View Poll Results: Does central Colorado need more wilderness?
Yes. We need to protect these areas. 66 70.21%
No. We have enough land that is already designated. 27 28.72%
I do not care because I sit at home and surf the buzz all day 1 1.06%
I care, but am to lazy to do anything about it. 0 0%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-2009   #1
I'm wrong 50% of the time
brendodendo's Avatar
RFV, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1977
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 857
Does CO need more wilderness?

It's a basic question. One that may or may not fit in the boaters forum. (mod's - move if necessary) A topic that you feel passionately for or against.

There is a proposal being circulated in Colorado's central mountain areas that would increase the size of existing wilderness areas. This expansion would put many area's that WE use to recreate into a designated wilderness area. No more snowmobiling, no more mountain biking and no more atv, moto or 4wd. I know many on this forum are against these uses anyway, but if one area is taken away, more area's will follow.

This is being proposed by a private group and will be sponsored by a jr. congressman from the 2nd CO district, Jared Polis. Please contact Congressman Polis to express your opinion on this matter. Contact Link

This is not being done in a typical manner and the group working on the proposal has figured out how to make an end run push for wilderness. If WE do not act now, the proposal will be a done deal by the end of this year. Please take the time to show your opinion on this matter by talking to every politician you can think of. This includes your City Council, County Governing board, Senators and Congressman. DO IT NOW or you may not be able to use YOUR public lands in the way you would most like to.
For more info,
For the area: Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign

Against the area: White River Forest Alliance


Claimer: Someone that makes a claim that they have been there and done that, can do anything you can do better than you. I hate "claimers"
brendodendo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #2
hotchkiss's Avatar
Pejivalle, Costa Rica
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 188
Dear God Man, are you serious?

Wilderness makes up less than 1% of the total public land in the entire U.S. and you're up in arms because someone wants to make some small portion of Colorado motorless?

You are a real gem man. Take your damn quads and snow runners and ATVs and drive them up your...

hotchkiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #3
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 106
Let me re-phrase it this way... Does Colorado need more development?
ridecats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #4
duct tape's Avatar
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1974
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 636
Thanks for this info. I kayak, hike and camp, ride mountain bikes and dirt bikes. I help two different trail clubs clear Gunny and Pikes Peak NF trails with chain saws every year. IMO we have enough wilderness areas. I'm all for areas where there can be no mechanized access and we do have plenty of those - including plenty of places where I love to climb and camp and am glad I know I can go there for a pristine wilderness experience. I'm also for other areas where responsible users can ride a mountain or dirt bike as long as they are good trail custodians, hopefully doing their share to maintain those trails and observe all closed areas.
duct tape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #5
hotchkiss's Avatar
Pejivalle, Costa Rica
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 188
There are different types of Wilderness. Not all prohibit mechanized vehicles, just motorized.
hotchkiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #6
caspermike's Avatar
Bozeman, Montana
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,507
hotch kiss regardless how much wilderness is in the us.. colorado does have some but could use more. but may not need it because its colorado and pretty much all ready ruined. id say leave it be. let them ride.
caspermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #7
Meng's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 787
Want to understand more about this and the negotiated wilderness rule? Good article in yesterday's CB News: The Crested Butte News - Roadless rule debate ends up back on the teeter totter

This proposal gives much more than it takes away.

Roadless rule debate ends up back on the teeter totter Written by Evan Dawson Wednesday, 26 August 2009 “These lands belong to all Americans”

Former President Bill Clinton created the National Roadless Rule in early 2001 as one of his last acts in office. Nine years and three presidential administrations later, people still question whether the rule is valid.

The Obama Administration has now entered the discussion, and many environmentalists hope that with the president’s support the rule can be implemented once and for all.
With several roadless areas surrounding Crested Butte (see map), the rule could have an impact on businesses operating in the local forests—in particular, the Mt. Emmons Project, Gunnison Energy, and Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s expansion onto Snodgrass.
The history of the rule is anything but straightforward. For the full timeline check Roadless Area Conservation Policy Chronology | The Wilderness Society.
The 2001 roadless rule prohibits road building and timber harvesting on inventoried roadless areas of the nation’s national forests. It was suspended under the Bush Administration in 2005.
In September 2006, U.S. district court judge Elizabeth Laporte ordered the government to rescind the Bush decision, and the rule was put back into place. But in April 2007 the Forest Service and several timber industry representatives appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals—and lost.
On August 5 this year, after two years of courtroom discussions, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion in support of the original roadless rule, with a few exceptions.
That’s because an August 2008 decision by a judge in Wyoming prohibited the use of the roadless rule in three states—Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. A coalition of environmental groups started an appeal of that decision in the 10th Circuit and the discussions are ongoing. The Obama Administration is also looking to join the battle.
On August 13 the Department of Justice filed a notice in the 10th Circuit preserving the Obama Administration’s right to appeal the Wyoming decision. The Administration has not officially joined the appeal, but on August 15 U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack issued a moratorium on all development in roadless areas. President Obama also campaigned in support of the roadless rule.
“What we’re now seeing is the Obama Administration getting involved and advocating on behalf of the roadless rule,” says High Country Citizens’ Alliance conservation analyst Lawton Grinter.
Meanwhile, in 2006 Colorado began developing its own roadless rule as an “insurance policy” in case the 2001 rule was repealed again. The process of developing the state rule has been ongoing, and a new draft was issued on August 3.
But if the 10th Circuit judge decides that the decision to enjoin the rule from three states was incorrect and the 2001 rule becomes law of the land, Grinter says he thinks the state’s version will be voided. Idaho is the only state that successfully passed its own roadless rule into law. Colorado is the only other state that started one.
“Colorado started the process of developing a state roadless rule but they didn’t get it finished by the time Obama took office… There’s this weird limbo in Colorado that doesn’t exist in any other state,” Grinter says.
Furthermore, Grinter says the state’s rule, as drafted, provides protection for fewer acres of forests and grasslands, and allows for mining, power utility, and ski area development in roadless areas.
“Ultimately a national roadless rule is critical because these lands belong to all Americans. They deserve a national rule that preserves them for future generations of all Americans,” Grinter says.
“If we get a favorable ruling in the 10th circuit it pretty much seals the deal.” Grinter says. He thinks that decision will come within the next six months.

