|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
May 13, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #1 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Here's a little back story on the following newspaper article:
The Clinton Administration designated some 6 million acres of land in Utah as potential wilderness. Only Congress can establish the Wilderness designation, so this land was considered a "Wilderness Study Area" giving it the same protection as wilderness on a temporary basis.
The Utah state government thought this was unfair, and filed a lawsuit in federal court. I'm not sure what their grievance was, but I believe it was that the new wilderness violated public right of way. What that means is, cows and "off-road enthusiasts" wouldn't be able to use the land anymore.
Recently, the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton announced that she had negotiated a deal with Utah Governor, Mike Leavitt that Utah will drop the lawsuit and she will drop the wilderness protection.
This irked many of us, as it was done behind closed doors, without public debate.
Here's the story....
Outdoor Group Threatens to Leave Utah Over Land Deal
By Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune
Mountaineer Peter Metcalf has found that whether seeking a foothold on a snowy peak or trying to get the governor's attention, it all comes down the type of crampon on your boot -- and where you put it.
Metcalf found a $24 million model -- the threatened loss of Outdoor Retailer trade show revenue -- did the trick in expressing outrage over Gov. Mike Leavitt's recent surprise deal with Interior Secretary Gale Norton to release nearly 6 million acres of federal land in Utah from temporary wilderness protection.
"This back-room deal with Secretary Norton is 100 percent antithetical to what the outdoor industry is all about," Metcalf said Monday, explaining why the two trade shows, which generate an estimated $12 million each in annual economic impact to Utah, stand in peril of being moved to another state after seven years here.
Leavitt does not want that to happen, and has tentatively agreed to meet with Metcalf and other outdoor industry representatives -- perhaps as soon as early next week -- in hopes of selling them on his environmental bona fides.
"This is really an issue of making sure people understand this administration supports additional wilderness in our state," Leavitt spokeswoman Natalie Gochnour said. "We want to find common ground . . . with the outdoor industry."
Metcalf's threat to push for moving the shows to another locale, perhaps Colorado, carries weight for a couple reasons. For one, he is more than just the co-founder of Black Diamond Equipment Ltd., a business specializing in mountain climbing and backcountry skiing gear.
"Peter is on our manufacturing advisory board and a very influential member of our organization," said Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Association, whose 1,100 members are the prime movers behind the Outdoor Retailer shows.
"As a whole, our industry has serious problems with behind-the-scenes settlements," he added.
"Outdoor recreation has been a second-class citizen when it comes to decisions like this. Public land issues deserve public debate."
Hugelmeyer, who supported Metcalf in a Friday letter to Leavitt, hopes to attend the meeting with the governor and his staff. The outdoor association desires a "positive relationship with all policy-makers," he stressed, but will not shy from pulling the shows if not satisfied with the outcome of the coming talks.
"Words are words, actions are actions," Hugelmeyer said. "To be honest, we are not seeing positive actions coming from the governor's office. This [deal with Norton] opens millions of acres of quality lands to situations that could degrade them."
It was the latest crisis for the governor related to the pact. Last week, 10 environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the deal, under which Utah agreed to drop a 1996 lawsuit it had filed over temporary wilderness study areas.
However, Gochnour contends Leavitt's wilderness policies are being mischaracterized, and that he remains committed to adding protected areas -- with the input of conservationists and other interested parties.
"The governor has said he would be delighted to take a 'common ground' wilderness bill to Congress," she said. "The governor is very willing to start talking about where additional wilderness should be located [and] the outdoor retailers are an important stakeholder in this."
There is no question the Outdoor Retailer shows -- the next is scheduled for Aug. 14-17 -- are among the brightest gems in the Salt Lake Conventions & Visitors Bureau crown of events.
"It is hard to overestimate their importance," said bureau spokesman Jason Mathis. "In addition to their direct economic impact, they showcase Salt Lake and Utah as the epicenters for outdoor activity [with] the proximity of national forests, canyons and rivers and other wilderness areas."
The planned talks between the governor's office and outdoor retailers "are a very encouraging sign" and have the full support of the bureau, which worked with Metcalf to bring the events to Utah from Reno, Nev.
Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman also is concerned about talk of relocating the conventions, says her top aide, Deputy Mayor Alan Dayton.
"Obviously it's an important convention to us," Dayton said, noting that Workman also may sit down with Metcalf to try to resolve concerns.
Prompted by Metcalf's threats, the County Council's three Democratic members have petitioned Workman, a Republican, to take a stand in support of wilderness protection, and to oppose the state's assertions of rights of way across wilderness areas.
In a letter to the mayor, Councilmen Jim Bradley, Joe Hatch and Randy Horiuchi said the county cannot afford to lose the Outdoor Retailer shows and that Workman should let the organizers know that the county "does not share the views of rural Utah counties regarding wilderness issues."
