Durango Folks: Hermosa Creek (Wilderness) Watershed Act

[MtnDoo]

Coloradans: This is nuts!

How does a Wilderness bill attached to a Defense spending bill make it out of the Republican controlled House of Representatives with a 300-119 vote? Didn't we just vote UDALL and his legislation (co-sponsor in Senate) out? WTF is Tipton(R) doing supporting MORE Wilderness and "Management Areas"?????

Molas Pass gets 461 acres (it already had), and 100,000 acres are lost?

http://durangoherald.com/article/20141204/NEWS01/141209828/House-passes-Hermosa-Creek-Watershed-Act-


Mods: Yeah, it isn't weather, but these are the Colorado eyeballs that can make a difference.

 

[joetroop30]

Actually I think that this bill was agreed upon by motorized advocates too. We don't lose anything that we currently have. All of the motorized trails in and around Hermosa Creek stay. The acres around Molas were designated as a wilderness study area years ago, not certain when. This bill removes that designation and makes that area permanently open to snowmobiling.

Tipton worked on this bill from the beginning. I'm no greenie weenie, but if you've ever spent time in the Hermosa Creek area there are already plenty of roads and trails, motorized and non-motorized, going through it. Speaking as a hunter, hiker, dirt biker, and multi day backpacker, I think some areas need to be set aside and protected from any future development. This would be one of them in my opinion.The bill doesn't close any of those roads or motorized trails, it just keeps new ones from being built.

 

[cateye5312]

My understanding is that joetroop30 got it right. This has been a major battle. Wilderness study areas are managed as defacto wilderness. In other words, slap a wilderness study area designation on something and it permanently locked up without congressional approval. There are tons of these areas across the US. Any time we can get that designation dropped it's a good thing. We'll count this bill as a win for the motorized crowd.

 

[psychoneurosis]

The Hermosa Watershed legislation is a pretty big win for motorized, even with a Wilderness area.

The Legislation releases the Molas Pass area from its Wilderness Study area designation, which BLM had already committed to closing to open riding and any grooming by next year. This is a small area but it is really important for those riding the area and the legislation specifically states that grooming, permitted rentals and the open riding designations are to be management for the area

The Special Management area is 70k acres where motorized recreation is a characteristic of the area to be protected and preserved by law. The management history of this 70k acre area has been tough on motorized as it has been proposed to be Wilderness by citizens, was recommended as Wilderness in an alternative of the forest plan and has also been found unsuitable for motorized usage. Congressional determinations that motorized usage must occur in the area is a major step forward as well

 

[FCR112]

Everyone beware of these processes with the current Lynx studies in CO. Home ranges have been estimated (maybe exaggerated) to areas as large as 85 square miles per animal above 8000 feet...

More ammunition for a non-motorized land grab is coming
PLEASE do not assist any of them!

 

[Rprecision]

The Hermosa Watershed legislation is a pretty big win for motorized, even with a Wilderness

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm. Wilderness area designation is forever. Future generations will not be able to use these lands for anything other then foot travel. No mountain bikes, nothing with wheels, not even a game cart for hunters.

And I am over this BS about we need to set areas away for other "use." That's code for I want my own little area to use where nobody else can use it. We have already set land away and we're talking about public land that isn't available for "development" in the first place.

Wake up, nearly 60% of public land in the mountains is all ready Wilderness. If you factor in areas with the snowfall we need for our sport that percentage is much higher.

Molas is a good thing but it should have been anyways.

Any further wilderness is a loss, period. To view it otherwise is naive and short sided.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of acres lost in WY, MT, AK and other states.

 

[MtnDoo]

Molas needed a solution. But, it didn't need a new or expanded 70,000 acre Wilderness area.

I recall when the skiers tried to take over a small parking lot built with CSA funds years back.. This appears to be "a solution", but it's certainly the WRONG solution. Quite frankly demonstrates to the enviro-fund-raisers that we can be managed away using a give an inch, get a mile strategy. Just read their fundraising materials and you'll see where they are coming from.

What new areas were opened to motorized use? What new funding was brought to expand and improve trails & motorized facilities? Will RMP be "managed" away completely next?

461 acres vs. 100,000 acre Wilderness.
Unless you're using Math-without-numbers, this doesn't add up!

 

[Rprecision]

This bill removes that designation and makes that area permanently open to snowmobiling .

