An article about wilderness authored by the Carbon Neutral Expedition’s organizer Andre Shoumatoff and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the people who have gone on CNE.
It can be a little difficult, especially for those who live far from Utah and The Southwest, to understand wilderness policy and particularly how 4WD vehicles relate to it here, so I thought I would first start with an introduction.
I also feel it is important, first, to mention that I am an environmentalist. I co-manage a web site about disappearing species and cultures, DispatchesFromTheVanishingWorld.com which I co-manage with my dad, a well known environmental writer. In the past I have been awarded an ecology grant from the World Wildlife Fund, and I previously served as the University of Vermont’s first climate change coordinator. I also maintained hiking trails in the Adirondacks in wilderness areas for years as a summer job, and became directly aware of the damage that can occur from foot traffic alone, let alone damage that can happen from vehicles. For these reasons, particularly when I arrived in Utah, I had an opinion more oriented towards the conservation groups and knowing very little about the actual situation here the messages of Utah “environmentalists” were closer to my heart, which is no longer the case for many reasons which will be listed below.
Utah is an interesting place that also seems to be “ground zero” for any debate regarding wilderness issues. At the forefront of it all all are well funded environmental groups such as the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance that “sees the off-road vehicle problem as one of the most serious public land use problems that we face,” and on the other side organizations like Utah Shared Access Alliance, which was “founded in 1999 to push back against the forces of radical environmental and anti-access groups trying to remove motorized and mechanized recreation from public lands in Utah.” We are members of neither of these organizations, on purpose. These are the voices of what has become the polarized extreme right and the extreme left, both of which I believe have also jumbled the issues together because of delivers a more divisive message to constituents and at the end of the day, wilderness and environmental protection, as well as providing access to these lands, both suffer.
The issues are:
- Over 30 million acres in Utah is owned by the Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (federal government). It is nearly impossible for the private citizen or corporation to acquire or develop these lands in any fashion, other than some places where oil and gas leases have been set up. Since a notable reorganization of the Bureau of Land Management by the George W. Bush administration, companies have been able to gain notable access to BLM federal government land for oil and gas drilling purposes. It is also my belief that these companies also typically operate at a “what is legal” or “what is enforced” level, in that I believe they will not take initiatives on their own to improve their environmental performance beyond what is legal or what is enforced in a skilled calculation of cost/benefit as far as their bottom lines.
- The term wilderness is a federal designation that was established in 1964. It has come to mean many different things to many other people since then, but at a political term it generally refers to an undeveloped piece of land, worthy of protection because of spectacular beauty or other aspects, and generally road free and undeveloped. But to many “wilderness” is also an emotional one that somewhat implies “beautiful area worth protecting.” When looking at it this way, most of Utah is “wilderness” and this is a core aspect to the problem: the psyche of “yes Utah deserves to be preserved” which all of us agree with. The question does fundamentally relates to how well you understand what “wilderness” means – it is a very loaded word. The 1964 Wilderness designation is also badly outdated, but with pro-business and pro-drilling influences in U.S. Congress many, including myself, fear updating the term would jeopardize its effectiveness in areas where the designation genuinely needs to be applied. I believe that many areas should be designated as wilderness, but I do not believe that 9-10 million acres of BLM land has wilderness characteristics according to this political guideline, as has been suggested by some of the environmental groups.
- Utah actually has has one of the smallest percentages of actual wilderness in the state compared to many other states. We have over 3.5 million acres of Wilderness Study Areas (designated lands the BLM has set to evaluate their Wilderness characteristics, which basically operate as Wilderness Areas other than being permanently locked-in), and this is larger than the entire state of Connecticut. See this clip of Senator Bob Bennett explaining what WSAs are, which also does a great job of explaining the situation here. This was formerly as high as 5 million acres but it has been downgraded over the last 15 years including loss of over 1-1.5 million acres in the last 10 years because these wilderness designations have not been approved by federal congress However, according to SUWA, the BLM recently recommended that 1.9 of these lands become wilderness acres and Utah politicians in particular felt it was “too much” but designation of Wilderness occurs at a federal congressional level though ultimately the federal government makes this decision.
- It is my belief the principle reason we have so little wilderness is because the principle ‘voice for wilderness’ (SUWA) holds steadfast to a bill they have attempted to pass over 10 times, called the American Redrock Wilderness Bill (“ARWA”), which seeks to make the amount of wilderness in Utah to over 9 or 10 million acres, or roughly 3 times the amount of land in the entire state of Connecticut, versus seeking a compromise to start with protecting these important lands that need protection. The Representative who typically introduces ARWA is Maurice Hinchey of New York and typically few local or western congress members will agree.
