Sen. Udall asks for comments on proposed Colorado land grab

[ColoradoToy91]

Submit comments on the two proposed wilderness areas below:

Central Mountains Outdoor Heritage
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=form&id=52

Arkansas River Canyon National Monument and Browns Canyon Wilderness
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=form&id=51

Udall wants feedback on creating wilderness areas
Posted: 02/26/2012 12:37:44 PM MST
Updated: 02/26/2012 05:37:16 PM MST
By THOMAS PEIPERT Associated Press
DENVER—U.S. Sen. Mark Udall said Sunday he wants the public to help him craft legislation that would create wilderness and national monument designations for two popular recreation areas in Colorado.

Udall said 32 areas covering almost 236,000 acres in Eagle, Pitkin and Summit counties in the central mountains are under consideration as wilderness areas. The proposal, which he stressed is in its infancy, includes additions to existing wilderness areas like Holy Cross, Eagles Nest and the Maroon Bells.

"The whole point is we're going to work in a collaborative, bottom-up process to protect lands that are important to our economy," he said, referring to Colorado's tourism industry.

"It's been proven without a doubt that wilderness is one of the state's economic drivers."

The senator, a Democrat, also wants feedback on designating as a national monument 20,000 acres on both sides of the Arkansas River between Salida and Buena Vista in south-central Colorado, as well as creating wilderness along Browns Canyon, areas known for whitewater rafting.

"It would draw national, international attention to the world-class rafting and outdoor recreation economy," Udall said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. He added a national monument designation "puts a place on the map."

He also outlined his plans Sunday at a press conference in Frisco.

Meanwhile, Bill Dvorak of Nathrop, an organizer with the National Wildlife Federation and a fishing and rafting guide, said protecting the area for hunters, anglers and rafters is a "no-brainer."

"Local residents and business owners have been trying for more than a decade, so the time to move forward is now," he said.

Udall acknowledged that some in Congress are against wilderness designations and national monuments because they think they completely bar human activities on the land.

The Obama administration has come under fire for an internal memo that identified several areas in the West as potential national monuments, and critics had pointed to that as a sign the administration aimed to unilaterally lock up land from development.

But, Udall said, although roads and other manmade infrastructure would be barred under his proposal, ranchers would still be able to graze their cattle, fire suppression would remain unchanged, and existing groundwater systems often would be grandfathered.

He said most of the land is owned by the National Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and is not being logged or mined, which would be outlawed under either designation.

"The heart of the wilderness concept is that man is a visitor," Udall said. "Man isn't the permanent presence."

Read more: Udall wants feedback on creating wilderness areas - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20...#ixzz1nbAZQ6KC
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[MT4Runner]

What's the between-the-lines skinny, Ryan?

Is it actual Wilderness-quality big-W Wilderness that has never seen a road or a chainsaw, or is it "backcountry" that someone is trying to designate a Wilderness?

Is Udall actually familiar with the Wilderness Act of 1964, or is he just doing what our MT buddy Sen. Jon Tester is doing and hoping to have a legacy Wilderness with his name attached to it?

[ColoradoToy91]

Originally Posted by MT4Runner

What's the between-the-lines skinny, Ryan?

Is it actual Wilderness-quality big-W Wilderness that has never seen a road or a chainsaw, or is it "backcountry" that someone is trying to designate a Wilderness?

"backcountry" is what we are talking about here. Many of these areas have routes that would be closed as a result of the new Wilderness areas he is proposing. Some additions to existing Wilderness areas make sense, but there is no "options" for the central mountains proposal.

They tried this when the dems controlled the house and senate with way more acreage and some very popular OHV routes closed. I fell he is doing this now to appease the liberal base in Boulder County and a few other liberal leaning counties on the front range.

The only options that makes sense for the Arkansas is either 1 or 3. These allow hunting routes for Big Horn Sheep to stay open. Those options do close some access though, but it is not a total loss. The Browns Canyon area that he is so intent on "saving" already has no motor vehicle access because the terrain is steep. The train route also runs along the river, but of course they would get a pass since they own that land. While we as tax payers dont have much of a say in the land we own

Is Udall actually familiar with the Wilderness Act of 1964, or is he just doing what our MT buddy Sen. Jon Tester is doing and hoping to have a legacy Wilderness with his name attached to it?

He is going for his legacy. Whole family is this way, including his brother

[MT4Runner]

If you don't mind, could you post your own comments here? I'll paraphrase and write my own letter.



We're all in this together!

[SK]

I was looking over the Arkansas River Brown's Canyon maps on Udall's site this morning. http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=form&id=51

To me, it looks like option 2 or 3 would be the only ones that would make sense from an ohv access point of view. Option 1 closes a portion of FR 184 which I believe is called the Turret trail. The wilderness proponents want option 1. On their websites they urge their followers to call for option 1 and do not even discuss 2 or 3. They consider option 1 a "fair compromise" in regard to FR 184. Options 2 and 3 leave FR 184 unchanged as it today. There is another area in the wilderness area as proposed in option 1, a spur trail off of FR 185 labeled 'FR 185 DRC3. I know wsa stands for wilderness study area, not sure about drc. Not sure if this is a current motorized trail or not that would be lost in option 1 (not in 2 or 3).

Anyway, option 3 takes has the least impact on public land. Option 2 would be ok as well I suppose as the only difference is they include some land west of the Arkansas in the National Monument designation.

I am going to send comment to Senator Udall's office now and state strong opposition to option 1. Remember, all of the wilderness proponents are going to be telling him that only option 1 will do. I'll also be reviewing some of his other wilderness proposals in the area as well.

This is an old thread, but the issue is still open for public comment and debate.