Locking up our land?

“I was prompted by what the CA. fishing thread morphed into to start this thread.

Some people seem to feel that the federal gov. has an agenda to kick people out of national parklands. An example debated over on the CA fishing thread was prohibiting overnight camping on top of Half Dome. Another example is the restricitons and proposed restrictions on snowmobilers in places like Yellowstone.

So what's the word? Because they are public lands does that mean we should be allowed to do what we please on them? Are there hidden agendas to oust certain recreational users? And should you have to pack your fecal material out of high use areas:^)?”

“It's that darned cigarette smoking man! Right Mulder?
Mulder? MULDER!!!!!”

“My experience is that the attitude about the feds control of lands is largely dependant on where a person lives and thus their experience. I have a hard time viewing this question the same as someone that does, or has, lived in a place with little wild public land. Those of you that have that experience view the country as having little wild land. Now I live in the state with the most federally protected wilderness in the U.S. (other than Alaska). Not only that but the feds control over 44 percent of Idaho land and a total of 70 percent is public land. With a long history of an economy tied to resource extraction, restrictions on the use of the land are viewed as restrictions on the economy. It is sort of like if the feds decided that new automobiles are a threat to the 1978 Chevy impala so they banded the production of new cars. I don?t think the auto workers union would be real supportive. Now we in Idaho are not totally stupid, we know that federal lands belong to everyone in the nation not just Idahoans. But none the less Idahoans are disproportionately effected by decisions like the one to stopped all road building in the national forest. The displeasure many in Idaho have is because they fell they were not heard in the process and that the economy of their small towns has be sacrificed on the alter easterner?s desire to atone of the destruction of their own land. Most of us do want additional land protected, but not a blanket measure with no consideration for benign development (if such a thing exists). Now you may disagree with the idea of more local control but at least take a shot a understanding the point of view of someone that lives were 70 percent of the land is publicly owned.

As for the tourist thing and National Parks ? if you build it they will come. Designate any land a National Park and tourist visits will multiply. It doesn?t matter what the attractions are, the NP status will bring them. Idaho, like some other states, has places worthy of NP status that are not NPs. But most in Idaho don?t want no national parks. One of the reasons are the stories like the one about half dome ya all recounted. Our Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) is starting to show some of these signs of over use. Make it a NP and the people would be like locusts. No thank you.

Some day I am going to do the Idaho 200 mile north-south all in federal protected wilderness trip (well all but about 15 miles near Stanley).”

“Mtn Gal, can't agree more. I live in a NF with a NRA as part of it and a half mil wilderness area. If I really want to be alone, I go to areas not in the wilderness or NRA. There is some sort of mind set that the only places worth seeing are those which are labeled.”

“High use areas, like I saw this past DEC. in the Smokies should have a pit toilet as opposed to a drop area at all of the shelters. I was shock by the sight of little piles of TP here and there. It is quite disturbing that a N.P. like the Smokies does not have enough funds to build pit toilets in the heavily used areas by the AT shelters.

Less roads, I wonder, they are somewhat beneficial in my book. They allow easier access into the backcountry for forestry management especially during the fire seasons. They can make good fire lines in other words. And you Idahoians should know a little more about fires now.

Last time I look at a detail map of that state it was a checkboard private and public lands. There was alot of "in holdings" of private lands more or less land locked within public lands it look like. All owned by those in the timber industry.

Snow go's in Jellystone area, if the N.P. was smart they would capitalize on that market so they could profit more from it. Similiar in away GCNP rents (offers a service) burros to go down into the Canyon, the Jellystone officials could "rent" snow go's and thus contro/regulate the human impact. Limit the areas of access, the noise, and speed of snow go's. Some buddy is making money out there, the N.P. just needs to get more involved. Sounds like a monopoly, I know, but it is doable if all parties were to agree of a few stipulations. I don't think it is fair to shut it down during the off seasons.

Cliton had this top down approach to these matters. He never really cared/listened to what the public or locals wanted regarding these matters. All part of his "legacy" I guess, rather selfish in my book. Thank God he is gone!!!”

“Gone! But not forgotten.”

