Posted by Scott Bacon on March 31, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Most have probably heard... But yesterday the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act was signed into law. This designates roughly 310,000 acres of new wilderness in Colorado and 2 million acres nationwide. The new wilderness areas in Colorado are the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness (250,000 acres) and the Dominguez Canyons Wilderness (60,000 acres) which forms the heart of the new Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (210,000 acres total). More info...
As a nature photographer and fan of wilderness, I couldn't ask for a better present for my recent birthday. Thanks Uncle Sam!!
Posted by Bob Falcone on March 31, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Great news! Time to plan a trip or two...
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 31, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Woohoo! Great news indeed! I've got some Dominguez Canyon shots in a few of my 2010 calendars, and captioned them as wilderness in anticipation of this. But where is this secretive Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness you speak of?
Whoa, Todd. Great shot from a place I have never heard of.(Sadly) Morris get your butt to Dominguez canyon. Scott, that is fantastic news for all of us.
But where is this secretive Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness you speak of?
From the article:
The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness will include the famous 14,255-foot Longs Peak, the remote Mummy Range, Wild Basin and 250,000 acres of other unroaded and undeveloped areas of the park. Wilderness recommendations for the Park were first made by the National Park Service under President Nixon in 1974; the bipartisan effort to push for congressional designation was led by former Congressmen David Skaggs and then Mark Udall for many years in the House, and pushed in the Senate by former Sen. Wayne Allard and former Sen. Ken Salazar. More recently, this effort was championed by Rep. Betsy Markey and Rep. Jared Polis, who reintroduced Rocky legislation in January 2009. Rocky Mountain National Park is the state’s fourth national park to have wilderness designated within its boundaries.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 31, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I always think that our current widerness designation system is a very mixed bag. Its great if you ride a horse, not so great if you ride a bike or a hang glider and really not so great if you have to walk after a horse. There is alot of good in the wilderness system, but the fact that its an either or system right now sucks. Either you give it to the loggers, oil men or miners or you make it wilderness. It would be great if there was another designation for recreation without improvement or development. I thought it was amusing that the mountain bikers were stoked that their input on the wilderness area was used (some trail area was left out of the wilderness), but at the same time, they lost 60,000 acres of access.
Anyways, its good to see these areas set aside.
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 31, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Either you give it to the loggers, oil men or miners or you make it wilderness.
Nice straw man argument you've got there, Mel. Of course, Colorado has vast tracts of land that are neither logged/drilled/mined nor wilderness. Besides, land that is open to logging/drilling/mining isn't necessarily off-limits to bikers, yet wilderness is. Don't forget how so many of those awesome 4WD trails that serve us today came into existence.
I get your point that a lot of mountain bikers would rather see bikes allowed in wilderness areas. I remember having a long conversation about this with a dearly departed friend of mine years ago as we sat in a tent waiting for a days-long rain to stop. (It didn't.) His contention was that by allowing bikers access to wilderness, we'd have yet another group of outdoor enthusiasts lobbying for more wilderness. My contention was that mechanized transport should not be allowed in wilderness, since there's a lot more Colorado backcountry that's not wilderness than backcountry that is.
Posted by Jack Brauer on March 31, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Great news indeed! (And sweet shot, Todd). What a difference 3 months can make...
I have yet to visit the Dominguez-Escalante area, even though I live relatively close by. One of these days...
Hooray for the Dominguez-Escalante area. Like a of the folks here it seems, I've never been there either.
But I guess I might be a bit ignorant of the issues but why is it a big deal to make wilderness out of RMNP? If it's a National Park, isn't it off limits to development anyway? I guess I'm not seeing what being a wilderness area is buying it.
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 31, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I second that comment, Matt. I mean, they've even got areas of RMNP set aside as World Heritage sites that you can't even legally camp in. Not sure what the wilderness designation adds.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 31, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I wasn't trying to make a straw man argument at all.
My point is that there is much more of the federal land in the west that deserves protection from development and mineral/energy/lumber exploitation, but it does not all fit the profile for wilderness. I do firmly believe that a designation is a very realistic approach to this conservation need.
