Assessing National Park Wilderness On The 50th Anniversary Of The Wilderness Act

Alternate Text
Has The Wilderness Act benefited the national parks as much as it could have?

It's been 50 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed The Wilderness Act into law in 1964, but the question remains: Why has so much land within the National Park System not been designated as wilderness?

Since 1974, U.S. presidents have asked Congress to designate at least 5.7 million acres within the system as official wilderness. While Congress earlier this year did designate more than 32,500 acres in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan as wilderness, millions more acres in such notable parks as Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Teton, Big Bend, Great Smoky Mountains, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore have not received this designation, even though the National Park Service has deemed the acres worthy.

While Congress ultimately is the only political body capable of designating wilderness, the National Park Service has a reputation for not promoting critical lands for protection under the Act. Part of this criticism stems from the agency's Mission 66, an initiative envisioned by then-Park Service Director Conrad Wirth that aimed to make the parks more user friendly between 1956 and 1966 with new facilities and improved access.

Olaus Murie, a founder of The Wilderness Society, voiced strong opposition to Mission 66, which aimed to foster "accessible wilderness." One aspect of Mission 66 that Murie criticized was the road-building program that accompanied it.

Historian Richard West Sellars, in Preserving Nature in the National Parks, a History, noted the National Park Service's opposition to The Wilderness Act. "In the quest to leave certain public lands essentially unimpaired, the wilderness bill represented the antithesis of developmental programs such as Mission 66 -- and it got a cool reception from Park Service leadership."

The agency, wrote Sellars, saw the Act as "redundant" since the park lands were considered to be protected from development under the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916.

Sierra Club founder David Brower believed that the Park Service's 1957 wilderness brochure, created in connection with Mission 66, was the agency's effort to "confuse real wilderness with roadside wilderness" and "helped create a lack of clarity which suggested that additional legislative protection of truly wild areas was unnecessary."

While Sellars was recounting sentiments from more than half-a-century ago, the concern remains that the Park Service is not doing enough to promote wilderness designation.

“Historically, the National Park Service had been reluctant to accept Wilderness Act mandates. The result has been an institutional indifference to expanding wilderness status to roadless lands,” says Frank Buono, a former Park Service manager who now chairs the board of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “It should be noted that in recent years there has been significant progress on wilderness programs in individual parks, but it is not matched by any system-wide leadership, emphasis or agenda.”

Jeff Ruch, PEER's executive director, issued a release last week to belittle the Park Service's approach to marking The Wilderness Act's 50th birthday, saying the agency spent $120,000 to produce 15 videos promoting wilderness in the park system.

“These videos are awfully pretty but amount to little more than institutional selfies with little substantive value,” said Ruch.

For its part, PEER has created an “Orphaned Park Wilderness” web center that "details every stalled wilderness recommendation and assessment while prescribing specific steps to advance the wilderness footprint of each eligible park."

“We are celebrating the Wilderness Act’s half-century by highlighting its still significantly unmet potential," said Ruch.

Part of PEER's Orphaned Park Wilderness site notes that down through the years Park Service managers have developed proposals that recognized more than 19 million acres as worthy of wilderness designation, but never forwarded those proposals to either the Interior secretary, the president, or Congress. Those proposals include consideration of 1.1 million acres in Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, 125,000 acres at Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, and nearly 3,000 acres at Cape Lookout National Seashore in North Carolina.

PEER also created a park-by-park listing of "all legislative and administrative actions regarding wilderness," a voluminous document that notes, for instance, that while a key vision for Cape Hatteras National Seashore was creation of a "primitive wilderness" setting, the Park Service has never formally studied wilderness quality lands in the seashore, which was authorized in 1937.

Part of the problem at Cape Hatteras, the Park Service acknowledged in 2008 in a history of the seashore, was nature. Another was human access and recreation.

Well before the end of Mission 66, NPS officials understood that the beach management situation they faced was dire. As park naturalist Verde Watson titled the beach erosion control photo section of the 1957-58 annual reports, it was "Man against the Sea." The Park Service was waging a fight against a fundamental force of nature, but what was not quite as crisply understand was the futile nature of that struggle and how a commitment to preserve a "primitive wilderness" had been transformed into a commitment to protect human-made structures using techniques that actually undermined the preservation of natural beaches.

To mark the Act's anniversary, the National Park Service is:

* Participating in a panel discussion during D.C. Wilderness Week (September 13-18) about the future of wilderness for the National Wilderness Preservation System during a day with stakeholders and partner organizations at the Pew Charitable Trusts Office.

* Attending a reception at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum today where attendees will celebrate the winners of the public wilderness photography contest on the opening day of the exhibit.

