PDA

View Full Version : Big Colorado Wilderness Bill!


jimfoo
September 12th, 2007, 07:43 PM
From: Jerry Abboud

She's baaack! I have stated our position for the CO Springs Gazette. Hopefully I won't be misquoted. That is, it's time for something other than Wilderness.


Contact: Kristofer Eisenla, 202.225.4431 (o) | 202.225.3041 (c)

Chris Arend, 303-844-4988 (o) | 303-908-7910 (c)


DeGette Introduces Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007

Proposal protects 62 Areas designating 1.65 million acres of Colorado public land as Wilderness

DENVER ? As Colorado's remaining wild lands continue to be threatened by oil and gas drilling and encroaching development, Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette (D- CO) today reintroduced the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007. Joining Rep. DeGette at her press conference was Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commissioner and member of the State Oil and Gas Commission, David Getches, Dean of the University of Colorado School of Law, Paul D?Elia from Patagonia Denver, and representatives and citizens from the Colorado conservation community.

Below are U.S. Rep. DeGette?s remarks as prepared for delivery:

?I am proud to be before you today to announce the reintroduction of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007. Since 1999 I have had the privilege of introducing legislation to protect wilderness quality public land across Colorado. However, since that time, our state has seen many of our states special places and wilderness areas put under pressure and in threat of being lost forever.

?That is why I am proud to announce my intention today to reintroduce an updated, revamped, and sweeping proposal to protect 62 separate areas across Colorado making up nearly 1.65 million acres of Coloradans? public land as wilderness.

?I am pleased to be here with many advocates of wilderness in Colorado, including Garfield County Commissioner Tresi Houpt, David Getches, Dean of the University of Colorado School of Law and Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law, Paul D?Elia of the Patagonia Corporation, as well as a number of conservation groups from across Colorado under the umbrella of the Colorado Wilderness Network, who for years have been the backbone and on the frontlines of defending wilderness in Colorado. Thank you for joining me today.

?We are gathered here to put protecting our public land literally back on the map. Colorado?s tremendous beauty and landscapes are always in the forefront of every Coloradan. It comes as no surprise then that in a recent poll 70 % of Coloradans supported more wilderness and wildlands in Colorado. Indeed Democrats, Republicans, Western Slope and Front Range residents alike support protecting our public lands.

?The poll showed that Coloradans support balance in our public lands management but we also want to protect the special areas of this State. Most of all, we want to leave what is special about Colorado for future generations.

?Colorado and our wilderness are at crossroads. In the last 7 years our State?s public lands have faced an onslaught like it has never seen from the Bush Administration, particularly on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Over 85,000 acres of wilderness quality public lands have already been leased for oil and gas drilling in Colorado and more are offered up every day.

?Drilling rigs, new roads, pipelines, more well pads, more noise, and more dust has tarnished our landscapes, impacted our communities, and disrupted sensitive wildlife.

?While there is room for energy development and leasing on our public lands, with over 80% of land available for oil and gas leasing, I think some of our most beautiful and sensitive areas should be off limits. This development is being allowed to encroach into our wildlands - removing from consideration many areas deserving of wilderness protection.

?I cannot stand by as a fourth generation Coloradan and let every last acre of our state be sold to the highest bidder in the latest lease sale.

?It is time to stand up for what makes Colorado special, for what brings thousands of tourists here year round providing consistent and long term benefits to our economy and communities. It is time to protect the sanctuaries our wildlife and endangered species depend on and to preserve for our children the Colorado we see and love today for future generations. It is time to protect the wild places of our state once and for all.

?I recognize the Colorado Wilderness Act is an ambitious proposal. However, it is my view that piece-mealing wilderness in this State, acre by acre, is a limited proposition and one which could delay the preservation of thousands of acres of public lands for an interminable amount of time.

?While individual areas may be easier to pass in the short term, the Colorado Wilderness Act in its totality is not as formidable as may seem - at 1.65 million acres the Colorado Wilderness Act makes up 1/8 of total Bureau of Land Management public land and only seven percent of total public land in our State. It consists of over 800,000 acres already managed by the BLM as wilderness study areas. Furthermore, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007 is a carefully researched proposal with its wilderness qualities and boundaries established using sophisticated geographic information systems and double checked on the ground by dedicated citizen volunteers.

