notice the jeeps and they certainly aren’t a nuisence on the hiking trail. The solution can even be as simple as to run a hiking trail parallel to a jeep trail sufficiently far apart so that it is not mistaken as a part of the road so that the hikers don’t have to hike in the jeep tracks.

Finally, there are some details that should be addressed about Wilderness Areas. In many cases, exclusions have been made for certain roads providing access into the wilderness area. I don’t know if you’re familiar with what is happening with Travel Management Plans, but these are essentially applying these same rules to the rest of the Forest Service and BLM lands. They basically state that if a road is not designated as a road, then it is closed. If the road that you used to use to access your favorite campsite or fishing hole or photography overlook was omitted, too bad, its closed now. There should be no more off-trail driving and no creation of new social roads following the completion of travel management plans. Essentially after the travel management plans are completed, all forest and blm lands will look a lot more like wilderness areas. Signs saying this area is closed to X, Y and Z are what you should expect to see more of in the future.

Geez, 2 posts Mel, i tried so hard to avoid replying to this thread but since i strongly disagree with your pov, ive gotta address at least a few of your points. Im amazed this never got moved to Hot Topics, guess it wasn't hot enough.

First, It most certainly depends on your perspective, but from mine, i don't believe simply designating an area a wilderness makes it such. When the Wilderness Act was authored in '64, the idea was to preserve areas affected "primarily by the forces of nature" where the "earth and its community of life" were "not subject to human controls and manipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces". Note that the purpose is not for "humans", it's for nature. You can cite all the 3 day hikes you want, but ill take you to the heart of any of these so-called wilderness areas and point to numerous examples of human control and manipulation. I was just in a remote area of one of your cited wildernesses, and in a short period of time i found: beer bottles, metal cans, beer cans, a rotting pumpkin (??), and a pair of discarded sunglasses. How many days it takes to walk is not a good criteria for wilderness. Then there are the not-so-blatant signs of human influence: burned out areas (millions of acres each year) caused by human-started fires, or how 'bout the millions of acres now dying from beetle infestation (partly or largely caused by global warming and prior poor forestry practices), and then there's acid rain (among other forms of pollution) that for some reason no longer gets much press but still kills lots of fish and plants. Ive been on many 'wilderness' treks but cant say ive ever gone on a trip without hearing or seeing at least one airplane (not to mention the contrails). So, i personally would argue that true wilderness is nonexistent, although some areas come closer than others.

If you spend time around animals, you'd know that few care about a running car. But if you stop that engine and get out, the animal will be gone in a flash. It is people who are bothered by passing automobiles, bicycles and snowmachines.

C'mon Mel, i sympathize with your passion for making a point, but that is an amazing statement. Have you ever asked one of those animals if they were bothered? (if so, hope they didn't respond ) Ive been around many animals in my Jeep as well, and i can't say i agree with that assessment. More often than not, when i find animals "unbothered" by human intrusion, it's because the animals have become desensitized to human presence, or worse, theyve been fed by humans. Is that what the goal is, to de-animalize the wildlife by making it dependent on handouts? How much of that wildlife is long gone from the area once it hears the sound of your vehicle approaching?

I just glossed over your statistics, since the underlyiong assumption is that private ownership of huge tracts of land (including 14000 ft peaks) is a good thing, and that is a debatable point. Much of your argument is also founded upon the status quo, which seems blinded to the fact that the pressure of population growth (a doubling of our nations population in just a couple decades) is going to result in exponential pressure on these wild areas.

Your last paragraph continues to ignore the idea that wilderness isn't for people's recreation, and therefore is irrelevant. It also ignores the fact that federally protected areas are for everyone, not just local special interests (which are the very definition of "elitist"). I respect your 'jeeper manifesto" so i'll only respod to one aspect of it that apparently is misleading your viewpoint: Jeeps (or 4wd vehicles in general) can give people with mobility problems the ability to experience the backcountry and to see the beauty of our natural world.

Wilderness areas take this away from disabled people. I’ve never been in a single wheelchair accessible wilderness area, and quite frankly, I think they would violate the mechanized travel ban. Hardly seems fair to those who are already disadvantaged in so many ways.

I agree, Mel, it is unfair. Life is unfair. More to the point, nature is "unfair" and that is the whole bleedin' point of wilderness: to preserve nature. It is not to build paved roads into the heart of a "beautiful" area so that grandpa who has a bad back can comfortably visit it. I can't understand why this is escaping you.

