|
|
|
|
madrasrock
Jul 24, 2006, 3:54 PM
Post #1 of 23
(5060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79
|
Last Year a Boy Scout was denied access to the wilderness, when kids are getting heaver and heaver, and seeing the latest data about obesity in young people of our country because they are not getting enough exercise, and with the decreasing use of the wilderness by young people that would rather play video games then explore the wilderness.
I was shocked when I head that, last summer a Boy Scout troop from Bend was cited for having too many people in the wilderness. According to the troop leader they had 13 people in the troop going in to the Three Sisters Wilderness. Knowing there was some kind of partly limit the scout troop divided the kids in to two groups. Each group traveled and camp in separate areas. But the US Forest Service sited the troop leader for having too many people in the wilderness. Just because they were from the Boy Scouts organization, that made them a group.
This got me interested in just what dose the 1964 Wilderness Act say. After extensive research I could not find any thing in the 1964 Wilderness Act or the new 2005 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, that limits the use of public lands. On the contrary in Section 3 (J) of the 2005 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act it stated “NO RESTRICTION ON RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES— Nothing in this Act shall limit the use of recreation opportunities only to areas designated for collection of recreation fees.” Congress obviously want citizens to us there public lands.
As I continued my research looking for that laws that allowed the USFS to limit the number of people using the wilderness, I found sec. (3) (a) (2) of the 1964 Wilderness Act which states “Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers.”
So according to the law the US Forest Service should have the wilderness regulations that could show me all the things I can and can not do in the wilderness.
I was very disappointed after contacting several Forest Service offices. Most of the district and forest offices did not know any thing about wilderness regulations or they would not even return my calls or e-mail’s
Only the Bend Ranger district could even supply me with any official regulation document, the “Three Sisters Wilderness Use Restrictions Deschutes National Forest” but the forest ranger I talk to did not know if the Order DES-2005-002 was the legal document stated in the Wilderness Act. But that is the one he used.
When inquiring about the regulation that limited the number of people in the wilderness. I received many, many opinions, but no one could show me the laws that the wilderness act was referring to.
Again only the Bend Ranger Districts document DES-2005-002 item #2 which states “Entering or being in the wilderness as part of a group of more than twelve people and or with more than twelve head of stock.” had any reverence to limits to public lands. The document quoted Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).36 CFR 261.57 (a) as the supporting law to there statement. The 36 CFR 261.57 (a) states “When provided by an order, the following are prohibited: (a) Entering or being in the area.”
NO one could tell me the definition of a “group” I had some USFS employees say if I knew twelve other people in the wilderness, I would be in violation of the regulation, and if more than twelve people were gathering in one place are they would be in violation of the 12 person limit. I wonder how that works at the summit of mountains? Maybe we need to take numbers to stand on the summit of a mountain.
Reading the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).36 CFR 261.57 (a) I realized that using this regulation to limit the number of people using the wilderness is really a catch all for allowing the USFS employee to use this code for any personal opinions on what they think the wilderness should be like. They could use this regulation to promote certain types of shoes, have certain types of cloths or even only allow certain kinds of people or only certain groups in to the wilderness.
So watch out the Forest Service use of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).36 CFR 261.57 (a) can and most likely will be used in any way they seem fit, because most of the employees do not even know the laws or have any ideas there is laws that regulated the wilderness. They just make it up.
|
|
|
|
|
norm1057
Jul 24, 2006, 4:22 PM
Post #2 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Posts: 104
|
Thanks for the info and the research. I worked for the Forest Service for a few years and know that most of the people you come into contact with don't have a clue about what they enforce. Nothing makes me madder than ignorance and being restricted from the land I pay for through my taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jul 24, 2006, 5:06 PM
Post #3 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
Wow- who knew?
This sort of BS with the park sevice really irks me. These are public lands which everyone pays for and everyone should have a right to access.
