IS ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION WORTH THE COST?
Is National Park Wilderness a Good Idea?
Does designating national parks as wilderness help or hinder the prospect of winning protection for truly threatened roadless lands? Do the national parks already have enough protection?
By Bill Schneider, 6-24-09
If you’ve read any of my past columns, you know I’m a strong proponent of designating more Wilderness, but when considering whether to support including our national parks under the National Wilderness Preservation System, I have to wonder if it’s a good idea. Here’s why.
First, let me set the stage. With the recent passage of the massive Public Lands Omnibus Bill, which added 2 million acres of new Wilderness, the United States has almost 110 million acres of Wilderness, mostly in Alaska. Of that total, 44 million or 40 percent is in national parks, including a half-million acres or 25 percent of the 2 million in the Omnibus bill. Another 21 million acres of the 110 million total, or 19 percent, are in national wildlife refuges, again mostly in Alaska.
So, in summary, of the 110 million acres of Wilderness, 65 million acres or 59 percent was already protected as national parks or wildlife refuges and for the most part (but not completely), off limits to logging, mining, grazing and other resource development. Take these lands out of the picture, and we actually have protected 45 million acres of land managed by the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), perhaps the most threatened federal land, as Wilderness.
I’m not pretending that 45 million acres is a small number, but it sure is a lot smaller than 110 million, and it doesn’t seem extreme when compared to the 457 million acres of federal land managed by the BLM (264 million) and FS (193 million).
Now, the National Park Service (NPS) is recommending the designation of another 5.7 million acres of Wilderness, including 927,000 acres or about 93 percent of Montana’s Glacier National Park.
I have to ask, is this a good idea?
I dearly wish the process of designating Wilderness was about science and recreation management, but the harsh reality is: Wilderness designation is all about politics.
And politically, times are tough for wildernuts. In the northern Rockies, for example, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have gone without a single Wilderness designation in more than 25 years with the exception of Idaho’s recent success in getting the Owyhee Wilderness in the Omnibus bill.
Prime among the reasons for this Wilderness Drought, as I call it, is that some people think we have enough or too much Wilderness already. If you’ve read comment sections on my past commentaries or, perhaps, any article about Wilderness, you’ve seen comments like, “We have 110 million acres. Isn’t that enough for the environmental extremists? Do they want it all?”
With that in mind, I recently had a pleasant chat with Chas Cartwright, superintendent of Glacier Park, who is promoting the designation of most of the park as Wilderness, and he hopes to get Montana’s delegation interested in doing it on or before the park’s centennial coming up next year..
“It’s already a national park,” Cartwright admits. “It’s already protected. But can wilderness in Glacier serve as a building block to more wilderness?”
He views the park wilderness proposal as “unfinished business,” and he asks, “what better way to celebrate Glacier’s centennial?”
I expressed my political concerns, and he said he has also heard the same from parts of the environmental community. In response he says, “People ask why, and I say why not?”
Interestingly, in Glacier’s proposal--and most if not all other national park wilderness recommendations--the NPS doesn’t include sections of the park devoted to or planned for commercial development.
“The most probing questions people have,” Cartwright says, “are, will it (wilderness designation) change how people use the park or change how we manage the park? The answer to both is no. It won’t change in any way.”
Then, again, I have to ask why are we doing it? Cartwright correctly notes that the Wilderness designation “gives us another layer of protection,” and that’s definitely true. But to me, it also makes the already-challenging political landscape even more challenging.
I want to agree with Cartwright, but I can’t. Not now, when wilderness politics is so volatile. Eventually, I’m sure Glacier and most national parks will end up in the National Wilderness Preservation System, but let’s do this at the end of the game, not at this critical point in the process.
I see national park wilderness as a “gimme” for politicians, or as Cartwright calls it, “low-hanging fruit.” They can designate 927,000 of Wilderness, and then say their job is done, and we don’t need any more. Meanwhile, millions of acres of pristine lands, many of which should be Wilderness, will continue to go unprotected. We should devote our limited time and energy--and limited political opportunity--to preserving these more-threatened roadless lands.
So, what do you think?
[End of article]I would say continue adding NPS lands as Wilderness and go after areas that need to be designated as such more aggressively.
Comment By Jeff Welch, 6-25-09Nice post Bill. I heard Cartwright speak on the very same subject a few weeks ago and came away with the same thought. Why keep shooting when the animal is already down? Save the bullets for the next hunt.
Comment By steve kelly, 6-25-09If the root cause of the problem is political corruption, wilderness in Parks, or anywhere else on public land, is way down the menu. Senate protocol needs to go.
Comment By Kat, 6-25-09I agree that designating national parks as wildernesses is somewhat a waste of precious and limites wilderness area supply. However, NPCA (for whom I work) supports designating parts of parks as wilderness areas for a couple of reasons that I actually find quite compelling:
1) bicycles. Because the government wants to open up more area in national parks to mountain bikers, and because mountain bikers hate staying on trails and mountain biking (as is, say, horseback riding) is notoriously damaging, the hope is to designate areas as wilderness to make them off limits to bikers.
2) guns. Similar argument to bicycles. Now that legislation has been passed that will allow me to pack heat in national parks, the idea is to declare areas as wilderness and make them off limits to gun toters (though that further complicates the enforcement of gun laws, because how many people know where state lines AND wilderness lines begin and end?).
Pretty interesting way to look at things. Still on the fence about agreement but...
I understand the perspective, and offer a differing viewpoint. First, there isn't a glass ceiling with wilderness, other than the total acreage of lands that qualify. In essence, designating a new wilderness area doesn't reduce the chances of designating more later - just look at the percentage (and pure number) of wilderness acres and bills that have come forth since Sept. 1964. In Arizona, for instance, there have been 7 distinct pieces of legislation that have created new wilderness. Anti-wilderness advocates will always say there's too much - we shouldn't buy into the viewpoint that we only have so much fodder in the cannon.