The local effect

If the 10th Circuit issues a favorable decision in the appeal and the roadless rule becomes final, it could affect several Gunnison County businesses. There are more than a half-dozen inventoried roadless areas within 25 miles of Crested Butte.
Mount Emmons Project community liaison Perry Anderson says the mine proponents won’t know just how the roadless rule could affect the operation until an upcoming feasibility study is complete. “Until we get some ideas out in the feasibility study we don’t know how it will affect us,” Anderson says of the rule.
Anderson says the study has been pushed back, but the Mt. Emmons project mangers still believe it could be complete by the end of the year.
Gunnison Energy Corporation has several natural gas operations on National Forest lands to the west of Crested Butte. Gunnison Energy president Brad Robinson says, “The 2001 rule will restrict or cause modification to certain of our operations. However, these impacts are not nearly as significant as the impact of the permitting and regulatory delays caused by not having a final rule and the continued litigation brought by environmental groups.”
The company is currently building a natural gas transmission pipeline, the Bull Mountain Pipeline, which crosses or runs adjacent to three roadless areas. Robinson says the pipeline will not be affected by any future decision regarding the roadless rule. The pipeline is nearing completion.
Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s development of the Snodgrass terrain expansion also glances through the Gothic roadless area.
CBMR vice president of real estate and development Michael Kraatz says even if the 2001 rule is fully reinstated, “The 2001 roadless rule does not prevent timber removal and road building inside special use permits issued before enactment of the rule in 2001. The Forest Service added Snodgrass to CBMR’s special use permit in 1982, long before the enactment of the 2001 roadless rule.”
U.S. Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison district external affairs officer Corey Wong agrees. He says unless a future ruling alters the 2001 roadless rule the Snodgrass project would essential be “grandfathered” in.
“The 2001 roadless rule is not an issue with Snodgrass, and no matter what happens with it, it is not likely to affect Snodgrass,” Kraatz says.
American Whitewater's website and river stewardship projects are funded by paddlers. Please join, renew, or make a donation to help us protect whitewater rivers in Colorado and nationwide.
Meng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #8
hotchkiss's Avatar
Pejivalle, Costa Rica
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 188
I don't know Casper, that sounds pretty defeatist. I say, to heck with their destructive toys, make 'em ride a horse if they're too lazy to hike. Can't ride a horse? Get a donkey... or a mule or a llama, heck, they can ride those 300 lb wives they left back at the campsite in their "Wilderness" 5th wheels.

Casper, I think you'd be amazed at how quickly an area can recover for the destruction those vehicles create. In 50 years, you'd never be able to tell they'd been there. I don't think it's too late for Colorado.
hotchkiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #9
duct tape's Avatar
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1974
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 636

I could care less about Florida, or Oklahoma, etc.

There are 41 wilderness areas or Natl Parks in Colorado, totalling 3,839,935 acres out of a state total of 66,383,000. That's 5.8% of ALL Colorado including the flat east 1/2. More pertinently, wilderness areas cover about 25% of all Colo nat'l forests and over 60% of areas above timberline.

I've ridden a mule, and I've camped with llamas. I've hiked all of the Appalacian Trail and much of the Cont Divide Tr and Colorado Tr. But I also ride dirt bikes and pay my taxes. The same ones which help pay for the road maintenance to get your car to your kayaking spots. There should be plenty of Colorado for all of us to enjoy.
duct tape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009   #10
Roy's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 682
Thanks for the heads up and links! I particularly appreciated how the White River Forest Alliance (against) warns that this will keep you from

doing some knarley mountain climbing

I just sent e-mails to my state and national representatives in support of the wilderness expansion, so thanks again!

I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied...learn to swim!
Roy is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No boats in Wilderness? CGM Whitewater Kayaking 14 09-13-2007 07:40 AM
Wilderness First Aid Course vmiller Commercial Posts 0 08-04-2007 05:48 PM
Wilderness exchange Unlimited erdvm1 Kayaking | Gear Talk 3 10-13-2006 10:57 AM
Wilderness first responder class? Travis Whitewater Kayaking 2 03-07-2005 11:49 AM
Wilderness First Responder course Rocky Mtn Outdoor Center Whitewater Kayaking 0 07-30-2004 05:23 PM

» Classified Ads
Demo 2016 Jackson Karma...

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma Unlimited whitewater race kayak -...

Dagger Nomad Large Blaze

posted by Rendezvous River Sports



posted by jordanfrank7

I am selling my kayak to get ready for the winter season. ...

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.