Hey Mel,

Thanks for your detailed response, I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. You make some valid points, and I do respect the way you feel about it. That said: :)

As Stan wrote, the designation "wilderness" is not our recreation, and it certainly has nothing to do with snow machines or jeeps.

I don't understand why you say references to the percentage of land in the US that is designated wilderness' is disingenuous. IMO, it has nothing to do with whether land is privately or publically claimed - we, as a community, have not done very well with leaving land be, we see it as a 'resource', something here for our us to use, and little more. We've chosen to utilize most of the land around us, and spare remarkably little from our "development".

Colorado (though it's not actually included in the Bill you mentioned initially) is actually a good example of one of the great failings of our traditional wilderness designations - so much of what has been chosen to be set aside from "development" is hardly ecologically rich habitat, but more often alpine mountain peaks, the 'pretty' and photographic, but not the sustainable. So much of the public land that is set aside is above treeline, and not conducive to supporting viable ecological communities.

The reference to hiking across a wilderness in a day is a valid one - and my point was simple - few places in the Lower 48 are more than a day's walk from a road. The fact that these are the largest tracts of land in the Lower 48 that have been set aside as wilderness and there is ANY point where they can be walked across in a day speaks volumes about their capacity for supporting wildlife. Wanna know the single greatest threat to wildlife and ecosystems in this country (as with most countries)? Loss of habitat - viable habitat, not a few acres here and there. Grizzly bear deaths in the Lower 48 are 5 times more likely in roaded areas than they are in roadless areas. Grizzlies can have a home a range of 100 - 400 square miles per bear. Wolf packs require even greater area for their territories. Thin little corridors of high alpine rocky peaks and snow-capped mountains rarely going to sustain a viable population of these apex predators, creatures we're only now coming to accept are critical species in a healthy ecosystem for these regions. Measuring an area "end to end" is what I'd call disingenuous.

Granted, there are a handful of wilderness areas provide the diversity and sheer size needed to warrant the label 'wilderness' (the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness is an example), but only a few do in all of the Lower 48 states. That, IMO, is something that we would do well to change.

My understanding is that of Washington and Oregon's combined total of 14 congressmen, six are already listed as cosponsors - (Brian Baird (WA-03), Jay Inslee (WA-01), who sits on the Resources Committee, James McDermott (WA-07), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Darlene Hooley (OR-05), David Wu (OR-01). The bill is nothing new, it's been around for 15 years now .. and many leading ecologists have been supporting the proposal for all of that time.

Regarding "elitist environmentalists": Local people have often resisted changes 'outsiders' propose. Yellowstone, and the entire NPS wasn't proposed by folks who lived in Gardiner in 1872. Same is true of social issues - slavery wasn't abolished because slavers thought it was immoral. More recently the Montana National Forest Management Act, introduced in the early 1990's was defeated because of some of these so-called elitists. The repeated attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling oil has been defeated largely because of the efforts of these so-called "elitists". There are countless examples of cases that would've had very different outcomes if not for these people you're calling "elitists".

And I don't pretend the opposite isn't true either - it's not an "either/or" situation. I'm all for local economies, local communities and local decisions. But for now, we live in a global economy, in a global community in a globalized era. It makes situations like this very difficult to know what to do, but I don't buy the simple argument that those who do not live in the area shouldn't have any say in the decisions.

Regarding mechanized use in the backcountry: I'm a mountain biker and a hiker, and I'm with you on the arguments about horse-packing. I think horse travel is only allowed in designated wilderness because of it's strong part of the heritage of this country - the same reason why ranchers can graze their livestock on public lands.

Wilderness isn't about "mechanized" travel though - it's about allowing what is wild to remain so. ATVs, motor bikes, jeeps, even mountain bikes just don't seem (to me) to be part of wilderness. I don't understand how anyone hiking through an area designated as "wilderness" wouldn't see a jeep crossing their path as somehow at odds with "wilderness".

As for the Travel Management Plan, there's 2 sides to that story as well - until now, any area with anything that could be construed as a "road" (including old trails and tracks that haven't been travelled in years) could be re-opened and used for deforestation, etc. I think the travel Management Plan is a good thing. There are more roads and miles of roads in National Forests than there are highways in the US - losing some of them would be a good thing.

Lastly, I don't think all places ought be made "accessible" to all people. There are many, many places I'll never get to, much as I might like. I'd love to sit on the top of Denali one day, but I don't have the mountain climbing skills, gear and werewithall to do so - but I wouldn't support a road to the top of it either.

