REVIEWS DEALS BIKESHOPS TRAILS

Putting the "Wilderness Act" in perspective

9696 Views 170 Replies 63 Participants Last post by dstepper, Jun 26, 2010

canuckjgc

Discussion Starter · Mar 11, 2010

With all this hand-wringing over the Wilderness Act I had a look at actual land use in the USA and I think people should relax:

- Total land: 1,937,700,000 acres (that's nearly 2 billion for the numerically challenged)

- Wilderness Act covers: 9,000,000 acres (that's 0.4% of the total continental land mass)

- Total developed land in the USA as a percent of total land: 5.6% (excluding Alaska!!)

- About 75% of the population lives on this 5.6% of developed land

- 94.4% of US land is forest, rural, range, pasture or crop.

- 74% of the US is forest and range and pasture land (excluding crop land)

If you live next to an area closing to MTB's that's not fun, but in the big picture, a very large chunk (74%) of the US is wilderness/rural/forest land.

Figures from the US census: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0354.pdf

1 - 20 of 171 Posts

Ride Wilderness

· #2 · Mar 11, 2010

canuckjgc said:
With all this hand-wringing over the Wilderness Act I had a look at actual land use in the USA and I think people should relax:

- Total land: 1,937,700,000 acres (that's nearly 2 billion for the numerically challenged)

- Wilderness Act covers: 9,000,000 acres (that's 0.4% of the total continental land mass)

- Total developed land in the USA as a percent of total land: 5.6% (excluding Alaska!!)

- About 75% of the population lives on this 5.6% of developed land

- 94.4% of US land is forest, rural, range, pasture or crop.

- 74% of the US is forest and range and pasture land (excluding crop land)

If you live next to an area closing to MTB's that's not fun, but in the big picture, a very large chunk (74%) of the US is wilderness/rural/forest land.

Figures from the US census: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0354.pdf

You'd make an excellent Wilderness advocate. They often quote % of land NOT Wilderness to support more Wilderness designation!

I think some of this is useful, but generally, a tad too anecdotal. The devil is in the details when it comes to what land has been designated Wilderness and what land is being proposed for the same.

canuckjgc

Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 11, 2010

0.4% has been designated wilderness by the Wildnerness Act. You can't tell me that 0.4% happens to be the only/best MTB'ing in the US! Any proposed additions would add another fraction of a percent. Even if it doubled (which it won't) it would still be under 1%. Why people are fighting over less than half a percent of land is beyond me.

Ride Wilderness said:
You'd make an excellent Wilderness advocate. They often quote % of land NOT Wilderness to support more Wilderness designation!

I think some of this is useful, but generally, a tad too anecdotal. The devil is in the details when it comes to what land has been designated Wilderness and what land is being proposed for the same.

cutthroat

· #4 · Mar 11, 2010

canuckjgc said:
0.4% has been designated wilderness by the Wildnerness Act. You can't tell me that 0.4% happens to be the only/best MTB'ing in the US! Any proposed additions would add another fraction of a percent. Even if it doubled (which it won't) it would still be under 1%. Why people are fighting over less than half a percent of land is beyond me.

True - biking along the Jew Jersey turnpike is definitely no different than biking the Monarch Crest Trail (which the wilderness advocates want to close to bikes. Who would know?).

Ride Wilderness

· #5 · Mar 11, 2010

canuckjgc said:
0.4% has been designated wilderness by the Wildnerness Act. You can't tell me that 0.4% happens to be the only/best MTB'ing in the US! Any proposed additions would add another fraction of a percent.

Again, broad stroke percentages are misleading. Also, I never said, nor will I say "only/best". Misquoting or using "only, always, never" will make for a pointless discussion.

I don't know that I want to take the time to do this, but if one were to go state by state, forest by forest I think you would find strong evidence of a) areas designated Wilderness that contain wonderful MTB opportunities, and b) current areas where great riding exists, but is now threatened by Wilderness designation. Again, no definitive terms like "all" or "only".....but certainly some excellent cases.

canuckjgc

Discussion Starter · #6 · Mar 11, 2010

You simply don't understand how very small an area the Wilderness Act covers. Does it catch some MTB areas? Sure. But you still have 99.6% of the land left over.

Ride Wilderness said:
Again, broad stroke percentages are misleading. Also, I never said, nor will I say "only/best". Misquoting or using "only, always, never" will make for a pointless discussion.

I don't know that I want to take the time to do this, but if one were to go state by state, forest by forest I think you would find strong evidence of a) areas designated Wilderness that contain wonderful MTB opportunities, and b) current areas where great riding exists, but is now threatened by Wilderness designation. Again, no definitive terms like "all" or "only".....but certainly some excellent cases.

Ride Wilderness

· #7 · Mar 11, 2010

canuckjgc said:
You simply don't understand how very small an area the Wilderness Act covers. Does it catch some MTB areas? Sure. But you still have 99.6% of the land left over.

Cool, I don't understand. Unsubscribing to this nonsense....

Lawson Raider

· #8 · Mar 11, 2010

Nothing wrong with protecting our natural beauty but the problem is you have politicians in charge of what is and what isn't wilderness.. They could designate a junkyard next to a mobile home park a Wilderness if they so wanted to do so.

canuckjgc

Discussion Starter · #9 · Mar 11, 2010

You're right of course, but who other than elected representatives should do it?

I wouldn't want an unaccountable government bureaucrat doing it...