* The agency's Denver regional office is hosting an interagency panel today about the importance of wilderness and the role of partnership in fostering wilderness stewardship. Interactive activities, exhibit displays, and presentations from partner organizations will also be offered for attendees.

* Next month, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis will participate in the National Wilderness Conference in Albuquerque, the culminating and single largest national event for the 50th anniversary.

Around the park system, the following activities are planned:

* Canyonlands National Park, Utah: “Walking with Thoreau” Project. A kick-off event in Moab will feature a public lecture about Thoreau and his writings. Over the course of four weekends, the park is offering free transportation from town to the park for guided walks, inspired by Thoreau, into the park’s recommended wilderness areas. Participants will write, as Thoreau did, about their wilderness experience. Reflections will be published electronically and shared through social media.

* Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: Wilderness 50th Speaking Event. The park is hosting two speakers to discuss the importance of wilderness to audiences at the Grand Canyon School (where park-based students attend) and during an evening program for the public.

* Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida/Mississippi: “Wilderness and You” Project. The park is providing transportation from town to park and supplying participants with camping gear to partake in a facilitated 3-day wilderness experience on Horn Island. This will likely be a first-time wilderness experience for most participants.

* Isle Royale National Park, Michigan" “Wild Stewards – Connecting Youth to a Wilderness Archipelago Project.” The park is implementing a program, modeled after the Junior Ranger Program, to equip wilderness youth visitors (ages 13-17) with activity booklets that engender thought and discussion about wilderness throughout the visit. Historically, wilderness users receive little to no formal contact with the park about wilderness due to the remote nature of the wilderness area relative to visitor infrastructure locations.

* Joshua Tree National Park, California: Interactive Interpretive Exhibit on Display. The park has developed an interactive exhibit that asks the question, “What does wilderness mean to you?” The exhibit invites visitors to share their personal connections to wilderness via mounted notebook or iPad and can be shared, reviewed, and commented on by other visitors. Responses will be used as content for an upcoming video podcast, which will be available on the park website.

For a full list of additional celebration activities, see this site.

Comments

Today should be a national holiday.... or national field trip day with kids from around the country being bussed into wilderness areas to go on an ecology adventure.

Regardless, this is a great document from PEER. Glad you posted it, and I hope that more National Parks decide to upgrade from "managed as wilderness" to "designated wilderness" in the future, and that we can get a congress to enact legislation to do just that. The importance of wilderness to enhance and propegate the biorhythms of the Earth is necessary for life on this planet, and i'd hate to see more front country roads paved into our National Park lands so that more creatures can be ran over or displaced..

Also, hopefully, i'm not the only one on this site that took the time to look through it.

We already have too much Wilderness. The Act is too restrictive as is, and that probably explains why there is so much opposition every time a new parcel of land gets proposed. Maybe if the Wildernuts would get a clue and be more amenable to changes in the Act, they'd get more done. Obviously, this won't happen, because Wilderness is now a new Age religion with all the fanaticism that goes with it.

I think it's more about our society becoming lazier as time goes on. They want easy access, and to not earn their way into a place. Effortless, and without much thought - that's the New Aged 'Murican' way.

And there has always been opposition to anything in regards to public lands. They could announce they found a forest of money trees and are going to allow people to harvest some of the bucks, and there would be opposition to it, while far righties would call for cutting them down to make an even quicker buck since the dollars take too long to mature every season..

In Memory of former Supt. Paul Fritz:

WILDERNESS ESTABLISHMENT

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/crmo/adhi/chap4.htm

Sit sometime in the middle of the Black Flow of Craters of the Moon. Though only three miles from a paved road, you will be a half day's journey into the wilderness. And a century into the past. The mood is unmistakably wild and remote. It is like being in a motionless black ocean. [61]

The passage of the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964 mandated that all National Park Service sites with five thousand or more contiguous roadless acres be studied for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The act stipulated a ten-year review period; Craters of the Moon's study was begun and completed in 1965, and its wilderness established in 1970. The first Pacific Northwest Region park unit to be designated as wilderness, the monument, along with Petrified Forest National Park, was the also the first NPS unit to be granted the status by Congress. Relatively "issue" free in the public sector, the creation of the area's wilderness caused some internal conflicts within the Park Service itself. Because of this and the honor of being "first," the wilderness area's establishment deserves special attention.

In May 1965, Superintendent Roger Contor, joined by a small master plan team, studied a 42,600-acre roadless area in the monument for wilderness classification. The group completed the study in ten days, and their preliminary proposal determined that 41,475 acres were suitable for wilderness; after the Washington office reviewed the proposal, it decreased the acreage to 40,800, altering boundaries to conform with survey points rather than natural features. The proposed volcanic wilderness comprised approximately 80 percent of the monument's land base, and 96 percent of the area studied. All of it lay south of U.S. Highway 20-26-93A, excluding the semi-developed zone of roads, trails, and administrative facilities in the monument's northwestern corner. To name the area, Contor chose a Shoshoni term, Tu'Timbaba, or "Black Rock Overpass," referring to the thousand feet the lava landscape rises above adjacent valleys. [62]

Justifying the reasons for wilderness classification, the superintendent wrote of the area's unique qualities; it offered

geologic curiosities, archeological structures and sites, a surprisingly rich fauna, and vegetative cover of special importance to science. The setting is fresh and clean. Because access is limited to hikers, and because there are no attractions which lack counterparts in the more accessible parts of the Monument, human use has been scant.

This was, he recognized, not what people pictured as traditional wilderness; there was "nothing here to attract the mountaineer, a thirty day pack trip party, or a fisherman." Yet Contor believed that the area's "appreciation must rest on other things." It "remains the most interesting and least disturbed segment of the entire Snake River Plain. Those who spend time here will soon feel its lonely and unusual charm." [63]

Following the wilderness proposal was a public hearing, as required by the Wilderness Act. Held on September 19, 1966 at Arco, Idaho, the meeting itself was rather sedate; fifteen people attended, among them Park Service and conservation group representatives. Five of these individuals gave oral statements, and a total of forty-eight letters were received from private parties, local, state, and federal agencies. In general, everyone favored the agency's wilderness proposal. No one, for instance, objected to the concept of wilderness; like Contor they expressed an affinity for the area's qualities of beauty, science, and isolation. Nor did anyone urge a reduction in the proposed area's size. Rather, those few who did criticize the proposal wanted more land added to the wilderness area. [64]

Groups such as the Sierra Club, the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, the National Parks Association, the Mountaineers, and the Wilderness Society suggested inward expansion, pressing closure to the developed area of the monument. On the high end of the scale, the National Parks Association proposed four separate wilderness areas south of the highway, totaling 49,800 acres, excluding the headquarters facilities and road corridors. And on the low end of the scale, the Wilderness Society recommended a small boundary adjustment to include the Caves and Natural Bridge. While the different proposals varied on size, they shared a common trait in that they did not contest the planned road extension around Big Cinder Butte. [65]

In defending its proposal, the Park Service explained that it designed the wilderness boundaries to retain access to the volcanic features along the loop drive, and to provide a half to a mile wide buffer to avoid the "influences from U.S. Highway 20-26-93A and the existing and proposed visitor use areas southeast of the highway." By way of compromise, the agency's August 1967 proposal offered a series of revisions to the original boundaries. On the one hand, reflecting some but not all suggestions, the adjustments added a total of 1,945 acres. These extended the proposed boundary to embrace the Natural Bridge and more portions of the North Crater Lava and Serrate Lava Flows; the Black Lava Flow, Coyote and Crescent Buttes, and additional sections of the Big Crater and Blue Dragon Lava Flows. On the other hand, two deletions of 1,960 acres comprised more acreage than did the additions. One subtracted a small amount, eighty acres, southwest of Inferno Cone; the other removed a large amount to provide a sixteenth of a mile administrative buffer between wilderness and monument boundary. [66]

The 1967 proposal satisfied most public concerns for including key sites in the monument's internal section, as well as the administrative practicality of drawing boundaries along easily distinguished grid patterns, as opposed to the diagonal shapes of the original recommendation. In total acreage, 40,785, the latest proposal differed little from its earlier version.

As for other additions, the Park Service denied these for pragmatic as well as development reasons. Most features proposed for wilderness addition, for instance, were located along or near the loop drive and trails, and were among the monument's primary attractions. Here the majority of the monument's 200,000 annual visitors experienced the outstanding geologic features. Thus, to those proposals requesting that areas west of the Natural Bridge and Caves be classified as wilderness, the Park Service stated that anticipated visitor volumes would require "highly developed trails...[the] minimum...sanitary facilities, and interpretive devices," for visitor health and safety as well as the "protection of natural features." Similarly, proposals that singled out Inferno Cone and Big Cinder Butte for wilderness protection were characterized by the Service as small islands, 270 and one thousand acres respectively, within the existing road system and its proposed additions. As "major visitor attractions" they should remain outside wilderness; their small size meant that they could not "offer significant or outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation as would be characteristic of a wilderness." [67]

