Posted by Scott Bacon on November 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM
This is awesome, IMHO!
From John Salazar's Monthly E-Newsletter...
San Juan Wilderness Bill Introduced This month I introduced the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Bill, legislation that will designate 61,682 acres of wilderness on portions of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, the San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Area. All of the acreage affected by this proposal is in San Miguel, Ouray and San Juan Counties. A wilderness designation was requested by the county commissions of those three counties and the bill has the support of the towns of Ridgway, Ouray, Telluride, Mountain Village, Norwood, and Ophir. The bill will provide permanent protection for some of Colorado’s most renowned views and mountains including the slopes of Mt. Sneffels and Wilson Peak; two of the state’s most famous “fourteeners.” These are the lands which define the character and spirit of our great state, and it is my honor to help preserve them for future generations.
Posted by Joshua Hardin on November 5, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Sweeeeet!!! Glad to see the county commissions and towns (especially Telluride and Mountain Village) are supporting this too. I'll be watching this closely, so thanks for the heads-up Scott.
Posted by Todd Caudle on November 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM
What's odd is that Mount Sneffels and Wilson Peak are already wilderness (Mount Sneffels and Lizard Head Wildernesses, respectively). I think this is more aimed at the area of Redcloud/Sunshine and Handies Peak. Sure would like to see a map. Regardless, this is awesome news!
Posted by Todd Caudle on November 5, 2009 at 9:32 PM
A bit more info:
3,170 acres will be added to the existing Lizard Head Wilderness Area by the Blackface, Sunshine and Wilson additions.
8,375 acres will be added to the existing Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area by the Liberty Bell and Last Dollar additions.
13,231 acres will be added to the existing Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area by the Whitehouse addition.
8,614 acres of the McKenna Peak Wilderness Study Area will be designated as wilderness
In addition, two other designations will be created by the proposed legislation.
21,697 acres in San Juan and San Miguel County including Ice Lakes basin outside of Silverton and the high alpine peaks near Ophir will be designated as the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. Existing uses including heliisking will be allowed to continue indefinitely, but no new roads or other development will be permitted.
6,595 acres will be withdrawn from eligibility for mineral leasing in Naturita Canyon. No other uses in the canyon will be impacted.
Posted by Bryan Pezman on November 5, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Love it! Protecting the San Juans from developers and greedy landowners is something I wish they had thought about years ago. Can you imagine how wonderful it wouldve been if it was designated a national park all those years ago?
Posted by Kelly Black on November 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Call me ignorant, but what does making an area "wilderness" mean exactly? That it will be protected from things like development, encroachment, etc? If so, that is totally awesome! Being a lover of the wilderness, I pray about things like this all the time. What wonderful news! Thank you for keeping us informed.
Posted by Joseph Kayne on November 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Posted by Todd Caudle on November 5, 2009 at 11:59 PM
From the 1964 Wilderness Act:
DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Posted by Jack Garrett on November 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM
So what happens if Double RL ranch decides to sell all his property? I know he has said it would never be developed while he owns it. I wonder if there are provisions in place to keep it from being developed should that ever happen. That is one my favorite places in the whole state.
Posted by Brett Deacon on November 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM
This is great news!!
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM
My favorite part of the wilderness act comes right at the beginning, in the first paragraph.
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,...
This is very similar to the language in the bill that created the national parks seen above the Gardner entrance to Yellowstone.
For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People
I think there has often been great misunderstanding of my stance that we shouldn't be in a rush to throw everything into wilderness. I do support these designations assuming that they will continue to keep the access roads into these lands open (which typically they do). Wilderness areas prohibit many forms of recreation which are not harmful to the land. Mountain Biking and Hang gliding are both mysteriously prohibited from entering wilderness areas. In my opinion, neither has earned exclusion, but that is the law. I'm certainly fine with the exclusion of motorized vehicles from these regions, but I also know that it keeps those with physical disabilities from reaching the curative peace that these cathedrals of nature can offer. But jet ariliners fly over wilderness at all hours with their racket and pollution. And horses and other stock team up the trail leaving a foul mess for us hikers who follow.
21,697 acres in San Juan and San Miguel County including Ice Lakes basin outside of Silverton and the high alpine peaks near Ophir will be designated as the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. Existing uses including heliisking will be allowed to continue indefinitely, but no new roads or other development will be permitted.
This is what I've been praying for. Let us see more of this! Where there are existing roads and human activity precluding the area from wilderness designation does not mean we must hand it over to those seeking the riches of the land. Draw a line in the sand and say no new roads and no new development. No new extraction leases. Maintain the recreation opportunities that exist. I'm no enemy of wilderness, but I would like to see a larger inclusion of protection in areas that offer great recreation opportunities for many users. These areas are at risk from development and spoilage too.
Posted by Jim Casteel on November 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I wonder how many National Forest OHV trails they are going to close because of this. I am all for wilderness area being developed to keep people from building homes & cabins in these pristine areas. However, I also think that since Colorado OHV stickers pay for several things including trail maintenance and search and rescue in a lot of the wilderness areas in this state and we should be conscious of how much of it we are shutting down.