?I also understand that wilderness and our public lands do not remain in an unchanging vacuum. I have made several changes to this legislation including adjusting boundaries for ongoing energy development and activities, but also adding several thousand acres of new areas which have been discovered and advocated by citizen volunteers since my original introduction in 1999.

?I am also happy to announce a significant compromise in this legislation. In Colorado we have a saying, ?Whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting.? For too long the issue of water rights has been an unnecessary impediment to wilderness preservation in Colorado. In recognition of the importance of water and water rights in our state and in light of our recent drought and increased demands on water supplies, I have rewritten the water language in this bill to ensure the federal government plays by the State of Colorado?s water laws and regulations.

?Professor Getches will expound on this later. But this major change to my bill shows that I am committed to listening to all sides interested in public lands and wilderness issues in Colorado and open to reasonable changes and adjustments. As the wilderness debate moves forward, my promise to listen to all sides will stand and I look forward to an ongoing dialogue about wilderness in Colorado.

?Preserving wilderness in Colorado has always been hard - it brings a clash of interests and different philosophical views to a head. However, as President Kennedy, in our quest to land on the moon stated we choose to do such things ?not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our skills and talents.?

?In our State?s history whenever we have chosen to preserve our limited special places, the process was always hard, but we rarely looked back in regret and often wondered why we did not do it sooner. More often then not it, establishing wilderness brought out the best in our leaders and the citizens of our great State.

?In closing I would like to leave you with a quote from one of the true wilderness leaders, former Senator Frank Church of Idaho who in talking about the Wilderness Act stated:

?The great purpose is to set aside a reasonable part of the vanishing wilderness, to make certain that generations of Americans yet unborn will know what it is to experience life on undeveloped, unoccupied land in the same form and character as the Creator fashioned it... It is a great spiritual experience. I never knew a man who took a bedroll into an Idaho mountainside and slept there under a star-studded summer sky who felt self-important that next morning. Unless we preserve some opportunity for future generations to have the same experience, we shall have dishonored our trust.?

?It is my goal and for those standing with me today, to preserve a small part of Colorado to honor the trust of future generations and to let our children?s children experience the Colorado we love and cherish today.?

jimfoo
September 12th, 2007, 07:43 PM
The rest as it was too long.

For maps and detailed descriptions of the Colorado Wilderness Act please link to: http://canyoncountrywilderness.org

Below are the areas that would be protected under U.S. Rep. DeGette?s Wilderness Act:

Proposed Wilderness Area Acreage

Adobe Badlands 10,742
Badger Creek 25,229
Bangs Canyon 21,110
Beaver Creek 38,378
Big Ridge 24,887
Bitter Creek 3,021
Black Mountain - Windy Gulch 22,439
Browns Canyon 20,025
Bull Canyon 16,781
Bull Gulch 15,155
Castle Peak 16,263
Cold Spring Mountain 50,536
Cow Ridge 15,721
Cross Canyon 25,947
Cross Mountain 18,057
Deep Creek 20,843
Demaree Canyon 25,881
Diamond Breaks 34,009
Dinosaur Additions 63,469
Dolores River Canyon 41,133
Dominguez Canyons 84,410
Dominguez North 12,449
Dragon Canyon 6,748
Flat Tops Addition 16,427
Grand Hogback 11,701
Granite Creek 14,089
Grape Creek 44,372
Handies Peak 72,397
Hunter Canyon 32,126
Kings Canyon 9,398
Little Bookcliffs 30,557
Mares Tail 4,809
Maroon Bells 316
Maverick 20,585
McIntyre Hills 17,318
McKenna Peak 33,467
Norwood Canyon 13,288
Oil Spring Mountain 25,005
Pinyon Ridge 20,903
Pisgah Mountain 15,679
Platte River Addn 33
Powderhorn Addition 3,306
Prairie Canyon 18,687
Redcloud Peak 38,594
Rio Grande 10,863
Roan Plateau 40,494
Roubideau 22,604
S Shale Ridge 27,569
Sagebrush Pillows 5,143
San Luis Hills 23,536
Sewemup Mesa 65,448
Skull Creek 30,735
Snaggletooth 32,050
Table Mountain 27,888
The Palisade 26,914
Thompson Creek 25,285
Troublesome 119,676
Unaweep 39,392
Vermillion Basin 86,569
Weber-Menefee Mountain 14,598
West Elk Addition 6,878
Yampa River 12,436

