Finally got this question answered....

I've been wondering for YEARS about this...

Looking at maps of central Idaho, Frank Church River of No Return area...
how exactly does a Wild and Scenic River designation interface with a
wilderness area? Reason being, if you look at the maps, or just run the
river, there's an incredible trail within the Wild and Scenic designation
of the Middle Fork Salmon.

We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

penny

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, small change wrote
(in article ):

I've been wondering for YEARS about this...

Looking at maps of central Idaho, Frank Church River of No Return area...
how exactly does a Wild and Scenic River designation interface with a
wilderness area? Reason being, if you look at the maps, or just run the
river, there's an incredible trail within the Wild and Scenic designation
of the Middle Fork Salmon.

We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

penny



As a long time rafter/yaker I've always thought it hypocritical that boating
is allowed in wilderness areas but bicycling is not. Idaho has some primo
wilderness boating.

Pauly

"pauly" wrote in message
k.net...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, small change wrote
(in article ):

I've been wondering for YEARS about this...

Looking at maps of central Idaho, Frank Church River of No Return area...
how exactly does a Wild and Scenic River designation interface with a
wilderness area? Reason being, if you look at the maps, or just run the
river, there's an incredible trail within the Wild and Scenic designation
of the Middle Fork Salmon.

We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is
in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which
is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

penny



As a long time rafter/yaker I've always thought it hypocritical that
boating
is allowed in wilderness areas but bicycling is not. Idaho has some primo
wilderness boating.

and the horse packers... why is it that boaters have to carry a groover and
a firepan, but horsepackers carry neither, and can build bonfires right on
the beach? One of the reasons it's such a quasi pristine place is that there
aren't firerings and tp roses everywhere.

Back to the trail. It's an amazing piece of work. Now that I am involved in
local trail work, I see trails in a totally different way now. Some of the
stone work ( crib walls etc) are just amazing.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:10:37 -0700, small change wrote
(in article ):


"pauly" wrote in message
k.net...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, small change wrote
(in article ):

Back to the trail. It's an amazing piece of work. Now that I am involved in
local trail work, I see trails in a totally different way now. Some of the
stone work ( crib walls etc) are just amazing.




I was hiking out of Yosemite Valley a couple of years ago and came across a
trail crew rebuilding some of the granite trails. I'm in construction and no
stranger to hard physical labor but I couldn't help but be impressed by these
folks working at high altitude.

Pauly

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, "small change"
wrote:

I've been wondering for YEARS about this...

Looking at maps of central Idaho, Frank Church River of No Return area...
how exactly does a Wild and Scenic River designation interface with a
wilderness area? Reason being, if you look at the maps, or just run the
river, there's an incredible trail within the Wild and Scenic designation
of the Middle Fork Salmon.

We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

Can't WALK?

penny

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:26:11 GMT, pauly
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, small change wrote
(in article ):

I've been wondering for YEARS about this...

Looking at maps of central Idaho, Frank Church River of No Return area...
how exactly does a Wild and Scenic River designation interface with a
wilderness area? Reason being, if you look at the maps, or just run the
river, there's an incredible trail within the Wild and Scenic designation
of the Middle Fork Salmon.

We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

penny



As a long time rafter/yaker I've always thought it hypocritical that boating
is allowed in wilderness areas but bicycling is not. Idaho has some primo
wilderness boating.

I quite agree. ALL vehicles should be banned.

Pauly
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, "small change"
wrote:



We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

Can't WALK?

Didn't you know that rafting creates micro currents that keep teeny weeny river creatures
from crossing the river and also those little whirlpools in the wake drown millions of
of fish fry and some get stuck and can't swim away and that just the sight of the yellow raft
upsets the frogs and newts and they stop breeding. Graduate students at Crystal Emanations
University have observed snakes and salamanders collapsing in shock at the raucus sound of
human laughter and speech as the rafts drift by.
But of course they don't mind horse hooves muddying the water and the mounds of horsesh*t
at the river's edge.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:32:39 GMT, "JP" wrote:




"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:35:55 -0700, "small change"
wrote:



We just got off a 6 day trip on that river, and I finally got to ask the
ranger about bikes on that trail. The bummer is that Wild and Scenic is in
addition to the Wilderness designation, not a separate designation which is
what I was hoping for. Oh well, so much for that mountain - mountain bike
trip. I can't complain about getting to raft it, that's for sure.

Can't WALK?

Didn't you know that rafting creates micro currents that keep teeny weeny river creatures
from crossing the river and also those little whirlpools in the wake drown millions of
of fish fry and some get stuck and can't swim away and that just the sight of the yellow raft
upsets the frogs and newts and they stop breeding. Graduate students at Crystal Emanations
University have observed snakes and salamanders collapsing in shock at the raucus sound of
human laughter and speech as the rafts drift by.
But of course they don't mind horse hooves muddying the water and the mounds of horsesh*t
at the river's edge.

August 25, 1996
Canyonlands National Park
Attn: Dave Wood
2282 S. West Resource Blvd.
Moab, UT 84532

Your River Management Plan

Gentlepersons:

A park is nothing, without wildlife (wildlife = all nonhuman,
non-domesticated species, plants as well as animals). Without
wildlife, a park is nothing but a pile of rocks, which can't hold our
attention for more than a few minutes. By far the most interesting
part of any park is its wildlife, followed by prehistoric wildlife,
prehistoric humans, early humans, native cultures and peoples, and
early remnants of our own culture.

