Hello fellow Summit Posters. As a group of committed folks passionate about the wild places where we hike, climb, and recreate, I am asking that you take a moment to become familiar with a hot topic here in Colorado's Roaring Fork Valley. I have recently gotten involved with the <a href=http://www.whiteriverwild.org>Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign</a>. The campaign aims to protect several hundred thousand acres of beautiful, unspoiled public land in Pitkin, Gunnison, Eagle, and Summit Counties through the creation of an official wilderness area. <a href=http://www.whiteriverwild.org/white-river-national-forest.php> See an interactive map here</a>.

If passed by congress, this new wilderness area will be different from the typical wilderness area (e.g., Maroon Bells - Snowmass, Eagles Nest, Holy Cross) because the Hidden Gems aims to protect the 'middle elevations'. These elevations have a higher portion of biodiversity than the typical 'high elevations' that are protected under most existing wilderness areas. Additionally, these elevations act as vibrant wildlife corridors and are currently being threatened by encroaching land development and extractive industries.

We have started to present the Hidden Gems proposal to the area's county commissions and town councils, and the proposal has been well received. But now that the campaign is in full public view, the motorized community (ORV) is starting to mobilize against it. As part of a climbing community, it is important to point out that the Hidden Gems campaign has worked with local climbers to draw boundaries around existing and future sport climbing areas where mechanized bolting will be allowed to continue. Thus the local climbing community is behind our proposal.

We are asking that people who are interested in protecting our public lands send their elected officials emails and letters in support for the Hidden Gems. Even if you don't live in one of the aforementioned counties, your support is still much appreciated! Click on any link below to go to the relevant page on the Hidden Gems' website:
• Write to your members of Congress
• Write to your county commissioners
• Write a letter to the editor


Once you follow the links above, you can find links to talking points, letter-writing tips and sample letters.
One shocking statistic that I have found while working on this campaign is that "only 2.73% of the lower 48 states is protected as wilderness – about the same percentage that is paved." <a href=http://www.whiteriverwild.org>-Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign</a>. Think about the unique opportunity that we have in front of us. If we all work together, one day you will be able to take your kids on a hike in a Hidden Gems Wilderness Area and tell them that you helped to protect the beautiful landscape!
<a href=http://www.wildernessworkshop.org/our-work.html?page=147>WILD FOR GOOD!
</a>

B, I'm posting the opposition's take on this for a balance. Frankly I'm puzzled regarding which avenue to take.

Say NO to the Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign
Category: Common Interest - Beliefs & Causes
Description: Environmentalists and conservationists seeking a more thoughtful solution for protecting our wild lands than applying the Wilderness designation which excludes all but hikers.

The Hidden Gems folks have not been honest. They have not been forthright. They have not been transparent. They lack accountability, process and oversight. They published "Articles for a Successful Negotiation", asked all stakeholders to agree to them, then promply violated their own document when it became advantageous for them to do so.

Protection of many of these parcels is a good thing. Some of them should even be designated as Wilderness, but this group and a vocal contingent of its members dislikes everyone but themseleves.

The introduction and subsequent passing of the Hidden Gems agenda would preclude any use other than hiking for time immemorial. Many of these parcels DO NOT QUALIFY as wilderness, yet the Gems folks have asked for EVERYTHING and have lined up congressional support from people who don't even live here.

Ask about watershed protection.
Ask about wildfire mitigation in the face of the pine beetle devastation.
Ask about walking your dog off-leash in Wilderness.
Ask about riding your mountain bike.
Ask about the policy of making an end-run around the accepted practice of allowing the USFS to determine Wilderness designations through the Travel Management process.

Most importantly, ask that your elected officials demand ALTERNATIVE DESIGNATIONS (Nat'l Protection Area, Nat'l Conservation Area, Nat'l Recreation Area) in lieu of Wilderness. They CAN be written and codified by Congress to afford the same protections as wilderness, while still allowing for local, on-the-ground decision making and management

MarthaP wrote:B, I'm posting the opposition's take on this for a balance. Frankly I'm puzzled regarding which avenue to take.

You gotta admit, they're really shooting for the moon here, eh? That's a TON of new wilderness lands they're proposing!

You bring up a good point, Ryan. A couple hundred thousand acres isn't much.

But take a look at the map. Why is it so disjointed? What sense is there to have a spot of land protected here and another spot of land somewhere else? Or am I reading this wrong and it's actually unifying some of the current wilderness areas? Hard to tell.

In addition, good questions were raised regarding Wilderness access limitations v national protection access, yada yada yada. Wilderness is limited to hiking and climbing? I'm not big on motorized vehicles of any kind, but what's wrong with MTB?s Horseback? They're no more destructive than a constant stream of climbers...

http://www.whiteriverwild.org/white-river-national-forest.php

MarthaP wrote:You bring up a good point, Ryan. A couple hundred thousand acres isn't much.