Metcalf said he is cautiously optimistic about keeping the shows a Utah feature.
"Nobody wants to do a knee-jerk reaction and move the shows. But we do want an immediate dialogue with the governor on this," he said.
-----
Tribune reporter Thomas Burr contributed to this story.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
May 13, 2003, 6:55 PM
Post #2 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
This is fantastic - thanks for posting this. Really good to see some positive impact from gear manufacturers.
|
|
|
|
|
aarong
May 13, 2003, 7:05 PM
Post #3 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 180
|
Gale Norton - boy, she's been great hasn't she?
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
May 13, 2003, 8:27 PM
Post #4 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
I am sure you are aware that wilderness designations on public land typically result in bolting bans. In addition to bolting bans, a wilderness designation also bans the use of mountain bikes. The Wilderness designation effectively eliminates all uses with the exception of hikers and equestrians. As one who enjoys sport climbing and mountain biking I find it difficult to get behind wilderness designations. Particularly in the West, there is sufficient public land to accomodate all user groups.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
May 13, 2003, 8:36 PM
Post #5 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: I am sure you are aware that wilderness designations on public land typically result in bolting bans. In addition to bolting bans, a wilderness designation also bans the use of mountain bikes. The Wilderness designation effectively eliminates all uses with the exception of hikers and equestrians. As one who enjoys sport climbing and mountain biking I find it difficult to get behind wilderness designations. Particularly in the West, there is sufficient public land to accomodate all user groups.
Might want to take a stroll thru the Wilderness Act. Doesn't prohibit mining or grazing.
Wilderness designations do NOT typically result in bolting bans. Fixed anchor debate? So far (fingers crossed), fixed anchors ARE appropriate in Wilderness Areas. What is banned is a power drill. Big diff.
Agree that mountain bike usage sort of pales in comparison to damage by livestock. Ugh.
I'd argue that there is also sufficient public land to accomodate wilderness too. And, I especially like climbing in wilderness. Just seems, oh, so much more, well, like wilderness to me. Har har.
So far, there is no shortage of sports climbing crags on public land that is not wilderness, or wilderness study, either.
Its about balance, perhaps.
Heavy sigh...
Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
mhr2000
May 13, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #6 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 290
|
Yep, your right... wilderness designation BITES!! It's the toughest designation when it comes to public use of the land.
Wilderness Areas: Congress passed the 1964 Wilderness Act to protect pristine public lands by designating them as wilderness. Wilderness is defined in the law as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions..."
In general, the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial activities, motorized access, roads, bicycles, structures and facilities and sometimes limits the size of groups in wilderness areas, although Congress has granted exemptions. The 1964 act also defined wilderness areas as 5,000 continuous acres or more, although there are exceptions. The smallest wilderness area -- Wisconsin Islands in the Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge -- is just 2 acres.
Designated wilderness areas in the United States total 103.8 million acres, according to the Congressional Research Service. Of that, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) -- which is the subject of President Clinton's roadless area directive -- administers 34.7 million acres. Another 60 million acres of USFS-managed land is considered wild, or roadless, but is not officially designated as wilderness. Besides the Forest Service, wilderness areas are administered by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://www.ems.org/...as/designations.html
|
|
|
|
|
aarong
May 13, 2003, 8:47 PM
Post #7 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 180
|
Regardless of weather you agree or disagree with wilderness areas as a whole, the way in which this proposition was *snuck* by without public involvement is flat wrong.
Furthermore, it is untrue that designating land as wilderness areas leaves out climbers. Sure, it may limit "sport climbing" in wilderness areas where large amounts of bolts are used, but it does not limit climbing as a whole.
Wilderness areas are not just "public land" for user groups - they represent so much more than that.
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
May 13, 2003, 9:10 PM
Post #8 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
The larger issue here is the idea that climbers should be wary of supporting wilderness designations for vast tracts of land. The bolting wars have ebbed and flowed for the last ten years or so. If the forest service and it's army of lawyers decide to implement the strictest interpretation of the wilderness act it will mean the end of all bolting and fixed anchors. This means no bolts, rappel anchors or chains, and no webbing can be left behind. Not only does this effectively eliminate sport climbing , it also means no rappelling from the top of those trad routes either.
As Brianslc stated above, there needs to be balance. Climbers, hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers, and yes even off roaders! pay taxes and have the right to access public land. If you do not support the rights of others to use public land you may be the victim when your sport falls out of "eco" fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
May 13, 2003, 9:25 PM
Post #9 of 9
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Yeah, well I still think it's a good idea.
We don't need rap/grid/power bolted sport crags everywhere. By the way most rock that's in wilderness is far enough from the trailhead that sport climbers won't go there anyway. Do you know of any sport crags in a wilderness area?
There's plenty of industry ruined moonscape in Utah for the OHV'ers, we need to protect what little natural land we have left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