It sounds like the scouts did the responsible thing splitting the group into two campsites. The fact that they were still sited by some petty anal-retentive ranger is just wrong.
Sounds like you went through a lot of effort to research the laws which seem hazy to non-existent at best.
|
|
|
|
|
codhands
Jul 24, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #4 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 499
|
I think it was in 1990 went for a 3 day trek in Denali from Wonder lake to the Muldrow Glacier and back. I think that in that section we hiked (which was huge) there was like a 5 person total limit, or something like that. It struck me as odd because of the size of the designated section we were in, and we were only allowed to be there for 3 days.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 24, 2006, 5:24 PM
Post #5 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I would either fight or scoflaw that citation. I suspect the dude just doesn't like boyscouts. Maybe he's gay and this is his payback? (I'm serious, maybe he doesn't like your group no matter the numbers)
But the forest service has been enabled by congress to regulate wilderness areas. And congress certainly has the authority to regulate access to public land.
I got into a heated argument with a ranger responsible for issuing wilderness permits once. An employee on the phone said I didn't need one, the lady at the counter definitely did not agree.
I refused to concede or move out of line. Those waiting grew very impatient, but goddamnit, I was in the right.
Eventually she picked up a thick pad of forms, scribbled furiously on it, tore off the green sheet and literally threw it at me. Literally.
"There!" She said loudly (5 decibels below 'shout' threshold).
"If you don't care what we're trying to accomplish up there why should we. You people are just going to do what you want anyway."
I felt like a bully and an asshole, but I also got my permit and we did our climb. And I bet that ranger quit a long time ago. She was wrapped too tight to be dealing with the public.
I always wondered how the next few folks in line were treated. My guess was very well... she probably played the solidarity card with the other wilderness users (as they silently crossed their fingers behind their backs in hopes of getting theirs) and wrote permits willy nilly for the rest of the day.
I would have! Haha.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
picaco
Jul 24, 2006, 5:27 PM
Post #6 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2004
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: Reading the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).36 CFR 261.57 (a) I realized that using this regulation to limit the number of people using the wilderness is really a catch all for allowing the USFS employee to use this code for any personal opinions on what they think the wilderness should be like. They could use this regulation to promote certain types of shoes, have certain types of cloths or even only allow certain kinds of people or only certain groups in to the wilderness.
I think you may be jumping to some exaggerated conclusions. What would you propose to remedy this? How would you define a "group" then? The Wilderness Act of 1964 gives the agency managing the wilderness area the right to manage it as the agency sees fit to maintain the primitive environment. If that means limiting the size of groups, I'm for it. personally I'd rather have to travel in smaller groups than to see large groups traveling together disrupting the primitive and private nature that wilderness areas provide.
I do agree that the definition of a "group" needs to be defined and I disagree with the actions taken against the scout leader, although I have been unable to find any reference to this incedent.
That's my opinion, take it for what it is.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
roseraie
Jul 24, 2006, 5:53 PM
Post #7 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 439
|
I am under the impression, from stories I've heard and things I've seen, that the Boy Scouts, in general, tend to be notoriously high-impact.
Don't get me wrong. I bet your group is well-trained in Leave No Trace; you've shown how thorough you can be by how you've handled this whole USFS deal.
But... in general... Boy Scouts don't tend to be the most LNT-friendly group. They've often VERY loud (a la JTree at 5 a.m.), and they also have a penchant for the construction of their very own campsites, fire rings, benches, etc. when they set up backcountry camps. I've picked up Boy Scout campsite trash more than once. Last time I was hiking behind the Boy Scouts, I picked up a 7-mile-long trail of Jolly Rancher wrappers. (Now... I think this is a problem with children in the wilderness in general; they don't yet understand or bother to consider their impact on the environment. Children with parents can be much more closely supervised... large guided groups lend to more unsupervised travel, and therefore things slip through the cracks. The Boy Scouts just happen to be the most prominent group taking large groups of children into the backcountry.)
