Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness - When is access axed?

[jono]

Yeah, that's a miscalculation on the FS part then. I've never seen them used successfully (and this is the first time I've heard of it even threatened) in the opposite direction. The cases on point were (last time I looked)/are all related to BLM districts (and maybe FS too) not doing their jobs managing OHVs properly and getting sued for it.

Your comment wouldn't be the first time a federal agency didn't understand its own governing rules. And it won't be the last.

I wouldn't argue with you that she might be referencing it a bit more thoroughly than she needs to, but I don't think she made a mistake. I can certainly see how the suits would be one-sided to date, but she seems to imply that there's an obligation to at least examine OHV use, and I can see her life getting hard if she were to, say, ban them across the board without doing so. Here's the opening of that section of the forest plan:

"This Executive Order addresses the use of off-road vehicles on public lands. It requires the Forest
Service and other federal land management agencies to “establish policies and provide for
procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and
directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those
lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands” (section 1). The
Executive Order directs agencies to designate the “specific areas and trails on public lands on
which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road
vehicles may not be permitted” (section 3)."

ETA: I would contend that by forcing mountain bikes onto the motorized trails in the Bitterroots the plan failed "to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands" given that the RF had the discretion available to allow her to leave mountain bikes in place a couple of different ways. That she went on to justify her decision by saying that doing so would have created a constituency that opposed Wilderness is by definition putting a political calculation ahead of the requirement of the EO.

[Conundrum]

Technically, Steve's using an ad hom attack to justify deleting most of what I wrote without addressing it, but I guess you try the case you've got, right?

I was more worried about private ownership at one point, too, but when cronyism/fascism/whatever you call it is sophisticated enough to privatize the profit by funneling tourists through a lodge whose monopoly is guaranteed by the surrounding Wilderness, don't you think they're smart enough to push that strategy to the utmost? In any case, the pendulum has demonstrably swung away from private ownership and it hasn't stopped yet. Unless I miss your meaning on private ownership.

Look at the state land grabs, the sagebrush rebellion history, and the current budget laws being passed by the fed senate and house. People say wilderness is the ultimate protection of fed land for preservation. I'm saying with the actions in the fed legislature, monument status is probably the safest long term. Read my previous post on the land grab. Red states (the westerns trying to do this) don't have the budget to maintain takeover lands and with have to sell to special interests.

I am not 100% but I think other than his own ego, this is why Simpson pushed so hard for wilderness when more could have been protected by monument.

[jono]

Ah right, of course. Thanks!

[stuckathuntermtn]

Type less, read more.

I understand that it is a "Wilderness Study Area" or some shit. I'm not talking about the existing WA, I'm talking about the new closures. They are not Wilderness Area.

[Conundrum]

Here's some more info on state takeover of public lands.

HR 1484-Introduced by NV to force the feds to give NV back federal lands

HR 2316-ID rep Labrador introduced a bill to force the feds to give each state 200k acres of FS land to manage as a community forest.

S 490-co-sponsored by ID sen o. Introduced to allow states to takeover control of permitting and policing resource extraction on federal lands.

HR 866-same bill as above introduced in the house.

HR 1445 introduced by NV. Outlaws dept of interior from purchasing any new lands unless the entire feds budget is balanced in that year. Maybe we should apply that to military spending?

HR 1931 "The American Land Act". This one is really scary and comes from some dickhole in Texas. This act would force the sec of interior to sell 8% or FS and 8% of BLM per year for the next five years. Eligible purchasers are listed as states, cititzens, or private entities and corporations.

HR 435 and S 361. Two a-holes from UT intro'd this one. Directs the department of interior to sell off federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.

S 838-the budget measure I mentioned earlier and the only one of these that passed in 2015.

Sure, there are some environmental protection laws that were introduced and passed too. But, it's a republican controlled house and senate and they want their land back in the west. This scares me far more than losing a couple cool mtn bike trails.

[LightRanger]

But this time around, the threat of a monument declaration provided a powerful incentive to get politicians, ranchers, conservationists and recreationists to agree on a compromise bill.

“We’d rather have an Idaho solution rather than one imposed by Washington,” Simpson said.

After meetings with recreationists, he redrew to carve out favorite trails for motorcycles, snow machines and four wheelers. Conservation groups got a provision that offers voluntary buyouts to ranchers to retire grazing rights. “That’s the nature of a compromise; this is not the bill that anyone who was king for a day would write,” Simpson says.