In terms of wilderness designation, Big Cinder Butte assumed an important role. Because the monument's visitation and administrative infrastructure were confined to the northwestern corner, the Park Service believed that future growth would need outlets, and as shown in the 1966 master plan, the Service planned to extend the road system around Big Cinder Butte. [68] As Roger Contor noted, his master plan and wilderness proposal omitted the butte for future possibilities; "putting everything in wilderness would tie the hands of future managers. We felt we should leave the option open for some limited expansion of frontcountry facilities." At some point, windshield tourists might enjoy a new perspective on monument landscapes. Excluding Big Cinder Butte from wilderness, then, "gave a little elbow room," and, as Contor asserted, "a modicum of roadside scenery might reduce their [visitors'] passion for self entertainment through vandalism or other unacceptable behavior." More importantly, perhaps, was that he was dealing with "firsts." Better to add than to subtract from wilderness, and refrain from setting a bad Park Service precedent should expansion be necessary. For that matter, it was never certain that the road would be built. [69] Even so, this belief later provided a point of internal contention.

Legislation for the monument's wilderness commenced the following year. In March 29, 1968, the Department of the Interior submitted draft legislation to the president for the creation of the Craters of the Moon wilderness, and sent the same material to Idaho Senator Frank Church, member of the Senate Interior Committee, seeking his sponsorship. [70] One year later, April 1, 1969, Church introduced the Department of the Interior (NPS) proposal as S. Bill 1732. In his oration to the Senate, Church justified the legislation by describing the monument's astonishing moon-like beauty, a beauty with relevance to the nation. That same year astronauts planned to walk on a similar lunar landscape, and for this reason, wilderness designation was appropriate. And it was all the more imperative since the drawing power of this national event would lure thousands more tourists to the monument and jeopardize its wilderness quality. [71] On June 15, the bill passed the Senate.

The bill followed a different path in the House. On March 3, 1970, it was introduced and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, where it died. A month later, Idaho Congressmen Orval Hansen and James McClure introduced two wilderness bills, H.R. 16821, which was the NPS administrative proposal, and H.R. 16822, which called for the addition of more lands including Big Cinder Butte, for a total of 43,243 acres. [72]

The latter legislation represented the influence of Superintendent Paul Fritz. Fritz, who succeeded Contor in the fall of 1966, disagreed with the accepted master plan and wilderness proposal. In particular, Fritz believed after walking the proposed boundary that the planned road addition encircling Big Cinder Butte was a mistake. [73]

The main attraction of the new road was the tree molds of Trench Mortar Flat, the only features not accessible by car. While this extension would complete the motorist tour of the monument, preservation of these fragile lava formations outweighed the importance of visitor access. In a December 10, 1966 memorandum Fritz requested a new master plan study to enlarge the wilderness boundary to include Big Cinder Butte and prevent further development. Assistant Director of Cooperative Activities, Theodor R. Swem, rejected the superintendent's proposition. No reason warranted revision of the recent master plan; it had been agreed to at all levels of the administration. And more importantly, "the plan provides a reasonable balance between wilderness and non-wilderness use and it also provides opportunities for increased and improved interpretation of the area." He urged Regional Director John Rutter to bear this in mind in order to "overcome the difficulties" posed by Fritz's suggestion. After learning that his superiors would not entertain any boundary changes, the superintendent reluctantly agreed to the agency's proposal. [74]

Despite his original agreement, Fritz countered the Service's plans by circumventing administrative channels to win approval of his wilderness proposal. Beginning in 1967, he gained support from local communities and environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, who had originally expressed their desire to add more lands to the Craters of the Moon wilderness. These interest groups then lobbied the Park Service and congressional representatives, and in Congressmen Hansen and McClure found sponsors for the new proposal. [75]

The Park Service in spite of Fritz's influence stood behind its original proposal passed by the Senate. Acting Secretary of the Interior Fred J. Russell expressed the Service's position to Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall, chairman House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in a June 25, 1970 letter. In principle, the Park Service determined that development was necessary to meet the monument's mission and to accommodate rising visitation. The road encircling the butte

would disperse visitors to relieve congestion on the present road system; such congestion is expected to become critical in future years. Exhibits along the road would interpret such features as tree molds, lava tubes, fissures, ecology and plant succession. Visitors unable to make long hiking trips would have access to all of the major types of volcanic features on this self-guiding interpretive road.