“If you can drive to the backcountry is it still considered backcountry? How long will it take for ORV's and 4x4's to discover these roads and turn into to more front country?”

“Roads don?t need to be open to all traffic all the time. In Idaho we have a lot of roads that if you want to use them you have to walk them. But you are right, if the road is open the beer guzzling bubbas will be there with guns shooting their empty cans and bottle and leaving the trash. What about motorcycles on single track trails?”

“I agree with mtn gal that if you build it they will come. Doesn't this subject come up frequently like in backpacker magazine and such? On the one hand you have tourists flocking to the national parks, resulting in overuse. But on the other, if you get more people there to see how wonderful they are, perhaps they will lend their support to future environmental issues/projects to preserve more. My experience about tourists, especially based on people I work with, is that most tourists tend to sit in their cars and (as Ed Abbey would say) don't get out on their own two feet and see the REAL beauty of the parks. I try to research before I go to a new area to see where the tourists "ain't" and head off in that direction. Also, timing can be everything. My hubby and I now have vowed never to hit utah during tourist season...we discovered that fall is empty and better weather, too. Visited Smokies in spring of 2000 for first time...I'd never go there in tourist season...it's just to small an area for throngs of tourists...and too much cutesy stuff in the neighboring towns. Guess there isn't a perfect answer to the dilemma!”

“utahiker, I may be going to southern Utah (Bryce Canyon & Zion). Please tell me if this is tourist season.”

“lipstick hiker, I envy you as I would like to be in utah any time of year (tourist season or not). However, I think I can safely say that you should have the place to yourself this time of year and more power to you! Go for it and give us a trip report when your get back!”

“LH,
It's definately not tourist season in S Utah.
Zion's ave. temps are highs in the 40's lows in the low 30's.
Bryce's ave. temps are highs around 30 and lows near 10. Bryce is expecting some snow this weekend too.
Zion's busy season is early April through mid October.”

“Thanks for the info Utahiker & REPTILES. Yikes! I didn't want to see lots of tourists, but maybe I have gone too far. The tickets are already bought. I was contemplating adding more miles to my trip, and going to Maui, but I wanted to leave some miles incase of emergencies in NY which is where I am originally from. Brrrrrrr :{}”

“"Our Sawtooth National Recreation Area..."
~mtn gal

I couldn't put it any better.”

“gojo - Are you saying that I think the SNRA belongs to Idahoans? Well NO - That is our SNRA as in America?s. It is plural and includes you too. Don?t put more meaning into poor syntax than in the clear statements. ?Now we in Idaho are not totally stupid, we know that federal lands belong to everyone in the nation not just Idahoans.?”

“mtn gal -
I've been there a time or two, I know it's partly mine.

I was not trying to get you mad, I was eluding to one of the things that I believe the most - and that is the fact that "This land is your land, this land is..."

One of the things that reeeely pi$$es me off is to read folk's remarks to the effect of "stay away from my trails blahblah..." My response to comments like that are something like: "So, your people crossed the Bering Straits when?"

Most ALL westerners are from the east - somewhere down the line. That or Asia.

Take three guesses where Atlanta, ID, got it's name.
(the first two don't count)

We're ALL Americans.

God Bless America!
(and China)”

“we know that federal lands belong to everyone in the nation not just Idahoans

Mtn gal, I can't speak directly about Idahoans, but this is definite not true of most Westerners. Local "wise use" groups, congressional representatives and state legislators from Alaska to Utah regularly argue that these lands should belong to the people of the state, and not belong to all Americas or be controlled by a bunch of byoo-row-crats from Warshington.

Roads don?t need to be open to all traffic all the time.

Sadly, this isn't exactly true either. If you're familiar with the debate over the wilderness study areas in Utah, the designation of virtually any crappy, rutted unpassable dirt track as a "road" makes the road eligible for ungrading and the land around it ineligible for wilderness status. I'm glossing over a complex issue, and I'm not saying that it's not possible to have fire roads in a wilderness without turning them into tourist roads, but generally (and philosophically) speaking, building a road to the wilderness makes it not the wilderness anymore.”