BLong wrote:chicagotransplant,

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread. I have also seen what you wrote on the topic at 14ers.com and am happy to be sharing some webspace with such a balanced, well spoken individual. You are definitely right, compromise is the key to success in issues such as this.

It is great to hear that you have hiked in a lot of the areas that are in the proposal and are confident that they deserve wilderness status.

Happy Climbing!

Likewise to you, thanks!

Wilderness areas preclude two things I dearly love:

1. Competing in sanctioned trail ultrarunning events (50 and 100 mile runs)
2. Mountain Biking

I've already contacted my elected officials to urge them to vote against it. If the Wilderness Act would be amended to allow these two low impact human powered activities I'd sign on, until then I oppose all new wilderness legislation.

Thanks,
- Chris

1. Competing in sanctioned trail ultrarunning events (50 and 100 mile runs)

Not true. Both the Hardrock 100 and the Leadville 100 miles race go through wilderness areas

BLong wrote:

1. Competing in sanctioned trail ultrarunning events (50 and 100 mile runs)

Not true. Both the Hardrock 100 and the Leadville 100 miles race go through wilderness areas!

You are absolutely wrong. I've run Leadville... along the dreadful Fish Hatchery Road, because it's been rerouted to skirt the Mt Massive Wilderness. Here's the trail map:
http://www.leadvilletrail100.info/LT_files/LT100Run/100Run_files/lt100runmapFixed.jpg

Hardrock also does not enter any Wilderness Area. Not one. The HR100 maps are here, in case you'd like to check for youself:
http://run100s.com/HR/

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=manageIssuesPCU

What is the policy on staging competitive events in wilderness?
Races, endurance runs, special events, and large organized hikes are prohibited in wilderness. The basis of this policy is that wilderness was established to provide "...outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.." according to the Wilderness Act. Competitive events in wilderness tend to lessen the wilderness experience for others, and there are many opportunities for such events outside of wilderness.

So again, I do not support any additional wilderness designations until running a race or riding my mt bike isn't lumped into the same category as mining, logging, or four-wheeling.

Chris's facts are correct.

Foot travel is actually prohibited in wilderness when in the form of a race. I don't understand why, but that's how it is.

I'm all for the notion of Wilderness protection in theory, but "Wilderness" as it is in practice is too restricting. It should encourage use, not block it. I love the outdoors like a lot of people around here but because many of the ways I enjoy it would be blocked, I can't support Hidden Gems.

Chris (and Ted), I apologize. I was basing my statement (and adamant defense of that statement) off a friend's word who has also run both of the races. Neither of us were aware that both of these races skirt the boundaries of Wilderness as opposed to entering it. I was under the impression that was one of the reasons they capped the races, only allowing a specific number of competitors -- to lessen the impact. Sorry to have posted before knowing the facts.

That said, is it not enjoyable to run alongside Wilderness? I think we would all agree (Ted, maybe you can add your voice, having run the Hardrock) that the Hardrock is one of the most scenic, beautiful, and wild alpine races in the world. Additionally, its proximity to protected Wilderness areas also means that it will remain "Wild & Tough" for a long time to come.

One other thing worth adding: the Hidden gems proposal isn't affecting any race areas. While some of my favorite recreational activities are also prohibited in Wilderness, I support the proposal because I realize that there is something more important than my recreation (for example: habitat protection, biodiversity, clean watersheds, and air quality).

One of the reasons I think the Hidden Gems proposal is so crucial is that it preserves the mid-elevation zones. These are the places that have the biggest threats from human development and the extractive industries. These places also support a lot more biodiversity than the high elevations that are typically protected.

If we are only concerned about our favorite form of recreation, arguing amongst ourselves as opposed to looking at the bigger picture, then soon enough there won't be anyplace left to argue over (or recreate in)!

Ted, I am not sure where you live in Aspen, but imagine what the hill behind Hunter Creek would look like with 1,400 condos and a gondola running up it? That is what was slated to happen, before the Wilderness Workshop began their grassroots campaign to stop the development. Now, the area is protected as the Hunter - Fryingpan Wilderness. Not sure what you think, but in my opinion, the last thing we need here is thousands of additional condos.

I'll take a no motorized travel situation versus potential private property encroachment and habitat destruction every time. Perhaps a designation other than wilderness would work if indeed the protections were the same. Some areas, I'd have to agree don't meet typical wilderness criteria ("Does the area generally appear to be natural and is human presence relatively unnoticeable?")

As we all know, the Hidden Gems proposal is currently in the process of community outreach. I have enjoyed seeing the passionate discussions regarding the campaign that have evolved throughout the past weeks on this site and in the media in general.

As a supporter of the the Hidden Gems, I feel that it is important for me to tell you that the proposed areas provide us with clean air and water, are critical habitats for wildlife, and are virtually untouched playgrounds for our non-motorized recreation (a $10-billion part of our Colorado economy). This includes activities such as rock climbing, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and canoeing.

For years, the Wilderness Workshop has met extensively with different user groups in the valley (including climbing groups, local land owners, as well as RFMBA). The result of these vibrant discussions has included removing areas from the proposal for rock climbing (in order to allow for future bolting) and various areas important to the mountain biking community.

I personally ask that you proclaim your support for the Hidden Gems Wilderness Proposal by signing the following petition: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5857/t/6890/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=510
 
The Wilderness Workshop will publicize the list of names that is gathered to demonstrate that, "contrary to the impression that a few noisy interest groups are trying to create, there's a silent majority who support wilderness designation for the Hidden Gems."  You don't need to live near the White River or Gunnison Forests for your support to count!

Thanks and happy climbing  

FYI when you try to use the page that asks to forward on to others after signing, this is what you get, although it appears to work (the emails were sent):

We're sorry--that page isn't here. You can use your back button to return to the previous page.

It looks like you've requested a page that is currently unavailable from this server. This may be due to a typo in the web address you've requested. Are you sure that this:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/585 ... erwild.org

is the URL you intended to visit? If it is, and you believe that you have reached this page in error, please contact the technical staff of the organization whose page you were attempting to access, and inform them that you've encountered a problem.

It may be helpful to the person you contact to have the URL (web address) you were trying to reach. If you're planning to email someone, please select the URL displayed above, and copy it to your clipboard using control-c (on a PC) or command-c (on a Mac). Then, you can use control-v (on a PC) or command-v (on a Mac) to paste it into your email.

You can use your browser's back button to return to the page you were viewing prior to receiving this message.

Here is the updated page for the Open Letter.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/585 ... on_KEY=510

Although I wouldn't lump Mountain Biking in with resource extraction either to say its "low impact" is with all due respect not true to put it kindly. Historically they have had much greater impact on terrain than snowmobiles. If everyone stayed on the trail and only rode in dry conditions you might have an argument, but given the reality of the masses of the self absorbed Mountain Biking is unequivocally high impact. Given the colossal numbers of Mountain Bikers there isn't a plausible premise let alone a sound syllogism to indicate otherwise.

Colorado is already full of checkerboarded, tiny wilderness areas. If something is indeed a "gem" it deserves ultimate protection. Real conservationists give things up, reluctantly or not. I hope you folks can protect as much as you possibly can. To do that you're going to have to inspire a truly conservationist ethic that is as yet not present given the self serving demands we've seen here this far.

Good luck to you,

John

Here is a visual representation of Colorado's scant roadless areas. This map shows the White River National Forest, and the towns within it. The roads are displayed in red and the roadless areas are shown in green. The map is a great tool that displays just how few areas are farther than 1 mile from a road. This is the result of the National Forest's Multiple Use Doctrine, displayed visually.