- There has been a blending and hybridization of the issues as defined by the activists on both sides. They have generally moved towards the political spectrum and in my opinion both sides are polarized and wrong on a lot of issues. This includes messages that destructive oil & gas drilling is “OK” from vehicle access groups, and that low impact, respectful off-road travel on rural existing roads that have existed for decades are “bad” by environmental groups. It is my strong understanding that the sheer size Utah is so massive that vehicle traffic is necessary to these areas otherwise they can only be accessed on foot, which in many cases would take days. You cannot even ride a bicycle in these areas.
- BLM land by default is already somewhat protected with exception of recent permitting of oil and gas drilling. I have seen very low impact drilling in the past, particularly in the High Uinta National Forest in Utah and I believe drilling can be done at a low impact level. As a citizen or company, you cannot purchase or develop these lands owned by the BLM. You can occasionally purchase oil and gas leases from the BLM, however, as a corporation. Some of this was highlighted by the actions of an activist named Tim DeChristopher in late 2008 which he has been arrested for (updated March 2011: recently found guilty of).
- As a citizen, on BLM land, you have the freedom to enjoy them as you see fit including driving on rural roads, using your bicycle, or camping where you see fit.
- In fact, there are very few true “roadless” areas in Utah. Most have had roads of some sort for 60-100 years or earlier from days of exploration from Mormon pioneers. By this very definition, this takes away most characteristics of wilderness areas. As a result, some wilderness areas and wilderness study areas resort to a tactic called “cherry stemming” which will exclude a road in a wilderness area from the wilderness area, such as this image of the Mexican Hat Wilderness Area in San Rafael Swell. Notice the road that accesses this “wilderness study area.” This reminds me of a voting district in some states…
- Natural Gas Fracking” as they call it is very destructive and should be illegal in my opinion or at least discontinued without strong regulation. This is because fracking causes “mini earthquakes” underground to release trapped natural gas, is hugely intensive on water supplies (over 200 million gallons per well is required, and water is very limited in the west), and the “fracing fluid” may cause cancer. In addition to this, gas companies are taking nearly tobacco-industry like tactics at denying it, when they completely demolish the value of some people’s land and yield cancerous, flammable water supplies, instead of taking accountability for these changes. Oil and Gas wells should be able drill and tap by law. There are many “low impact” wells in pristine areas that are cautiously and politely operated and hardly noticed, with some wonderful examples being in national forests.
- I personally justify the use of drilling as a method to get off foreign oil and the political damage this brings. Ultimately I believe we need to move beyond fossil fuels, and as soon as possible, and this expedition is a highlight of several vehicles that are living, working examples of a solution to this. This is the point of the carbon neutral expedition, not so much that these are carbon neutral, but that there can be some solutions, some of which use technology that is at least 30 years old.
- “Off road vehicle damage,” in reality, is very rare. Trust me I’ve looked and I’ve even debated this with friends who work at SUWA. We are planning to a trip someday to go look at supposed off road damage in rural areas that they are claiming exists. The environmental advocacy groups have been able to sway their constituency for closing large swaths of land by using high-traffic recreational areas as examples of “damage by off-road vehicles.” These are on roads and trails in Moab or other high traffic areas with designated trail systems designed for high traffic use, and these areas do see serious damage from 4WD vehicles. 99% of the land does not see this damage from the maybe 20 to 100 Jeeps that might drive on that extremely rural road in a year, with small tires, and by people who are generally respectful of the land as they are out experiencing the land on the same terms as a so called ‘environmentalist.’
- In many cases, the off-road vehicle user is the most knowledge users of the terrain, land, and other aspects of the Utah wilderness because they access the most of it in a trip by range.
- Ability to recreate in the Grand Staircase National Monument (de-fact wilderness designation), beyond hiking in slot-canyons, is awful, because the access impossible other than to foot traffic. You cannot even ride a bicycle in Grand Staircase (or in any wilderness or wilderness study area).
- Ranchers are allowed to ranch in wilderness areas.
My opinion is we need a different level of protection beyond “wilderness” that is one step improved beyond defacto BLM land. Something that preserves its beauty, provides a requirement, similar to a LEED certification for home building, but for drilling operations. Natural Gas “fracking” should be outlawed because of contaminated methane gas leaks, effects to water supplies, and many other reasons, or at least severely regulated. Low impact 4WD access should be preserved and people need to move away from this emotional issue because, other than in some isolated areas, it really is a non-issue.
Here are photo of the map area of the San Rafael Swell, the large swath of acreage in the center of Utah. If you look closely you can see the patchwork of wilderness study areas. Most people do not dispute these wilderness study areas as spectacular areas worthy of protecting. Please also notice the intersecting extensive road system and patchwork of trails accessing a lot of these roads. The truth is all of this area is worth protecting. And the irony is, totally separate from this patchwork, it already is.