Second, designating new wilderness in Parks - such as Glacier - builds support and momentum. You're right to point out the politics of wilderness, and when congressional delegations have a relatively good experience with passing wilderness, they're more apt to do it again. Its a matter of getting their feet wet, and if wilderness advocates can work hard to ensure they get the credit and support they deserve, Wilderness in Parks is a good first step to Wilderness in Forests and BLM lands, especially with relatively new congressional members or states that have not had much in the way of wilderness since the statewide bills.
Third, wilderness campaigns build infrastructure of support and awareness in communities. Glacier is a great opportunity to put the benefits of wilderness on the table in a context that doesn't threaten people. A conversation and learning experience can ensue across Montana about the benefits of wilderness with relatively little controversy. People have the opportunity to learn about wilderness in the absence of cannon fire, and that helps breaking down some of the negative stereotypes wilderness has. And, as pointed out earlier, those better-informed folks will be ready when the next proposal comes around.
Finally, the Park Service isn't miss daisy all the time. With such a strong focus on recreation, wilderness ensures non-impairment standards that wouldn't otherwise be in place. Wilderness takes the long view wherever it goes - we can't predict what will come down the pike, but we know if wilderness is there, the land has much better chances of avoiding impacts.
As such, please reconsider your point. While it makes intuitive sense on first glance, I really hope its not an argument that we have to continue to entertain within the wilderness community. Thanks for considering this perspective.
Luckily, all three of our large parks in Washington got their Wilderness designations in 1988. The only piece still hanging out there is a little slice of Olympic NP north of Lake Crescent. In national parks, such designation does seem superfluous at first glance, but I can imagine all sorts of awful stuff happening in the ONP without it. ONP management regularly bemoans their relative lack of roads and perceives the roads they do have as sacred. They already make excessive use of helicopters, though it would no doubt be a free-for-all otherwise. They've tried to airlift ugly prefab shelters to Low Divide and Home Sweet Home. They want to thin around existing, semi-historic structures to prevent them from burning. They want to reestablish settler homestead conditions in some places, such as the Queets River. Great effort is expended to get around the statute. What if it wasn't there at all?
Maybe the ONP is a special case. The history of mismanagement by the park service there is the stuff of legend. The agency didn't even want this park to begin with and has never fully grasped what makes it valuable and unique. I doubt this mindset is isolated to ONP, though. The reason for Wilderness designation is because the park service cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Consider also the recent bulldozer-in-Wilderness shenanigans on Kautz Creek at Mt. Rainier (regrettably cheered on by Washington Trails Association). By contrast, Chip Jenkins at the helm of North Cascades NP is a rare bird.
More troubling, I think, is Schneider's general tone and outlook. Wilderness proponents, as well as many other forest activists, have become so timid and deferential that they likely do more harm than good. Often, their very first thought and strategy entails how not to give the opposition any new avenue of argument, with the assumption that greens will inevitably lose in an open public forum. This sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy, yielding ultra-cautious and clandestine "campaigns" and horrific quid pro quo bill language. This scenario is most evident in the mountain states, of course. After decades of defeat, aging proponents have a full-fledged case of PTSD, to the point they can't recognize the gradually but steadily diminishing influence of wise use types and the far right. There's an opening, but they're too mentally beaten to rebound. Best that Schneider and those like him be put out to pasture.
What's the solution to Schneider's dilemma? Get a bullhorn and shout to all who will listen about how much acreage in the continental U.S. has been lost to development. Tell them of the tiny fraction that's been saved, and about the even tinier fraction that still has a chance. It's not hard if one isn't already neutered. Even in Washington state, where the proportion of wildlands to developed areas is better than most in the lower 48, if we designated every last possible acre we could justify, we'd still be saving less than one-fifth of it. Such radicals we are! -Jim
I agree with you, Bill. Too confusing for most of the public, and that means too confusing for your congressman, who more often than not is more of a dolt than the general public.
NP is a protection that should be as good as Wilderness. The political capital should be expended on getting new areas protected, as you point out. Even conservative guys like me say the some additional wilderness is acceptable and needed, and having more of them spread out over diverse landscapes is better than a homogenous alpine snow, rocks and ice deal. I do like the idea of pocket wilderness, IF they are protected from WFU and AMR fire management. I am still mightily pissed over the USFS, Umpqua Natl Forest, WFUing the entirety of the Boulder Cr. Wilderness with the Rattle Fire last year, with all of the ten year old Spring Fire area burned once more. That Wilderness had some special stuff, and an old growth ponderosa pine bench on the west side of the Cascade crest, that only could have come from aboriginal seeding, or at the least, cone collection cached there at some time, dd long, long ago. Boulder Cr. was a pocket wilderness, of about 20,000 acres. Now it is just another burn in 300 year old plus timber and meadows. Nothing special about that. And nothing special about creating Wilderness only to encourage it to be destroyed by fire. Yes, destroyed. The land is still there, albeit more conducive to being washed by erosion, attacked by insects, and the trails lost to massive deadfall. The heritage forest, the reason for protection in the first place, is gone for another half to whole millennium. That makes the Wilderness process less than appealing, and visiting a place like that, over time, because it is special to you, is taken in a way no different than if you had come to the trailhead and the land was clearcut. Not the same, and never will be. No Indian burners managing the landscape, no connection to past and future that makes places special. Just the assumed care and concern that you get from carpetbagging USFS or NPS or BLM personnel, looking for the next promotion, the pension, and more money, and you do that by being politically correct, not by being a concerned keeper of the Wilderness trust. I don't find comfort in unionized public resource management driven by politics and campaign contributions, all in a framework of political correctness. My vote of no confidence.