Cheers

Carl

I think we’ll just have to disagree on this topic. As is the case with the zealously religious there is no argument of reason that I could bring to the table that would cause you to change your mind (apparently that humans can only have a detrimental effect on the natural world), and likewise I will not be swayed from my stance that there should be a balance of wilderness designated and traditionally managed forest lands in the lower 48 states. I find the current balance to be a good one, you don’t. I will continue to fight to keep that balance as it stands despite that fact that jeepers, atv enthusiasts, snowmobilers etc… are a tiny minority of the population and we have continuously lost our battles to keep access open not only to us but to all users who need off highway access to an area.

In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this chapter or by a subsequent Act.

This is a quote of the language from the opening paragraph of the Statement of Policy of the Wilderness Act. We are talking about wilderness areas, not wildlife areas, not wildlife refuges. These areas were chosen to prevent them from being turned into strip malls, strip mines or clear cut forests.

and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness

They were created to give humans a place for recreation without permanent impact in a wild setting. They were not created to keep humans out so that animals could live unmolested.

(8) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests.

The wilderness act even says within itself that it is not intended to address wildlife issues!


I’m not some crazy guy trying to get rid of the wilderness system. I think I’ve been a good steward of the land. In my home I try to keep my impact on the environment reasonable. When I camp, I keep my footprint small, do not use campfires unless there is a particular need for it, manage my waste in the appropriate manner and I leave my campsite cleaner than I found it. When I jeep, I keep a trash bag on my jeep and clean up what trash I find on the trail (and this is something I know many other jeepers do as well).

I’m not one of those people who deny global warming. I’m not one of those people pushing for the drilling of the ANWR. I’m a rational human being who enjoys being in the backcountry and treats it with respect. I don’t believe that human beings are incapable of living in harmony with the natural world. As a result, I don’t believe that wilderness areas are the only solution to providing a balance between human civilization and the natural world, but I do believe that there is good in the current allocation of wilderness areas.

C'mon Mel, i sympathize with your passion for making a point, but that is an amazing statement. Have you ever asked one of those animals if they were bothered? (if so, hope they didn't respond ) Ive been around many animals in my Jeep as well, and i can't say i agree with that assessment. More often than not, when i find animals "unbothered" by human intrusion, it's because the animals have become desensitized to human presence, or worse, theyve been fed by humans. Is that what the goal is, to de-animalize the wildlife by making it dependent on handouts? How much of that wildlife is long gone from the area once it hears the sound of your vehicle approaching?

First off, as I pointed out before, the wilderness area system isn’t about wildlife protection. Hunting and fishing are still allowed in these areas. People are not prohibited from entering these areas. That’s not what they are about.

But I have witnessed this behavior in animals as have many others here. There was a recent discussion where someone was trying to work on a process to photograph a bird of prey and this behavior was observed by many of the photographers participating in the discussion and is considered normal. I’ve seen this both in areas with frequent human interaction and in places less frequently visited. I’m not a lone case of observance on this behavior. There’s no need to insult me with a jab about whether I’ve personally asked an animal how it feels about my entrance to its area (although I probably do talk to the animals in my backyard more than I should). The response I’ve interpreted is that the animal ignored my presence, and continued whatever it was doing before I arrived, whether that was feeding, hunting, resting.

I can’t tell you the reason why animals, even those not constantly exposed are not afraid of vehicles, but I’ve seen it on many occasions. My guess is that they do not see the vehicle as a threat.

Do you really believe that people are running around feeding the bears and deer and everything else? Certainly there are deplorable cases where this is happening in areas commonly visited by those with little experience or respect for nature like our national parks, but this isn’t normal when you get out of the national park, away from the towns and away from tourist destinations.

Colorado (though it's not actually included in the Bill you mentioned initially) is actually a good example of one of the great failings of our traditional wilderness designations - so much of what has been chosen to be set aside from "development" is hardly ecologically rich habitat, but more often alpine mountain peaks, the 'pretty' and photographic, but not the sustainable. So much of the public land that is set aside is above treeline, and not conducive to supporting viable ecological communities.

Carl, this is quoted directly from your last post in this thread.
Quite frankly, you are wrong in your interpretation of the wilderness act. Also, keep in mind that by 1964, Colorado was a well established state. The cities and towns and highways and roads of Colorado were already in existence when the wilderness act was created. These towns exist in the valleys of the mountain regions, the same places that make up the winter refuge for wildlife. But the wilderness act was not intended to create a wildlife refuge system. It was created to preserve some areas that had not seen significant human alteration, so that those lands could continue to exist in this way for the enjoyment of people now and in the future.