As it stands today, if an area is not wilderness, then it is very much fair game for development or extraction depending on who is in power. Recreational users have very little voice in the matter.
Posted by Paul Wegemann on March 31, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I spoke with a RMNP ranger the other day about the wilderness designation. He stated that wilderness designation in the park prevents most development (think Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier) and limits trail use (no Mtn bikes). He mentioned a few other things, but those two stuck out for me.
A lot of people don't see the need for designating wilderness in National Parks today. But remember that at one time developing the parks' backcountry as the order of the day. A lot of people have probably thought that, say, what the Grand Canyon really needs is a road to the bottom, or maybe a scenic railway along the river. Some people even today would probably think those were great ideas. One need only look around the older parks to see the older approach: trails and roads dynamited out of cliff sides; asphalt and guardrails on trails; lodging and food service front and center. Safety and convenience are high priorities in park management, very low priorities for wilderness management. The parks have some spectacular scenic drives and beautiful old lodges, but I for one wouldn't care to see any more.
I havent' been to the Dominguez area for a long time and am glad it will be preserved for the future. Interestingly, I had perceived it as a seldom visited area and remote enough that I would think development, mountain biking and other non-wilderness type opportunities would be limited and inconsequential. I wonder now if the wilderness designation will increase it's popularity and also the traffic it would get. Guess it's a done deal, but I don't know that a wilderness designation is always the magic bullet for similar places.
Your shot is indeed a killer, Todd. I remeber when you posted it or a similar one several months ago. It's still just as nice!
Discussion
15 repliesAs a nature photographer and fan of wilderness, I couldn't ask for a better present for my recent birthday. Thanks Uncle Sam!!
From the article:
The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness will include the famous 14,255-foot Longs Peak, the remote Mummy Range, Wild Basin and 250,000 acres of other unroaded and undeveloped areas of the park. Wilderness recommendations for the Park were first made by the National Park Service under President Nixon in 1974; the bipartisan effort to push for congressional designation was led by former Congressmen David Skaggs and then Mark Udall for many years in the House, and pushed in the Senate by former Sen. Wayne Allard and former Sen. Ken Salazar. More recently, this effort was championed by Rep. Betsy Markey and Rep. Jared Polis, who reintroduced Rocky legislation in January 2009. Rocky Mountain National Park is the state’s fourth national park to have wilderness designated within its boundaries.
Anyways, its good to see these areas set aside.
Nice straw man argument you've got there, Mel. Of course, Colorado has vast tracts of land that are neither logged/drilled/mined nor wilderness. Besides, land that is open to logging/drilling/mining isn't necessarily off-limits to bikers, yet wilderness is. Don't forget how so many of those awesome 4WD trails that serve us today came into existence.
I get your point that a lot of mountain bikers would rather see bikes allowed in wilderness areas. I remember having a long conversation about this with a dearly departed friend of mine years ago as we sat in a tent waiting for a days-long rain to stop. (It didn't.) His contention was that by allowing bikers access to wilderness, we'd have yet another group of outdoor enthusiasts lobbying for more wilderness. My contention was that mechanized transport should not be allowed in wilderness, since there's a lot more Colorado backcountry that's not wilderness than backcountry that is.
I have yet to visit the Dominguez-Escalante area, even though I live relatively close by. One of these days...
But I guess I might be a bit ignorant of the issues but why is it a big deal to make wilderness out of RMNP? If it's a National Park, isn't it off limits to development anyway? I guess I'm not seeing what being a wilderness area is buying it.
My point is that there is much more of the federal land in the west that deserves protection from development and mineral/energy/lumber exploitation, but it does not all fit the profile for wilderness. I do firmly believe that a designation is a very realistic approach to this conservation need.
As it stands today, if an area is not wilderness, then it is very much fair game for development or extraction depending on who is in power. Recreational users have very little voice in the matter.
Killer Dominguz shot, Todd! Here's my best attempt.
Your shot is indeed a killer, Todd. I remeber when you posted it or a similar one several months ago. It's still just as nice!