If I truly believed our government land management agencies are as concerned about our wilderness heritage as they are in house social engineering, I would not have my distain for their current management track, and I would have more confidence in their ability to manage land. Burning every Wilderness for "resource use" does not cut it. We don't need Wilderness for burning. We need Wilderness for all the characteristics it has when nominated, preserved by all means possible for the longest time. If more Wilderness means more boots on the ground fighting fire, employing more people, better the money go there than to some high flying bank speculators and flim-flam artists with congressional connections or Democrat campaign contributors.
Regarding Wilderness in Wyoming: Congress just designated the Snake River and its headwaters as a Wild and Scenic River - this is the liquid equivalent of Wilderness.
Bill never addresses what wilderness would mean for national parks. In Yellowstone, for example, it would make Yellowstone Lake pristine in the following respect: Today you can paddle on a 10-day trip (as I did last fall) and encounter motor boats - and NPS docks - in places that have been recommended for wilderness - the South and Southeast arms and Flat Mountain Arm. Administrative use of motors in proposed wilderness is regularly employed by biologists and rangers. In the Yellowstone ecosystem, there are essentially only 3 lakes that are motor free and accessible by canoe: String and Leigh Lake (GTNP) Shoshone Lake (YNP) and Upper Green River Lake (Bridger Wilderness).
Wilderness is an appropriate designation in national parks.
Of the preceding comments, I concur the most with Matt Skroch's points. I have followed wilderness and public lands issues for over forty years, and I'm a former NPS employee. I know that NPS cannot always be trusted to do the "right thing", and is often subject to political pressures to allow more motorized use or development. For example, have we already forgotten the active NPS meddling during the Bush administration, including by former VP Dick Cheney? Wilderness designation is a necessary and appropriate additional layer of statutory protection in NPS units for qualified roadless lands because it greatly diminishes the potential for such political meddling. Such designations also reflect the longstanding recommendations of many former and current NPS professionals. It is actually embarrassing to think of the huge backlog of NPS proposed wilderness areas around the nation that have politically languished over many, many years. With the new Obama administration and improved Congress, we may have the best political window in a generation to effectively address this backlog. We must seize this positive opportunity. Unfortunately, from my perspective, Bill Schneider's article is a counterproductive distraction. If Mr. Schneider wants to walk his talk of supporting wilderness, he should enthusiastically embrace wilderness designations for all qualifying areas, regardless of which federal agency administers them.
Comment By Bill Schneider, 6-25-09Kat--Just a clarification. I don't believe Wilderness designation would affect firearms laws. Guns are allowed in Wilderness, even Wilderness in national parks......Bill
Comment By Dave Skinner, 6-25-09John H's comment pretty much illustrates the mindset. A wilderness designation in one location always frees up assets and lobbying pressure for application to other new areas.
As Mr. Cartwright asked, "t can wilderness in Glacier serve as a building block to more wilderness?" Yep, that's the way it works, keep moving the goalposts further out.
I guess if GNP wants to be wilderness, that's their right as bureaucratic experts. But does that mean hand tools only, with the associated expense? And who will end up crying the loudest for more funding for the hand crews, or restricting the access (already done through permitting) to limit impacts? And does that create a vicious cycle where park customers are not provided with the product they expect from public parks, and then become less-enthusiastic political constituents...kinda like what USFS is undergoing as first the loggers and then the Joe Average Recreationists are being stiffed.
I understand your angle here, Bill, you are wondering if wildernessing the parks will in fact result in less total wilderness designation. If Cartwright gets what he wants...I hope your premise is correct, not his.
The "unfinished business" of National Park Wilderness creates a tremendous management challenge and does a huge disservice to some of the most important wild areas in the country. It's a terrible assumption that just because a wild area is in a National Park means that it will be protected.
"We will manage it as Wilderness" without the strength of law leaves the door open for individuals to reinterpret "Wilderness" in their own way.... still saying, "it's not really Wilderness cause only Congress can designate Wilderness" and they haven't done that. National Parks have NEVER been immune to development pressure, and though some of those developments have given us some of the more beautiful roads in the park system, there will always be pressure to build more and create more infrastructure for more people. Sellars' "Preserving Nature in the National Parks" provides some excellent examples of what can happen in parks without strong protections.
As for the cost of doing business in Wilderness, Wilderness areas across the country have always worked to balance needs on that issue and have a process for doing so- minimum requirements analysis. There are certainly situations where crosscut saws aren't used. There are also situations where the minimum tool is a lot less expensive and simpler then the grand idea.
The best way to protect wild areas in parks is to designate it under the strength of law. Why wouldn't you do everything you can to protect these areas that have long been called out as singular in the United States and world?
Kat--
I hope those aren't the NPCA's official talking points because they don't make much sense.
1. I'm not much of a mountain biker but I do manage a large chunk of acreage with a mountain bike emphasis. While I agree the MTBs should not be allowed in wilderness areas, saying they are "notoriously damaging" is not accurate, in my opinion. Additionally, I've never had a problem with MTBs not wanting to stay on the trails (and the area I manage sees about 70,000 MTB visits a year) because its much more enjoyable and easier for them to ride on a developed trail. As with any trail, proper design and maintenance can mitigate most physical impacts from MTB travel.
Social impacts are something else entirely, which is why I am against mechanized use in wilderness. I'm also not aware of this government push to open up more acres to mountain biking. Its fine with me if you don't like mountain bikes, but your statements about their behavior do not match with my experience in managing their recreational use.
2. Wilderness designation will have no effect on carrying firearms, and I'm sure the NPCA has to know that. In fact, many wilderness areas were established due to the outstanding opportunities for hunting they provide.
Matt Skroch brings up some good points about momentum and others mention wilderness as a tool to advocate for better management of National Parks. However, that said, I'd like to add to the confusion:
1. The public perception of wilderness, especially within the "big" parks (Yellowstone, GRTE, Grand Canyon, etc), is that they already have it--whether they do or not. I'm not sure how much of a big deal wilderness designation in National Parks which lack it would be to the public who actually does care.