And this is the order in which priority should be given. This
is partly due to the relative importance of these various elements in
a park (i.e., what makes a park a park, as opposed to a city), but it
can also be justified on the basis of what is most vulverable: plants
can't protect themselves from animals, animals from native peoples,
native cultures from the dominant culture, etc. In other words, if we
are going to continue to have parks that are enjoyable to visit, and
that offer a respite from the pressures and relative sterility of the
city, we are going to have to give much more priority to wildlife.

In recent years, the trend in our parks has, unfortunately,
been in the opposite direction. Park managers have given in to
pressure from various interest groups, so that lately, wildlife are
given only token attention. For example, the last time I visited the
Grand Canyon, three of the four ranger talks I heard were about recent
American visitors to the Canyon. The one talk about wildlife was about
all the fish that have gone extinct or are going extinct, due to Glen
Canyon Dam and our mismanagement of the river.

Wildlife need a place to live, just as we do. That means a
place where they are not molested (from their point of view, of
course, not ours!). But humans think we own every square inch of the
Earth. We think we have a right to go anywhere we want. In 2 million
years of human evolution, there has never been one square inch of the
Earth that is off-limits to humans (from which we voluntarily exclude
ourselves)! There have always been some places that were difficult to
reach, and hence were de-facto off-limits to humans, but as technology
has progressed, there are fewer and fewer of these areas. Various
kinds of cars and trucks, motorcycles, boats, mountain bikes,
sophisticated camping and climbing gear, helicopter rescues, water
stashes, and even freeze-dried foods have all contributed to
eliminating the last safe refuges of wildlife.

In a desert area like Canyonlands National Park, water sources
are one of the most important resources that need to be protected from
human intrusion, so that they remain available for wildlife. This is
why proper river management is so important.

There are two issues that relate to the impact of river
management on wildlife: spacial and temporal. In spacial terms,
boating and rafting make the entire river system accessible to all
humans during all daylight hours. No special skills (including even
the ability to swim!) are required. This practically eliminates this
most important of all resources for wildlife. Even if there still are
places where wildlife have access to the river, any of them can
potentially be reached by people, once they are allowed boat access to
the entire river system.

In temporal terms, nighttime has historically been available
for wildlife to travel and feed unmolested by humans. Camping
eliminates that "loophole"! People can potentially camp or explore
(with the proper equipment, all of which is available) at night now,
anywhere they want to.

Written regulations are only partly effective in curbing human
abuses (e.g. witness the "Sedona 5" brazenly mountain biking down the
North Kaibab Trail all the way to the Colorado!). The only sensible,
humane way to restrict human access to wildlife habitat within the
Park is to close roads (eliminating easy motor vehicle access),
especially those that allow people to launch boats into the river
system. "Demotorizing" and "depaving" the park will go a long way
toward reducing human impacts to a sustainable level. However, there
still needs to be a prohibition against motor vehicles, boats, horses,
mules, and other such travel aids in the Park. Bicycles (and, of
course, wheelchairs), since they are quiet and nonpolluting, could be
allowed in the Park but never off-road! (Replacing motor vehicles with
bikes is an obvious improvement, but allowing bikes on trails and in
habitat areas is an equally obvious step backwards!)

Is this "fair"? Yes, because the same rules apply to everyone.
There is no reason that humans should have access to every square inch
of the Earth! In fact, there are very good reasons why we shouldn't.
It would not significantly reduce enjoyment of the Park if people had
access to the rivers at a few locations, rather than everywhere.

The bottom line, for the purposes of your scoping process, is
that you should include the following issues: protecting wildlife;
protecting wildlife habitat from human access; setting aside a large
proportion of the park for the exclusive use of wildlife; reducing
human access (both spatially and temporally), particularly, depaving,
removing roads and trails, removing airplane (including helicopter)
overflights, and removing all motorized vehicles and nonnative species
(including horses, mules, and pets).

Sincerely,


Michael J. Vandeman,
Ph.D.

P.S. For more information and explanation, see my web page, listed
below.

References:

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.

Engwicht, David, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living with
Less Traffic. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1993 (first
published as Towards an Eco-City: Calming the Traffic, in 1992).

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.

Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992.

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.

Life on the Edge. A Guide to California's Endangered Natural
Resources: Wildlife. Santa Cruz, California: BioSystem Books, 1994.

Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books, 1984.

Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
Earth First!

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California, 1994.

Sachs, Aaron, "Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights and the Environment".
Worldwatch Institute, December, 1995.

Stone, Christopoher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal
Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann,
Inc., 1973.

Vandeman, Michael J.,
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

Whitman, Walt, Leaves of Grass. New York: The New American Library,
1958.

"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
Society, 1994.

Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1992.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
dribble removed

I bet your address went right to thier kook bin as well. Assuming they
even bothered to read your dribble that is.

Some kook Wrote:[color=blue]
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:32:39 GMT, wrote:

August 25, 1996



only 10 years out of date. don't let that stop you though.


--
davebee