Bill would create new wilderness
By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | ∞
Rapids in the Cedar Creek Gorge
Conservationists say U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's plan to designate 2.4 million acres of California mountains as wilderness ---- including areas in San Diego and Riverside counties ---- would preserve a back-country treasure for future generations.
But off-road enthusiasts say Boxer's new wilderness bill would lock up that treasure forever so that only a privileged few could use it.
California already has one of the nation's most extensive wilderness systems, one that covers more than 14 million acres or 13 percent of its sun-splashed lands.
Local examples include the 16,000-acre Agua Tibia Wilderness just north of Palomar Mountain along the San Diego-Riverside county line, where groves of conifers in shaded canyons shelter rare Mexican spotted owls. Another example is the 40,000-acre San Mateo Canyon Wilderness northwest of Temecula, which harbors the headwaters of one of Southern California's last free-flowing rivers.
And now, at the urging of conservation groups, Boxer is proposing to boost the state's inventory of pristine, protected lands.
While the biggest additions would be in the Angeles and Los Padres forests, and in the Sierra Nevada, well to the north, some would come locally. For example, Boxer's newly introduced legislation ---- the California Wild Heritage Act of 2007 or Senate Bill 493 ---- targets Eagle Peak, a chaparral-dominated landscape of canyons and waterfalls east of Ramona for a new area and aims to increase the size of the Agua Tibia wilderness near Temecula.
The wilderness expansion is necessary, said Cindy Buxton of Imperial Beach, a member of the San Diego County Chapter of the Sierra Club and group expert on the Eagle Peak proposal.
"We have a lot of amazing environments in this county," Buxton said. "We have the ocean, we have chaparral, we have desert, we have oak woodlands and we even have some alpine coniferous forests."
The Boxer bill would help ensure that all the different types of landscapes are preserved, she said.
"We're trying to leave something for the next few generations," said Oceanside resident Dave Voss, co-chairman of the local Sierra Club's forest and wilderness committee.
Padlocking the great outdoors
But Meg Grossglass, a spokeswoman for the Bakersfield-based Off-Road Business Association who resides in the French Valley community near Temecula, said enough land has been preserved already, and the bill would have the effect of putting a padlock on places people would otherwise visit. That, she said, is because many prefer not to recreate on foot or horseback, the only permitted methods of travel in most wilderness areas.
"I truly believe that wilderness keeps families away from the great outdoors," Grossglass said. "We should be encouraging people to get away from all the technology that keeps them in the house and go visit the outdoors."
Bill Dart, director of land use for the Off-Road Business Association, said the legislation "takes a swipe at the folks who actually use public lands and locks up more land." Dart said he is mostly concerned with proposed wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada, some of which would close places now open to off-roaders.
Locally, the legislation would add 2,000 acres to the Agua Tibia Wilderness, 214 acres to the 14,000-acre Pine Creek Wilderness in eastern San Diego County and 21,000 acres to existing wilderness lands in the heavily forested San Jacinto Mountains of western Riverside County, near Idyllwild.
Meanwhile, an entirely new wilderness area is proposed for North San Diego County. Composed of more than 24,000 acres, the proposed Eagle Peak Wilderness takes in the mountain by the same name, the San Diego River and Cedar Creek gorges and several scenic cascades, among them Mildred Falls (the county's highest), Cedar Creek Falls and Three Sisters.
As far as Buxton is concerned, this is the best time of the year to visit the area.
"It's green. The flowers are out. There's water that runs over beautiful boulders, and waterfalls and punch bowl," she said. "It's unbelievably pristine and untouched. A lot of people think it is the best place on earth."
An outdoor paradise
An hour's drive from much of North County, Eagle Peak is popular with a wide range of recreation seekers.
"It's an outdoor sportsman's paradise," said John Elliott of Descanso.
It is particularly popular with rock climbers, who say Eagle Peak is one of the most challenging and rewarding technical climbs in San Diego County.
The U.S. Forest Service is studying whether to close the peak to climbing during the spring nesting season of the golden eagles, but bill supporters said the legislation won't affect that decision one way or another. Climbing is generally permitted in wilderness areas.
The area also is popular with hikers, hunters, swimmers and off-roaders.
"You won't find a bunch of guys on dune buggies and quads out there," Elliott said. But he said there are people like him, who ride their dirt bikes on area roads to Eagle Peak and the top of Cedar Creek Falls.