Hence, wilderness designation for Big Cinder Butte would preclude both this improvement and the presentation of the monument's full array of volcanic phenomena to the motoring public. [76]

Unfortunate for the Service and fortunate for Fritz and supporters of the Big Cinder Butte addition, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs concluded in their favor. H.R. 19007, an omnibus wilderness bill introduced on August 13, 1970, provided for an enlarged Craters of the Moon wilderness of 43,243 acres. [77] Commenting on the amended bill in a September 9 report, the committee stated that the addition of "this 2,243 acres of land would make a meaningful contribution to the wilderness area and that it would not unduly interfere with public use and enjoyment of the national monument." [78] The full House passed the bill on September 21, 1970. The Senate concurred with the House in S. 3014 on October 12, and President Richard M. Nixon signed the bill into law on October 23, 1970. [79]

In the end, the Park Service lost with its proposal, but won by gaining the first wilderness in the System. Compared to the larger parks, the Craters of the Moon proposal lacked high-profile controversy, and buried in a large bill, the discrepancy over two thousand acres lost some of its importance. The new Craters of the Moon Wilderness, as it was called, [80] bore the stamp of Superintendent Paul Fritz, who spoke out against his own agency for the protection of monument resources. Yet the area also owed its existence to individuals, such as Roger Contor, who recognized the volcanic environment's wilderness caliber.

Wilderness Proposal MapThe 1967 wilderness proposal. The lighter screen-tone represents the Big Cinder Butte addition that was attached to the final bill in 1970.

Gary, so how is sitting on a horse in the middle of a pack train, drinking beer, earning your way? Recreation modes have changed, and the Wilderness proponents are still clinging to a mid 19th century mode of travel, as if Wilderness was magically created then... I predict that it will evolve, but it'll take another generation or two for it to happen.

I am all for Wilderness designation - the more the better. Wilderness designation is much more restrictive than National Park designation.

We spent a couple of days this spring in the wilderness area of Craters of the Moon. It was amazingly peaceful when compared to the utter chaos and ado of the developed area. Well, we and a couple thousand sheep. They got pretty loud but, somehow, we didn't mind so much.

No one is saying that it's magic. What the act does is protect resources from extractive industries that will mar it. Once again, you seem to fail to understand what the wilderness act does. You choose the highway of the lazy thinker, obviously.

This is what you want :

Yep, Zebbies vision of what should be a "wilderness".. If you look closely, there might be one tree way out in the distance that still lives in this mad max looking place.

I used to live near the Craters wilderness, and would head out into the wilderness during the wildflower bloom. It is quite the place, and having it to yourself was almost a given. Also, many of those Kipukas where the lava surrounded the hills, left remnants of what the Snake River Plain used to look like. These areas are hard to reach (but not impossible), because you have to cross, and climb over all that sharp lava fields for a few miles all cross country, but they still harbor intact plant communities that have been wiped from other areas because of sheep and cattle grazing. But, hey, the wilderness act is useless... who cares about that stuff right? It would all be better as concrete, and that lava should be mined and crushed and used for lava stone in peoples gardens acording to the subjugators.

Some, although only a vocal minority on this park-supportive site, say we have too much wilderness. Others, like me, say we have too much factory space, too much toxic space, too much urban sprawl space.

In a nation like this we are both entitled to our opinions. My conscience wouldn't let me change sides on this one.

My conscience wouldn't let me change sides on this one.

But I'm guessing it will let you enjoy the fruits of those factory spaces and urban sprawl.

We can definitely have factory areas and wilderness in the States. Neither are non-exclusive to the other. I like my computers and gadgets, but not every area of this country needs mined and logged. Only 4% of the American land mass is wilderness, and most of that area is in Alaska. If there were 40% wilderness in the states, then the screaming zealots might have more of a point when they say there is too much wilderness.

So Zeb, are you advocating ATV use in wilderness?

Unfortunately, we don't have much choice when it comes to existing factory spaces and urban sprawl, but what is keeping us from doing a better job of planning in the future?

Perhaps Zebulon is right and that mountain bikers will get their wish and all wilderness trails will be opened to mountain bikers, including those on electric bikes. Then they will support wilderness to keep out the dirt bikers, but why should they be excluded? The future is hard to predict. I don't know how old he is but someday he may be to old for the thrills and spills of mountain biking and wish there were places he could walk, if he still can, without being crowded off the trails by mountain bikers. For me at 78, I hope wilderness will still be managed as it is for 10 or 20 more years at least.

Some great thoughts there, Roger. As someone else mentioned earlier, we are a nation of people who too often think only of the present and how much we can reap from NOW without regard for anything beyond today.

But, Roger, for the sake of my grandkids, I hope wilderness will continue to be managed as it is forever.

How hypocritical that someone here would be railing against ATV use in wilderness areas but have no problems when a private resort runs ATV's in a designated wilderness area in the Smokies. By the way, I went back up to the Blackberry Farm area and have documented where the private resort has now scraped their blazes off the trees. I will post pictures of them as soon as I get them up.