I think the ranger was wrong to deny you access to the wilderness area. But I can see, slightly, what he might have been thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Jul 24, 2006, 6:20 PM
Post #8 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: Last Year a Boy Scout was denied access to the wilderness...
"A" boy scout?
In reply to: I was shocked when I head that, last summer a Boy Scout troop from Bend was cited for having too many people in the wilderness. According to the troop leader they had 13 people in the troop going in to the Three Sisters Wilderness. Knowing there was some kind of partly limit the scout troop divided the kids in to two groups.
You wouldn't be shocked if you read management plans.
I think all BLM, Forest Service, NPS, etc, agencies set group limits, regardless of whether an area is wilderness or not. Its in their management plans, which are mandated from above them.
I see it abused here a bunch. The scout masters, in whispering tones, cautioning the kids to tell any ranger they see that they're really two different groups. Great.
There's no question, at least here, that the scouts are a huge user and abuser of public land (see the FS lawsuit on the huge Uinta fire, for example). I think group size limits make some sense, is that a huge jamboree would most likely trash an area pretty soundly. What "should" those limits really be? I dunno. I the case of the scouts, maybe one scout master, and one kid (ha ha). Be difficult to try to manage every group with a different limit, so, they pick 12.
Anyhoo, the USFS is mandated to set user group limits per their management plans, which is mandated from above them.
I think its great that kids get outdoors and play. But, they do trash the ever livin' heck out of an area too, especially in large numbers. Unfortunate that they have to be "managed", but, these land managers are tasked with, well, managing the land.
-Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
madrasrock
Jul 24, 2006, 7:32 PM
Post #10 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79
|
I think you really need to read the Wilderness Act. It dose not allow the USFS to manage the wilderness at they fit. Congress gave many directions they just want to ignore them. Read: of the act.
Sec. 4. (a)
(3) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been
established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.
It is very clear the wilderness is for the people not for the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
|
madrasrock
Jul 24, 2006, 7:44 PM
Post #11 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79
|
But management plans can not supersede laws, and many times they do, mostly because the people writing the management plans never read the law.
Under (sec3) (a)
(2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers.
It is very clear in the act that the USFS is to supply anyone Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations. I challenge any one to walk in to any USFS office and ask for the Wilderness Act Regualtions.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jul 24, 2006, 7:49 PM
Post #12 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: I think you really need to read the Wilderness Act. It dose not allow the USFS to manage the wilderness at they fit. Congress gave many directions they just want to ignore them. Read: of the act. Sec. 4. (a) (3) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.
Or to quote the same section:
Sec. 4. (a)
(3) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been
established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.
Limiting group sizes accomplishes these goals and IMO is a positive for any wilderness area. You're just upset because someone got caught trying to create a loophole.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Jul 24, 2006, 7:54 PM
Post #13 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: But management plans can not supersede laws, and many times they do, mostly because the people writing the management plans never read the law.
Interpret. Not supercede.
Is the Wilderness Act, a law, ie, does IT supercede other laws? Probably not. Requires some interpretation. Which is what each USFS office tries to do, many times with input from the users.
In reply to: Under (sec3) (a) (2) Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers. It is very clear in the act that the USFS is to supply anyone Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations. I challenge any one to walk in to any USFS office and ask for the Wilderness Act Regualtions.
That's not what they are asked to have. Reread the above. They apply the Wilderness Act.
I've never been to a FS office that doesn't have maps, descriptions and regulations available.
The regulations are based on managing the wilderness and interpretting as they see fit.
These regulations, ie, management plans, come under review all the time, and there's always room for public input.
-Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
madrasrock
Jul 24, 2006, 10:14 PM
Post #14 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79
|
Yes I am upset the, the real issue in not the 12 people but is the USFS obeying the law or just making it up. Do they have too much authority on who can use public lands? You can not get a correct or even the same answer out of any two USFS offices. But I know there is only one law.
