Huge land closure proposed for Sierra Nevada range.

[daveb]

I'm not in favor of heavy business type development throughout all public lands but there is plenty of acreage out there to keep open for recreational activities. I'm all for adding and creating more forest land by planting and realistic management. But I don't want to lock it down so the public can't use it.

[rob_gendreau]

Originally Posted by dhally

The regulations can be undone or changed in the future if that is the sentiment then.

Ah, there's the rub. Unfortunately I don't believe this is true. Advocacy organizations fight like crazed wolverines at even the most reasoned changes in protection levels. They are super sensitive to the fear of precedent, even though from my legal perspective I think they're nuts. The last time I saw land go to a less-protected status was Hetch Hetchy, and they're still citing that precedent.

Some examples recently here in CA were Yosemite planning and the Merced River's status, and the oyster farm in Pt. Reyes. I'm not opining about the substance of those issues, just the forms of the arguments against the changes.

And it's even more nuts right near me; some folks object to even the removal of ANY trees for fire suppression, even if they're non-native and a threat to other species and the native ecology.

The truly tragic part of this is that it sometimes produces lose-lose results. And is counter-productive even if you are a preservationist. Compare the results that groups like the Nature Conservancy have achieved vs. the confrontational preservation groups; they work with people to build consensus, so that you don't wind up with a binary choice like official wilderness vs. strip mine. I was very impressed with joint efforts between groups like them and the military around some nice spots in CA; they were able to buy development rights or get land donated near places like Vandenburg because the military sensibly wants a buffer and no housing near them, and the groups wanna preserve some really nice coastal areas. When reasonable people work together, we can all win (cue kumbaya )....

[jage]

I'd say that's brutal and overreaching, i.e. sure to fail, but then again yesterday I could buy rifle magazines and today I cannot.

[TraceyAZ]

Originally Posted by rob_gendreau

Ah, there's the rub. Unfortunately I don't believe this is true. Advocacy organizations fight like crazed wolverines at even the most reasoned changes in protection levels. They are super sensitive to the fear of precedent, even though from my legal perspective I think they're nuts.

Yep, that struck me as well....
We have issues like this crop up here as well. I get remarks from forest service employes like "you will need an act of congress to get it re-opened" Or "its just easier and less expensive to keep the gates locked" Like a lot of rights and freedoms once they take, close or what ever the situation may be it gets very difficult to get them back or re-opened.

Originally Posted by jage

I'd say that's brutal and overreaching, i.e. sure to fail, but then again yesterday I could buy rifle magazines and today I cannot.

[dhally]

Originally Posted by TraceyAZ

... Like a lot of rights and freedoms once they take, close or what ever the situation may be it gets very difficult to get them back or re-opened...

Historically it was a fight to create the national forests in the first place. "They" (conservationists) argued that the forests should be protected for the benefit of all. "Us" argued that resource extraction and land transfer to those who worked in the forest should continue unchecked, and creating forest reserves was over-reaching the government's role (infringing on "us's" rights and freedoms).

If "we" had won that fight, it's possible that all the productive forest land would now, after 100 years, be privately owned (through homesteading), fenced, and gated. Imagine what access for camping and wheeling would be like...

[TraceyAZ]

Im glad they did fight to get it. I grew up in a state that had almost none, when I moved out west many years ago I was so happy to be able to use these public lands. But like a lot of groups they, the conservationist have grown large and well funded. I just don't believe that in 20 years when they are done studying how they messed it up the first time that they will be willing to re-open it just like that.
Hopefully both sides of the situation in that area will be able to come to a good conclusion for everyone, now and for the future to enjoy.

[daveb]

The deal was 100+ years ago this was a younger nation on the build. Sure, we are still kind of in a building mode but resources were thought of a bit differently back then. Even though they raped the forest, many forests before man touched them did not look like today's green lush lands we have today mainly due to fires. We have nurtured the land over the years and that has been a good thing IMO.
Take hunting for instance. It was a free for all early on and part of survival. But those who raped the herds threw things out of balance. Management was necessary to promote the species. That is the key. By proper control and management the land can be one of many uses. The idea is to restrict within reason, not cut it off like many self minded groups want to do. I've seen areas messed up by people and within 15 years you would never know anybody had ever been there.

Seems like our country is becoming so black and white in so many issues that it's almost funny. There is almost always a middle ground to be had but nobody wants to go there, and that applies to almost everything

[stanw909]

Still a mostly free country as of today .happy Juy 4th. BTW. Agenda 21. Very real. United Nations don't cha know.

[rob_gendreau]

It isn't necessary "us" vs conservationists these days, or even then.

Aside from railroads, lumber baron and strip miners who just wanted to take our (public) land for their own benefit, there were (and are) skirmishes between conservationists and preservationists.

Conservationists are the folks like Pinchot and Republican/Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt; not only did they want to keep land public, but felt it should be used to benefit all, it's highest and best use. They were motivated both by what we'd now call environmental considerations (TR was a super-outdoorsman), but also by progressivism (rather a different Republican then).

Preservationists were folks like John Muir, who advocated keeping public land for it's own sake; to be used for some recreational purposes, but mostly for it's own sake.

The clash of these two ideas was seen in the struggle about damming Hetch Hetchy: conservationists saw its utility as a public water source for San Francisco, preservationists wanted it left alone. It was a strong factor in the creation and growth of the Sierra Club, and they're still fighting over it. Muir lost the battle, the dam was built, but perhaps won the war: you'll probably never see a dam in a national park again.

And that, children, explains why you can do lotsa stuff in national forests (from grazing your cows to shooting your gun) that you can't do in national parks.

I appreciate both points of view; I just wish both weren't always so stuck in their positions, and that more compromise was possible. But I'd probably say that about a lot of things in life....

Rob

[daveb]

They are going full bore now around my neck of the woods. During my trip up to Leavitt Lake a few things popped up that really bothered me to the point of thinking my van won't be getting much use in the future years if things keep going like I'm seeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFuSvjxF ... e=youtu.be

First off the rangers up at Leavitt told me that they plan to close off half of the camping area by next year. Now they already have cut off a large area up there that used to be open, so the dispersed camping is shrinking and my guess is it will be completely closed in the near future. Lets hope not. Yeah right.

So during the trip and looking for more camping spots I was surprised to find a number of trails to camps now closed that have been open for years. I've been camping at these spots since a little kid during the 1960's. After more research I've found over 20 spots I have camped at now closed to vehicles. One person coming in to one of these areas said the same thing was going on in Idaho. Sounds like it does have to do with this Motor Vehicle Use Map along with any other excuse to close off our lands to only a few.
Most of the hunting people (or other campers) don't even know about this. What I feared is coming true and unless this MVUM garbage is changed and some common sense measures are re-established, things don't look good for boon docking or dispersed camping . Welcome to the cram packed paved campground folks.