Zeb--I don't think you have to be a fanatic, a wilderness zealot, or a former NPS employe to support wilderness designation. I don't quite get what you mean when you say it is to "restrictive". You can walk, hike, run, ride horses, backpack, day trip etc. in designated wilderness. Willderness is as close to wild as you can get in the US today. That is why it is worthy of preservation and protection. We ought to be thankful for every acre we have and strive to create more when conditions are right.

Rick

Ok, folks, back off the personal attacks and gratuitous comments. We've deleted one such comment that went over the top, and won't hesitate to hit the delete key again if necessary. There's no need for such vitriol and serves no purpose other than to divert my efforts from other Traveler needs.

First, the Smokies is NOT DESIGNATED WILDERNESS, its managed as wilderness. If you manage to READ this actual article, you can find a link to documents stating how the Smokies is managed in regards to the wilderness act. Since it's not designated wilderness that allows the park to utilize ATV's and vehicles in the backcountry for S&R and maintence. If it was designated wilderness, neither of those things would be permitted. The rest of the accusations were debunked in another thread, and others that were there during the supposed observation came out and said that it was during an S&R.

Smokies, I certainly have not , now or ever, had "no problem" with a private resort using ATVs in a wilderness or national park.

Like many others here, I know nothing about the Smokies situation beyond what I've read here. But I fully agree that if what you say is true, it was wrong and must be stopped. Making a blanket accusation of hypocrisy is usually wrong and does little to help anyone's cause because it makes them look like a zealot whose ideology trumps good sense. If you really want to advance your cause -- and it sounds like it's one that should be pursued -- perhaps you should consider backing off the hyperbole and personal accusations.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of that on both sides of the Smokies issues in Traveler's comments forum. (And Cape Hatteras, too.) As a result, I (and I'm sure other readers as well) can see nothing more than a confusing cloud of rancor that leaves me wondering what the truth might really be.

If there are indeed problems, we need to work together to solve them. Calling one another names usually kills any cooperation dead cold.

What irks me about the situation is that Smokiesbackpacker (John Quillen) constantly goats people into his accusations to push his agenda, and Kurt allows this to go on AND ON AND ON with no reprimand to him, only to the people that call him out on it.. There is no DOCUMENTED proof that 4 wheelers from ANY outside group are using the Smokies. There is only one account in which John Quillen was at a campsite when a 4 wheeler came through while on a search and rescue. John Quillen is the same guy with an agenda and a lawsuit against the park. How come no one else is pushing this story if it were true? How come the local media hasn't come out with stories, and proof of these claims (one would think this would be a somewhat big local news story if true)? Because they are unfounded and not true. That's why. He even knows this, but now "there's a coverup" because he can't prove his claims other than this one incident. The local media already knows that these guys just promote unfounded rumors to drum up propaganda and harass people. They've been banned from numerous local sites because that IS THEIR GIG.

Cane Creek is an old road that was used by residents before the area became a park. The park is allowed to drive vehicles on it for S&R and maintenance if they are authorized. This ATV incident was reported online on numerous sites and other witnesses stated that this was for a S&R. The links to these reports was already posted in that "Accusation of illegal trails thread", and i'm not going to get back into this because this thread has NOTHING to do with blackberry farms. It's about DESIGNATED WILDERNESS and getting the park service to designate MORE areas that could be turned into wilderness.. The Smokies is technically not wilderness, and PEER does state in this article that it needs to be on the table and the job needs finished. John even mistakenly tries to state that it's designated wilderness in his post above, when it clearly is not if he read this article. Instead of just reading the comments looking at any opportunity to try and goat me into a fight, he should read the article first. So, he doesn't even get the basics on the wilderness act, or how the Smokies is managed. Unfortunately just about EVERY thread on the traveler in which the GSMNP is mentioned, always devolves into this blackberry farms issue. It's not called hypocrisy, when you don't buy into these conspiracies or his constant bullying tactics. And it's definitely not hypocrisy because until the Smokies is designated wilderness, the management is permitted from utilizing ATV's on S&Rs in non designated wilderness. I've seen the park use ATV's when doing trail maintence on old road beds that are technically trails like Hazel Creek, and Bradley Fork. They are allowed to do that, because it's not wilderness. If it was wilderness, they would have to leave the ATV's at home, like the rest of us.

Interesting thoughts.

Idiotic restrictions on Wilderness: trails are barely maintained because the various agencies can't/won't use chainsaws to cut trees. Instead, we have to either heli drop or send on horses folks who will cut trees by hand. It's hugely inefficient, expensive, and basically doesn't get much done. If instead, we'd let the local ranger use a quad and a chainsaw a week or two a year, we'd have trails better maintained without really impacting the wild character of the place. Instead, we cling to a belief that somehow we must use late 19th century tools to be more pure. Under what pretense? The whole thing is nonsensical. Unless, of course, we want to close Wilderness to all users. That may be even purer. Why even bother with humans in the sanctity of mother nature's cathedral?

