Wilderness expansion in the San Juans (1 Viewer)

[marcfj60]

I heard about some new legislation that is proposing to expand the wilderness areas in SW CO in the San Juans. You guys are close enough to possibly care about it. Plus, at least you live in CO, instead of my home state of NM so you might have a little more vested interest in it. I got the heads up on the Hundreds In The Hills 8 thread from @a19pilot.

Emailing - COHVCO

I sent several emails to multiple legislators expressing my concern for wilderness expansion in an area that already has vast areas of wilderness and gets heavy motorized vehicle usage, describing my worries that it would reduce motorized access. I did get a lengthy response from Senator Bennet's staff member, John Whitney:

*******************

Marc

Thank you for contacting us about the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, we appreciate hearing your concerns and input on this legislation.

The bill has the support of Ouray County, San Miguel County, San Juan County, Silverton, Ouray, Telluride, Mountain Village, Ridgway and many other stakeholders who believe it represents a balanced approach to public land management and preserves existing recreational opportunities that are an important part of the economy in the San Juan Mountains. We certainly understand that motorized recreational opportunities are important to many people in Colorado and we support that use. We appreciate the chance to address your concerns about possible impacts to motorized recreation, and clarify what this bill does.

The San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act does not close any designated off-highway vehicle trails, groomed snowmobile routes or roads. The official legislative maps for the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act are attached. They show the proposed Wilderness and Special Management Areas, which specifically avoid existing roads and trails. A broad overview map of the proposed designations is also attached.

We have heard concerns that the bill will close summer travel routes like Yankee Boy Basin, Imogene Pass, Ophir Pass and other iconic and important four wheel drive routes in the San Juan Mountains. That is not the case. As this bill was developed and revised the motorized community was consulted with to avoid all summer motorized routes, groomed snowmobile routes, and high use snowmobile corridors. These were excluded from the acreage in the bill to allow for their continued use. Attached to this email is a letter from representatives of the three counties where the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act is located. It provides additional clarification and information on this legislation.

Thank you again for reaching out to us. For additional information on the bill please see this link for our press release on the bill.

If you have any more questions about the bill or want to discuss the bill in more detail I would be happy to visit with you more on it. Feel free to email me back or give me a call.


John Whitney | Western Slope Regional Director
U.S. Senator Michael F. Bennet | 970-259-1710

 

[marcfj60]

Whitney also provided some PDF maps with the email response:

 

[marcfj60]

And 4 more maps

 

[NMC_EXP]

Many thanks for this.

However beware this from Bennett:

"The San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act does not close any designated off-highway vehicle trails."

It may be nothing but a reach-around. From Bennett that's what I would expect.

The feds have very specific definitions for things. So what constitutes a "designated" trail to them and to us may be an entirely different thing. There are jeep trails on public lands that started off in the 19th century as horse drawn toll roads, mining roads...etc and were in continuous use ever since. But this does not make them a road or a "designated" trail to the government, and it does not prevent the feds from closing them off.

As to all these "stakeholders" supporting wilderness and wilderness-lite designations: The local governments believe the BS fed to them by hard core environmentalist groups. Specifically that wilderness designation will bring in large numbers of tourists and piles of tax dollars. This claim is absolutely false. From the feds own data of all the man-hours spent in outdoor recreation on public land less than 5% are spent in wilderness areas.

There are things driving federal land use and road policy that they do not talk about publicly. Reason being it along with Agenda 21 came out of the 1992 Earth Summit. Specifically the portion called the Convention on Biological Diversity. The eco freaks are using the COBD as justification for the creation of "wildlife corridors" and "ecological connectivity'.

These "corridors" and "connectivity" are a major reason you see a never ending push to create new and often small wilderness and various forms of special management areas. And the roads and trails are closed in the process.

The goal of the creation of corridors and connectivity is now USFS policy. If BLM has not already done the same it is just a matter of time.

Conspiracy theory you think? Before you decide check out this link to "The Center for Large Landscape Conservation" in which it boasts of its victory in changing USFS policy:

Advocate Policy: Ensuring Connectivity For 193 Million Acres | Center for Large Landscape Conservation

Do your own searches using the terms "deep ecology" and "landscape wide conservation".

You have to dig to find this stuff. The media do not investigate, they just read government press releases. And the government seems to prefer that we be kept in the dark about its plans regarding why it manages public land they way it does.