No, we don't hate your dog (and other misconceptions about wilderness)

Misconceptions about which activities are and are not allowed in designated wilderness have always been floating around, but with Interior Secretary Salazar's reversal of the Bush-era "No More Wilderness" policy a few weeks ago, those inaccurate statements have been out in full swing. 

Earlier this week, I received a Google Alert in my inbox that linked to this message from an anti-wilderness group.  Although one particularly memorable part of the request was, "I hate to have to say this, but from past meeting experience I must mention that coming sober, and polite will be very helpful," the message also said, "They [referring to SUWA and other wilderness advocacy groups] don't approve of you.  They hate your dog, your dirt bike, and especially your ATV," - seeming to imply that dogs are not allowed in wilderness areas. 

Last week, this Letter-to-the-Editor in the Deseret News claimed that wild lands designations would "close land to multiple use — recreation, hunting, fishing, four-wheeling, mineral extraction, grazing, etc." 

And these examples are in addition to the many cries from some of Utah's elected officials and other wilderness opponents that protecting wilderness would "lock up" the land. 

First, to address the dog issue.  Dogs are allowed in BLM wilderness (Salazar's wild lands policy only applies to BLM lands, and all lands in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act are managed by the BLM).  In fact, some SUWA staff and members often enjoy hiking and rafting in proposed wilderness with their dogs - and dogs sometimes accompany our field staff on their field work (see Field Attorney Tiffany Bartz's dog Sirius enjoying some proposed wilderness at right). 

Second, if hunting and fishing were not allowed in designated BLM wilderness or wild lands areas, then why would a writer from Field & Stream be praising Salazar's move and criticizing those elected officials who so forcefully oppose wild land protection?  Grazing is also still allowed in BLM wilderness if permits existed prior to the designation.

And last, many of those same politicians and other wilderness opponents who claim that protecting wild places would "lock up" public lands also support increased oil and gas development on BLM lands.  Funny then, that on a recent trip one of our board members noticed that there was a sign at a drill site that said "No Public Access."  So what is really "locking" the public out of the lands that each and every American owns - a wilderness designation where any person (or animal) can enter and enjoy (as long as by foot, raft, horseback, canoe, or other type of non-mechanized means), or leasing to companies that prevent the American public from accessing their own lands?

Jackie Feinberg

National Grassroots Organizer
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Comments

[Duane Poslusny]

No where in the Wilderness Act are dogs listed as not allowed. Dogs are allowed in the vast majority Forest Service Wilderness. One main exception is in the Salt Lake Watershed, but that is due to Salt Lake county regulation not Wilderness regulation. Dogs are not allowed in most National Park Wilderness or backcountry areas. I don't no the state of Fish and Wildlife Wilderness, since I have worked only for USFS and NPS.

[Native Southern Utahan]

But may I ask, what about the elderly and the handicapped? How are they to enjoy these lands if 'they' are locked out. How can my 87 year old grandmother whom has had two knee surgeries successfully venture these proposed wilderness areas? Or my stepfather whom recently had hip surgery? Is there not a way for wilderness activists and and anti-wilderness (which I don't view myself anit-wilderness I like the wilderness and want it cared for also just don't believe every road and every place should be designated non-motorized) work together for the greater good for both nature and human (of all walks of life) enjoyment? Just a proposal.

[Jackie Feinberg]

@Native Southern Utahan -

One of the other misconceptions about wilderness that I did not write about above is that it is off-limits to the handicapped and the elderly. There is an Americans with Disabilities exception in the Wilderness Act, so wheelchairs are allowed. See here: http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=misconceptions

This is also an inspiring opinion piece about the subject: http://www.responsibletrails.org/Utah/defying-disability-and-enjoying-wilderness.html

On a personal level, I do understand your concerns, but have had many experiences that display how everyone can enjoy wilderness on some level. In 2009, I had knee surgery and was unable to be at my full physical capability for almost a year, but still was able to access and enjoy wilderness by enjoying the views of an undamaged landscape from road overlooks, canoeing and rafting down rivers, and taking shorter, level walks into proposed wilderness areas. I've hiked/walked in proposed wilderness in Utah with people who are in their 70s and 80s, people who have bad knees, bad ankles, bad backs, and other ailments, and while everyone may not be physically capable of setting foot in every inch of proposed wilderness, there are still countless places that one can see, enjoy, and experience - no matter their physical condition. (And that is in addition to accessing the millions of acres that are not proposed for wilderness designation.)

[Native Southern Utahan]

Ok I'm a reasonable open minded person and can to some extent see both sides to this stance, Can you help me with links or in explanation what proposes an area as wilderness? What features or locations, I've seen your map, but I'm curious to learn your views more, not for conversion but for understanding of all parties involved I'm of the mind that both these parties do have a love for these areas certainly there is common ground to be found?

[Carolyn Hopper]

Wallace Stegner in his statement about wilderness - the Wilderness Coda -- and his other writing about wilderness talks about its importance not just in terms of how it may be entered and experienced in a physical way, but in how it has shaped this country. My Dad at 94 wasn't able to hike in to wilderness areas, but a friend took him down a river in a canoe and we were able to drive him to the edges of places he was once able to access on foot. Never once did he cry about what he could no longer do.
My Mom can't do what she once did either, nor can I on some days, but when I look into some areas that are or could be set aside I can experience the view and be grateful that the land I can view, is there. In wild areas our rivers are born and all the life they sustain - including humans - goes beyond any dollar value any one could place on it. There are thousands of miles of roads through beautiful country where many of all abilities can roam - on a horse, in a wheelchair , or paved areas where most could go on foot who are not completely able bodied.

I don't think that we should be asking the government to make every inch of this country accessible by road for all people all the time.

All of us can learn more about all the life that exists in wilderness areas. All of us can learn more about the intangibles that sustain us on many levels. When the oil is gone and the coal mined and air and water more polluted than it is today, then what?

There is nothing to fear about having wilderness areas. Many areas will still be open to mechanized travel.

Do most people believe that the government owes them anything they would like to do at any time?

And, as stated above, there are millions of acres of the natural environment that can be accessed by everyone. There are roads through Yellowstone and other National Parks.
There are roads through state parks and along oceans.

Is the belief of many opposed to wilderness that every inch of this country (and you are never farther from a road than 20 miles now) have roads so everyone can see everything. Is there no reason to believe that many people find solace and restoration in wilderness areas? Why deny those who need it -- and many more need it than would admit it?

Until everyone who wishes for more roads and more machines through wilderness has visited every inch of this country that is accessible and accesses beauty and grandeur I hope they would wait before demanding an end to wilderness as accessible by boat, horse, and foot.

If we demand that every inch of the natural world in this country be accessed by every person, then wouldn't it follow that if I can't ice climb someone owes it to me to help me? or white water kayak, or rock climb? Where does accessibility end?

[Jackie Feinberg]

@Carolyn Hopper - thanks for your insight!

@Native Southern Utahan - if you clarify what you mean by "what proposes an area as wilderness" then I would be happy to provide you with more explanation. There have been areas where agreement has been reached - for example, the Cedar Mountains Wilderness was designated in 2006 and sponsored by Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, an official who usually criticizes wilderness protection. However, it is often difficult when there are two opposing ideologies. Ultimately, wilderness designation is not about access - it is about preserving areas in order to protect water resources, air quality, wildlife habitat, and overall ecosystem health. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation about wilderness is stated by elected officials, in the news media, and by anti-wilderness groups, as I have written about above. Only about 3% of BLM lands in the lower 48 states are currently designated as wilderness, and only about 1% of BLM lands in Utah are designated wilderness. And even if every acre that mainstream wilderness advocacy groups would like designated as wilderness was actually designated, the vast majority of BLM lands in the West would not be designated as wilderness.

[Native Southern Utahan]

Thank you Jackie for that brief explantion I guess what I meant is by what criteria does a certain area fall into for it to be proposed for wilderness designation? I'm gathering a bit more of a grasp by your brief explanation and will do some research of my own---afterall I guess I do have 'the world at my fingertips'. I also believe there are misconceptions about anti-wilderness groups also but I will openly admit I'm new to this whole disagreement. I've lived in Moab my entire life so alot of my concern focuses mostly on this area, naturally, and I don't like to see the ecosystem health torn apart either nor do I see the need for every place to be auto accessable but do not think all existing roads (some yes but not all) need be eliminted either. But as I'm openly admitting my own ignorance to the situation I'm on an information search and feel it's best to be well informed from both sides of the fence. Thanks for your time.

[Jackie Feinberg]

@Native Southern Utahn-

The Wilderness Act states:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

We also do not think that all existing roads on public lands should be eliminated. For example, the BLM completed land use management plans for 11 million acres of public land in Utah in 2008 and designated about 20,000 miles of off-road vehicle routes. We are concerned with about 3,000 miles of these routes (not roads, but trails) that allow off-road vehicle use because of potential damage to riparian areas and other natural resources, as well as archaeological sites. Some of these "routes" did not exist before their designation in the management plans, and others do not lead to any particular attraction or duplicate another, more established route. In the area that these particular management plans cover (most of southeastern Utah), 17,000 miles of off-road vehicle routes would still be open even if all the trails in wilderness-quality areas were closed to vehicle use.

[Native Southern Utahan]

Thanks again