If we see a significant decline in OHV Sticker sales some of our protected or adjacent lands could get sold off in order to pay / maintain other lands. In Medicine Bow National forest the Dept of Ag just sold off 1000's of acres of NF land adjacent to a wilderness area in part to help pay for access and put up signs in that wilderness area. This has not only made it so people are putting up houses where there were none but it also stressed the existing trail system due to increased demand.
I know many Nature Photographers feel that OHV's should not be allowed on NF & BLM land but they are paying a fee to use that land. We as Nature Photographers while we have less impact on the land itself we also need rescued from time to time yet we pay no fee for our use of these lands. I think we either need something similar to OHV permits for everyone that is using our public lands or we be more conscious of the groups that are a major source of funding for those lands.
I think Mel put it well.
Draw a line in the sand and say no new roads and no new development. No new extraction leases. Maintain the recreation opportunities that exist. I'm no enemy of wilderness, but I would like to see a larger inclusion of protection in areas that offer great recreation opportunities for many users. These areas are at risk from development and spoilage too.
Posted by John Mumaw on November 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Very well said, Mel!
We should consider ourselves very fortunate indeed that John Salazar was behind this bill rather than his more extreme colleagues.
Posted by Chuck Peacock on November 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Ditto Mel, Jim, and John.
I'm on the same page! As is sits now this is a great move.
Posted by Scott Bacon on November 6, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I agree with you guys. But with the points raised above, I'm not sure we're still talking about real wilderness. In my mind, if its got roads running through it, mountain bikes, OHVs and/or heliskiing, etc., etc., its simply not wilderness. It doesn't matter if access to these activities pre-existed the wilderness designation. IMHO, these things preclude an area from being wilderness.
I'm all for preserving special places however we can - compromise, continuing to allow current recreation activities, and preventing future developments. But if we're going to do that, then let's not call these areas wilderness. Because they're not. Doing so dilutes the true wilderness designation. So let's come up with a new designation and bestow it on these areas.
But perhaps I'm being too idealistic...
Posted by John Mumaw on November 6, 2009 at 7:25 PM
You're right, Scott.
I see that the area where heli-skiing will be allowed to continue is to be labeled a 'Special Management Area'.
Posted by Chuck Peacock on November 7, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I understand too, but then we have to define "true wilderness". Are old roads that are closed and allowed to grow over really wilderness? That's certainly not pristine but I guess you could call it wilderness. It's also unnecessarily limiting access to only the young and hardy IMO. God forbid one of us blows a knee (or two) and can't get around like we used to.
Special Management Area sounds fine to me. I really don't care, just as long as it's off limits to future/further development and present recreational access is not compromised.
Wilderness area sounds great and I agree with a lot that has been said. I love the idea of not allowing ATVs and dirt bikes on the trails and campsites. However, I am very much against turning San Juans into a National Park and hope that never happens. The greatest thing about wilderness areas they are not well known around the world. I hope we never have to wait in line at the entrance to pay a fee with 100s of other tourists each wildflower season. It's crowded as it is, don't make it worse.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 8, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Quite frankly Aleks, I can show you areas that are not "wilderness" that receive far less visitation than the wilderness areas in Colorado, but yet are just as wild. In fact, the most remote and extensive wilderness in Colorado, the Weminuche, is also defined by one of the state's most heavily utilized trails, a portion of the Colorado Trail and CDT cross this wilderness area.
As Scott mentioned, areas that are visited by OHV and Heliskiing operations are not wilderness by definition of the Wilderness Act. As the WSA results from Moab showed, areas that do not meet the definition of wilderness do not make good candidates and will ultimately be excluded from wilderness designation. This happened in the Negro Bill Canyon WSA. And that is my point. Congress needs to provide protection for these areas too, but not under the banner and restriction of wilderness area. They need to be protected from development and extraction just as much as the designated wilderness, but do not have a status that defines them as such.
The "Special Management Area" needs a real name and a permanent status. I hope that Secretary Salazar and Secretary Vilsack can find a way to undo this negative aspect of Gifford Pinchot's legacy, find a way to stop the undue closure of our trail network (and therefore remote backcountry access) and protect these lands from future destruction.
Trust me. I'll be visiting our Wilderness Areas so long as my body permits me to do so. I've hauled my photo gear up substantial trails and I do it without the aid of pack animals. I have a great love for this land. But I also have realized that providing a great wilderness experience requires that we keep access to the boundaries open through many trailheads, that we do not close access roads and rough jeep trails that aid in the disbursement of visitors. I am not advocating any reduction in wilderness, only careful thought when adding new wilderness that it does not close legitimate access routes and that protection be added for other worthwhile areas as well.
Discussion
19 repliesFrom John Salazar's Monthly E-Newsletter...
San Juan Wilderness Bill Introduced
This month I introduced the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Bill, legislation that will designate 61,682 acres of wilderness on portions of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, the San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Area. All of the acreage affected by this proposal is in San Miguel, Ouray and San Juan Counties. A wilderness designation was requested by the county commissions of those three counties and the bill has the support of the towns of Ridgway, Ouray, Telluride, Mountain Village, Norwood, and Ophir. The bill will provide permanent protection for some of Colorado’s most renowned views and mountains including the slopes of Mt. Sneffels and Wilson Peak; two of the state’s most famous “fourteeners.” These are the lands which define the character and spirit of our great state, and it is my honor to help preserve them for future generations.