I can not find any where there is a CFR or a laws that says only 12 people or 25 people in a group can be in the wilderness. Like the Deschutes National Forest the Black Hill National Forest used CFR 36 SEC 261.57 (a)
CFR 261.57 National Forest wilderness.
When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:
(a) Entering or being in the area.
(b) Possessing camping or pack-outfitting equipment, as specified in the order.
(c) Possessing a firearm or firework.
(d) Possessing any non-burnable food or beverage containers, including deposit
bottles, except for non-burnable containers designed and intended for repeated use.
(e) Grazing.
(f) Storing equipment, personal property or supplies.
(g) Disposing of debris, garbage, or other waste.
(h) Possessing or using a wagon, cart or other vehicle.
But the Black Hill says you can have 25 people, in their wilderness.
Order Number: BHNF-062-2
Page 1 of 1
ORDER
OCCUPANCY AND USE RESTRICTIONS
BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST
BLACK ELK WILDERNESS
Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50 (a) and (b), the following acts are prohibited in the Black Elk Wilderness.
1.Entering or being in the Black Elk Wilderness as part of a group larger than 25
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SAN GORGONIO WILDERNESS USE REGULATIONS
THE FOLLOWING ARE PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL CODE OF REGULATIONS (CFR):
1. Entering or being in a National Forest Wilderness without possessing a Wilderness Permit (Adobe Acrobat required) to show on request. 36 CFR 261.57(a)
2. As of 1998, open campfires of any kind are PROHIBITED within the San Gorgonio Wilderness. More details.
3. Use of trail, campsite, or other area in the San Gorgonio Wilderness by a group larger than 12 (twelve) persons or having more than 8 stock animals. 36 CFR 261.58(f)
I find it interesting that San Gorgonio wilderness in using 261.58 (f) to limit the use of there wilderness. Do you agree with their interpitation (sp?)of the regulation?
CFR 261.58 Occupancy and use.
(f) Using a campsite or other area described in the order by more than the number of users allowed by the order.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The bottom line with all of this. Can the USFS say NO one can use the wilderness or only Sierra club member can use the wilderness, will CFR (b) prohibit the use of ropes, crampons or anything else the USFS wants to come up with..
CFR 261.57 National Forest wilderness.
When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:
(a) Entering or being in the area.
(b) Possessing camping or pack-outfitting equipment, as specified in the order.
|
|
|
|
|
picaco
Jul 25, 2006, 12:11 AM
Post #15 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2004
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think you really need to read the Wilderness Act. It dose not allow the USFS to manage the wilderness at they fit. Congress gave many directions they just want to ignore them. Read: of the act. Sec. 4. (a) (3) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Or to quote the same section: Sec. 4. (a) (3) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Limiting group sizes accomplishes these goals and IMO is a positive for any wilderness area. You're just upset because someone got caught trying to create a loophole.
Here, here! It seems that Madrasrock is caught up in his own opinion and has a classic case of tunnel vision in regards to anything that goes against that. Just b/c one wilderness area has a limit of 25 and another has a limit of 12 doesn't make one better than the other. The law gives the managing party the authority to manage the wilderness area as they see fit, if that means limiting group sizes, then I'm all for it. I'd rather see these areas preserved for my kids and if that means pissing some boy scout leader off, well then so be it.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Jul 25, 2006, 2:13 AM
Post #16 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
picaco said
In reply to: I'd rather see these areas preserved for my kids and if that means pissing some boy scout leader off, well then so be it. |
|
|
|
|
norm1057
Jul 25, 2006, 2:33 AM
Post #17 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Posts: 104
|
It would appear that the managing agency is able to make the right decision about the appropriate impact for an area. However, there is no set standard that the Forest Service follows.
