PDA

View Full Version : May be time to hit some trails in Summit and Eagle county!!!!


SRT08BUS
04-22-2011, 01:29 PM
Just was reading something about a wilderness bill being pushed by Polis that would be in Summit and Eagle County, anyone hear about this or might have a good clue as to what trails are going to be endangered?

SRT08BUS
04-22-2011, 01:36 PM
http://www.realaspen.com/article/108/Congressman-Jared-Polis-issues-wilderness-draft-aims-for-special-management-areas-for-military-training

DaveInDenver
04-22-2011, 01:53 PM
Didn't know that Polis was proposing a HAAT site as part of the Hidden Gems. Yeah, I can totally see how closing off areas for limited use by meadow stompers just screams for military training use.

http://www.imba.com/pli/hidden-gems

Another huge military expansion that people should be aware of is the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion. The Army wants to fence off 10,000 square miles of southeast Colorado. That's 6.4 million acres or roughly 10% of the state.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pinon-canyon.htm
http://www.westword.com/2011-02-24/news/why-the-army-wanted-to-buy-southeastern-colorado/
http://www.pinoncanyon.com/

Crash
04-22-2011, 02:02 PM
Just read in this morning's paper that Breckenridge has received 509" of snow this season - so far - breaking the old record of 504". If you plan on cruising trails in Summit Co. this year, you might just have to wait quite a while. Vail looks to be be setting snow amount records, too.

Old40Dog
04-22-2011, 02:12 PM
Just was reading something about a wilderness bill being pushed by Polis that would be in Summit and Eagle County, anyone hear about this or might have a good clue as to what trails are going to be endangered?

Here is a map and some other info on the areas.

sank
04-23-2011, 12:44 AM
:( *sigh*
Just read in this morning's paper that Breckenridge has received 509" of snow this season - so far - breaking the old record of 504". If you plan on cruising trails in Summit Co. this year, you might just have to wait quite a while. Vail looks to be be setting snow amount records, too.

Guess I'll just go skiing instead! :)

SteveH
04-23-2011, 06:54 AM
This FAQ claims it closes only 7 miles of roads open to full size vehicles:

http://www.whiteriverwild.org/public/File/Hidden%20Gems%20FAQs.pdf

But, I take these things with a grain of salt....

nuclearlemon
04-23-2011, 07:18 AM
makes me want to join a group to shut down mountain bikers trails:mad:

MDH33
04-23-2011, 08:50 AM
This bill is a separate creature from hidden gems. It looks like it's mostly small additions to existing wilderness areas.

Inukshuk
04-23-2011, 04:26 PM
Hidden Gems is bad. I read a lot about it over a year ago. I don't remember the specifics now, but do remember my conclusion.

DaveInDenver
04-24-2011, 08:26 AM
makes me want to join a group to shut down mountain bikers trails:mad:
Ige, IMBA is trying to keep MTBs from being closed out of the White River, too. We're on the the BRC's side for the most part on this one, in particular snow mobiles and dirt bikes. IMBA did not propose it and is against it. You should be mad at The Wilderness Society, Colorado Mountain Club, the Sierra Club and Trout Unlimited. If anything, IMBA has been very active trying to protect the interests of the mountain bikes, which is why I'm a member. It's not their job to keep trails open to motorized vehicles, even though is a lot of cases the interests are shared since the government does not recognize human power bikes differently from internal combustion powered bikes.

MDH33
04-24-2011, 09:29 AM
As Dave said, the Mtn bikers would be shut out of these areas as well.

Wilderness is foot and Horse traffic only. Grazing is also allowed, and I've seen just as much trail damage from stock as I have from motorized.

Looking at those maps, I'm not seeing any motorized routes being affected. Has anyone heard differently? I'm a supporter of Wilderness areas as long as they are in areas that truly qualify. Areas with existing roads and impact do not qualify.

teamextreme
04-24-2011, 10:26 PM
I'm a supporter of Wilderness areas as long as they are in areas that truly qualify. Areas with existing roads and impact do not qualify.