Totals 1,674,368

cherokeenut
September 12th, 2007, 09:38 PM
What a b##ch

meatblanket
September 12th, 2007, 09:43 PM
I wonder if DeGette has even been to any of those places?

bsaunder
September 12th, 2007, 10:24 PM
ok - I'm going to show my ignorance of most all trails >1 hr from Denver here - what trails are impacted by this?

JeepDiva
September 12th, 2007, 10:35 PM
Looks like 21 Rd would be impacted by the Hunter Canyon wilderness.

Anybody else notice that Colorado's Bill also overlaps into Utah?

Funrover
September 13th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Oh Crap!

ThePagan
September 13th, 2007, 10:41 AM
For all those people that keep up with the message about why should I give someone some money.. this is why.

The CO State Association of 4WD Clubs and COHVCO work with each other and with other organizations to fight crap like this.

- Shawn

meatblanket
September 13th, 2007, 11:15 AM
Wilderness, by definition, is supposed to include within its boundaries only roadless areas. Therefore, no existing roads should be affected.

I looked at a very small sample of those maps, and it looked as though the wilderness boundaries are drawn such that existing routes are "cherry-stemmed" outside the boundaries.

I guess I don't understand WHY she thinks this is necessary. If it passes, I doubt it would have much impact on recreational users, for the above reason. But turning multiple use lands into wilderness will prevent the land from being used for grazing, timber harvest, and mineral extraction. And most of it doesn't appear to be particularly scenic or have any intrinsic value that would be destroyed by continuing with the traditional, multiple uses.

To me, legislation in the absence of any specific threat to these lands makes about as little sense and is almost as unnecessary as proclamation making RMNP a wilderness area.

I guess Ms. DeGette thinks we should depend more heavily upon foreign countries for our natural resources?

jimfoo
September 13th, 2007, 12:07 PM
I only looked at a few areas, but Bangs has some very faintly labled "Jeep Trail"'s within the proposed wilderness. I don't know the area that well, but to me it looks like Billings may be within the area as well.

Red_Chili
September 13th, 2007, 12:15 PM
Wilderness, by definition, is supposed to include within its boundaries only roadless areas. Therefore, no existing roads should be affected.

I looked at a very small sample of those maps, and it looked as though the wilderness boundaries are drawn such that existing routes are "cherry-stemmed" outside the boundaries.

I guess I don't understand WHY she thinks this is necessary. If it passes, I doubt it would have much impact on recreational users, for the above reason. But turning multiple use lands into wilderness will prevent the land from being used for grazing, timber harvest, and mineral extraction. And most of it doesn't appear to be particularly scenic or have any intrinsic value that would be destroyed by continuing with the traditional, multiple uses.

To me, legislation in the absence of any specific threat to these lands makes about as little sense and is almost as unnecessary as proclamation making RMNP a wilderness area.

I guess Ms. DeGette thinks we should depend more heavily upon foreign countries for our natural resources?
The problem as I see it is redefining what qualifies as Wilderness. Bad precedent. What is needed IMHO is something lighter than Wilderness but tighter than multiple use.

I don't oppose extraction per se, but drive around Parachute and see what extraction industry can do to an area. Or the area I hunt in Wyoming - the places the antelope DON'T go - which are an armpit, and smell like it too.

This would force directional drilling which seems reasonable to me. Notice that diverse recreation groups are mentioned - this is undoubtedly posturing, but if she has to posture to us we have made inroads. That is a win.

