Do you believe the highlighted quote below from the CWC?

Letters to the Editor can be sent to:
Auburn Journal, www.auburnjournal.com

Attention: Deric Rothe

Email: dericr@goldcountrymedia.com

Jon
-----------------------------------------------------

Thursday, November 06, 2003

Wilderness bill would have local impact
Doolittle opposes plan to reclassify 40,000 acres

By Stephanie Swanburg
Journal Staff Writer

Thursday, November 06, 2003
Approximately 40,000 local acres of the Tahoe National Forest could be under increased federal protection as wilderness lands if a bill, currently in the House of Representatives, is passed.

The Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness and Wild Rivers Act of 2003 would offer wilderness-level protection to areas like Duncan Canyon, land around the Granite Chief Wilderness Area, the north fork of the American River and the north fork of the middle fork of the American River. However, local environmentalists and politicians have different views on the advantages of such legislation.

According to Rich Johnson, chief of the Foresthill Ranger Service, most of the areas earmarked for wilderness are currently classified as “roadless,” where roads can neither be built or maintained. The Ranger Service has no official position on the legislation.

“Wilderness is an area that’s managed to let the natural process prevail,” he said. “It would be managed as a place where you would expect humans to be a visitor, so human intrusions would be only as a visitor, not long term.”

The protections would not affect the Western States Endurance Run or Tevis Cup trails, which run through several of the proposed wilderness areas. Another important aspect of the bill is that it does not affect existing mountain bike and off-road vehicle trails, said Tina Andolina, a senior field organizer with the California Wilderness Coalition.

“The original proposals were much bigger,” she said. “We made sure to draw boundaries to exclude trails that bikers would normally use. We’ve gone to great lengths to make sure that important trails were excluded.”

Despite the care taken by the bill’s crafters, it is still restrictive to mountain-minded individuals, said Laura Blackann, spokeswoman for Congressman John Doolittle, R-Rocklin.

“These national forests were intended for multi-purpose use, meaning they’re there for the public to enjoy, whether that’s hiking, fishing, off-road vehicles or driving in a truck to a lake so that you and your family can have a picnic,” she said. “What this bill essentially does is take away the public’s right to use this forest the way it was intended to be used for. The congressman is against this bill.”

Local environmentalists have a different opinion on the legislation, said Tim Woodall, president of Protect American River Canyons. There would be no fences keeping those seeking recreation out and it would only restrict motorized vehicles and mountain bikes, he said.

“It’s a great idea,” Woodall said. “It’s a wonderful bill that will protect some of the most pristine and threatened remaining wilderness in California. It would also add much needed protection to some of the last remaining stretches of wild rivers in California.”

The bill is currently in committee in the federal House of Representatives, awaiting another hearing before congress.

http://www.auburnjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=9617

Editor:

California doesn't need any more Wilderness Designations!

In response to your story on November 6, 2003 “Wilderness bill would have local impact”, I would like to express a few concerns in about Senator Boxer’s Wilderness bill.

Senator Boxer's bill would add over 2.7 million acres to the already existing 14 million acres of Wilderness to California. What they fail to mention is California already has 14% of its' land designated as Wilderness. Under a Wilderness Area designation, numerous outdoor recreation enthusiasts would be shut out of some of their favorite places because of new restrictions on off-highway vehicle and mountain bike activities. By closing these public lands to large segments of the public, Senator Boxer would rob many people of opportunities to enjoy the wonders of nature. While able-bodied 30 year-olds would still be allowed to backpack into the wilderness, the elderly and disabled who rely on vehicle access to experience these sites would be excluded.

The California Wilderness Coalition would like you to believe that these areas are roadless and untouched by humans, but this just isn't true.

I am also worried that wilderness designation will produce a greater threat of wildfires spreading out of control. The prohibition of motorized vehicle access doesn't only limit our ability to properly manage forests before a wildfire hits, but also hampers firefighting capabilities during a fire. Vehicular access to these areas for firefighting purposes should not be discretionary and places a significant risk on rural communities.

Erecting a regulatory barbed wire fence around many of the most cherished areas in the Golden State favors the few, when our public lands are supposed to be open to all.

I urge my fellow Californians to contact your representatives and ask that they oppose any new Wilderness Area designations.


Jon Crowley, Jr.
Shingle Springs, CA

Editor

It is unfortunate that your reporter, Stephanie Swansburg, failed to verify information related to her by Tina Andolina of the California Wilderness Coalition. Ms Andolina has not been truthful about the impact of this legislation when she states "Another important aspect of the bill is that it does not affect existing mountain bike and off-road vehicle trails, said Tina Andolina, a senior field organizer with the California Wilderness Coalition."

The facts are that many trails open to trailbikes and mtn bikes are proposed for Wilderness or Wild River designation in HR 3327, and will be closed to existing users. In the Downieville area, the Downie River Trail, the Rattlesnake Creek Trail, the Lavezolla Creek Trail, the Pauley Creek Trail, the Second Divide Trail, and the Butcher Ranch Creek Trail. To make matters worse, in the last decade, every one of these trails has been either totally reconstructed or significantly improved with hundreds of thousands of dollars of OHV funds.

Also on the Tahoe, the Western States Trail and Tevis Cup segments on Red Star Ridge and Duncan Canyon would be closed to both motorcycles and mtn bikes

In the Grouse Lakes Basin area, about a dozen mtn bike trails would be closed.

Not mentioned at all would be the impact on snowmobilers, who are the primary users of the Grouse Lakes basin and the Castle Peak areas.

Nearby, the Caples Creek area of the Eldorado National Forest has the Caples Creek Trail the Silver Fork Trail, and the Government Meadow trail, all pen to motorized and mechanized use today. Also, the Meiss Meadows area of the Tahoe Basin would close about a dozen mtn bike trails.

This can easily be verified by reading the text of HR 3327 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108m0jVA1

The reality is that mechanized and motorized recreation are the predominate activities in each of the areas mentioned, but all these uses would be eliminated. On the other hand, according the National Forest data, less than 3% of the public who visit National Forests go to Wilderness areas, and that use is flat, while mtn biking and motorized recreation is growing dramatically. You can verify this at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year1/National_Report_Yr1.html

These are PUBLIC lands that should be managed and open for everyone, not a 3% minority of intolerant folks.

Bill Dart, former Placer County resident
Public Lands Director
BlueRibbon Coalition