Lawson Raider said:
Nothing wrong with protecting our natural beauty but the problem is you have politicians in charge of what is and what isn't wilderness.. They could designate a junkyard next to a mobile home park a Wilderness if they so wanted to do so.

canuckjgc

Discussion Starter · #10 · Mar 11, 2010

Nonsense? If you wonder why MTB'ers have a hard time making any progress, look at it from the decision maker's point of view.

He or she is trying to balance the needs of all stakeholders. That individual sees that wilderness designation covers a fraction of a percent of US wilderness. MTB'ers fighting to access that fraction of a percent come off seeming a tad greedy.

Previous discussions made it sound like vast tracks of land were being threatened with a ban on MTB's. The numbers show that is not the case.

Ride Wilderness said:
Cool, I don't understand. Unsubscribing to this nonsense....

thorkild

· #11 · Mar 11, 2010

That's an impossibly misleading statistic b/c it has no context to the issue at hand. Here are some other equally misleading ones on both sides: Oil development in ANWR will only impact 2,000 acres out of a 1.9 million acre refuge (yeah, but it will be visible for tens of miles...). The Columbia river only carries ___% of the freshwater in the united states, so it shouldn't be a big deal if we use it all. A certain number of species worldwide go extinct every year (I don't know the statistic, but the number looks really large when it is taken out of context). Etc. etc. etc...

The reality is that there is only a limited amount of pristine backcountry singletrack in the country and these areas are also the most likely to be subject to wilderness designations, thereby putting mountain bikers in an adverse position to wilderness advocates.

cutthroat

· #12 · Mar 11, 2010

Carbon dioxide only accounts for 0.04% of our atmosphere, so it's no big deal if we double the concentration.

Harold

· #13 · Mar 11, 2010

Wow, that's a horribly misleading comment.

You fail to acknowledge that Wilderness designations are extremely concentrated in their distribution.

You fail to acknowledge that many land managers aside want nothing to do with mountain bikes, so in some cases a proposed Wilderness would make a significant impact by entirely closing or severely impacting the available mountain biking in an area.

You're ignoring the fact that some Wilderness advocates specifically use designations to close trails to bikes so they can hike that trail without being bothered by a mountain biker.

Your statistics don't take all public land designations into account by distinguishing between those that do and don't permit mountain bikes.

What would REALLY be a useful statistic would be to compare the mileage of trails open to bikes compared to the mileage of all trails outside Wilderness, compared to the mileage of all trails inside Wilderness and the mileage of trails inside Wilderness that were formerly accessible to mountain bikes. And such statistics should exclude dirt roads where motorized traffic is permitted because hikers very rarely use them even though they are technically permitted to.

See less See more

cannonballtrail

· #14 · Mar 11, 2010

I guess we could say .4% is not a big deal and we have plenty of places to ride. Sure, but the problem is the wilderness lands are being expanded at an alarming rate and it is no longer just extreme back country, mountain tops, or sky islands. Here in southern NM, Jeff B and friends have proposed 1.2 million additional acres and these lands have trails, dirt roads, pipelines, powerlines, and are popular recreational areas for nearly everyone. Maybe next year it is 1% and in 5 years 10%. The militant hikers and ecoextremists have finally found an easy legal way of blocking us and other users from public lands.

cutthroat

· #15 · Mar 11, 2010

The .4% figure isn't even right - only 30% of land in the US is public, the rest is private, so we're actually talking about higher numbers since you have no right to ride on private land. statistics = sausage

greg de taos

· #16 · Mar 11, 2010

Since you like stats..Could you tell me??

What percentage of the mountains are wilderness? Take out all the crappy (in terms of MTB) land and then what percentage? Now take out all the "withdrawn" land that nobody is allowed into? What percentage now? How 'bout you look at the percentage of wilderness in the Rocky Mountains.
I can't go anywhere from where I live and not run into wilderness, private land or Indian Reservation. Mostly wilderness.
There are many damn good reasons to fight against the addition of anymore wilderness from where I stand. I hate that I have to take that stance.

canuckjgc

Discussion Starter · #17 · Mar 11, 2010

The latest figures show 40% public ownership which equals about 800,000,000 acres.

Wilderness designation = 9,000,000 acres, or 1.1%

Barely a blip.

cutthroat said:
The .4% figure isn't even right - only 30% of land in the US is public, the rest is private, so we're actually talking about higher numbers since you have no right to ride on private land. statistics = sausage

robinlikethebird

· #18 · Mar 11, 2010

canuckjgc you bring up some valid points, but unfortunately people a get their feelings hurt when you tell them that they can't bring their bike to any place the want to.

I feel that most of these people who are arguing for mountain biking will not stop until they can ride where ever they want when they want

Skookum

· #19 · Mar 11, 2010

mikevandeman said:
canuckjgc you bring up some valid points, but unfortunately people a get their feelings hurt when you tell them that they can't bring their bike to any place the want to.

I feel that most of these people who are arguing for mountain biking will not stop until they can ride where ever they want when they want

Yah this includes your front lawn.

Sasquatch

· #20 · Mar 11, 2010

cutthroat said:
True - biking along the Jew Jersey turnpike is definitely no different than biking the Monarch Crest Trail (which the wilderness advocates want to close to bikes. Who would know?).

I'll assume you're just a bad typer, and not a total Ahole, but if that Jersy twist was an anti-semitic smear, F U !!

1 - 20 of 171 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.