The fact that the state of Texas is 94% privately owned , that most of the Midwest is privately owned and that little in this land is set aside as wildlife habitat is an entirely different issue. Perhaps Colorado is ahead of the curve in having a system where private landowners can receive income through the preservation of their land, but I think that the soil conservation districts and Conservation Reserve Program system exist throughout the Midwest.

I’m also aware that no land in Colorado is included in the bill I mentioned, but Colorado is very much part of the intermountain west and many of the people who live here are very much like the people who live in other parts of the region. As I said before, I think that the residents of the region should have some say in what happens to the public lands that surround them. The people of Colorado have dealt with the positive and negative impacts of wilderness areas from the very beginning as the Eagles Nest Wilderness in Colorado was one of the areas specifically addressed in the Wilderness Act. As I pointed out above, the wilderness act has not failed. In Colorado, it preserves unique areas where human habitation has had little effect. But the difference between the nature of a wilderness area and general national forest land in this state is for the most part minor. There is not much active logging or mining here these days. So for the most part, these days the roads provide the opportunity for people to explore the wilderness and to see where the road leads. This is really not a negative to me.

There is a local exception. The Roan Plateau in northwestern Colorado was until recently a large undisturbed, nearly roadless area. As I understand it, there was one unimproved road that crossed the plateau and a handful of roads on the top, but it was not designated a wilderness area. Oil and natural gas have been know to exist in the area, but recent high prices on both these resources have led to increased interest in the area and there is significant activity happening both around the edges of the plateau and now on the top. I think most in Colorado are hoping that the oil companies will utilize directional drilling to access the oil and gas reserves from the edges, leaving the top of the plateau undisturbed, but it is uncertain whether this will happen.

You pointed out that Yellowstone was not proposed by folks who lived in Gardner in 1872, but I haven’t found any more evidence that the locals were against the creation of the park than there is evidence that the local were in favor of it for the tourism industry it would create. Unfortunately, because the US set a precedent in creating a national park, there wasn’t much to go by on how to manage such a treasure and in the early years there was a lot of exploitation of the park and its resources. I don’t know the history of all National Parks, but I do know that Rocky Mountain National Park and Kings Canyon National Park and even Great Sand Dunes were created through local initiatives. And while there were certainly detractors who stood to loose profits by the creation of these parks, there was also strong local support to create the parks to preserve the beauty for the people of the time and in future generations as well as those who supported the measure for the tourism economy it would generate.

although I probably do talk to the animals in my backyard more than I should

Ah Ha! That proves who were dealing with!
Seriously, I meant no offense by my 'jab', just trying to keep the discussion lighthearted.

I think we share much of the same concern for the environment, and i applaud your personal responsibility. It really scares me that there are so many more that don't give a rat's behind about any efforts at preservation. Our fundamental disagreement is what role our species has in the bigger scheme of things. If you want to call my viewpoint zealousy, ill gladly accept that label! How has man had a non-detrimental effect on our environment (aside from cleaning up the messes of the past)? We have leveled mountain tops, cut down 95% of the ancient forest, wiped out almost all of the natural grassland, drained most swamps, irrigated the desert, burned increasing amounts of the rain forest, dammed almost every major river, etc etc. I don't see how any one can remain non-cynical and non-reactionary when confronted by these basic facts. When the population of the US reaches 1 billion (as it almost surely will) how do you think we are going to manage the pressure on the few wild places remaining? You clearly see no value in trying to preserve the land in it's true ancestral state (albeit this is largely too late)--i do, and it is for the "people", too, not just the wildlife. I think there is value in a land completely devoid of our human 'must conquer and use' mentality. It's a tie to our past, our ancestry.

Did I ever say that I don't see a value in preserving the land? No! I don't see how a jeep trail represents a "conquer" mentality any more than a hiking trail or a climbing route. They are just mechanisms to lead you from one place to another. In fact, on some of the challenging jeep trails I've done, you could get to the endpoint faster by walking! I don't think there are any differences between my thought and yours about how the backcountry should be treated other than that I might drive my jeep on a trail that you would not be comfortable driving. I'm not promoting the creation of radical new trail networks (or any new trails for that matter). If you're honest with yourself, what do you drive to get to the trailhead? Probably a 4WD sport ute of some type, and you're driving on a dirt road. This is really no different than what I'm doing, just that I'm driving trails that are a bit more difficult and that my day might consist solely of driving (though even when I'm out for jeeping it is often a mix of driving and hiking).