2. Yellowstone does not have wilderness. For the general public and commercial outfitters, the backcountry is, for the most part, managed as wilderness. Administratively, helicopters, chainsaws, rock drills, some wheeled vehicles, motor boats, and other gas powered tools have routinely been allowed into the backcountry. This only happens in rare administrative "emergencies" in the surrounding National Forest Wilderness Areas. The attitude is apparently changing in Yellowstone toward the over use of power equipment (I haven't worked there since 2000), but "ways of doing business" in a Big Park can take a long time to change.
3. A small unit like Saguaro National Park in Arizona has had sections designated as wilderness for quite a few years, but, like Yellowstone, has overused power tools and helicopters to a negative point. The attitude there has definitely changed in the last few years with respect to wilderness management--which brings me to the next point:
4. Big parks are actually "ruled" by their superintendents--in other words, the Supe usually has the last say. For example, in the late 1990's the rumor was that Superintendent Mike Finley would not "sign" any of Yellowstone into Wilderness because then the Wyoming congressional delegation would include the NPS wilderness acres in the total state tally in order to avoid any future USFS or BLM designations. Other examples of "Supe Rule" include Lon Garrison single-handedly making the decision to allow motor boats on Yellowstone Lake; and Supes in the late 60's/early 70s advocating snowmobile use.
4. On the other hand, small park Supes do not have the clout of Big Park supes, and have to reflect regional and national NPS policies more closely. They require more consensus from their division chiefs than the Big Park supes; and, it is easier to effect more of a "regime change" in a small park.
So what's the point of my boring post? Wilderness designation is important not so much for public perception in terms of momentum, but could be quite ahndy to place an actual handle on park managers which the public at large can use to shake those people around from time to time. Delineated Wilderness designation will be a useful tool to keep the self-victimizing, but occasionally well organized, kayakers and mountain bikers from whining and bribing their way into the backcountry of National Parks. It can also, in the case of certain Big Parks and with regional and national NPS policy, circumvent our corrupt congress. (Ultimately, Steve is right.)
Having been a hunting guide in Wilderness Areas, I really didn't want to bring up the "guns not allowed in wilderness" idea expressed by Kat. As mentioned above, I really detest the mountain bike "community" (a more accurate designation is "consumer product group"), but if the two reasons mentioned by Kat are really the main prongs of NPCA's plan then I must say: I applied for a job with NPCA and now I don't feel so bad about not even receiving a rejection letter...
Kat highlighted a couple reasons why she supports designation of Glacier’s Wilderness, but to be clear, those are not the reasons why NPCA believes it’s a good idea (in fact, after asking around we aren’t even sure if ‘Kat’ is an actual employee of NPCA). NPCA supports Wilderness designation for parts of Glacier National Park because it would be a significant step forward in protecting its tremendous resources and providing local economic benefits.
In 1976, the President recommended to Congress that 92 percent of Glacier’s land area should be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Over the past thirty years, many of America’s iconic national parks have had their backcountry areas designated as wilderness; including Yosemite, Rainer, Olympic. Glacier is one of a handful of national parks with a wilderness recommendation submitted to Congress with no action to date.
I appreciate and share Bill’s feelings about the great Montana “wilderness drought,” and while it’s been a long time for any wilderness designation here in Montana, we believe that Glacier can—and should be part—of the wilderness discussion going forward in our state.
Consistent with the experiences of other states, we anticipate that designating Wilderness in Glacier will serve to increase a positive public attitude toward wilderness areas.
So here are five good reasons why the National Parks Conservation Association supports wilderness for Glacier:
•Designating Glacier’s backcountry area as wilderness is long overdue, unfinished business that should be completed as a legacy piece of Glacier Centennial celebration. Research has shown that wildlife and wilderness values are the primary reason non-residents visitors come to Glacier, creating economic prosperity for our region.
•Wilderness designation will not change how visitors and concessionaires use and experience Glacier (including mountain bikes). It will ensure that future generations have the same experience that we do today. Only wilderness designation by Congress affords permanent protection for existing values of Glacier’s backcountry wilderness.
•Wilderness designation is also a legacy event that can be used by the business community to further promote the Glacier Centennial in 2010 to the national media and increase Centennial awareness among potential visitors. The recent Congressional designation of wilderness in Rocky Mountain National Park garnered significant media attention and a visit from the President.
•The Glacier National Park Centennial committee, consisting of over 30 community based partners and the park, sponsored 8 listening sessions during 2008 in which over 300 people provided their thoughts and ideas on how to protect and provide for visitor enjoyment of Glacier for the next 100 years. Formal designation of wilderness is one of the primary legacy goals identified by the public.
•Congressional designation of Glacier’s wilderness areas will send a positive message to Canada communicating America’s strong commitment to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. In April of this year, the Canadian Parliament passed legislation designating the Canadian portion of Waterton-Glacier Peace Park as wilderness.
Sincerely,
Will Hammerquist
Glacier Program Manager
Whitefish, Montana
For those who are unaware, H.R. 1975 protects around 3 million acres as wilderness in Glacier, Yellowstone and Teton National Parks. National treasures all. It's currently in the House Natural Resources Committee awaiting markup. If you haven't written a letter of support to the committee, it's real action individuals and groups can take to further the purposes and values for which wilderness was intended.
Comment By Dan B., 6-26-09As a Montana native I would have to say no to designating National Park land as wilderness. The N.P. system was created so people would have unique natural areas to enjoy, for the open use of all. I grew up visiting Glacier and Yellowstone, but for many people NPs are the only opportunity to truely experience wild America. While they may not have imagined power sports 100 years ago, I believe the NPs should only restrict use enough to keep it wild, natural and free for all to use. Thanks Matt, we can find ways for different activities to use our parks responsibly, even mechanized, as long as we don't restrict general use. Not all activities are appropriate for every park or at every level. Public access for general use is required for the enjoyment of all.
Designating wild National Park areas as wilderness will just give those more restrictive minded people another excuse to try and shut down access to areas that are for everyone. Imagine designating a city park as "wilderness" and then slowly restricting it's use one activity at a time. First bicyclists, then skateboarders, walking your dog, picnicers, and finally people who want to play frisbee or only just walk into the park. It would come down to only letting people look in from the outside.
Do we want this to happen to our National Parks? No. It would be much better to find new lands that can and need to be protected. Areas to benefit our wildlife and keep a sound and health wild ecosystem in place.
I believe making National Park wildernesses would only serve as a platform to restrict the use of a public resource that was meant to be used openly by all people. Public interest would not be served by placing another label on the NPs, when other areas can be found to protect.
You're just wrong... The NP ideal is to preserve things unsullied for the future and you preach damage for the sake of your childish fantasies. Vroom, vroom...
Comment By Dan B., 6-26-09To preserve unsullied for the future is your childish fantasy. To preserve as such would require closing the parks off to all visitors, whether on bike, foot or horseback. As I said-
"The N.P. system was created so people would have unique natural areas to enjoy, for the open use of all. .... but for many people NPs are the only opportunity to truely experience wild America. .... I believe the NPs should only restrict use enough to keep it wild, natural and free for all to use."
It is very difficult, I am sure, to keep anything in a pristine condition if it is open for use. Try opening a new book without creasing a page. Kind of hard isn't it. A book is there to be read, as the NPs are meant to be enjoyed.
My main point is that designating NPs as wilderness areas would give people an excuse to further restrict access to a public resource that is meant to for all people to enjoy.
One summer I worked for the NPS in Yellowstone and cleared trails with a chainsaw. If I recall, going around Heart Lake took about 5-7 days. Of course the chainsaw was audible all along the lake shore. Imagine the disappointment for someone from Ohio who drove all the way to Yellowstone and then hiked into Heart Lake to camp for a few days and have a true "wilderness experience."
Workers on designated wilderness in National Forests have cleared trail with crosscut saws and other hand tools for decades--the NPS should, too.
Will,
Perhaps you could inform us all on the existing land management designations for Glacier. Does the Park Service have a system similar to the BLM or FS with specific management areas dictating how different areas are to be managed? If so, what are they and what is allowed in each different area? Without knowing what the existing condition is I'm not sure how we can have an informed discussion about what wilderness designation would change.
Glacier is administratively about 98 percent "wilderness." Aside from the roads and sites like Sperry Chalet, no permanent structures are allowed.
Of course, there are "administrative" exemptions, such as for trails maintenance and construction. For example, Dave Smith's little excursion around Heart Lake. Can you imagine how long it might have taken hand-bucking with misery whips and other charming low-tech? 5 to 7 weeks? Good for Dave's college fund, I suppose, but what if Dave springs a disc?
What about bridge fabrication for stream crossings?
And sometimes I think it is stupid NOT to put certain structures in popular back-country areas. I see nothing morally and ethically untoward about installation of vault toilets in certain areas where use is high. Beats the living poo out of the alternatives, youbetcha. And who says you can't design a vault with heli-portable honeybuckets?
Cartwright's initiative is wrongheaded, but then that's what I've come to expect from the Park Service. I guess those flat hats have a medical effect that has finally manifested itself.
Treehugger provides a good question: What parts of Glacier are we talking about and what is there existing condition?
First, a Congressional Designation would only apply to the 95 percent of Glacier that ALREADY are managed as wilderness.
From the Glacier Management Plan:
Approximately 95 percent of the park is identified as suitable for inclusion in the national wilderness preservation system. However, Congress has not formally designated any land in Glacier as wilderness.
NPS policy requires that the proposed wilderness land in Glacier be managed as wilderness until such time as Congress either formally designates the land as wilderness or rejects the designation.
[Proposed wilderness areas] shall be administered for the use of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness areas, so as to provide for the preservation of their wilderness character . . .
So the crux of the issue is this:
1). Do believe that the management approach to Glacier's backcountry should remain one that focuses on preservation and preventing impairment?
If yes go to question 2:
2) Do you believe that Congress, as an elected body, should legislate the current management approach as law? Or, inversely, should it remain a policy decision left to the National Park Service?
Wilderness isn't wilderness if humans are allowed. Everyone and everything has an impact, good or bad. What you guys are calling wilderness is exclusiveness, and being able to lock other humans out for any reasons at all.
Comment By Dave Hadden, 6-28-09Bill:
A great column that has generated much good commentary.
Glacier needs the protection provided by the Wilderness Act. Superintendent Cartwright correctly notes that designating Glacier as wilderness is the single act that the Park Service can advocate and that Congress can take that would provide lasting protection for this cherished landscape in the Park's 100th year.
Each place and each idea has its time and the time for Glacier Park to be protected as a National Wilderness area has come. Worrying about the what if's for other worthy areas dilutes the present opportunity. It likely also diminishes the effectiveness of wilderness advocacy in general.
However, we must remember that as much as we think of Glacier as a 'unit' in the National Park System, it does not exist as an island in space and time. Glacier seamlessly connects to the surrounding landscape.
As we now know, most threats to Glacier exist beyond its borders. In particular, the British Columbia government continues to promote mining and energy extraction projects north of the border in the Canadian Flathead river valley. And potential development in the U.S. North Fork also threatens the park.
Most people remain unaware that the Whitefish Range, just west of Glacier and the North Fork River, are blanketed by oil and gas leases. And the North Fork Road paving issue continues to resonate with the development-minded among us. These developments would lead to greater land subdivision and loss of the existing high value wildlife habitat of the valley.
Congress needs to designate Glacier as congressionally designated wilderness. Congress must also act to protect the entire North Fork watershed. It must protect the entire watershed in order to protect a national treasure - Glacier National Park. And it must do so to send the strongest possible message that the U.S. expects B.C. and Canada to protect the watershed as well.
That is why Headwaters Montana, a local, Flathead Valley conservation organization, has asked Sen. Baucus to enact comprehensive legislation to protect the North Fork by establishing Glacier Park wilderness, retiring oil and gas leases in the North Fork, and designating the Whitefish Range Wilderness on the border with Canada.
As you can see, establishing a Glacier Park Wilderness doesn't limit the discussion or reduce the future opportunities for conservation. In fact, a Glacier Park Wilderness helps us think and act to protect the entire ecosystem, now. Not in some hypothetical future.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Dave Hadden, Director
Headwaters Montana
http://www.headwatersmontana.org
406-837-0783
In 1910 when Glacier Park was established it enjoyed about 4000 visitors. Last year there were over 2 million people visiting. Now project forward to the future when there will be 5 million or 10 million people visiting Glacier in a year. Under a wilderness designation all those people will be crammed into the designated enclaves and travel corridors.
The Park Service mission is "to protect and preserve for the enjoyment of…" Wilderness will protect and preserve for sure, but how can anyone enjoy a National Park when 5 million people are crammed into enclaves and standing in line for the same toilet? National Parks belong to the people and are intended for their enjoyment. Fifty years from now when the enclaves become overburdened with visitors the Park will lose its value as an enjoyable place. Worse, they may have to exclude people from their own park. A Wilderness designation may not change any park use today, but it is sure to have a profound impact in 50 to 100 years.
Personally I would rather trust the future generations, our children, to be wise enough to manage National Parks with the same care and concern for preservation that we have today. In fact I believe that just like we know more about preservation than our elders did, our children will exceed our own abilities. I do not want their hands tied, or a public denied, because of a wilderness designation.
Cast my vote in agreement with the author. There are other places besides National Parks that are in greater need of Wilderness. Spend the energy and political capitol there.
Actually, there won't be five million visitors.
Visitation to the park was very limited until the flivver and the Sun Highway became available. Before that, it was lodges serviced by the railroad, pretty high-end guided horse-packery not available to commoners.
Then, with the U.S. highway network, and the family flivver, it became possible, especially after the war, for "normal" people of modest means to plan an auto trip to Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount Rushmore.
Even today, the vast vast vast majority of long-distance visitors drive from home to whatever park is their destination. Only a relative few will fly or take the train.
With this charming energy bill about to stomp everyone's energy budget into nothing, I doubt seriously that if it passes, or if the "greening" of America continues, visitation to Glacier will ever be significantly more than it is now. Government-stifled "economics" will ensure the park demographic becomes static, and relative to the rest of the population, ever more elitist.
That said, if it did grow...wilderness designation would mean that the park would be much more limited in the experience it can make available to future generations. If I have to wait years for a permit, trust me, I'll look at other options.
Right now, at certain times, the Sun Highway is a pretty pathetic experience. Those times happen to be when most folks can go. Of course, if you get up at 3.30 and hit your destination in time, it's all right.
It might have been a good idea to complete that other pass highway from Waterton into the upper Flathead, and incidentally pave the North Fork road, but of course the saviors of the Park will never let that happen.
Thanks, everybody, for your great comments. One of the best threads we've had on NewWest.Net of late.
One point I'd like to address is Dave Hadden's. Even though I respect those who disagree with my perspective on this issue, I still can't see the timing being right for a Glacier Wilderness bill--unless, as Dave suggests, it could be an anchor for a regional wilderness bill that would truly protect Glacier and its surrounding wildlands. That's something I could strongly support. Anybody in the Montana delegation listening?.....Bill
Enviros better start worrying about how they can help the working people get and keep jobs, produce fuel, and food....otherwise the donations are going to dry up folks and you will be SOL for money to push your agendas.
Shut down the coal mines and the oil wells and you will find your tv and computers don't light up, the house is cold, the frig doesn't work, the car won't start, etc. Wake up the country is in big trouble and stopping food & energy production is going to make it much worse.
Recently the Treas Sect'y was humiliated begging the Chinese to loan us more more money that they do not believe the US is good for. A country that cannot produce enough of it's own needs to sustain itself is in trouble. That is true even if the non-production is caused by folks who think it is esthetically unpleasing to produce our own food and energy.
I was a little kid during the great depression, I remember enough of my parents worry to impress me that saving was important and so is the need to have adequate food and energy...we did because we had land and were able to grow food and get wood to burn. I remember my Dad killing rabbits and sage chickens for my Mom to cook and feed us. We had fish out of the river too, but they worried about us kids getting a bone in our throats, we also had a goat for milk.
Most of you folks who consider yourselves such wilderness people could not keep yourselves alive for a week after the store bough food you packed in ran out. You aren't survivors, you are elitists who don't want to be disturbed by reality.
Right, Bill,
I already raised that issue, that a "core" wilderness such as new designation for Glacier would release "assets" to be applied elsewhere. It's basic military strategy...secure your gains and then redeploy.
The Bob Marshall has been added onto, of course, with Scapegoat and Great Bear and now the entire RMF is being shut down, not long now before the big W push happens there...oops, it is already ongoing.
By the way, Dave H, did you just cut and paste that from some form letter? Sure reads like it.
This is a "special interest" story. Special interests want favorable treatment from the government. Adversarial lobbying for and against special treatment. Gee, sounds like what goes on all the time to the derision of the people who think special interests are not in their best interest.
News: Special interests is only ALL about Congress, the Administration. Change, status quo, regression, advancement. All are special interest agendas that can only happen if Congress takes the time for them to happen.
So right now, except for a few committee chairs, the rules committee, and the Speaker, neither the majority or the minority have much to say about what is coming from the Congress. The Majority is slim in reality, and larger in theory by the numbers alone, in the House. The Majority in the Senate is also too close to have slam dunks, and there are those in the Majority who don't like being told what to vote for and why.
I guess, when the Minority has little to do, and not a snow ball's chance in hell of getting a hearing on ANY bill or even an amendment, they spend their time getting laid or whatever mischief underemployed, unchallenged minds do to while away their time until the next rubber chicken campaign fund raiser. If I were a Republican, I would spend a whole lot of time raising money in the hinterlands for a new day sometime in the future. People rail against the ones getting caught, and they do so because there is no end to snoops looking to catch one. Sanford, Edwards, who cares? Old guys getting laid is about money or power. The looks are gone, and the mirror does not lie. No big deal if Congressman Dovetonsils cheats on his husband or wife. They have too large of staffs, and too much time on their hands. There will be more tales of straying politicos because most are powerless, bored, seats on the bench, to be summoned when the Sun God and the Queen of SF demands it of them to vote. I actually look for surprise votes by dissidents in the Majority and the Minority.
Therein lies the answer, Bill. The Wilderness faction must be able to find enough powerless and bored congressmen and women to hustle around the various parcels that will sublimate into some state of awful development if not preserved yesterday. The old "show me" tours, and glad handing, and build your coalitions now. No better time to get them than when the powers that be are all consumed with their mighty powers and reach of their superb intelligence. The underemployed in Congress can be targeted and wooed like they would like to woo that cute little intern in the PR office. Oooh! Maybe the Congressman can get the intern a ticket to paradise, too, and they can tour the special places together.
What fun!! A couple of horse back rides and a Spam sandwich in between. See some great country. A good time can be had by all. And what a better time to do it. Queen Pelosi is busy with allowing ObamaNation to run the country and won't be bothered if the senority challenged take some time to visit public lands. And there are probably some like thinking Republicans who might take the time away from mistresses and boyfriends to put some sweat on a saddle or into a pair of boots.
In the great words on Ensign Pulver's satin pillows from his midwest roots, "We plow deep while others sleep", Wilderness proponents should use this time to cultivate deep relationships over particular Wilderness candidates. Congress is taking a long vacation this summer, and for those who are not committee chairs, or who don't have themselves or wives in ethics dust ups and problems (oh, Monica Conyers, you do provide comic relief), this summer would be a perfect time to gain support for Montana Wilderness.
Bill's original article talked about whether Glacier should receive the additional protection afforded by congressional wilderness designation. I think, yes, in part because it sends a substantial message to Canadians that we'll walk our talk on protecting this international watershed.
Yet protecting Glacier as wilderness isn't sufficient in the international context. All Montana governors since Thomas Judge (both Republicans and Democrats) have asked for British Columbia (since 1975) not to industrialize the Canadian Flathead. If you differ from this point of view then, bless you, but you’re opposing a well-established history of protecting this special place.
The only way Montana and the U.S. can help guarantee that B.C. won't proceed down the path of industrializing the watershed is to demonstrate that we in Montana won't industrialize our part of the watershed.
The problem here is the river and wildlife are shared by our two countries. So if either country is to conserve its water and wildlife it needs the cooperation of the other party.
Because the U.S. is downstream, we are in the weaker position in some respects. We need to persuade Canadians to not pollute or overdevelop their part of the watershed. We'll have a hard time convincing them to protect what they have - and what we share - if we don't do all that we can to protect our part of the watershed. This tit for tat is called reciprocity in diplomatic circles.
In the case of the North Fork of the Flathead, the B.C. government (not local Canadian citizens) wants to develop their part of the Flathead. Even pro-mining folks like local representative (Minister) Bill Bennett don't want their part of the Flathead developed. So you see in B.C. that local people are being opposed by their distant provincial government and the special interests it serves. Sound familiar?
Yes, we need energy and natural resources to survive. Yet some places should be protected like Glacier and the North Fork. Some readers will never agree that 'all this conservation' is necessary to protect the Transboundary Flathead. So be it. I have to agree to disagree.
DH
I like Dave Haddens reasoning. We need to give wilderness designation to Glacier in order to send a message to the Canadians. The Canadians? Seriously?
We're the USA Dave, we own the Canadians! (except in hockey)
I also like Dave's arguments because not only does he go crazy NIMBY about the federal lands on the U.S. side of the border, he also jumps right over the 60'? foot clearing and goes crazy NIMBY on our polite friends to the north. The true beauty of his position though comes out when he strongly suggests at going crazy NIMBY on private landowners up the north fork.
It's a bold statement Dave, and seriously I like that you just lay it all out there.
The problem I think is that the Canadians are getting mixed signals. The "development minded" among us here in the states go crazy NIMBY about extracting resources from the U.S. side of border seriously restricting our home supply yet our demand stays constant if not increases. Meanwhile Canada calls up and says, hey America we see that you have a great need for resources and guess what we're loaded up here so we'll just send some down. Then the "development minded" among us say back to Canada,..friends to the north, I know it must seem crazy to you that we're asking for your resources when we already have them down here, but since we're good friends and all could we please also dictate to you where and how you extract those resources that we're demanding? Perhaps there is a magical land yet undiscovered in the Northwest Territories were oil and lumber magically falls from the sky and also maybe there are giant eagles made out of supernatural elements that will deliver it down to us without leaving a carbon footprint.
I make the NIMBY point because I have fished a few times on the upper North Fork on the Canadian side of the border. I've seen the direct result of our NIMBY attitudes in the poor logging practices that often occur north of the border. I don't like it, but I'm pretty sure that it's exactly what we deserve.
As for the wilderness issue in Glacier I think I like the status quo. Glacier has a management plan that currently dictates that 95% of the park is currently managed to retain wilderness characteristics. I don't see any circumstance that would seriously put that at risk. Future generations may feel differently though and decide they would like to experience their National Park in a different way. Changes in the location of visitor demand are likely to occur (perhaps for example if all the glaciers disappear).