3,170 acres will be added to the existing Lizard Head Wilderness Area by the Blackface, Sunshine and Wilson additions.
8,375 acres will be added to the existing Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area by the Liberty Bell and Last Dollar additions.
13,231 acres will be added to the existing Mt. Sneffels Wilderness Area by the Whitehouse addition.
8,614 acres of the McKenna Peak Wilderness Study Area will be designated as wilderness
In addition, two other designations will be created by the proposed legislation.
21,697 acres in San Juan and San Miguel County including Ice Lakes basin outside of Silverton and the high alpine peaks near Ophir will be designated as the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. Existing uses including heliisking will be allowed to continue indefinitely, but no new roads or other development will be permitted.
6,595 acres will be withdrawn from eligibility for mineral leasing in Naturita Canyon. No other uses in the canyon will be impacted.
DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
This is very similar to the language in the bill that created the national parks seen above the Gardner entrance to Yellowstone.
I think there has often been great misunderstanding of my stance that we shouldn't be in a rush to throw everything into wilderness. I do support these designations assuming that they will continue to keep the access roads into these lands open (which typically they do). Wilderness areas prohibit many forms of recreation which are not harmful to the land. Mountain Biking and Hang gliding are both mysteriously prohibited from entering wilderness areas. In my opinion, neither has earned exclusion, but that is the law. I'm certainly fine with the exclusion of motorized vehicles from these regions, but I also know that it keeps those with physical disabilities from reaching the curative peace that these cathedrals of nature can offer. But jet ariliners fly over wilderness at all hours with their racket and pollution. And horses and other stock team up the trail leaving a foul mess for us hikers who follow.
This is what I've been praying for. Let us see more of this! Where there are existing roads and human activity precluding the area from wilderness designation does not mean we must hand it over to those seeking the riches of the land. Draw a line in the sand and say no new roads and no new development. No new extraction leases. Maintain the recreation opportunities that exist. I'm no enemy of wilderness, but I would like to see a larger inclusion of protection in areas that offer great recreation opportunities for many users. These areas are at risk from development and spoilage too.
If we see a significant decline in OHV Sticker sales some of our protected or adjacent lands could get sold off in order to pay / maintain other lands. In Medicine Bow National forest the Dept of Ag just sold off 1000's of acres of NF land adjacent to a wilderness area in part to help pay for access and put up signs in that wilderness area. This has not only made it so people are putting up houses where there were none but it also stressed the existing trail system due to increased demand.
I know many Nature Photographers feel that OHV's should not be allowed on NF & BLM land but they are paying a fee to use that land. We as Nature Photographers while we have less impact on the land itself we also need rescued from time to time yet we pay no fee for our use of these lands. I think we either need something similar to OHV permits for everyone that is using our public lands or we be more conscious of the groups that are a major source of funding for those lands.
I think Mel put it well.
We should consider ourselves very fortunate indeed that John Salazar was behind this bill rather than his more extreme colleagues.
I'm on the same page! As is sits now this is a great move.
I'm all for preserving special places however we can - compromise, continuing to allow current recreation activities, and preventing future developments. But if we're going to do that, then let's not call these areas wilderness. Because they're not. Doing so dilutes the true wilderness designation. So let's come up with a new designation and bestow it on these areas.
But perhaps I'm being too idealistic...
I see that the area where heli-skiing will be allowed to continue is to be labeled a 'Special Management Area'.
Special Management Area sounds fine to me. I really don't care, just as long as it's off limits to future/further development and present recreational access is not compromised.
As Scott mentioned, areas that are visited by OHV and Heliskiing operations are not wilderness by definition of the Wilderness Act. As the WSA results from Moab showed, areas that do not meet the definition of wilderness do not make good candidates and will ultimately be excluded from wilderness designation. This happened in the Negro Bill Canyon WSA. And that is my point. Congress needs to provide protection for these areas too, but not under the banner and restriction of wilderness area. They need to be protected from development and extraction just as much as the designated wilderness, but do not have a status that defines them as such.
The "Special Management Area" needs a real name and a permanent status. I hope that Secretary Salazar and Secretary Vilsack can find a way to undo this negative aspect of Gifford Pinchot's legacy, find a way to stop the undue closure of our trail network (and therefore remote backcountry access) and protect these lands from future destruction.
Trust me. I'll be visiting our Wilderness Areas so long as my body permits me to do so. I've hauled my photo gear up substantial trails and I do it without the aid of pack animals. I have a great love for this land. But I also have realized that providing a great wilderness experience requires that we keep access to the boundaries open through many trailheads, that we do not close access roads and rough jeep trails that aid in the disbursement of visitors. I am not advocating any reduction in wilderness, only careful thought when adding new wilderness that it does not close legitimate access routes and that protection be added for other worthwhile areas as well.