The primary difference between us is that when you park your car, you don't want to see any mechanized vehicles beyond that point regardless of where you are. Otherwise, we want the same thing. Clean trails and campsites. Clean healthy water. A back country that is not torn apart by mining or clear cut forestry. Space for wildlife. Good, respectful people to share this space with.

I would like to see another designation for the remaining backcountry. I'd like to see a designation that specifies that the backcountry will not be used for development or resource extraction, and that no new roads will be built, but that it will continue to allow recreation. Perhaps something like a "unaltered backcountry area" designation. I'd like to see the backcountry open to multi-use recreation in an efficient manor that allows all users to enjoy the area with a minimum of conflicts. My standard for this vision being the Sand Flats Recreation Area in Moab where thoughtful separation of the users results in a good experience for everyone in most cases.

I'd also like to see the industry take a closer look at refining personal offroad vehicles (motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles and PWCs). A good starting point would be to change over from 2 stroke to 4 stroke engines on all vehicles. This has already started to occur in some instances. 4 stroke engines are much cleaner running and much quieter than 2 stroke engines. I'd also like the industry to seriously look at reducing the noise created by these machines. Switching to 4 stroke engines is a good first step, but capping the noise output of exhaust systems would be good also. This will reduce the impact of these vehicles on all other users and makes personal motor vehicle users better neighbors. This is one of the major areas where my support for the BRC falls short. Because the BRC is partly funded by an alliance of motorsports companies, it isn't helping to transform that industry for the better.

There are people in all fashion of outdoor activity who don't care about keeping the backcountry clean. Hikers, hunters, backpackers, cyclists, skiers and jeepers. You name the sport, there ARE bad apples. Is the answer to lock everyone out? I personally don't think so and I deeply hope that it never comes to this. I think the best we can do is to improve education, signage and some simple things like trail maintenance days, railings at switchbacks, clear marking of campsites in frequently used areas and good parking and staging areas at trailheads. We could go farther by increasing funding for land management, providing more rangers to help manage the problems that can arise in the backcountry.

I'm not going to address the population issues or the history of humans destroying the earth. I'm not in denial of the events that have happened, but I have not resigned to hopelessness, cynicism or knee-jerk reaction either.

Hey Mel,

Sorry it took me a few to get back with you.

I appreciate your point of view man, and I hope you didn't infer that I think of you as some "crazy guy trying to get rid of wilderness"[/i], or anything like that. Not at all - you certainly present your views and ideas here in a very reasonable and respectful manner.

What I said earlier is that the wilderness act (and most of our "conservation" approaches) has a failing, and I stand by that comment. That failing is that it (like most of our conservation efforts) is steeped in 'the pretty', and not in viable conservation. I am fully aware of the the text of the Wilderness Act. But it also says "leaving them unimpaired" and "preservation of their wilderness character" - both of those things, IMO, require sustainable ecological habitat - what's "wild" about a mountain with a road up it, or a forest with no wildlife, etc. I'd have to say any wilderness without a healthy ecosystem is somewhat 'impaired'. The Rocky Mountains with no grizzly bears would seem to be far less 'wild' than those who are home grizzly bears, wouldn't you agree?

The Wilderness Act doesn't say anything about preserving such regions for ATVs and jeeping though.

I've written an article (almost completed) about wilderness, and I agree strongly in that the reason the wilderness act and wilderness is so critical is an anthropocentric one.

Colorado might be a little different to most places, but I can guarantee you there is a HUGE difference between most designated Wilderness Areas and a National Forest.

Wrangell - St. Elias and Denali were both resisted by local people. I know when Wrangell - St. Elias NP started up in 1980, NPS planes were burned, and other property destroyed, etc. I for one am pretty glad they were designated parks though.

Cheers

Carl

The Rocky Mountains with no grizzly bears would seem to be far less 'wild' than those who are home grizzly bears, wouldn't you agree?

Again, what does this have to do with snowmobiles, dirt bikes, mountain bikes and jeeps? Is there a secret society of jeepers, snowmobile riders or mountain bikers I don't know about who have made it their mission to eradicate the remaining grizzly bears?