To be clear, my opinion is that that's plenty of acreage! I'd say they're overreaching. (Maybe that's the plan? Ask for the world, and take what you can get?) I didn't see any significant unification, but perhaps I didn't look closely enough. Expansion was the sense I got from reviewing the map.

AFAIK, horses are permitted in federal wilderness.

I'm picking at a minor point of yours -- and maybe it's just my bias speaking -- but I'd argue that ruts caused by MTBs have substantially more impact on a trail than do boot soles.

Ah...I thought you were being facetious.

MTB ruts v boot soles? Potentially a significantly greater impact from the former. But I can also bet that social trails will develop, many will widen to avoid muddy spots or snow patches given this is a mid-elevation area and will be stomping ground for a lot of, uh, non-conservation minded hikers. And then those climbers....eroding shortcuts, pooping at route bases...I'm not saying this wouldn't happen anyway but I've been around wall rats enough to see the damage they cause, too.

Just playing devil's advocate here. Might research the differences among the designations and post up tomorrow. I'm just interested in knowing what's up.

We've had this debate on 14ers.com, I think there needs to be a balance struck in the final proposal.

I have hiked in at least 15 of the proposed areas, most of them are completely devoid of roads and trails and many have thick forested areas that no one could ride a snowmobile in anyway. Many of the areas are "infill" to existing wilderness, say a trailhead is 2 miles from the wilderness boundary, or the wilderness boundary is 1/2 mile from the I-70 or CO 82 but parallels the highway. To me those areas are "no brainers" - add them to the wilderness. They already act as such anyway because they are completely impractical for any kind of motorized or mechanized use.

However, there are many areas - seem to be primarily in areas near the Flat Tops and some areas west of Carbondale. That have existing roads and are used by many off roaders (mainly in hunting season) or by snowmobilers that probably make a lot of sense to take out of the bill and leave "as is".

I think if it is already naturally acting as a wilderness area, where is the harm to motorized and mechanized users in officially designating it as such? They can't physically use the area anyway without cutting in new roads or renegade trails. Likewise some of the areas that are popular with off road enthusiasts see little to no hiking activity.

To me both sides are acting quite selfishly, the claim in the quoted article MarthaP posted that "this group and a vocal contingent of its members dislikes everyone but themselves." could easily be turned right back on the motorized and mechanized users who are trying to kill the whole bill over certain parcels in it that they specifically have a problem with. (Edit - I have seen MTB advocacy groups say they should be allowed to use these lands, but not ATVs, and some Snowmobilers say they should be allowed by not MTBs or ATV)

I think its important to fine tune this bill and get the right areas designated as wilderness. While its a bit over ambitious the way the proposal stands today, it would be a shame to have the whole bill killed over a few parcels. This is not an "all or nothing" bill, there should be a balance somewhere in between that provides the protection many of these areas deserve while not stepping on the toes of other user groups. The ultimate goal of both groups is to keep these lands public for future enjoyment, they should be working together to get there.

Awesome, Chicago. your perspective is really helpful.

MarthaP wrote:Awesome, Chicago. your perspective is really helpful.

Check out the maps here:

http://www.whiteriverwild.org/p-proposal-areas-alpha-71.html

For example, the Corral Creek proposed parcel is the strip of land between I-70 and Eagles Nest Wilderness west of Vail Pass. Probably makes a lot of sense to add it to Eagles Nest Wilderness, its just a thin strip of land paralleling an interstate that makes no sense to have any other uses in. Hardly anyone even hikes it!

But then look at Thompson Creek and see that they propose to "decomission" several roads that are currently open to all uses. Its not really much of a wilderness area the way it is. Hidden Gems claims its at risk for oil and gas development. Fine, so call it a Special Recreation Area or some other designation that keeps bikes, ATVs and snowmobiles allowed to use it, but keeps the land public.

chicagotransplant wrote:I think its important to fine tune this bill and get the right areas designated as wilderness. While its a bit over ambitious the way the proposal stands today, it would be a shame to have the whole bill killed over a few parcels. This is not an "all or nothing" bill, there should be a balance somewhere in between that provides the protection many of these areas deserve while not stepping on the toes of other user groups.

It's not a bill yet, correct? Or did I miss something?

Martha: I agree that it's tough to quantify impact, though this isn't a debate I care to get into today

You've got it. Maybe tomorrow?

Martha, thanks for posting a bit of the other side of the argument. It certainly is a hot topic here in Colorado, and I truly feel that it is important for people to hear both sides. I want everyone to make their own decision regarding the future of these public lands. The issue that I have with quoting Lou Dawson's (whom I respect) FaceBook page (which you quoted) is that it is full of misinformation and blatant lies. Here are a couple of his quotes:

"the Wilderness designation excludes all but hikers."

This is simply not true. Horseback riding, rafting, canoeing, photography, kayaking, skiing, bird watching, snowshoeing, visiting via wheelchair, creating art, and wildlife viewing are other activities and user groups that are permitted in wilderness.