The Forest Service caters to motorcycle racers in the Lincoln National Forest annually. Four years ago, I took my boys up the hill squirrel hunting. We were faced with at least 50 vehicles parked in the middle of a Forest Service road where they were fueling and servicing the dirt bikes as they came through. Every one of these individuals glared at us as we worked through the chaos to get further down the road as if we were wrong and should have known better than to be there. Fortunately, my shotgun was in the rack. But, most disturbing was who we found and the end of the line. It was the Forest Service rep monitoring the events, claiming that the appropriate permits were issued. Now I understand that this was not a wilderness area. However, the impact from that many two stroke motorcycles blaring through an established elk calving area, both on and off road, is hypocritical. Especially, when more and more roads and trails are closed to all motorized users by the time the big game hunts start in this area.
The only consistent thing the Forest Service does is not establish and follow any type of standard. They hide behind ambiguous federal codes and depending on the area establish inconsistent policy.
Personally, I pride myself on teaching my two boys how to be ethical and considerate outdoorsmen. Always to be aware of the impact they make on the surroundings. But, it's hard to send a consistent message when the managing agency does not have one.
|
|
|
|
|
norm1057
Jul 25, 2006, 2:34 AM
Post #18 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Posts: 104
|
It would appear that the managing agency is able to make the right decision about the appropriate impact for an area. However, there is no set standard that the Forest Service follows.
The Forest Service caters to motorcycle racers in the Lincoln National Forest annually. Four years ago, I took my boys up the hill squirrel hunting. We were faced with at least 50 vehicles parked in the middle of a Forest Service road where they were fueling and servicing the dirt bikes as they came through. Every one of these individuals glared at us as we worked through the chaos to get further down the road as if we were wrong and should have known better than to be there. Fortunately, my shotgun was in the rack. But, most disturbing was who we found and the end of the line. It was the Forest Service rep monitoring the events, claiming that the appropriate permits were issued. Now I understand that this was not a wilderness area. However, the impact from that many two stroke motorcycles blaring through an established elk calving area, both on and off road, is hypocritical. Especially, when more and more roads and trails are closed to all motorized users by the time the big game hunts start in this area.
The only consistent thing the Forest Service does is not establish and follow any type of standard. They hide behind ambiguous federal codes and depending on the area establish inconsistent policy.
Personally, I pride myself on teaching my two boys how to be ethical and considerate outdoorsmen. Always to be aware of the impact they make on the surroundings. But, it's hard to send a consistent message when the managing agency does not have one.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Jul 25, 2006, 3:46 AM
Post #19 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
The Wilderness Act of 1964 is one of the most brilliant pieces of legislature ever having had the good luck, timing, and wherewithal to be ratified. You can be damn sure that in the current climate --political, resource-intensive, recreational, economic, you name it-- that the same language wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
To the original poster: your frustration is certainly palpable, but this won't give you much credence as far as land managers and government are concerned. The fact of the matter is that you have selectively bolded sections of the statutes you quote, and doing so belies the intention and (moreso) the statutes as a whole.
For example:
In reply to: Sec. 4. (a) (3) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.
What you neglect to observe is that the language above your bolded section literally supercedes what you focus on. The primary language of the above is:
In reply to: ...each agency... shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area
Each land management agency --NPS, BLM, USDA Forest Service-- must treat this language as of primary importance. Limiting your group size is a very small wedge into your discomfort, and it would behoove you and your Scouts to use this as a learning opportunity, not just of civil disobedience and "scofflawing" when perhaps appropriate (luv ya Dingus), but of the importance of Wilderness on a scale greater than that of your own experience.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
Jul 25, 2006, 3:44 PM
Post #20 of 23
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: Yes I am upset the, the real issue in not the 12 people but is the USFS obeying the law or just making it up. Do they have too much authority on who can use public lands? The bottom line with all of this. Can the USFS say NO one can use the wilderness or only Sierra club member can use the wilderness, will CFR (b) prohibit the use of ropes, crampons or anything else the USFS wants to come up with...