As for the various chicken little arguments that it's either Wilderness or EPA superfund, it's just silly.

Wilderness is really pushed by folks who want everyone else to enjoy the great outdoors only according to what the wildernuts think it pure enough. A great show of tolerance... (that's sarcasm right there, for clarity).

Again, if any of you wonder why so little new Wilderness has emerged, it might be because it's so dang restrictive and therefore attracts so much resistance every time a new one gets created. Nature can be protected and enjoyed by many without resorting to Wilderness designation. But then, you would have to share it with other recreationists...

Happy 50th. Can't wait for it to be amended. May not happen in Roger's lifetime, but it may happen in mine.

I hike in many wilderness areas in a year. I just got back hiking the Sawtooth wilderness, spent 4 days in the Painted Desert/Rainbow Forest, and spent two days in the Congaree wilderness this year. In all places, the trails are being maintained, and were fine. And seriously, Zeb, you must not actually get deep into the wilderness, because in many of these areas it's impossible for an ATV to get back there. Good luck trying to get an ATV over many of the passes in the Rockies, Sierras, or even in major areas of the Appalachian range, or in the badlands of the painted desert. Unless it's a magic flying ATV.

Also, if you haven't paid attention to the primary elections this year, the teaparty is getting flushed in many of the races. They are done, and the next congress will not be like the current one.

I'm with Zeb. I would rather see more "Wilderness" with less restrictions than less Wilderness with more restrictions. Tell us Gary, what is the logic of not allowing a chainsaw in the Wilderness to clear a trail?

Simple. NOISE POLLUTION dillutes the wilderness experience for others, and harasses wildlife.

dillutes the wilderness experience for others, and harasses wildlife.

Funny. I have hiked thousands of miles in non-wilderness and can't think of a single instance where I experienced "NOISE POLLUTION" from chain saws. Like Zeb, I have hiked many a "Wilderness" where trails were nearly impassable. Harass wildlife? I just did a 8 NPS unit road trip including Yellowstone. Bison on the road, Elk walking through campsites. Critters everywhere. I don't think the wildlife is goint to find itself "harassed" by an infrequent chainsaw.

There have been several sidetracks in this thread but the main issue is mountain bikes in wilderness. The goal of IMBA and almost all other mountain bike organizations is building up a constituency that will have the political clout to get all wilderness trails open to mountain bikes. Zip lines cannot be far behind. Driving up I- 70 a few weeks ago several large wooden towers stuck up out of the forest with zip lines strung between them.

Good for you EC. You still fail to see what the wilderness act is about, so it doesn't matter. I dont have the time or patience to get into a 50 page thread trying to convince you of it's importance.

Sometimes a tree falls in the forest before a trail crew can get to it. That's when you either blaze through and climb over or around it, or take your ball and go home wishing to go play in the city park on the swing set. I guess that's why they call it the WILDerness. If you expect everything to be easy then you are in the wrong place.

That's part of the problem, Rodger, they want the "amusement park", not the "National Park". And some can't seem to get that a National Park is not an Amusement Park.

Driving up I- 70 a few weeks ago several large wooden towers stuck up out of the forest with zip lines strung between them.

Roger - those zip lines where within a 100 ft of a 4 lane Interstate with cars going 70 miles an hour. They were hardly intrusive and it was hardly forest. Actually, they were built to mimic the mining structures that are along the same route and blend in quite nicely.

Zeb comes from a mountain biking perspective but that isn't the only or even main issue. Personally, I see far less of an issue with mountain bikes than say horses in terms of their negative impact. But again, I would be more than happy to allow Horses, Mtn Bikes or even ATVs and Snowmobiles (neither of which I am a fan of) and certainly chainsaws if it meant the area was less vulnerable to paved roads or other development. This is especially true in areas where ATV and/or Snowmobile use has been prevelent in the past.

When you were in CO, did you get off the main roads? There are millions of acres within a few miles that feel like Wilderness without the Wilderness restrictions. Wish I would have been here to show you around.

that's when you either blaze through and climb over or around it.

Oh so you are a proponent of going off trail. Creating your own short cuts and paths? Boy will the purist be after you now.

Considering that I spent a lot of my 20s and 30s climbing and scrambling up to many of the highest points in the major ranges of Idaho, many of which don't have trails leading to the top of them. YES. Thats how it works. You can leave no trace, and that's easy to practice.

You can leave no trace,

Yeah, thats what everyone thinks. My going off trail wont leave a trace. Not true when multiple people are following the same path - or mutliple paths.