Nothing is permanent in land management except wilderness

 

[joetroop30]

You're correct about that. The bill designated those 461 acres as a recreation area, but it beats losing them altogether. The bill passed the senate yesterday, so it is just a matter of time now.

 

[MtnDoo]

This is awesome! Can we find another 461 acres to "protect" for motorized use and trade off for another 100k acres of Wilderness & soon-to-be Wilderness??

How can you call this a "WIN" with a straight face?


http://durangoherald.com/article/20...2/NEWS01/141219851/Senate-passes-Hermosa-act-

 

[joetroop30]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you read the article you'll see that any existing motorized trails, of which there are many-mostly dirtbike trails, aren't being closed. The snowmobile trails and riding areas around Purgatory aren't being closed either. Not a single motorized trail is going to be or has been closed.

The snowmobile area that was going to be closed this season will remain open on Molas Pass. The area that becomes true wilderness, is only 37,000 out of the 100,000 acres you're talking about. I don't know how much time you've spent in that area, but it's nothing worth snowmobiling to me. A lot of lower elevation, heavily treed and pretty dang steep in a lot of parts, with no real access in winter. I've hunted back there and it's nothing you could even ride a snowmobile through in most parts, and in opinion it's not a bad thing that it's closed.

This is a political argument and one I'm not going to agree with everyone on. As I said earlier, I'm in favor of some areas, very few, being designated wilderness. I own a dirt bike, two snowmobiles and have for a long time. I hate it when they close areas that people ride in, that have existing trails. That doesn't describe the 37k of true wilderness in this bill. They closed a lot of trails in one of my favorite riding areas near my house in 2010 when they re-did the travel management plan, an area littered with gas wells! What were they trying to protect there??

None of the motorized groups fought against this and in fact I believe the San Juan Trail Riders and local snowmobile clubs were involved in helping to write this bill. So I guess they were wrong too?

 

[MtnDoo]

Read the fine print. You are taking away things not said in the article.

"More than 100,000 acres will be affected by the act. In the western portion, 37,236 acres of wilderness will be created. There would be a 68,289-acre “special management area,” with the northern chunk to be left as is, dirt roads and all. The eastern part, 43,000 acres, would be protected as a roadless area, but it still would allow mountain bikes and motorcycles. "

I don't see over-the-snow motorized winter travel in there? Do you?


Silverton? Seriously? Didn't Anthony Edwards just sentence their snowmobile rental guy to a year in jail for groping guests and operating without a permit? Didn't the town just boot their Public Works Director, Town Manager (again), loose their Assessor and Treasurer and earn themselves a Federally imposed SuperFund site by sitting on their hands? Isn't there another town council-gal being recalled? Love Silverton. Nice folks and incredible terrain, but respectfully it's not a set of government agencies charting a very well defined course forward. Certainly, they would accept any Molas proposal even if it took a million acres in someone else's backyard lost to Wilderness.

These Wilderness deals need to be looked at with a skeptical eye. Especially when they're riddled with existing roads. When Tipton(R) supports a Wilderness bill attached to a Defense spending bill, he's not representing our sport well. He should have brought forward plan B.

My $00.025

 

[psychoneurosis]

I would really encourage everyone to look at the 71k acres special management area- Just to set a tone for the management of this area. This is an area what was proposed to be Wilderness in the early versions of Udall's San Juan Wilderness proposal. Additionally there was a significant portion of the Hermosa area that was going to be recommended Wilderness in the new Forest plan.

The Hermosa Legislation specifically requires that OHV and motorcycle usage in the summer are usages to be protected and preserved. The legislation also specifically requires that snowmobile usage in the winter be protected and preserved as well. See Sec 3062 (b) (2) and b(3)(ii) of the NDAA for those provisions.

I would calling getting a congressional requirement of motorized usage of what was a previously recommended Wilderness area a big win. Hard to call it Wilderness with that law in place.

As for the motorized usage of the Wilderness area - there really was very little a long time ago. It was summer usage. without this the whole bill would have died.

 

[psychoneurosis]

ndaa legislation is attached below

 

[MtnDoo]

In Bold below. No need for management if you're not removing an current use.


(II) OVERSNOW VEHICLES.—The Secretary shall authorize the use of snowmobiles and other oversnow vehi- cles within the Special Management Area—
(aa) when there exists ade- quate snow coverage; and
(bb) subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may require.