This is what I don't understand, the original wilderness act clearly defines what can and cannot be considered wilderness, yet it seems all the recent wilderness proposals violate these guildelines, and they somehow get away with it. Wilderness is fine, and needed, if the rules are followed. Problem is, most areas that qualify are already wilderness. To create more and more, they're overstepping the definition of wilderness. I believe the law states that to qualify the land must be substantially untrammeled by humans, or something to that effect. If there's existing roads I can't see how it qualifies.

There needs to be a new classification that preserves land for recreational use, but makes development and industrial use off-limits.

MDH33
04-25-2011, 09:19 AM
This is what I don't understand, the original wilderness act clearly defines what can and cannot be considered wilderness, yet it seems all the recent wilderness proposals violate these guildelines, and they somehow get away with it. Wilderness is fine, and needed, if the rules are followed. Problem is, most areas that qualify are already wilderness. To create more and more, they're overstepping the definition of wilderness. I believe the law states that to qualify the land must be substantially untrammeled by humans, or something to that effect. If there's existing roads I can't see how it qualifies.

There needs to be a new classification that preserves land for recreational use, but makes development and industrial use off-limits.


I totally agree. And remember, these are just proposals. Not much that is proposed will get Wilderness designation.

Red_Chili
04-25-2011, 09:33 AM
You nailed it. Right now we have one-size-fits-all protection against development and it is Wilderness designation. Heavy handed and locked down, or none at all (WSAs notwithstanding, they can be modified, but still pretty much the same). Those who see wild lands threatened by industrial or extractive development do not see any other way to protect it - and the fact that so many motorized users (and mechanized users too) seem incognizant of impact makes wild lands advocates extremely unsympathetic to the closures that affect us. Noise, erosion, impacts to wildlife trump our rights to enjoy wild lands in other words.

An example of the need was when the S. Platte came up for Wild & Scenic designation (pretty much the same as Wilderness in many ways). It was so draconian that only committed greens were happy. Multiple user groups came together to hammer out a coalition that works. It was tested in Hayman and gave the USFS much needed flexibility. It has become a model for future land use issues (as an ideal in the USFS's mind at least).

We need a land designation that is more like Roadless or Wild Lands designation but allowing for careful recreational development sensitive to ecosystem impacts and allowing land use managers flexibility in managing forest health. And like Wilderness in that it can't be rolled back. Solid protection but not draconian for recreation.

It will be tough to form a coalition but it will be worth it. Lots of prejudice and divisiveness to overcome. Which is why I won't stand idly by and allow factionalism to go unchallenged.

In the words of Capt. Woodrow Call (TX Ranger, Esq.,in Lonesome Dove), right after he nearly killed a Bluecoat for abusing his son:
"Can't stand rudeness in a man. Won't tolerate it." :D

Nay
04-25-2011, 03:27 PM
We need a land designation that is more like Roadless or Wild Lands designation but allowing for careful recreational development sensitive to ecosystem impacts and allowing land use managers flexibility in managing forest health. And like Wilderness in that it can't be rolled back. Solid protection but not draconian for recreation.

It will be tough to form a coalition but it will be worth it. Lots of prejudice and divisiveness to overcome. Which is why I won't stand idly by and allow factionalism to go unchallenged.

Well said :cheers:

Corbet
04-27-2011, 10:33 PM
Hidden Gems is bad. I read a lot about it over a year ago. I don't remember the specifics now, but do remember my conclusion.

I sat in on a presentation when living in Frisco by Hidden Gems and spent some time with the speaker afterwards. I agree with the above statement. They definitely seem to be trying to overstep the "wilderness" definition. Pretty much all of Summit that fits the definition of wilderness is already set aside. The rest of the county is riddled with old mining roads. I used to drive around forever exploring trails that dead ended at some old mine site.

What frustrates me is that us wheelers as a user group can't seem to unite with other like user groups MTB, Moto, snowmobile etc... For the most part its all of us against the extreme environmentalists.

I also agree with Martin. There is definitely a need for wilderness area if it fits the bill.