REI

Jonathan Hanson said:
I've seen that as well, also among conservation groups. Ego is a destructive thing, and doubly stupid when you're supposed to be working toward a common goal.
Click to expand...
This point will agree on. Ego sucks. Sadly, people that are "ego booster chaser" types, will always be that way, and I don't think there is any changing that.
 
As I said earlier, with out a bunch of these $$$, the odds of being heard are minimal.
 
It's easy for environmentalists to stand in front of a grocery store and collect money...virtually everyone is for saving the environment. Go set up your camp in a parking lot, try to collect money and see how you do. We are just as likely top be good stewards for the land as the guy in front of the grocery store (probably better, never seen a hiker collect a bag of trash while they are out and about doing their thing). Our image as "off roaders" has been tarnished (by us) over the years. I don't know that we'll ever get past the image of "hold my beer and watch this" type mentality.
 
Jonathan Hanson said:
<snip>

Show me a wilderness area that is closed to access. What you mean is that you (and I) are prevented from sitting on our asses and driving there. It's not CLOSED.

There's something that is all too rarely mentioned in these discussions. Wilderness designation is intended to put the well-being of the habitat and wildlife ahead of our own recreational convenience. I think that speaks highly of us as a civilization. Don't you? Or do you disagree that that is a worthy endeavor? The U.S. has led the world in wildlife and habitat protection since at least the days of Teddy Roosevelt. Furthermore, numerous studies have show the benefit of wilderness areas to surrounding non-wilderness (i.e. where you can drive) in terms of higher wildlife densities. I know because I've participated in several of them.

All this land that's 'locked up' as wilderness by the radical environmentalists? It's about 2.7 percent of the lower 48 states' land area. Five percent if you count Alaska. As I said, you and I are losing a lot more land where we can drive to other causes while we argue about REI.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what is lost in the conversations. Having studied many of the proposed plans for new wilderness or Other federal monument designations for work and personal reasons, this is exactly what I've seen. There is a small Wilderness Area that limits access to hike-in, hike-out only, no motorized or even horseback access. But there is an enormous area surrounding it that is open access for vehicular traffic.

I would be willing to "give up" vehicular access to these small Wilderness Areas in order to have better funded public lands which are protected from other intrusions to current recreational access, such as large scale solar. Some of the monuments that are proposed in the Mojave would provide us better access and be better maintained if given some higher federal designation than raw BLM land. But they would come at the "cost" of relatively few acres of area protected from access via motor vehicle or horseback.
 
I might have the solution to everything.

Screen Shot 2015-04-22 at 4.34.37 PM.jpg
 
What's this about "firewood"? Hmm . . .? You know we'll basically be restricted to holographic LED 'campfires' by mid-May.
 
I don't remember where the thread was no can I seem to find it. A member had posted a link to sign a petition through the Wilderness society to get our public lands back in the publics hands. I did sign the petition but now am bummed after I sent an email requesting how the organization felt about motorized vehicle access to said lands. Here is the response;

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your message. The Wilderness Act prohibits motorized and mechanized travel in Wilderness and we support that prohibition. The land management agencies have the authority to make exceptions for administrative and management purposes using a decision-making process call the “Minimum Requirements Analysis.” But that is not frequently done.

Thank you,
Margot

Margot Krieger
Membership Manager
The Wilderness Society
office: 202.429.2623
www.wilderness.org

Facebook: www.facebook.com/TheWildernessSociety
Twitter: twitter.com/Wilderness

We protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places.
 
Last edited:
Dan, I'm curious - genuinely: Do you think that having five percent of all the land in the U.S. off-limits to motorized recreation is too much? That's the total of designated wilderness.

I'm not counting the many road closures on forest service land we've seen recently, because those are due to budget cuts (another topic), and could be opened again in the right circumstances. Nor am I talking about other closures that are reversible. I'm only talking about actual capital W wilderness.

A significant majority of Americans support wilderness designation, so the concept of 'public lands for the public' seems to me to hold up when discussing this. So if five percent seems like too much to you, I wonder what, if any, percentage you think would be fair?
 
I wish this were easier. I understand that some land should be preserved, but I'm also relating to all public lands being open. The closing of forest roads and the whole nine yards. But what's a Capitol W wilderness?
Maybe it's all the hype but from what I've heard and read everything seems to be pointing in the direction of eventual closure of our wilderness areas to all motorized access. My knees have gone south. I can no longer do the extensive backpacking trips I used to do when I was younger. Driving to some of these areas is basically my only means of getting way out there. 5% is nothing comparatively, and I'm all for that. I'm just so worn down by all the gov red tape and overbearing control our current regime sets in our paths of freedom. Freedom to explore, to engage in the pursuit of happiness, and having the visions of vistas and overcoming challenging experiences. In all probability the gov will shut down an area to 'lack of funding' only to sell it off to some private logging company or solar farm corporations from China.
 
bob91yj said:
It's easy for environmentalists to stand in front of a grocery store and collect money...virtually everyone is for saving the environment. Go set up your camp in a parking lot, try to collect money and see how you do. We are just as likely top be good stewards for the land as the guy in front of the grocery store (probably better, never seen a hiker collect a bag of trash while they are out and about doing their thing). Our image as "off roaders" has been tarnished (by us) over the years. I don't know that we'll ever get past the image of "hold my beer and watch this" type mentality.
Click to expand...

Truly?

My mom always has a grocery bag tied to the outside of her pack and I'M the one who has to do all the bending to pick up the trash on the trail. Honestly though, we might find a water bottle or the top of a gel pack on the trail sometimes, (on the PCT we find, but don't pick up, poo tickets. Thank you whoever introduced that term!) but a majority of the trash is located closer to roads. We don't even get a bagful on a typical 10 mile hike, but would probably get several bags full if we hiked 10 miles along the road.
 
cali_camper said:
Truly?

My mom always has a grocery bag tied to the outside of her pack and I'M the one who has to do all the bending to pick up the trash on the trail. Honestly though, we might find a water bottle or the top of a gel pack on the trail sometimes, (on the PCT we find, but don't pick up, poo tickets. Thank you whoever introduced that term!) but a majority of the trash is located closer to roads. We don't even get a bagful on a typical 10 mile hike, but would probably get several bags full if we hiked 10 miles along the road.
Click to expand...
You are welcome. It's like a show that you don't want to attend without tickets and a good seat. Carry on! :)
 
In all probability the gov will shut down an area to 'lack of funding' only to sell it off to some private logging company or solar farm corporations from China.
Click to expand...

Dan, check recent proposals in Congress if you think you were just hypothesizing.

By capital W wilderness I was referring to actual designated wilderness areas, in which by definition motorized travel is prohibited. Those areas comprise just 2.7 percent of all the land in the lower 48 states, and five percent if you count Alaska. On other public lands, motorized travel is a matter of policy and/or budget, and changeable based on public input.

It's a myth that you need to backpack 50 miles into a wilderness area to enjoy it. The days with a 63-pound pack (recalled from one trip) are over for me as well. But just standing on the edge and looking in, knowing it's being preserved for the benefit of the habitat and wildlife, would be enough for me. Some disagree . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom