Sandra Mitchell doesn’t want to be the center of attention as the chief opponent to Republican Rep. Mike Simpson’s Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act.
She wants her supporters, members of the Idaho Recreation Council, who oppose the designation of any federal land as wilderness, to take the stage. But if Simpson’s bill, which would permanently close 332,000 acres of the Boulder and White Cloud mountains to motorized recreation, is defeated it will be Mitchell that will get the credit. The Idaho Recreation Council is made up of groups that include four-by-four enthusiasts, horse back riders, off-road motorcyclists, mountain bikers, jet boaters, and snowmobilers.
She has run a savvy media campaign against Simpson and now Republican Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, for their willingness to compromise with wilderness supporters on CIEDRA.
“I think the Idaho Recreation Council believes it's not good for the people, it's not good for the land and there’s no reason to do it,” Mitchell told me late Friday.
The media campaign, on radio and in newspapers, filled the congressional offices with comments opposing the bill, despite polls showing strong support in the state for its mix of wilderness, local economic support, help for ranchers and release of wilderness study areas to general forest use. That prompted Crapo and Risch to delay introduction of the bill in the Senate.
And it gave Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, who has always opposed new wilderness in Idaho, a chance to raise last minute questions. Crapo, Risch and Simpson say they are working to try to resolve them.
Mitchell, who has the financial support of Albertsons’ heir Joe Scott, wants them to consider an alternative to wilderness: national protection areas. These areas would prevent mining and major logging development but allow mountain bikes in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter.
This idea is a non-starter for wilderness advocates and the national Democrats who control the Senate and House. An earlier proposal to set aside parts of the Smoky Mountains west of the Boulders in a similar protection, was rejected in Simpson’s negotiations by motorized users even though they proposed it.
Mitchell’s position, that every user should have the same access to public lands as every other, was a long time majority position in Idaho. That was when the level of motorized use was lower and when access to roadless area timber was critical to Idaho’s economy.
But today Idaho’s wilderness is an economic asset, attracting visitors and new residents looking for places in the world where they can find solitude. Still, Mitchell’s position is attractive to enough people that Idaho political leaders, especially Republicans, can’t ignore them.
Will Mitchell and Scott help defeat Simpson if he doesn’t kill the bill?
“Neither one of them have communicated that to me in any discussions I’ve had,” Risch said last week.
Mitchell pointed to the Owyhee Canyonlands bill and the process that Crapo used as a demonstration of her good faith efforts for compromise. In the end she did not support the bill but she did not oppose it.
“In the Owyhees the people I represent were willing to pay the price,” Mitchell said. “In the Boulders they were not.”
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
bikes
Consider wilderness designation does not allow a mountain bike.
In 1964, when most of Idaho's wilderness was created, no one thought of riding a bike on a rough mountain trail- well, maybe a few crazy people, but certainly not like today.
Now, bikes are a great way to get deeper into an area or just get to "that destination".
Wildness designation is way too restrictive.
Barker barking
Barker writes, "Mitchll’s position, that every user should have the same access to public lands as every other, was a long time majority position in Idaho"
WAS?
Do you have any evidence that is not the current "position" of the majority of Idahoans?
***
Ridiculous your censor allows Mitchll in your text but not in our posts. MORE evidence of how bad the Statesman is.
anything but wilderness is a non-starter?
why are national protection areas a 'non-starter' for the anti-access activists like Idaho Conservation League? Clearly they are more interested in denying recreational opportunities to people than they are in protection. Since Wilderness allows them to permanently close existing designated multiple-use trails, that's the only tool in their toolbox.
Kudos to multiple-use advocates like IRC that are willing to be a little more flexible and inclusive.
Isn't that sitting on yer WUMPUS not pedaling?
----------
Welcome Back Carter
equal access
Wilderness does provide equal access. You just have to access the areas by foot or by ski.
Rubbing stones together makes an earthquake?
----------
Welcome Back Carter
handicap
that's great if you have two feet.
Wheelchair? Sorry, not easy to wilderness areas.
National parks, yes. ADA compliant.
There's nothing anywhere
There's nothing anywhere that says public land must be ADA compliant. Nor do I buy into the argument that all public land *should* be accessible to every person via any means, be it motorized, mechanized, or other. That being said, there is a provision in CIEDRA for a wheelchair accessible trail. What the motorized users never seem to own up to or provide solutions for is the damage caused by their inappropriate use (off trail riding), trail widening (quads turning singletrack into doubletrack is a common occurrence in this area), the spreading of noxious weeds, noise, irresponsible users, etc.
ditto
All of those problems you mentioned also exist with nonmotorized users.