Seems like a starting point. But it has to be closely monitored and any infringement on existing OHV recreation strongly objected to. All IMHO.

ArloGuthroJeep
September 13th, 2007, 02:00 PM
Wilderness, by definition, is supposed to include within its boundaries only roadless areas. Therefore, no existing roads should be affected.

I can think of an area that didn't get saved from that.

Indian Peaks Wilderness took over several 4wd roads. Buchanan Pass (West from MSV) used to be an old wagon road over the divide (and was in second place for being the pass the I70 used to get over the divide).

SSII
September 13th, 2007, 02:17 PM
I can think of an area that didn't get saved from that.

Indian Peaks Wilderness took over several 4wd roads. Buchanan Pass (West from MSV) used to be an old wagon road over the divide (and was in second place for being the pass the I70 used to get over the divide).


Another is the Absaroka-Beartooth area. It is full of roads. In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, President Jimmy Carter signed the legislation that created the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness on March 27, 1975. When they did that, It effectively isolated Cook City from the rest of Montana. It closed the road from Big Timber to Cook City. Now you have to drive 30 miles from Big Timber to Livingston, then 60 miles down to Gardiner, then pay to drive through Yellowstone park, drive all across the north side of Yellowstone, exit the park and then you're at Cook City. Drive that in the winter.

IntrepidXJ
September 13th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Wilderness, by definition, is supposed to include within its boundaries only roadless areas. Therefore, no existing roads should be affected.


yeah, that's what they want you to think.....and once the wilderness is in effect, out will come the lawsuits to close the roads within it....

meatblanket
September 13th, 2007, 04:52 PM
I can think of an area that didn't get saved from that.

Indian Peaks Wilderness took over several 4wd roads. Buchanan Pass (West from MSV) used to be an old wagon road over the divide (and was in second place for being the pass the I70 used to get over the divide).

Yup, you are absolutely right about that. I'm not sure Buchanan Pass was driveable in a Jeep just before the wilderness designation occurred, but there WAS and IS existing roadbed (including some obvious corduroy) that got swallowed up in the IP wilderness designation.

Certainly people don't always agree on what constitutes a road, and for that reason, we have cause to be concerned.

Proposed wilderness is supposed to meet specific criteria, one of which is that it should be roadless. As noted above, however, we can't always rely on that, since some folks don't know a road when they see one!;)

I like the idea of wilderness designations. I agree that they are important. But the truly special areas (IMHO) have been so designated already, or are already protected through national park or national monument designations. There are over 3,300,000 acres of wilderness in Colorado. Do we need more?

Backwoods Rambler
September 14th, 2007, 09:00 AM
That's IT!!! I'm dropping all of my useless magazine subscriptions and donating to Colorado Association of 4WD Clubs, Blue Ribbon Coalition and COHVCO!!!

jimfoo
September 14th, 2007, 11:21 AM
WAY TO GO!!!:thumbsup: :beer:

SoK66
September 18th, 2007, 02:41 PM
FYI, Dolores River Canyon includes an absoilutely spectacular Jeep road (10 rd & 14 F rd) that follows the river about 20 miles from just south of Dove Creek to Hwy 141. Includes numerous challenging spots, river crossings and annual changes in obstacles from runoff. This will all be lost under the De Gette bill.

Jeepers in the Dove Creek & Cortez area have travelled the road for years, and it is an access road for numerous mine claims & historical sites. Local Public Lands Center officals (joint USFS / BLM) were surprised to find out the Creeper Jeepers were traveling the road regularly and doing spot repairs re: rockslides, etc. BLM hadn't done anything to it in years and assumed it was impassable.

roxo56
September 18th, 2007, 04:38 PM
Thank you Colorado for Ms. Degette

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CdnJdjyw0

Whitey
September 18th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Here are a couple near Gateway that cut out a lot of fine wheeling.