While some visitors, particularly hikers, generally support the idea of declaring the area a wilderness, off-roaders are sharply opposed.
"They (conservationists) have been promoting this area as the new wilderness area for San Diego," Elliott said. "But you know what? It's just not suitable." He said that is because of the need to keep roads open for fighting fires rescuing visitors.
Still, given the changing political climate in Washington, with the Democrats now in charge, there is a good chance that California's Democratic sponsor will be able to push the bill through Congress, Elliott said.
Buxton, of the Sierra Club, said conservationists are reasonably optimistic about the bill's chances of passage. And she countered the suggestion that Eagle Peak is not worthy of the wilderness label.
"This is not a Yosemite," Buxton said. Nonetheless, she said, Eagle Peak is a beautiful area that offers respite to nearby urban dwellers and must be preserved.
"We're asking, 'What do you want this to look like in 100 years?' " she said. "And if the answer is , 'I want to see it remain the way it is,' then the solution is wilderness."
Elliott said he is worried that designating the area wilderness will close those roads to the peak and the falls that he enjoys. Buxton sought to alleviate those concerns.
"We don't take away a single road," she said.
Not Disneyland
But there is more cause for concern, Elliott said.
"We've had nothing but problems in there," Elliott said. "It is a major nuisance area. And, I'll tell you, you make that area wilderness and the problems will get worse."
According to news reports from the last few years, at least one person drowned in one of the pools and at least one other died after falling off a cliff. Dozens of visitors were rescued after suffering heat exhaustion, broken ankles and rattlesnake bites.
Matt Mathes, a spokesman for the California regional office of the U.S. Forest Service in San Francisco, said Eagle Peak is a place where visitors occasionally get into trouble because they do not plan ahead.
"We try to keep the national forest as open as possible," Mathes said. "But sometimes people don't realize that this is not Disneyland. They do not realize how hot it is down there and how steep it is to hike out. People need to make themselves aware of the hazards and take precautions."
Elliott maintained that a wilderness designation would make matters worse because potential road closures would make it tougher for rescuers to reach those in trouble by vehicle or helicopter.
Mathes said the Forest Service, in writing a new Cleveland National Forest management plan recently, studied the idea of wilderness and recommend against it because of the area's fire danger. The area was the ignition point for the disastrous 270,000-acre Cedar fire, the largest wildfire on record in California, which rose out of the San Diego River Gorge and swept all the way into the city of San Diego in October 2003.
Mathes said the federal agency was concerned about fire trucks being able to use existing roads to reach the area to fight a future fire.
However, Buxton stressed that the legislation keeps roads open, and both rescuers and firefighters would be able to reach Eagle Peak the same way they do now.
Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 740-5442 or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Yes! More wilderness now!!! wrote on Apr 22, 2007 8:58 PM:We need more wilderness areas. Think of how we have destroyed our planet to the detriment of so many wild species. I approve creating more wilderness areas. Let's do it now before it is to late and we will never be able to look back at the damage that will never be undone. We are at the precipice of the greatest mass extinction of wild species in the 4 billion year history of the planet.
Fantastic! wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:05 PM:Finally - some good news in the headlines.
More access breeds more respect wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:49 PM:The trend towards "wilderness' shuts more and more of the great outdoors off from all except the fittest, most ardent (who happen to be the people lobbying for it), and limited use constituency. Public land is for PUBLIC use. If the Sierra club and the "Backpacker" crowd want land that can only be used for their uses, then they should BUY IT, like the Nature Conservancy does.
GFN wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:52 PM:Yes...finally, someone who gets it.
Lokal Yokal wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:23 AM:Thanks NC Times for the local angle, but what about the other 2.39 million acres? Where are those?
Floyd wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:23 AM:What we really need is 2.4 million acres of land for home construction.
Wilderness forever wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:30 AM:It would be wonderful if all the "wilderness" advocates would ban together, pool their own money, and buy as much land as they can afford. Then they could put it in a trust in perpetuity for the benefit of whatever. That way they wouldn't have to use OPM (other peoples money) nor effectively confiscate private property by declaring "wilderness areas" to destroy property values.
Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:11 AM:The only thing this really accoplished is to lock the areas up for a privilaged few. Off road acticities are actually pretty much limited already to exsisting trails. The impact of those trails are very minimal. It has always been the goal of most enviromental groups (like the Siera Club) to close most of the forests to only back packers or horse back. It is a completely self serving and discrimatory possition. Most people do not have the means or ability to enjoy the outdoors under the conditions these groups would impose. So let's opposse these new proposals less we lose access to the wilderness, and be excluded of the enjoyment of these areas to s select few.