It is most obvious in the Boise foothills on nonmotorized trails- Tablerock for example has serious case of all of those. It is also obvious in existing NRAs, primitive areas, and wilderness areas.
If you think hikers have exclusive rights to 'treading lightly' you are wrong.
You say motorized users damage public land- well hikers damage it too.
As before, a trail is one path, a road is just two trails running parallel. A road also provide better emergency access, firebreaks, and access for management.
A wider trail lessens the chance of your dog (& you) picking up weed seeds and transporting them.
A wider trail allows great winter access for wildlife- ask the Yellowstone bison.
If you want solutions to damage done- it applies to nonmotorized users too.
lack of equal access
I think most of us don't have a problem with appropriate wilderness. The problem is when wilderness designation is used on inappropriate lands for the sole purpose of closing existing designated multiple-use trails. That's what's happening with CIEDRA.
spelling
Horseback.
What a rock!
Wilderness and Wildfire
By removing most people and most roads from the landscape for the first time in thousands of years, Wilderness areas have become massive fuel piles waiting for a careless match, a lightning strike, or an arsonist to burst into an uncontrollable wildfire. And that has been their history for the past 20 years, beginning with the Kalmiopsis in SW Oregon.
Wilderness designation is largely a racist concept that promotes the dual myths that people are essentially pathogens that do harm to nature with their presence and their actions, and that Indians were largely inconsequential and migratory inhabitants of the landscape and had little or no impact on native plant and animal populations.
Wilderness remains a popular concept among urban voters who have little or no understanding or direct experience with native forests and grasslands. These areas are expensive, cater exclusively to a privileged (almost entirely young, white, middle and upper class) few, produce few jobs and little revenue for host counties, provide an ever-increasing risk of catastrophic wildfire to adjacent lands, and give the entirely inaccurate illusion of (government mandated) "protection" to the landscape.
The public needs to become better educated, and these lands need to become more accessible to all citizens -- and better managed for everyone's (including native plants' and animals') benefit. Otherwise: more wildfire, bugs, disease, pollution, and cost.
But I love pestilence, disease and combustion?
----------
Welcome Back Carter
Wilderness users are not young
BobZybach raises the classic arguments against Wilderness. They are handed down from generation to generation and are so out of date. For example, he says Wilderness users are almost entirely young, white and middle class, spoken as though these are a bad kind of people.
It's BobZybach who should spend time getting direct experience. Today most Wilderness users are middle-aged. Too many young people are too fat and sit on their ATVs. They would do well to slim down by getting in shape and walking. I do think Wilderness users are better educated than average. I know in today's tea party world education is seen as a bad thing. I will not apologize for working my way though college and beyond.
Most wildfires caused by humans start near roads, not in Wilderness areas. Most forest fires are not in Wilderness areas. Quick access to fight lightning strike fires comes not by road but by airplane.
Most Wilderness users are White and that is mostly because Wilderness areas are located in places where there are more White people -- rural areas.
Mostlymike is Mostlywrong
The "classic arguments against Wilderness" could hardly have been passed down "from generation to generation." Wildernesses themselves only date to the 1960s. They are a new type of land use.
Regarding the "youth" of Wilderness user: I was speaking in relative terms. I'm nearly 62 and was fully grown when the first such areas were created. I enter them all the time during the course of my work, despite mostlymike's assumptions. I even used to visit a lot of those areas (and even worked in some) before they became "Wilderness." "Middle-aged" is "young" to me (Wilderness visitors are not elderly or retirement age, for the most part, and there are few infants or youths).
Mike's observations regarding young fat people and ATVs seems to be a personal issue. I worked my way through college, too. And raised my family by working. So did a lot of other people. So what? Is that why most Wilderness users are not (really) young, either? Driving around on their fat butts while their parents are out backpacking?
While in college I got a PhD in the study of wildfires. Mostlymike's information in that regard is also erroneous. My assertions are based on actual research, in addition to long-term and widespread personal observations. In mostlymike's world, maybe it is fat kids on ATVs are the ones starting those fires along roads? While reciting tea party dogma?
His rationale as to why most Wilderness users are privileged white people is mostly nutty, too. People drive to Wilderness areas. Black people and Mexican people and Asian people have cars, too. But they (typically) don't use them to drive to Wilderness areas. Why, mostlymike? Why do you think that is? (It's rhetorical -- no real need to respond).
BobZybach is mostly wrong
I'm well aware when Wilderness areas were first created, but your kind of arguments date back to the days of John Muir when they were used to oppose creation of national parks. However, your racist argument is certainly a new one.