So I guess to answer Will's question I prefer the option that leaves management policy to the Park Service with input from the whole spectrum of the general public.
Finally, many prayers from around this country will have answered once the North Fork road finally gets paved.
Dave Skinner (6-27-09) Just in case you're not aware of the facts, trails in the 1 million acre Bob Marshall Wilderness, 240,000 acre Scapegoat Wilderness, and 585,000 acre Teton Wilderness are all cleared using "charming low-tech" tools, not chainsaws. Every year. In a timely manner.
Comment By John Apel, 6-29-09Wilderness designation does preclude some types of development which are not precluded by National Park designation. Among these are roads, utility lines, and buildings (the latter are some times allowed under the "minimum requirement" provisions of the Wilderness Act.
Many park lands which have been formally recommended for wilderness designation (many 20-30- years ago) are managed according to NPS policy almost the same as wilderness. This policy can be changed by the NPS, whereas reversal of wilderness designation requires passage of a bill by the US House and Senate and signature of the President.
And every year, Dave Smith, it gets harder and harder to find volunteers to beat their brains out doing so. Government grants coming? As in subsidy by the many for the increasingly few? Paid by the hour....
Never mind the management issues on overutilized pocket wildernesses near major urban areas. The Zirkels come to mind, slicked of every stick of firewood below seven feet above ground. And the poo! Once was enough for me.
I support wilderness. I helped to pass the Michigan Wilderness Heritage Act in the 1980s, which designated most of the state's roadless national forest lands as wilderness. I helped to designate wilderness in the Green Mountain and White Mountain national forests in New England. I have lobbied for wilderness designation for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I also support designating wilderness in national parks. But I agree with the author that it is not an urgent priority. The reason why we are even talking about wilderness designation in national parks is that the National Park Service has done an amazing job of preserving most of our parklands as designated or de facto wilderness.
Glacier National Park was designated in 1910. The National Park Service has proposed almost 92 percent for wilderness designation. The agency has proposed that 91 percent of Yellowstone and Grand Canyon national parks be designated as wilderness. These are among the oldest, most heavily visited, and most “developed” of our national parks.
Rocky Mountain National Park, another “developed” national park, was established in 1915. It receives 2.7 million visitors annually -- more than Glacier, in a park less than one-third the size. Yet, the recent Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act passed this year, designated 94 percent of Rocky Mountain as wilderness – almost 100 years after the park was created.
The Omnibus Act expanded designated wilderness in Sequoia National Park, established in 1890, to 91 percent of parklands. That Omnibus Act added wilderness to Kings Canyon National Park, established in 1940, bringing it up to 99 percent wilderness. The Act designated “only” 85 percent of Zion National National Park, established in 1919, as wilderness. However, this is pretty good, considering the Zion encompasses only 146,000 acres and receives 2.5 million annual visitors per year.
There are four important points here.
1. The idea that national parks are overdeveloped and "loved to death" is a myth. Development is limited to perhaps 1 percent of the 84-million-acre National Park System land base. There are only 11,500 miles of roads spread over 84 million acres of national park lands. This is 0.00013 miles of road per square mile of land. No other land system has such a high proportion of roadless, unexploited wildland. And no other land system has protected so much wilderness for so long.
2. Almost all national park land is at least as well protected as wilderness designated under the Wilderness Act. In fact, in one important way, national parks are more protected than non-park wilderness areas. Livestock grazing is not allowed in National Park System units (with a few minor exceptions), while it is allowed in almost all national forest and BLM wilderness areas, and in many national wildlife refuge wilderness areas. This is causing ongoing degradation of millions of acres of existing and potential non-park wilderness.
3. Because national park wilderness is not threatened in any significant way, there is no great urgency for designating wilderness under the Wilderness Act in national parks. That does not mean it is not a good idea. However, our energy would be better focused on national forest, BLM, and national wildlife refuge roadless lands, most of which are seriously threatened by incompatible uses.
4. We need more national parks – a lot more. Wilderness designation can only be applied to federal public lands that are roadless and in relatively pristine condition. These tracts occupy only a small portion of the landscape, and they are fragmented by lands that are exploited, degraded, or developed. National parks go beyond wilderness. They preserve not only roadless areas, but they can also acquire private lands and encompass lands that are degraded, to reassemble entire wild landscapes. Examples of this include Great Smoky Mountains, Big Bend, Mammoth Cave, and Redwood national parks.
So we need more wilderness, but we also need more national parks. This is the biggest missing piece of today's land protection movement. There is growing interest across the country in reviving the movement for new national parks. What better time to create a whole new generation of national parks than the years leading up to the centennial of the National Park Service in 2016?
Maybe the key to getting volunteers to clear trails is giving people the opportunity to work with hand tools in real wilderness, rather than using chainsaws in NPS defacto wilderness.
Dave Skinner--I'm aware volunteers clear trails on National Forest Service wilderness lands, but I have no idea what percentage of the trails they clear. Evidently, you do. So, of the 450 miles of trails in the Teton Wilderness, how many miles are cleared by volunteers, and how many by paid Forest Service employees?
Last year there was an article in the Billings Gazette asking for folks to help clear and clean trails...they were having a big problem getting any of the users to volunteer to clean trails, and as I remember they ended up having to pay for someone to clean the trails for the only folks good enough to use them.
How about each hiker have to put so many hours into cleaning and maintaining trails for so many days of use. If they contribute nothing they pay for the priviledge.
I'm pretty sure nearly every American contributes plenty; the contributions are called taxes and that broad base of contribution is why every American, from Los Angeles to Lima and Boston to Bozeman, gets a say in how these lands are managed.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/is_national_park_wilderness_a_good_idea/C41/L41/