"The Hidden Gems folks... lack accountability, process and oversight."

He also says that the Hidden Gems'

"group and a vocal contingent of its members dislikes everyone but themseleves."

I am not sure what Lou is referring to here. The Wilderness Workshop has been working with different interest groups (local climbers, RFMBA www.rfmba.org , local land owners, and the forest service) for years. The Wilderness Workshop's proposal has been a fluid process based on oversight and accountability. For months the Workshop has been sending (and is still sending) volunteers into the field to check boundaries, speak to different interest groups that are using the existing public lands, create more accurate maps, etc. In many cases these outings have produced changes in the proposal. In fact, the current proposal includes less than half of the "wilderness-quality acerage" that was identified by the original inventory. Specifically, it has conceded “more than 35,000 acres of proposed wilderness [in order] to preserve 18 different mountain bike routes totaling 74 miles”. This is just one example of how the Wilderness Workshop has worked with local interest groups, attempting to find a win-win situation.

For those of you looking to get more information on the issue, here is a more balanced article showing the main groups that are involved in the debate:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20090 ... /FRONTPAGE

I admit, I should have posted this link first. Then again, I wouldn't have thought the issue would be so contentious on a peak bagging site. I mean, aren't we really all for the preservation of our public lands? I think the basic problem that people have with the proposal is based on a misunderstanding which has been spread by RFMBA. This notion is that the Hidden Gems Proposal will eliminate a lot of areas that are currently being used by mountain bikers, snowmobilers, and ATVs. This is simply not true! If you disagree, please tell me which trails that you use are going to be closed by the Hidden Gems Proposal. In fact, the Wilderness Workshop has been asking the public to do just this. Specifically, the ad they placed in the paper last week asks the following: “So, we're throwing the question out to everyone who mountain bikes in our valley: Do you ride any of those six trails? And, if so, is being able to ride them more important to you than protecting the surrounding area from the encroachments of resource extraction, roads and motorized vehicles?”
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20090 ... /909179969

A few last words: while I enjoy all kinds of recreational activities, I feel that the preservation of these lands is far more important than my recreating on them. In fact, I still plan to recreate on them. I just hope to be able to do it at a walking pace, along with other people and organisms also enjoying these unspoiled locations at the same pace.

Just in case you don't believe that I enjoy recreation other than hiking, here is a photo of me ATVing, mountain biking, and snowmobiling!
www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=556926

I am meeting with the Wilderness Workshop folks tomorrow and would be happy to bring any questions or comments to them.

BLong wrote:For months the Workshop has been sending (and is still sending) volunteers into the field to check boundaries, speak to different interest groups that are using the existing public lands, create more accurate maps, etc. In many cases these outings have produced changes in the proposal. In fact, the current proposal includes less than half of the "wilderness-quality acerage" that was identified by the original inventory. Specifically, it has conceded “more than 35,000 acres of proposed wilderness [in order] to preserve 18 different mountain bike routes totaling 74 miles”. This is just one example of how the Wilderness Workshop has worked with local interest groups, attempting to find a win-win situation.

This is exactly what I think they should be doing, and am glad that they have been doing. I know there was some contention around Woods Lake (an area I have visited) due to some existing private cabins that were going to be cut off, but they worked out the boundary and now it goes around all of the private land and still provides them access.

BLong wrote:I admit, I should have posted this link first. Then again, I wouldn't have thought the issue would be so contentious on a peak bagging site. I mean, aren't we really all for the preservation of our public lands? I think the basic problem that people have with the proposal is based on a misunderstanding which has been spread by RFMBA. This notion is that the Hidden Gems Proposal will eliminate a lot of areas that are currently being used by mountain bikers, snowmobilers, and ATVs. This is simply not true! If you disagree, please tell me which trails that you use are going to be closed by the Hidden Gems Proposal. In fact, the Wilderness Workshop has been asking the public to do just this.

Personally all of the areas I have visited are roadless, trailless and receive my 100% support. In talking with other users of areas that I am unfamiliar with (mainly in the Flattops and Carbondale area) they are concerned over many roads being "decomissioned" that they use for hunting access or snowmobiling in the winter. I agree that they should be working to preserve these lands as "public" with Wilderness Workshop, but perhaps in some of the proposed areas another designation is appropriate other than "wilderness" that preserves the land as public but allows for MTB, ATV and snowmobile use.

I think ultimately why I am such an advocate for compromise is that I want a strong bill that has buy-in from these other user groups to be what is presented to Congress. Congress doesn't know anything about these lands, they only know what we and what others tell them about it. If there is buy-in and support across the spectrum of outdoor users, it will be a stronger bill that will have a better chance of passing in Congress.

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!

RyanS wrote:It's not a bill yet, correct? Or did I miss something?

Correct, its a "work in progress" I guess is what I am trying to say. Fine tuning it to get more support before it goes to Congress will give it the best chance of successfully passing.