News
The Hidden Gems campaign advocates focus on separate pieces of their proposal, but as a whole, it may have significant implications for economics; negative impacts to businesses, property owners, communities and recreationists; and it will prevent most active management of resources or any possibility to adjust land use in the future.
Advocates obviously believe deeply in the idea that national forest should be managed as wilderness and not for multiple uses as originally intended. They're quick to note that 2 percent of the public lands across the country are wilderness. They fail to mention that 33 percent of the White River National Forest is already wilderness or that their current proposal includes an additional 308,130 acres of wilderness on the White River National Forest, plus 149,234 on other lands.
This will result in 46 percent of the White River National Forest being wilderness. In the future they intend to propose another 206,355 acres of the Flat Tops. That would total 55 percent of the White River National Forest as being wilderness and off limits to many of the multiple uses for which national forest is intended.
The White River National Forest recently inventoried its roadless areas, evaluated wilderness values of these areas, and recommended some for wilderness designation in the 2002 forest plan. It was an arduous formal public process that was open to full disclosure of impacts, opportunity to comment and final appeal. The Gems proposal is not a formal process; it has no requirement for discloser of impacts and no assurances that comments will be considered or analyzed; or if there's any opportunity to appeal.
Ranchers, outfitters, property owners, communities, many recreationists and others will be impacted. There may be significant unintended impacts to resources and most management options will be prohibited. National forest users should be aware of this proposal and its implications. Become engaged, ask hard questions and make your opinions known.
Mike Kenealy
Glenwood Springs
Advocates obviously believe deeply in the idea that national forest should be managed as wilderness and not for multiple uses as originally intended. They're quick to note that 2 percent of the public lands across the country are wilderness. They fail to mention that 33 percent of the White River National Forest is already wilderness or that their current proposal includes an additional 308,130 acres of wilderness on the White River National Forest, plus 149,234 on other lands.
This will result in 46 percent of the White River National Forest being wilderness. In the future they intend to propose another 206,355 acres of the Flat Tops. That would total 55 percent of the White River National Forest as being wilderness and off limits to many of the multiple uses for which national forest is intended.
The White River National Forest recently inventoried its roadless areas, evaluated wilderness values of these areas, and recommended some for wilderness designation in the 2002 forest plan. It was an arduous formal public process that was open to full disclosure of impacts, opportunity to comment and final appeal. The Gems proposal is not a formal process; it has no requirement for discloser of impacts and no assurances that comments will be considered or analyzed; or if there's any opportunity to appeal.
Ranchers, outfitters, property owners, communities, many recreationists and others will be impacted. There may be significant unintended impacts to resources and most management options will be prohibited. National forest users should be aware of this proposal and its implications. Become engaged, ask hard questions and make your opinions known.
Mike Kenealy
Glenwood Springs
