Wllderness Area vs. National Forest

“What's your preference?

The few wilderness areas I have been to in my state were well worth it--no people, better chance of seeing wildlife.. I guess the drawback is they're harder to get to though and no trails, usually.”

“i prefer wilderness areas for the human reasons (lack of humans). i do enjoy national forest also though.”

“National forests are great - wilderness areas are more greater :). IMHO”

“I've got wilderness fifteen minutes from my house. The best benefit is no mountain bikes. I like to get away from them sometimes.”

“I think people have a preconceived notion of what a wilderness should be - nice big trees, mountains, etc. There are probably fallow fields in North Dakota that are more remote and closer to original form than many designated wilderness areas. I would also think that designating wilderness would concentrate other activities on nonwilderness areas. You might have a place totally without logging or mountain biking, but then the adjoining nat. forest gets double.

There is a swamp in southern Michigan that is the biggest roadless area in the lower peninsula. It has no wilderness designation. But I would be willing to bet that fewer people go there than most of the wilderness, nat. parks in the state.

BTW, I'm not taking any position on this. I'm just throwing out food for thought.”

“no doubt reformed. most of the designated wilderness i have been in have remnants of civilization. i find this stuff interesting also. my preference of them is purely to the fact that they are for foot travel now.”

“rf-really?

around here the wilderness areas are so wild you have to seriously worry about cougars...
I saw a couple catamundi (sp?) in Eagle Tail Wilderness Area once. They came right up to our campfire and started licking some spilt beans off a rock. So much for fire scaring away the wildlife!
I am going to Avaviapa Canyon next month, I can't wait! Sposed to be really hairy wilderness.”

“BLM land is better for nude hiking.Usually not as many people or rangers or rules.”

“They both rock......:)


I like to go backpacking in eather.”

“I like the pristine nature of wilderness areas. I spend a lot of time in the San Gorgonio Wilderness. I got hooked the first weekend I backpacked there. Beautiful, no litter, and not very many people during the week. There is a permit system to limit use. Permits are free.”

“It depends on where you live. In Colorado and California, Wildnerness areas tend to be very very crowded. We learned, if you want solitude, don't go to the Wilderness Areas. They're as bad as National Parks!”

“National Forests are better maintained but Wilderness areas your not so restricted. You can camp anywhere in a wilderness area.
I prefer Wilderness.”

“Hmmmm...I thought you could camp anywhere you wanted to in a National Forest. Oops.”

“Oooops.
I was thinking National Park.”

“I thought you might have been. Although I was worried that you knew something I didn't. That would ruin my weekends around here for sure.”

“Each Wilderness Area is somewhat unique. Regulations are tapered to the needs and limitations to each Wilderness. National Forests, too, but to a lesser degree.

For example - campfires. They're totally disallowed within the Sawtooth (ID) and Cumberland Island (GA) Wildernesses, but allowed in the Cohutta (GA) and Juniper (FL) Wildernesses (except in times of drought). Campfires are restricted to certain times of the year in other Wilderni.

Dispersed camping is allowed in certain WAs and NFs, but restricted to designated campsites in others. These decisions are usually dictated by high-volume use. For example - dispersed camping is allowed throughout the Chicago Basin, Weminuche Wilderness, CO. There is a point (identified by a sign) in the upper basin past which camping is not allowed.

Back to Idaho...
The Sawtooth Wilderness and The White Cloud Peaks are all within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (NFS). Neither seems to be any more crowded than the other, and both offer splendid hiking opportunities. About the only difference I've detected between the two is that you can build a fire in the Whites, but not in the Tooths...
Also, by the definiton of a Wilderness, the Tooths *will* forever remain untouched by human progress or expansion.”

“Wilderness area or National Forest is just a label. They all suck when they're filled with or are too close to people.”

“so stay home on your computer! more permits for us!”

“What about Wilderness Areas that are part of a National Forest? As opposed to National Park Service or BLM Wilderness.

Wilderness is just a land classification that regulates what kind of management activities are allowed, similar to zoning codes in a city. A whole range of classifications exist. Wilderness is not even the most stringent.

One of my favorite local areas is general forest, nominally open to multiple use, but has never seen a chainsaw, bulldozer, or cow. Very few people, either.”

“Gojo has it right. Each wilderness in different. There are federally protected wilderness areas and those protected by the state. Federal wilderness is always under the administration of one agency or another. Here in Idaho it is the forest service that administers the wilderness areas (and the national recreation areas too). It could be the BLM or even the park service in other places. The restrictions are individual to the area too. In Idaho’s Frank we have air strips which they mow with a horse pulled mover. In the sawtooth wilderness large groups are restricted, small groups are not. In the Frank there are fewer restrictions than in the sawtooths. Most federally designated wilderness areas are also Nat. Forests. I like the wilderness areas for the lack of cows and trail bikes (motor bikes).

By the way Gojo, fire is restricted on the bases of fire danger. You can have fire in the tooths, on an approved fire blanket or pan, if the fire danger is not to high. By August fire danger is almost always high in Idaho.”

“The Cohutta (GA) and Big Frog (TN) Wilderness, at 30,000 acres, is the largest Forest Service wilderness east of the Mississippi...