They set group limits based on a bunch of info, methinks, like, over use of an area, current use and popularity, resource protection issues, visitor experience, etc etc. Different agencies set the limits (and any other regulations) based on the issues that affect the land that they specifically manage, which is a good thing, methinks.
They have to consider all sorts of federal laws, rules, guidelines, NEPA, etc. when they issue a management plan for an area. Its a pretty cool process, with plenty of opportunity for public input. Surf "negotiated rulemaking wilderness bolts" as an example.
How do the scouts deal with this?
"Man always kills the thing he loves, and so we, the pioneers, have killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. Be that as it may, I am glad I shall never be young without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" Aldo Leopold
(from a BSA LNT document!)
http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/21-117/064_principles.html
In reply to: 7. Be Considerate of Other Visitors Thoughtful campers respect other visitors and protect the quality of their experience. Travel and camp in small groups (no more than the group size prescribed by land managers).
http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/21-117/031_plan.html
In reply to: Other Considerations When Trip Planning Take the following elements into consideration during trip planning. You may want to add to this list. Group size (Does it meet land management regulations, trip purpose, and Leave No Trace criteria?)
http://www.tsisqan.org/camping/wilderness.html
In reply to: Contact the landowner or land managing agency (Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, State, and private, etc.) well in advance of the outing to learn the regulations for that area and to obtain required permits and current maps. Always obtain a tour permit, available through the Council Service Center, meet the conditions specified and carry it on the trip with you. Limit the size of the groups generally to no more than 8 to 11 persons, including at least two adult leaders. Do not exceed the group size that has been established for the wilderness area.
My bet is if you knew about Research Natural Areas, you'd be really pissed...
-Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
madrasrock
Jul 26, 2006, 9:43 PM
Post #21 of 23
(5060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79
|
It is very interesting to be in a forum about Access that so much thought is dedicated to the Boy Scouts and they are not the real issue, I just happened to hear about this instance with some details. The real issue is access to our wilderness. Are we loosing it?
Picaco has a lot more trust in the USFS managers than I do, but he has a good point, about one USFS agency allowing 12 and another allowing 25 people in a group. But is it a difference in management, inconsistency of management or is it political? What do you think?
Even thought more people are using the wilderness over the past thirty years. From 1989 – 1994 that increase have slowed to only 17%. If this is a down ward trend, are we protecting the wilderness in to obliteration?
Un-like Picaco’s kids and my kids if the next generation is not allowed to use the wilderness and appreciate the wilderness. The next generation of video game society, will sell it.
Next time you go hiking or climbing just note how old the people are. It only took one law in 1964 to create the wilderness act and it will one take one law in 2064 to turn it in to a housing development.
Thanks for a great discussion
PS: What is a group? Ask you local USFS ranger.
|
|
|
|
|
lowballin
Jul 31, 2006, 10:20 PM
Post #22 of 23
(5060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2005
Posts: 67
|
bottom line here is. if a group of 5 people trek through then a day later 5 more people trek through the same trail, isnt that the same damn thing as 10 people trekking through at the same time. all in all most laws are bullshit. there is no god only laws......................................................
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Jul 31, 2006, 11:39 PM
Post #23 of 23
(5060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: bottom line here is. if a group of 5 people trek through then a day later 5 more people trek through the same trail, isnt that the same damn thing as 10 people trekking through at the same time.
As far as "feet on the ground," yes, your simple math proves correct.
However, wilderness (and furthermore "Wilderness" is not this simple. The most way to think about your same anaology: as a solo trekker in the same area, how is your experience different:
1) alone
2) as the sixth
3) as the eleventh
Wilderness designations are granted by an Act of Congress for Federal land that retains a "primeval character" and that has no (permanent or semi-permanent) human habitation or development; human visitation and recreation is thus restricted. The "Wilderness" experience of one or a group is decreased incrementally with each interaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