The congressman says he fought so hard for wilderness rather than a monument because it’s the highest form of protection for federal lands. By law, no one can develop or even ride a bicycle in a wilderness area. A monument would give federal officials more leeway in deciding how to manage the area.


“They can write a management plan that says anything they want,” Simpson said, by way of warning, during a speech to the Frank Church Wilderness Conference in Boise last fall.


Under the wilderness bill, two trails beloved by mountain bikers will be closed to them. By contrast, the administration was working to keep them open in a monument, according to Justin Hayes, program director of the Idaho Conservation League.


That’s not to say that the Idaho wilderness bill is without detractors. It’s smaller — by tens of thousands of acres — than previous versions. Former Idaho Governor and U.S. Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus, who had supported previous versions, criticized Simpson for making too many compromises to woo motor vehicle recreationists and their Senate Republican backers. Andrus spoke out publicly earlier this year in favor of the president designating a monument instead. (His spokeswoman said he wasn’t available this week to comment on the bill passage.)


The measure also was the only wilderness bill a prominent mountain biking group had ever opposed. Jeremy Fancher, interim director of government affairs at the International Mountain Bicycling Association, said his group was “disappointed.” The group had counted on the Obama administration to craft a monument designation that would allow bikers to still use the castle divide and ants basin trails — difficult paths through awe-inspiring terrain that bikers around the world have included on their bucket lists. But despite many conversations with Simpson about the bill, “accommodations are made for a lot of uses that have a lot more environmental and social impacts than a bicycle does,” Fancher says.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/how-a-l...efies-the-odds

[tone capone]

Anyways, here's the situation on the ground. No wall tent, no motor, no campsite, no thousand pound animals required. Just a couple inch sliver of tire compressed dirt is all... The rest is all a bunch of meaningless bought and paid for fascist political bullshit that cheapens the idea of Wilderness, if anything. The wolves that live up there don't care about The Party's lines on a map anyways! Well said powpig and Bunion, thanks for standing up for sensibility in the face of this insanity. Have a nice day!

Lets see, no straw man here!



Couldn't find one here either, hmm, this place really needs to be protected... From mountain bikers!



It's just an unacceptable crime.

[tone capone]

[tone capone]

[tone capone]

I just hope the individuals with the little wilderness law enforcement gig feel real good about themselves at night. I hope they're real proud to be a worthless piece of shit tentacle of the federal leviathan. What a great way to make a living. Bringing the weight of Uncle Sam down on somebody that wants to ride their bicycle on a 4 inch ribbon of bicycle trail in the mountains. In a place that was already federally protected and had probably more per capita user group respect and protection from mountain bikers alone than any place in the lower 48. Real special.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Damn. What a place.

[Bunion 2020]

Thanks for the Images.

Yesterday a group of us went down towards the Cinnamon Mountain area for a fun epic. Part of the trail back towards Lizard Lakes has been re-built and parallels the border of the WSA. The rebuild is beautiful, buff and excellent riding. And signed "Off Limits" to mountain bikes.

Well, we were already there, there was no one around so fuck it. It was a great section of trail and I plan to visit again. I think it needs further "study".

Upon our return to the trail head there were 2 USFS employees waiting for us. Seems one vehicle in our group had the criminal intent to leave a cooler (Tiny lunch box style igloo that holds about 6 cans) in the shade under their truck It contained ice and 3 cans of a local IPA.

A terrible crime in bear country because everyone knows bears love picnic baskets and such.

These 2 paragons of federal service had waited there for about 3.5 hours so they could write a ticket. $ 225.00 for illegal "food storage".

[stuckathuntermtn]

Even bears like IPA's now? What a bunch of hipster douches.

[BobbyBill]

Wow...great pics, Tone. Illustrates just what a kick in the nuts losing access to these trails is. The only stakeholders with something to lose, lost. Motorized lobby had enough juice to get their trails excluded from the Wilderness and ICL duplicitously jumped shipped and threw bikers under the bus and backtraked on the National Monument MOA when Wilderness designation became a real possibility since the Idaho delegation didn't want big, bad Obama and Washington dictating a N. Monument. I'm generally in favor of Wilderness and like a lot of bikers have not wanted to ride in existing capital W areas, but losing trails that are mostly ridden by bicycle does suck.