That's Forest Service, mind you... There's prolly some NP (Smokies?) and/or State wilderni that are bigger.

Frank Church, combined with The Bitterroot Wilderness, is, like, I dunno - 100,000,000,000 acres? It's BIG, that's for sure...

Sawtooth Wilderness - 217,000 acres.

Weminuche, CO - 1/2 million acres.”

“Gojo – don’t forget the gospel hump wilderness is also adjacent to the frank and the bitterroot. The frank by its self is the second largest out side of Alaska (Death Valley is bigger I think).”

“Mtn gal:

Some Wilderness Areas allow grazing. Also many private inholdings exist where the owner is allowed motorized access by law. Pre-existing mining claims can continued to be operated.

The various Federal agencies have had wilderness areas set aside by administrative policy since 1924?. The 1964 Wilderness Act only made these areas protected by law, not policy. Since 1964 other areas have been added, some were not really qualified to be Wilderness but local activism got them included. So now there are Wilderness Areas with barricaded paved roads and that have been logged several times. Hardly 'pristine'.

The wildlands project has a map showing proposed Wilderness that contains not only private lands but state highways and communities. They don't really explain how to reconcile that. Forcible relocation and obliteration, I guess.”

“That's how they did it in the Sipsey and in the GSMNP. I used to work with a guy whose wife's family owned some of the land which is now part of the Sipsey Wilderness. They didn't take the land from the owners (there are still private holdings in the Sipsey) but if I understand correctly, the land may not be sold, given away, or willed when the owners die. At that point, it is to be deeded to the Federal Govt.

I like going to the Sipsey and can see why it's been set aside, but I feel for the former owners of the land.”

“Gord

I know. That was my point that each wilderness has different restrictions. The wilderness areas in Idaho that I frequent do not permit grazing (the Frank, Sawtooths, Selway/Bitterroot, Gospel Hump). The frank has “corridors” for roads. These are strips just a little wider than the road that are officially not wilderness so that motorized travel is permitted. The Middle fork of the Salmon River in the Frank is heavily regulated because of the crowds of floaters. They have assigned camp sites and the whole National Park type Regs. If you walk in, there are almost not regulations. The air strips in the Frank are wilderness by designation but permit planes to land and take off. There are also private land holdings in the Frank. Jet boats are permitted on parts of the Main Salmon River even though in a wilderness.

The main point about federally designated wilderness is that an increases in the amount of development or resource extraction activities will not happen.

For mountain wilderness, Idaho rules.”

“There seems to an erroroneous impression that designating an area "Wilderness' somehow makes it holy or better than adjacent non-wilderness. It's just a land classification. Congressionally designated wilderness is not even the most restrictive level of protection -- on National Forests Research Natural Areas restrict activities more than the Wilderness Act.

People flock to the Wilderness Area that got the most recent write-up in some yuppie magazine then complain about the crowds. Meanwhile, nearby areas are empty.

I like it that way. Let the crowds go to the the latest tony spot and leave the best areas to me alone.”

“If some of the wilderness areas are over-used then there ought to be more of them.

In WVa there's hardly a stick that the timber theives didn't cut at one time or another.

The wilderness areas in Monongahela NF are regaining their wildness.
They've only been cut once.

Dolly Sods Wilderness...designated in '75(?)...was used for infantry training in '43-'45.
I think Tarp Rat has a collection of unexploded mortar rounds he's been collecting from there.”

“Sure there are areas that are plenty wild and not classified as “wilderness”. We have an abundance of these in my neck of the woods (like the Whiteclouds and the Hansen Mountains). But federally protected wilderness is different. You may or may not think its better but it is different. To start with the guy on that trail motor cycle has to turn around when he gets to the wilderness boundary. There are no new mines. No current logging. If you find the wilderness areas crowded, maybe they are to small or you don’t hike far enough or your not in Idaho. An example is the Idaho Sawtooth wilderness. Most people never hike more than ten miles in from the trail head. I have seen 30 people camped at a lake 8 miles in and nobody at another lake 7 mile farther up the same trail. An area of great beauty or of other great interest will draw attention and people. With a wilderness designation at least they will not be on a bus but on foot or horseback. It may not be the wilderness label that draws the people but the features that convinced the politicos to attach the label.

If I am looking for a solitary and natural outdoor experience and all I know is the label on the land, I pick that labeled “wilderness”. However like Gordon, I have a few very wild places I visit that are not officially protected. They are protected by the remoteness and difficulty of travel.”

“About half of all National Forest land nationwide is designated wilderness, withdrawn by administrative policy, or is so remote/rugged it is de facto wilderness. Even the land designated as open to the full range of multiple use is mostly untouched.

On my local NF, which is known as a big timber producer, only about 15% of the the total area has ever had a harvest entry. Even where timber has been harvested in years past is pretty wild. One area has been logged 4 times since 1930 and is still classified as 'old growth'.

Somehow the public got a mistaken impression that if an area is not designated Wilderness it is automatically clearcut and mined. Yet we have designated wilderness areas that are trashed and abused, and non-wilderness that have no human imprint except for excessive density.”