Pave Paradise and Put Up a Parkiing Lot... wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:24 AM:I could maybe understand 'saving' 2.4 million acres as 'wilderness.' But we should match this 2.4 million acres with another 2.4 million acres for new freeways, highways and road projects. What good does it to have 2.4 million acres for the granola and tofu munching crowd when there are no highways and roads to travel and get to these 'paradise' locales? Also, does Babs' bill include any provisions for hunting, fishing and target shooting in her 2.4 million acres? I'm a sportsman. I would LOVE to drive my 4 x 4 to Boxer's 2.4 million acre wilderness preserve to do some big game hunting. Of course, some paved parking lots at these hunting preserves would be great too.
The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:30 AM:Some of the comments here are simply incredible. Some people actually think it's no fair if they can't drive their SUV's through the entire wilderness areas. There has been far too much construction and far too little effort to preserve wilderness areas. With global warming finally getting the attention it deserves, it should be obvious to all that the more wilderness we have the more oxygen there is in the air to offset the mand-made hydrocarbons gradually destroying our planet. I'm proud to have Senator Boxer representing our interests in Washington.
Vista Granny wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:37 AM:I may be beyond the back packing, mountain climbing age, but my grandchildren aren't. And, there will be their children and grand children. The fact that one person drowned in a pond in the proposed area is too bad, but to stop the legislation for that reason is ludicrus.If that's the way people think and act, then we MUST ban all backyard swimming pools and stop people from going to the beach. Let's save SOMETHING for the next generation and their children.
To The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:44 AM:You statement reflects the common issue of ignorance of the issues at hand. First, the few SUVs that would be driven through any of these areas have almost no impact on the enviroment compared to the millions of SUVs driven on the freeways with one person in them and that they never will use them in a wilderness area. Plus our understanding of global warming is not clear yet, many believe it to be man made, many a nutural cycle that the earth goes through. Neither side believes there will ba a lack of oxygen. All of us would agree to preserving these areas and limiting construction and developement. But we do not agree that these areas should be for backpackers and house riders only. And to exclude most Americans from these areas is a form of decrimination. Control and regulation of the areas, yes, denied access for most people, no.
Fresh Air wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:55 AM:Wow, can I really believe that there's an effort by a politician to protect what little of our "back-country treasure" is left in San Diego County. Now that every back-country road leads to a casino (how we reached maximum saturation yet?), most of the treasure to be found in rural East County is in the coffers of our local tribes. And as for Meg Grossglass' assertion that "..wilderness keeps families away from the great outdoors," you have got to be kidding! Racing around on loud obnoxious vehicles does absolutely nothing for our environment. Leave these toys at home next time and get out and enjoy nature, not as passengers, but as participants.
Wilderness forever wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:28 AM:The incredibles and other of their ilk are incredibly selfish. They want to live where they want live, but they want to stop all development so no one else can live there. Maybe these people can't notice that developers can only develop where there is a demand for developed property. I've got my house and adequate infrastructure for me, so lets stop all development. Screw everybody else! I wonder how these people would feel if we would have stopped all development BEFORE they acquired their own property? There are lots of places left in the world where there is plenty of wilderness. I wish the incredibles would go live there and leave the rest of us alone.
Matt wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:36 AM:To Pave Paradise, One doesn't "munch" tofu. One "chews" tofu.
Floyd wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:47 AM:Some of the comments here are simply incredible. There has been far too much restriction on buildable land and far too little effort to enhance and expand our housing stock or address the crowding on our freeways. It should be obvious to all that proper planning for growth will eliminate artificially high housing prices and reduce emissions caused by cars idling in gridlock. We need to have someone representing our interests in Washington, and it's clearly not Senator Boxer.
Ken wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:55 AM:In one way or the other we are all for preserving and enjoying the natural beauty of our state. However taking land and placing it in a 'wilderness' designation is not the way. The problem with that designtion, as I see it, is that as the population ages how is access to these areas going to be maintained for those who are limited by the infirmities of age or other disabilities?
Monsieur Cousteau wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:04 AM:We do not inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children. Kudos to Senator Boxer.