[TahoeBC]

http://m.bikemag.com/videos/exclusive-gathering-storm/

[jono]

^^^ I like where they're going but it's frustrating to see language throughout that presentation that falsely attributes the bike ban to the Wilderness Act. The author's first supporting link seems to indicate that he knows the Act itself was not modified in 1984 when the Forest Service issued the ban on "possessing" a bicycle or a hang glider in designated Wilderness. As anyone familiar with the debate knows, the USFS' original interpretation of "mechanized" as being anything with a non-living motor was not removed when that ban was issued. Furthering the misconception that our beef is with the Wilderness Act makes the task of righting this error seem harder than it should be.

[Bunion 2020]

http://m.bikemag.com/videos/exclusive-gathering-storm/

[GeezerSteve]

falsely attributes the bike ban to the Wilderness Act.

Beating a dead horse. The only interpretation of the Act that matters is the one adopted by the USFS, NPS, BLM and USFW. IMV, it's the correct interpretation, one that certainly will be deemed reasonable per any court review, and there's nothing "false" about it. The MTB lobby is not going to get anywhere if it insists on attacking the administrating agencies' prevailing interpretation of the Act.

There is a different direction, one that I and many other wilderness advocates would support: Where MTB trails have been established through decades of use, work with other non-motorhead groups to preserve the land while allowing continued use of MTBs. The National Monument status originally proposed for this area could have gotten you there.

FTR, this thread -- including but not limited to Conundrum's contributions -- has enlightened me re the negotiation that led to this WA designation and makes me seriously question the wisdom of designating this area was a WA. I spent a few hours looking at the history of this legislation and my current (albeit not fully informed) view is that the land may well have be better preserved with a larger National Monument status that would have allowed continued use of the MTB trails.

So there you have it. I'm a staunch wilderness preservation advocate, yet in this case, knowing what I now know, I would have supported the NM status and kept MTBs in the area. There are plenty others in the wilderness protection movement who would share my view on this. Next time -- if there is a next time (i.e., maybe this is a one-off) -- get in front of it and form alliances with other non-motorheads.

[jono]

Next time -- if there is a next time (i.e., maybe this is a one-off) -- get in front of it and instead of trusting alliances with other non-motorheads.

FIFY.

Glad to see you've been learning along the way. Keep reading and you'll get to the part about IMBA trusting an alliance with ICL which added pressure to convert a (protected) National Recreation Area into NM as a lever against the motorheads so they'd support Wilderness that carved out their access. When you get that far go back and read this thread again, it'll probably make more sense.

[homemadesalsa]

Next time -- if there is a next time (i.e., maybe this is a one-off) -- get in front of it and form alliances with other non-motorheads.

Ya, we tried and got thrown under the bus. See ICL for example. Wood River bike club (correct me if I don't have that right) is the local IMBA chapter, and worked HARD with them to try and keep those two trails alive.

Glad to see that you are smart and not so stubborn that you can read the material and see the conniving that went on to keep the BWC out of Monument status. Our take on it: a "pork" bill with a Wilderness provision to appease the greens.

Looks like Jono and I posted about the same thing at the same time. No way is the ICL EVER getting any $ or support from me in the future. They blew it.

Next place to mount a fight: the Lionhead. I know a bunch of you all have ridden there and love it. We need to keep it at the Gallatin level, not any higher, and use some other strategies and get out front. If you live anywhere close, align yourself with the good folks at the Montana Mountain Bike Alliance (MMBA). They know EXACTLY what is going on, what to do, and when to do it. http://www.montanamountainbikealliance.com/

[LightRanger]

Beating a dead horse. The only interpretation of the Act that matters is the one adopted by the USFS, NPS, BLM and USFW. IMV, it's the correct interpretation, one that certainly will be deemed reasonable per any court review, and there's nothing "false" about it. The MTB lobby is not going to get anywhere if it insists on attacking the administrating agencies' prevailing interpretation of the Act.

There is a different direction, one that I and many other wilderness advocates would support: Where MTB trails have been established through decades of use, work with other non-motorhead groups to preserve the land while allowing continued use of MTBs. The National Monument status originally proposed for this area could have gotten you there.

FTR, this thread -- including but not limited to Conundrum's contributions -- has enlightened me re the negotiation that led to this WA designation and makes me seriously question the wisdom of designating this area was a WA. I spent a few hours looking at the history of this legislation and my current (albeit not fully informed) view is that the land may well have be better preserved with a larger National Monument status that would have allowed continued use of the MTB trails.

So there you have it. I'm a staunch wilderness preservation advocate, yet in this case, knowing what I now know, I would have supported the NM status and kept MTBs in the area. There are plenty others in the wilderness protection movement who would share my view on this. Next time -- if there is a next time (i.e., maybe this is a one-off) -- get in front of it and form alliances with other non-motorheads.

Steve, you missed it. The IMBA did ally with various pro-wilderness/enviro groups. And those groups bailed on them in favor of the harder protections of the Wilderness Act over the Antiquities Act. Put bluntly: the mountain bike community got rolled by everybody else because it doesn't have the juice to influence the process as much as everybody else.

Edit: That's what having a tab open for a while and not refreshing things before replying does...

[GeezerSteve]

Yeah, right, I figured out pages ago that the newcomer got squeezed out of a political compromise. Nothing novel about that. The question is what are you going to do change the balance of power. Hint: Pounding your fist insisting on a material reinterpretation of the Act aint gonna help and will only strengthen the resolve of the wilderness advocates the MTBers are anti-W. Nor will the "Wilderness-B" thing work unless you find something else to call it. It's not a crazy idea that you might persuade wilderness advocates like me with the argument that goes like this: The area needs protection, but because it has been continually used for MTBing for the past 30 years WA designation is the improper level of protection, so. . . .

[jono]

Beating a dead horse. The only interpretation of the Act that matters is the one adopted by the USFS, NPS, BLM and USFW. IMV, it's the correct interpretation, one that certainly will be deemed reasonable per any court review, and there's nothing "false" about it. The MTB lobby is not going to get anywhere if it insists on attacking the administrating agencies' prevailing interpretation of the Act.

Let's take the facts as they are. The agency's interpretation is specifically that "mechanized" means that which contains a non-living motor. And on that we agree and there's no need to challenge it. The agency has, separately, made it illegal to possess a bicycle in a designated Wilderness Area. The two things are not related and were separated by 20 years.

The administratively-easier approach of banning bikes altogether rather than restricting their use to appropriate trails is a cop out that has never been accepted as legal when applied to motorized users and it shouldn't be accepted for bikes. The bill's author has stated his belief that bikes in Wilderness is an open question as a justification for including long-used mountain bike trails in the newest WA. If that hadn't happened there might be good reason to believe that congress intended to ban bikes, but it did happen so it's time to fix the situation.

You've taken a lot of comments about Wilderness advocates in this thread as an attempt to vilify them. Meanwhile mountain bikers are painted as non-cooperative, unreasonable and having no sensibility for preservation. Maybe you're new to this discussion, but that ad hom bullshit has been the trademark of everyone who's come before you. Condescension from that side is almost as common as speaking before learning. It goes well with the speculation for sounds bites whenever the science isn't on their side. Taken as a whole it paints a strong picture of ideological zealots seeking their own agenda rather than anything objectively good.

Not every person who thinks badly of the Wilderness lobby does so out of ignorance.

[GeezerSteve]

The agency's interpretation is specifically that "mechanized" means that which contains a non-living motor. And on that we agree.

No, we don't agree on that. Where did you get that? A CFR from 1966 that the USFS revoked 30+ years ago? Is that all you got? Deal with the facts: For >30 years, all 4 of the agencies that administer WAs have interpreted the Act as banning bicycles because they are "mechanical transport" as that terms appears in the Act. It really is that simple.

It's not about trails. It's about keeping Wilderness Areas free of modern mechanized transport. If you keep beating this dead horse, you will lose. Find another direction.

I won't take the time to address the numerous false attributions about what I've said.

[jono]

I can't believe this is still up:

http://www.idahoconservation.org/iss...r-white-clouds

Put bluntly: the mountain bike community got rolled by everybody else because it doesn't have the juice to influence the process as much as everybody else.

I think that's a bit on the generous side, actually. The movement for Wilderness instead of Recreation Area (the place has been protected for 30 years) had early roots with skiers wanting to ban slednecks. I'm fuzzy on the interim details, but either they got that ban (and wanted more?) or they realized they couldn't, and the next move was to create a NM threat that got the BRC people on the side of Wilderness. IMBA's support for NM was used to create pressure to change the status quo when it didn't need to be changed. It's not that IMBA lacked the political capital, it's that they only recognized being used after it was too late (see their spokesman's comments on their site). They lacked cynicism and trusted people they shouldn't have.