The Proposed Palisade Wilderness (http://canyoncountrywilderness.org/maps/hires/palisade_0706.jpg) cuts out a lot of roads. One 4x4 trail leads from gateway to Grand Junction. I'd have to dig out the BLM map to be sure, so, IIRC, it goes over Sheep Mountain.
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7103&d=1190380845

Proposed Unaweep Wilderness (http://canyoncountrywilderness.org/maps/hires/unaweep_0706.jpg) borders Castrol Draw, Rim Trail, Uranium Road to Hwy 141. It cuts out Basin Jeep Trail, Snowshoe and Ute Creek Motorcycle trails among a bunch of others.
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7104&d=1190380845

Usually, when a WSA is proposed, they tend to close the bordering roads.

Take a look at the Camelback Wilderness Study Area west of Delta. In particular, the road that used to run along Potter Creek to show that roads get closed when it is only a WSA.

Here is the old map, notice the yellow public access 4x4 trail along Potter Ck. that used to run into the Uncomphradre NF.
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7101&d=1190380166


Here is the new, current map. See the lack of trail along Potter Creek.
http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7102&d=1190380330


The closure and lots of public comments took place in the eighties. Still, the road got closed, the greenies got their way and essentially shut off a big area so there is one way in and one way out. No more loop trails near Camelback.

It will be worse now. The current National Policy is geared toward cutting off motorized access to our public lands. :(

EDIT: can't see the maps at work, need to check why when I get home tonight??:rant: :rant:

GrnTj
September 19th, 2007, 12:08 PM
If this effects hunting access, we should contact the NRA. I talked to a gentleman in Salida that told me they stepped up to help when they learned that a proposed closure would effect access for hunters. They have plenty of political clout and could be a great group to team up with to send that bill to the dumpster where it belongs (along w/ Degette in my opinion)

Mule
September 19th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Wilderness, by definition, is supposed to include within its boundaries only roadless areas. Therefore, no existing roads should be affected.

I looked at a very small sample of those maps, and it looked as though the wilderness boundaries are drawn such that existing routes are "cherry-stemmed" outside the boundaries.

I guess I don't understand WHY she thinks this is necessary. If it passes, I doubt it would have much impact on recreational users, for the above reason. But turning multiple use lands into wilderness will prevent the land from being used for grazing, timber harvest, and mineral extraction. And most of it doesn't appear to be particularly scenic or have any intrinsic value that would be destroyed by continuing with the traditional, multiple uses.

To me, legislation in the absence of any specific threat to these lands makes about as little sense and is almost as unnecessary as proclamation making RMNP a wilderness area.

I guess Ms. DeGette thinks we should depend more heavily upon foreign countries for our natural resources?

Wrong.
My family use to camp and wheel a marked road and some trails on the North end of the Mt. Zirkel wilderness area. They extended the wilderness area to include that road and the trails, which was a historic one btw (it was a mule train road or something of the likes). Now, it has been extended almost all the way up to the main road into Encampment WY. They closed the valley South of Hog Park Ranger station about 5-7 years ago and now have closed off the station.

It will affect hunting access only to the extent of making hunters find other places to camp and then walking or horse backing in. What the wilderness area does is set up a business situation for the guides. Since it is so far to get into, they make a killing guiding. THEY WILL VOTE FOR THIS. My dad and I had personal experience with a guide acting like WE were in an area illegally because he had some guys that paid $4k for a guided hunt and were told that was the only way into the area. We talked to one of the hunters later on and found out about it. We almost had guns drawn over it, the guide was starting to waive his rifle around, I had to make sure he saw the .44 on my hip ..... It tells you how much they stand to gain.

Anyway, Between this and the inventory deal from the enviros lawsuit, we have our work cut out for us.

Whitey
September 21st, 2007, 08:27 AM
Can anyone see the maps in my post below???

Having trouble here and redid it, not sure if it's with my computer or something else.

TIA

jimfoo
September 21st, 2007, 08:31 AM
I saw the maps in the post above, but I don't see any below your last post.

Whitey
September 21st, 2007, 10:09 AM
I saw the maps in the post above, but I don't see any below your last post.

Opps, I've got the forum post set for newest first so the posts are new on top. Sorry bout that and thanks for saying they are there, I didn't know for sure. :P