I think it is quite obvious that the wilderness act doesn't say anything about keeping the land open for jeeps as it specifically bans motorized vehicle use from those regions. But this has nothing to do with wildlife. It has to do with people. It has to do with people who want to experience a region in a state of existence without the commotion of mechanized life. As I said before, your interpretation that the Wilderness Act was intentioned to create a wildlife refuge system is wrong and it specifically states that within itself. Although land already designated as wildlife refuge was incorporated into the Wilderness system and maintains its wildlife refuge status, the wilderness act does not make make wilderness designated land into wildlife refuge. Hunting is still permitted in wilderness areas (if permitted by the authority responsible for making such decisions). Humans are still permitted in Wilderness Areas. Trails may still be built and improved within Wilderness Areas.

I was speaking in respect to areas not covered specifically by wilderness designation. I would personally like to see protection from development and resource extraction expanded to cover these areas while maintaining recreation opportunities. In other words, if we are not utilizing the area for development, logging, mining or energy extraction now, lets not do that in the future either. Thereby, we protect the character of this land for future generations.

The feeling of wilderness is created by dispersing humans, not by concentrating them into parking lots at trailheads. A reasonable blend of unimproved backcountry roads and trails helps to maintain this needed balance.

Those of us living in the intermountain west (who actually spend time in the backcountry) are happy with our self reliant, no guide required relationship with the land. The balance of wilderness area and traditionally managed BLM and Forest Service land works for us.

Perhaps the best place for you to focus your energies into the "wildlands project". This seems a much better fit for your energy than trying to force wilderness areas into becoming something they aren't.

Wrangell - St. Elias and Denali were both resisted by local people. I know when Wrangell - St. Elias NP started up in 1980, NPS planes were burned, and other property destroyed, etc. I for one am pretty glad they were designated parks though.

In any deal of this type, there are going to be winners and losers. I'm sure that there were local supporters of both these additions to the NPS system who measured that they would benefit from the tourism industry generated by the national parks and who backed the creation of the parks. It would appear that you fall onto the side that benefited with your guiding business. I'm sure that business would not have been nearly as successful if the land was not designated a National Park. There were probably others who simply cherished the beauty of the mountains and worked towards a more permanent preservation of those treasures. I didn't live in the area at the time, so I really can't say what it was like. But there are reasons to be wary of the NPS moving in next door. They do not always make particularly good neighbors. http://www.elawreview.org/summaries/environmental_quality/nepa/hale_v_norton.html These folks lost their home in a fire in 2003 and the NPS buried them in legal battles and NEPA bureaucracy when they tried to bring in materials to rebuild their home before winter set in.

Hey Mel,

I raised the point earlier that studies have shown, conclusively, that species like wolves and grizzly bears have fared less well when their habitat is cut up by roads - not so by hiking trails. So yes, indirectly, jeepers, ATV's etc, do directly impact grizzly bears.

As I said earlier, I am fully that Wilderness Act isn't doesn't create "wildlife refuges" - thank goodness .. wildlife refuges allow roads and development, trapping, snowmachines, and so forth. The Wilderness Act is an attempt at preserving wilderness - IMO, it fails in some areas, but it's better than most of the other options available at this point in time.

The Wilderness Act does spell out a need for humans not to mechanize and occupy and develop remaining passels of land. Suggesting a reasonable blend of unimproved backcountry roads maintains this seems to be to be at odds with the Wilderness Act you claim I'm misinterpreting.

You said a 'feeling of wilderness is created by dispersing humans'. I'd say 2 things. Firstly, I'd rather a real wilderness that a simulation of one that 'feels' like wilderness - "wilderness' isn't a feeling. Secondly, wilderness isn't about dispersing humans, it's about, at this point in the world, humans understanding the value of not controlling all that exists around us. The very first line in the Act points to this.

I'm familiar with the Wildlands Project, and have been involved with it for some time. Dave Foreman has some wonderful insight. That said, I'm not trying to force the wilderness areas/Act into becoming something they're/it's not - rather, I'd like to see more of them - that's one reason I support the bill you're opposed to. It would seem, on the contrary, that you're the one who's unhappy with Wilderness designations, would it not?

Oh, on the NPS and places like Wrangell - St. Elias. I wasn't around here at the time, but from what I've heard, read and seen, the folks who were opposed to the park didn't hold that position out of ANY respect for the preservation or beauty of the mountains.

I guess at this point there's little to be gained by us continuing to steal this thread from Pete's initial question - though if you've more to add, I'd be glad to read it, and respond if you'd like.

Cheers

Carl