I rarely, if ever hike with people or in a group - it dulls the senses. And leave no trace is pretty easy to pull off.

It's pretty hard to find true wilderness these days and I see value in keeping areas like this. My idea of wilderness is where you're unlikely to see other people, have no services and can't hear boat motors, ORV's or vehicle traffic. Outside of Alaska there aren't many places like this left in our country. I also accept that I am in the minority in enjoying areas like this. I think the debate is what or how much is appropriate. Selfishly I'd like much more protected while others would open all public land to ORV's Mountain bikes and perhaps vehicles. There needs to be a balance and right now I think true wilderness areas are in danger of vanishing altogether.

Are dogs off leash allowed in designated wilderness areas?

As for the 4% comment, it shows a deep misunderstanding of how the country landmass is used.

Somebody brought up the issue of electric mountain bikes. While IMBA hates it since it detracts from the human powered argument, I think that under strict regulations it would be absolutely awesome. As long it's an assitance (i.e. speed limited, and engine power limited), it is a great tool to assist those that can no longer go far under their own power. Roger would be a perfect candidate! We will all get old at some point, and electric mountain bikes offer a possibility to extend our trips in the great outdoors when our capacities decrease. Used responsibly, it would be a great tool. I predict that it will become regulated and accepted at some point. It already is in Germany.

Owen - no.

I am not yet ready for an electric bicycle and will probably walk until I need a wheel chair. But then I might luck out and die before then. I apologize for mentioning zip lines since it was off topic. I did not follow my rule of drafting something, then sleeping on it before sending it out. I think Kurt's website woud benefit if others followed the same rule.

While horses are not native to the US, some dog species are. :) Again, it's an invented Wilderness. It's interesting to see how that vision of Wilderness changes across countries. The French National Park of the Vanoise in the Alps is similar to what we call Wilderness, but they allow cattle and sheep herds as it's been practiced there for centuries. These farmers are allowed to use motorized vehicles to get to their animals.

Anyhow, this debate will be raging on for ever. Even after inane regulations are overturned, it won't cease.

Roger, you should consider mountain biking, it's a lot easier on the knees than hiking.

that while a key vision for Cape Hatteras National Seashore was creation of a "primitive wilderness" setting, the Park Service has never formally studied wilderness quality lands in the seashore, which was authorized in 1937.

Where did this "vision" statement come from? Is this just more NPT spin? According to the EL the main vision is was to provide recreational access to a seashore as other other oceans fronts were privatized and developed.

No spin needed Beach, follow the link to the history...

And as for the enabling legislation:

Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area . . .

Are you spinning?

Gee, NPT would probably have to go out of business if it weren't for the Smokies, Cape Hatteras and mountain bikes.

Rick

Are dogs off leash allowed in designated wilderness areas?

Owen, yes, in some designated wilderness areas. Shenandoah, for example.

I misread your question, Owen. They are allowed in some designated wilderness areas, but it seems on a leash.

Thank you Kurt.

justinh, my question concerned any designated wilderness, not just those inside NPS areas.

Owen, you can hike dogs off leash in many usfs wilderness areas, although you may have to go west of the front range of colorado. It also may depend on the time of year, as certain USFS districts have restrictions, and leashes may be required during the busier times in certain areas. I dont know of any NPS areas where you can hike dogs off leash, at least in the few parks that allow them on trails, which is mostly in the Eastern half of the US.

I dont know of any NPS areas where you can.

In fact, in most NPS areas (except parking lots, roads and campsites) you can't have dogs at all. And, I have yet to come across a designated Wilderness area where dogs are allowed off leash on a trail. Perhaps Gary would like to share some specific names.

Some allow it if dogs are under voice control although that seldom works. Did a backpack in the eastern Sierra wilderness many years ago. A couple in our party had three dogs suposedly under voice control but not. The dogs were adept at digging up all the human feces at one of our campsites. They were buried under a thin layer of dirt. Very pleasant.

Horses were really chewing up the trails.

Dogs are allowed to be off leash in almost all the wilderness areas of the Northwest. There were very few that had leash laws. But, not all dogs should go into the wilderness, and they should be trained to do so. I use a large sized husky/malamute, and he is well trained. While some dogs are great off leash, that doesn't apply to all..

As my one buddy used to say "You just might not be WEST enough". ..

The hagerman horse, you say?

http://www.nps.gov/hafo/naturescience/hagerman-horse.htm

Seriously, if there is one continent that is not a shining beacon of wilderness, EUROPE is definitely it. One would hope that what happened to the landscape and wildlife in Europe is everything the US should strive to avoid mimicking... Can't you at least use Antarctica as a better example of what a wilderness might be?