Amazed at the misinformation wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:32 AM:Wilderness areas do not destroy property values, they actually raise them. The land in question is already public property so there is no costs involved in designating it to wilderness. Most everyone would love to own property next to a wilderness area in a natural state vs. an off road four wheeler and motorcycle park. Talk about hunting, fishing... yes you can do that in a wilderness area. Those that would rather have an off-road vehicle park instead of a wilderness area don't appreciate the wildlife that can find a home their. They are normally driving and drinking and partying and in such a state of mind that they hardly know where they are. Those that are not capable of walking can always go in on horse/mule to a wilderness area. The only change I would make to the wilderness area designation is allow mountain bikers in. If the four-wheeler crowd wants more public land to zoom around I would suggest start picking up your trash ... I am tired picking up your beer cans. Consider the antelope herds gone, steelhead trout gone, and bears no more in San Diego County just to mention the larger species ... there are thousands of other lesser species that no longer exist here because of man.
Roger wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:32 AM:I am by no stretch of the imagination an environmentalist, but I do enjoy the hiking trails for walking, etc. When Bill says "The impact on those trails from (from off-roaders) is minimal, I would only ask him where he's been. He obviously never notices the damage those machines do because he's going by too fast - and making too much noise to hear the birds coughing! I have seen countless beautiful walking trails throughout the country ruined byu off-roaders. This is one of the few times I agree with the Democrats.
Gimme a Break, Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:46 AM:Preserving the planet is not "discriminatory." It's actually helping to save the planet, not for your grandkids, but for YOU and your kids.
Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:30 AM:Not sure where you are hiking Roger, but I hike too and the trails I have hiked I have yet too encounter an off road vehicle unless I am on a fire road. It is against the law to ride off of designated off road trails. If you encounter that you should report it. To Gimme a Break, you are confusing the issue, I am all for perserving, I am not for locking out. Just wait till the environazis tell you no one is allowed in (except them of course). I hope you drive a fuel effeiciant car, use no airconditioning, use no electrical device that is not absolutely neccesary. That will help preserve the planet. The big issue has little to do with wilderness areas, and everything to do with our lifestyles as a whole. So my point is, don't single out one very small group and make it their issue. Make them out to me the reason for our enviromental problems.
Ur Full of Contradictions wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:53 AM:The comment " I would love to drive my 4 x 4 to Boxer's blah, blah......and do some big game hunting, blah, blah" is absolutely laghable. Why do you think there is no (real) big game hunting in So Cal? Cause SoCal is much better habitat for houses and pavement than big game. The notion that using your own two feet to access a place is self-serving and elitist is also laughable. Try it sometime, and let me know if when you reach the top of the peak and a noisy, fossil fuel munching vehicle comes up over the crest belching exhaust as you gasp a deep breath cause you actually used your lungs that day, doesnt absoultely change your experience. As far as I have experienced, driving a vehicle past hikers or equines never changed my motorized experience one bit, except for maybe having to swerve to avoid running someone over. Get it? If not, try walking sometime where there are vehicles and you just might get a glimpse of what I am talkign about (and maybe shave off a few pounds while your at it). Motorized trumps all other uses: its a single use! So dont even try and pull the "its about access for all" card, cause its a lie. Also, you are telling me that "most people" access lands using a vehicle? Lets play that scenario out for a minute: So everyone has a truck, trailer, and OHV of some sort in So Cal and wants to get on the trail the same day. Guess what? It'll be worse than ever before to even get on the freeway let alone a spot at the trailhead to park and stage. You should be thankful that the 'backpacker" bunch is not interested in OHVing: you have space to park your big rig and trailers.
Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:59 AM:To amazed, I too have encountered the beer cans and trash. I have also experince loud and abnoxious people. But this was on hiking trails where no off road vehicles have been (also on off road trails too). But the off roaders aren't the only ones with some bad players on their team. It is up to all of us to help pick up this trash and to report violations.
Says a lot wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:58 AM:They hate each other, they hate the earth, they must even hate God...Pity the fools!