No one is legally excluded from a Wilderness area because of their ethnicity. As far as informal barriers to using Wilderness, they are primarily knowledge based, motivational, and due to not living within driving distance. If Black people use Wilderness less it is because Blacks are 12% of the population. If they use it proportionately less, it is probably because they are concentrated in parts of the country where Wilderness is quite distant and not a factor in their socialization. I hypothesize that their Wilderness participation is similar to that of Whites who grew up under similar socioeconomic conditions.
You say you are 62. Well I am 65, and I hiked about three miles today up a trail and then cross country halfway to the top of a ridge. I passed two teenagers on ATVs and 3 mountain bikers in their 20s. My doctor tells me to do this every day to fight off the effects of arthritis. It works.
You say you got your PhD in the study of wildfires. Could you be more specific about the degree, and could you come up with a better example than the fire in and near the Kalmiopsis Wilderness back in 1980s? So far I am not impressed. I certainly doubt you have any more outdoor experience than I do, both inside Wilderness and in managed forestlands.
I follow the range and forest fires every summer carefully and my spouse has spent 5 years in fire tower lookouts.
Mostlymike is Mostlymissingthepoint
Mike:
I'm not interested in a testosterone war.
A National Park is NOT Wilderness. And they have entirely different histories.
No one ever claimed anyone was barred from Wilderness because of ethnicity. That is your as-(Rocky!)-ertion. It's a fact, though, that minorities (including American Indians) rarely use Wilderness areas and your hypothesis is possible, maybe. Other people who have studied this phenomenon have other hypotheses, but I'm not sure any of them have been tested. I'm guessing that the socioeconomic argument doesn't scratch the surface. The "racist" argument is not new -- Charles Kay has probably presented it as well as anyone. It was an issue in the late 1980s, when I attended forestry clas-(Rocky!)-es at Oregon State University.
If you want to find out more about my degree, then google my name. I got it from OSU, and my defense draft has been online for nearly 10 years. Lots of other articles, editorials, and reports I've written on related topics are also available.
You may "certainly doubt" that I have more "outdoor experience" than you, but it is likely that you are wrong. During one 23 year span of my life I planted more than 2 million trees, thinned over 1000 acres, fell another 1000 acres, and raised a family on one of our tree farm acreages in rural Eddyville, where we lived in our log home many of those years. Thats 24/7, 365 days a year for more than 20 years. My grandparents on one side lived on a tree farm in Cougar, Washington, and on the other, a 100-acre wooded dairy in Woodland, Washington. The other 39 years included lots of time in the woods working, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, driving, and doing research, but did not total so many hours (almost all of them) per year.
I really don't care if you are "impressed" or not. You use a pseudonym, make sweeping generalizations in your posts, routinely dispense inaccurate information, and so far as I can tell we are not related and have likely never met. I'm guessing if I were your spouse I might be tempted to get a fire lookout job myself.
What's in a name? He11 if I know.
----------
Welcome Back Carter
wanderings
I hiked about three miles today up a trail and then cross country halfway to the top of a ridge.
***
hiked "cross country" ??? What does that mean?
Wilderness and Wildfire
Map of the Frank's fire history 1880-1984:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/fire/fireuse/fcwild/images/fc_1880-1985.pdf
Map of the Frank's fire history 1985-2000:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/fire/fireuse/fcwild/images/fc_1985-2000.pdf
There are approximately 50 airstrips in and around the Frank.
Pre-Colombian natives lived there - it was never "untouched by the hand of man".
When did they go to Colombia finally?
Word is Crockett couldn't pin 'em down then either.
----------
Welcome Back Carter
fourxfouring is great fun!
But it is hard on ground. that's the fact. I take my numerous all terrain vehicles to designated areas, but i don't think every wilderness area should be designated for vehicles. I also like to boat and backpack and feel some areas are just not suitable to all forms of recreation. You people need to get a grip on the realities of all terrain designation. it costs us all to tear it up. Not all land can be designated for use by all recreationists.
WOW it's all me me me , mine mine mine, isn't it.
Ah Hades, just open it to everything. They should log it, take off all the pesky trees blocking MY view; mine it, open pit, then I can build MY swimming pool, or maybe build MY skate board park after they're done, and the dirt roads, man those will be great for MY Motor cross bikes, Mtn bikes and ATVs. It would be ADA accessible too, pave everything. Woot! open a super highway, 4 lanes, gotta get there in style ya know. Yeah that's the ticket. Scr@w this trying to keep an area wild and free from modern civilization, a place where one can still fine peace and solitude. Who needs to sit and gaze at nature in beautiful unfettered silence, with only the sounds of nature surrounding you...face it, most people are not Henry David Thoreau (sarc)
Not even CLOSE to yours...
----------
If I think of something I'll let you know but I can't stand a naked signature.