The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:18 PM:To the person who addressed me: 1. You falsely accuse me of "ignorance of the issues at hand". 2. My point about SUV's addressed the selfish people complaining that the only way they can access wilderness is on foot or on horseback and that they'd rather see such areas developed with more roads and houses. I never claimed SUV's would have any significant impact on the environment in wilderness areas. 3. Apparently your "understanding of global warming" is unclear to you, but not to the scientific community. Every single peer-reviewed study in every scientific journal agrees that the current trend in global warming is man-made and will have dire consequences to the entire planet if certain steps are not taken to correct the problem. Only the media and certain flat-earth Republicans claim that it is "a natural cycle that the earth goes through." And only one "scientist", hired from Exxon-Mobil to speak for the Bush administration claims any such thing. 4. The issue isn't a lack of oxygen - it's too many hydrocarbons, which more oxygen offsets (e.g. the Brazilian rainforests). 5. No one is excluding anyone from wilderness areas. And just because you can't drive your SUV through all of it doesn't mean you're suffering from any form of "discrimination". Your post reveals not only a lack of understanding of the environment, but also a profound narrow-mindedness fueled by your own selfishness and lack of concern for future generations.
Hiking granola tofu eater wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:25 PM:The reason we need to preserve the land for the "granola and tofu munching crowd" is that they will still be alive after the red-meat eating couch potatoes have vanished in the clogged arteries of urban sprawl.
RamonaResident wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:41 PM:I live near the trailhead to Eagle Falls in SDCE and helicopter flyovers are a regular sight on hot summer afternoons, flying to and from Eagle Falls to rescue hikers. These are folks who descend 900 feet down to the gorge in the cool of the morning and find themselves unable to climb out in the late afternoon heat. I'm guessing if the Eagle Peak area becomes a wilderness, then a wilderness permit will be required to enter. This could be a good thing if it forces hikers to be informed of the risks before setting off on the hike.
The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:44 PM:To "Wilderness forever", who calls me "selfish ilk" and wonders "I wonder how these people would feel if we would have stopped all development BEFORE they acquired their own property?" Answer: I would be absolutely delighted if all development in San Diego had stopped before I acquired my property. You see, my property was built and lived in 9 years before I acquired it.
The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:48 PM:The point about oxygen may have gone over some people's heads. Plants, including trees and rainforest vegetation not only give off oxygen, they also consume carbon dioxide, converting it to oxygen, thus helping to eliminate excess hydrogen dioxide in the atmosphere.
To The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:55 PM:1. You are ignorate to the issues in that you belive ALL scientist believe global warming is man caused. Many that have nothing to do with industry disagree with each other. 2. I agree with you on this...I misunderstood you. 3. I don't know what you are reading or listening to, not all scientist agree it is man cause and that has stood up to peer review too. 4. You are corect about hydrocrabons, but the context was wrong and not scientific. 5. If someone is unable to hike or lack the rescources for horse back....then they are effectively excluded. It is interesting how me voicing my opinion on this issue means I am narrowminded and lack understanding. That sounds like a typical liberal mantra to me, if someone disagrees with a libral then the libral thinks that person is narrow minded. All I am asking is that you consider all the points, not just the libral talking points.
Off Roader wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:55 PM:I agree with Bill, Thanks, Yes we do ride all over, but they have taken a lot of our riding area away, because of a bird, owl, and lizard. I don’t drink and drive over bushes, I stay on the roads. Roger you are pointing the finger to only 1 group. We do enjoy the hiking trails for walking, etc. I have seen countless beautiful walking & riding trails throughout the country not ruined off-roaders, but its also the walkers that dump their trash. It seems that California is saving all of the land for the bird watchers and hikers. Maybe the other state should do the same and not always California
Bruce wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:56 PM:I completely support Sen. Boxer's wilderness bill. I have children and grandchildren who will have access to this new wilderness long after I'm gone or incapable of enjoying it. I want them to experience the outdoors the way I experience it, free of the stressful noise and unhealthy pollution from gas-powered vehicles.
To The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:57 PM:You missed the point of "Wilderness Forever". You are still a nimby anyway you look at it.
Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:08 PM:To Bruce, I don't support Sen. Boxer's bill as written. But I do want these areas managed in a way for all to enjoy and to perserve it for many many generations to enjoy. I enjoy both 4wd jeeping and hiking. So I want areas for both.....not just point blank millions of acres off limits for all but hiking. I love the outdoors and it's one of the few places that seem sane to me and I get my strength there. So I want it perserved but managed and handled in a way so that many can enjoy it.
The Incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:26 PM:To the same person: I never said "ALL scientist believe global warming is man caused". I pointed rather to all peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals. They are all in 100% agreement not only about the severity of the problem of global warming, but that the current troubling trends are man-made. Aside from the one scientist I referred to who was paid by the Bush administration to spout misinformation, I've never heard of any scientist who actually studies the phenomenon who disagrees with those scientific studies. You were the one who accused me of a lack of understanding; I simply pointed out that you were projecting your own ignorance onto me. BTW, when I mentioned "hydrogen dioxide" I meant carbon dioxide. Beyond that there's nothing else worth responding to here, aside from noting that "liberal" is not spelled "libral".
Carla wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:31 PM:to more access breeds more: I am a middle aged average woman and even a bit over weight. To say that wilderness is for the privelidged few is rediculous. What do you think a souped up jeep costs: at least 50,000$ They are the ones that what to destroy all of time for a few minuets of fun. I know the Eagle Peak area pretty well and my old Ford Escort has no problem getting to the trail head. My hiking shoes were twenty bucks at Walmart. I am no well trained athelet beleive me, I just know enough to bring a lot of water and pace myself. Now if us mediocre 'ol ladies can get in there and a 50K off roader can't, hmmmmm , who is supporting the common person and who is it that is locking out us regular people because he wants it for very expensive toys? And who stands to make the money, off roading at 50000k or Big 5 and Walmart at 20$. Nothing new about the rich guy saying one thing and doing another! Wilderness is for everyone!
Jacob wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:36 PM:If John Elliot goes to the top of Cedar Falls and up Eagle Peak on a dirt bike than he is already off the designated route. so you want to report these people, Bill? I just reported him. The guy that is the spokes person for the offroaders just admitted that he is breaking the the law and riding off trail. Would he do that on purpose or is it possible that he has no clue where this is and isn't really even quaulifed to talk about it? Which is it? Either way not good.
Mark wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:45 PM:The idea of placing parking off the main road for hunters is a very good one so that the hunters can clean their kill away from public inspection. But that doesn't eliminate hunting and fishing in wildernss, in fact it supports it. Hunting and fishing are allowed and several deer were taken in the Eagle Peak area during the season this year. Hunters are very good enviros, a horrible misunderstanding that we are not. We need to work on this communication as we have so much in common with preserving the land. Also, private land is not taken in wilderness. Only power companies can do that! However it is much more difficult for power companies to steal OUR public land if it has wildereness status. Wilderness can only be promoted from public land.
George wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:49 PM:Be of good cheer, wilderness people! The same opposition cries have been heard for years. They didn't prevent Yosemite National Park, they didn't block California Desert wilderness, and they won't stop this wilderness bill if we stand up for it. Protected areas are more appreciated 50 years later.
Greenie wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:56 PM: To Ken, there are at least four places in the Eagle Peak wilderness that have been suggested for wheel chair access and brail trails for the blind. It would cost a lot less than a day in Iraq. Would all of you like to help with time, muscle, and money in building these or is it just talk because you really just want an excuse to use it all to yourself for dirt biking? Handicap access is a wonderful idea but doesn't stop an area from being wilderness. Wheel chairs are exempted from limitations placed on other mechanized vehicles.
Access Desired wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:42 PM:My wheelchair looks amazingly like a Honda ATV four-wheeler. Is there some way to get it included in this exception? Or would it be easier just to allow all capable vehicles on the trail?
72 year old- wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:57 PM:Preserve the wilderness. As a 72 year old man I have watched it all disappear. The pavin over of America has to stop. Please preserve what is left or it will very soon be gone.
Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:03 PM:Good job Jacob, whether the guy on the dirt bike knows it or not doesn't matter, I am an off roader and I know where I can be and not be. That guy should be reported. I don't want it both ways, There should be places for hiking and places for off roading. My point is that I don't want to see off roading completely legislated away.
To incredibles wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:06 PM:opps, I should have reread what I typed, sorry about the spelling.
Greenie wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:15 PM:to access desired : only if it is powered by tofu and doesn't make a sound. The first time I heard the whole tofu thing it was by an offroader reading a letter from Duncan Hunter at a BLM public meeting about 5 years ago at a hotel Mission Valley. I don't know any hikers that use tofu for trail mix. Gee, the only ones that ever talk about tofu are offroaders! I wonder if Duncan Hunter has been to Eagle Peak-its in his district? I wonder if Duncan Hunter eats tofu?
John wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:48 PM:Jacob, Since when has Eagle Peak Road become "off the designated route"? Eagle Peak Rd (which includes the road to the top of the falls)is a public road.
Karl wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:10 PM:I am amazed that some folks believe all of our land is being paved over. I flew to San Francisco and back a few months ago and got quite a view of our great state. The wilderness areas look vast compared to the tiny dots of development from thousands of feet in the air. I would suggest that the "paved over" crowd venture further than 30 miles from home.
Silverado wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:16 PM:Why should hikers wants come before mine? Our family enjoys "off-roading" at least a couple times a month. I have never seen an area be closed to hikers, and open to off-roaders. It is ALWAYS the other way around; the sanctimonious hiker club lobbies to close land to off-roading, but open it for hikers. All under the guise of "environmentalism". Every off-roader we go with consider themselves custodians of the land, we simply choose a different to use it.
bulldozer wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:30 PM:heck with global warming- jurys still out- GW said so and hes the decider. wilderness area is a waste of possible urban sprawl and since scientists haven't proven pollution is bad for the environment, lets build until we all go nuts like rats in a maze.
Reality check for Carla wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:09 PM:I'm "Access Breeds Respect" and my Jeep, which is nearly 20 years old, cost me $10,300 when I bought it. Good luck making any trailhead in the Sierras if this bill passes. I CAN hike 12-20 miles a day with 80 pounds on my back, but my 3 year old son, and my wife, can't. We live in a DESERT, water is HEAVY, if you want PEOPLE (which the proponents of this bill do not) of modest means, and limited time, to be able to enjoy the backcountry, you have to allow motorized transport.
wild wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:57 PM:Lets make all of CA wilderness and throw everyone into the Ocean, Canada or to Mexico
RW&Blue wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:17 PM:No! No! We are running out of tract homes! We need to rip down all the trees, kill the animals that get in the way and put up more multi-family high density tract homes! You know, those great looking tract homes that all look a like and catch your eye as they follow ridgelines all over San Diego.. Then, we need more freeways, Jack-in the Boxes and strip malls to fill any green space left! Dam those green spaces! Trees too! Rip um down so I can drive my god fear'n SUV anywhere I want because I am American.....and don't tell me I can't because Americans are first and the rest of the world be dammed! If you don't believe, we will send our Armys and Navys to convince you! You better be Christain too!
to Silverado wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:57 PM:Your family's enjoyment of off-roading can be done anywhere where wilderness has already been destroyed, which is virtually everywhere else. Don't you get enough exhaust and noise during your daily commute to want to drag it and obtrude on others going to get away from it all. It's unfortunate off-roaders feel that RV's, off-road vehicles and loud parties are not disruptive. The ability to get away from the day-to-day grind of traffic and noise to do nothing but sit of hike and listen to birds, streams and wind through the trees is the essence of experiencing wilderness. Take a tent and some hiking shoes next time and leave the RV, boat and off-road vehicles parked in your front yard where your neighbors can admire them.
Wilderness Forever wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:25 PM:Thanks Barbara, you got my vote!!!!!!!
Ziggy wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:37 PM:I agree with Vista Granny. I am disabled and probably can't walk more than a mile and certainly not ride a horse. However, the wilderness should not be ruined just because I cannot drive in and enjoy it. The very idea of having an automobile, dirt bike or other noise making "Boy toy" ruins the ambience of such places. YES to more open space, NO to developement. If this nation had kept its promise to zero population growth as proposed in the 60's, we wouldn't have this debate. In reality, native-born Americans HAVE achieved zero population growth. Its the huge influx of immigrants (the most in our nations history, around 30% not counting their American born off-spring) and their equally huge families that require more and more on less and less. Just think, without this mass immigration our freeways would still be large enough, we'd have enough for schools, police, fire protection and so forth. Naturally there would have been some growth from immigration from within the U.S. but it would have been less destructive. Save as much now. I'll be gone, but you're the ones who will miss it.
Carla wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:42 PM:to Reality Check, If your wife can walk 1/3 of a mile on an old dirt road she can see the 150 foot three sisters waterfall and be home well before dark. You don't have to drive all the way to the Sierras, the Eagle Peak proposal is available to all within an hour and a half from down down San Diego. ON the way in from Descanso your 3 year old son can stand and splash in Boulder Creek as you will drive right over it and can park right beside it. If you go down Eagle Peak Road you can pull up to Mildred Falls and only walk about 30 feet to see it. Then if you drive a 1/2 mile further you don't have to get out of your car to see the San Diego River Gorge. If you park at Saddle Back you can walk 1/2 mile North (that's left) on Cedar Creek Road and your son can stand in Cedar Creek too. When the gate is open you can drive right up to Cedar Creek and none of that access is affected by this Bill. Full independent suspension, onboard compression, big tires, radio, etc etc, will turn your 10k jeep into 50k quickly. I agree that bringing water is a very good idea. Did you not see where it says the Eagle Peak Proposal doesn't close any roads?
to John wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:57 PM:West of Saddleback, the big iron Forest Service gate with the "no motorized vehicles" sign on it might be the first clue. Its been there quite a while. Nevertheless,Eagle Peak Road itself both east and west of Saddleback is a unit boundary and unaffected by this Bill either way. The spur road to the valley behind Cedar Creek Falls is also non motorized as currently classified by the Forest Service even without wilderness and has been a long time.
to Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:06 PM:Thanks for that,the local Eagle Peak proposal is special as wilderness proposals go. It does just what you are saying. None of the access roads are removed but the interiors are still beautiful and pristine, yet small, and accessible. The bill doesn't change anything, not even fire management or first aid and law enforcement. It keeps the Eagle Peak areas just the way they are. What it does do is exactly what you are saying, it put congressional protection on the small units so that bigger threats can't come in and change them, ie. the current consideration to put a 500 Kv line the length of SunShine Mountain and over Mildred Falls.
OK! OK! OK! Everybody! wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:42 PM:Obviously this "article" spun some quotes that evoked typical volunteer debunk. (Either side guys?) To offer argument without offering compromise, collaboration and consensus is foolish emotional behavior. Listen to the land managers (who are not obsessed going itchy loco on this regional issue?) The only comment in this article that holds any reasonable merit was from Matt Mathes. It's all about public safety folks. As an observer and forest representative the only other partipant in this mash of (hiding behind the computer screen) worthy of mention has the blog date of 4/23/07 8:57pm. There is truth when it comes from facts folks.....
Skip wrote on Apr 24, 2007 5:08 PM:Why can I not make a post about all of the damage made to our wilderness lands by the illegal Aliens crossing our borders. While these same groups and politicians look the other way?
Devils Advocate wrote on Apr 25, 2007 11:55 AM:As much as I would love to see more wilderness, I also hate to lable the areas as a "wilderness area". When something is designated a "Wilderness area" it generally means that you can not do anything destructive in this area including "cutting line" with heavy equipment or using power tools to stop a major forest fire. What happens when a fire ripes through this area? It's not going to be so pristine and untouched anymore.
Devils Advocate wrote on Apr 25, 2007 12:14 PM:It cut off my message. Nature lovers are not just hikers, and mountain bikers, etc. Off-roaders are also nature lovers who enjoy getting out and seeing the scenery. But anyone who is not an off-roader bashes the hobby. The majority of serious off-roaders care for the land, maintaining their own trails, picking up after themselves and sharing the trails. It's a shame that those who claim to love nature are trying to shut out people from enjoying it. As I read the other comments, the main problem is that off-roaders and non-off-roaders are not working together to enjoy this land. Instead of bashing each other, try working together so everyone can have this land in 100 years.
RJ wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:39 PM:Most off-roaders are NOT out to destroy the environment, we are out to enjoy the environment. The off-road community is often vilified as a bunch of bumpkins popping wheelies over protected plants and animals. You can find a few bad apples in every group, but most of us are very concerned about preserving open spaces for future generations to enjoy. Many of the roads and trails we travel over have been in use for many many years. The problem is that while off-roading has surged in popularity over the last few years, the land open to off-roading is being systematically closed down forcing enthusiasts into smaller and more crowded recreational off-road areas. It has almost gotten to the point where it is unsafe to recreate in the Ocotillo Wells SVRA due to overcrowding. Most of the Imperial Valley sand dunes has been shut down to protect Pierson's Milkvetch even though studies have proven that the annual rainfall has a much larger impact on the proliferation of the plant than off-road activity does. Off-roading is not a crime…
dennis wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:53 PM:More wilderness now and Boxer is our champion! As one no longer so fit and my wilderness days numbered I still vote for wilderness. We must have wilderness as a baseline to tell what the world once was and what it could be. Comparing a city part to the street next to us might appear to be the same thing, but only to the most jaded city dweller. Keep the wilderness, stow the motors and wheels and wings! Thanks Barbara Boxer!
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement