Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

SPEAKOUT: Browns Canyon hardly a 'wilderness'

By Carl Bauer

Published June 13, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

After reading Ed Dentry's May 28 column in the Rocky Mountain News, "Browns Canyon hopes second verse better than the first," and the June 2 Speakout column by David Lien, "Browns Canyon ideal wilderness candidate," I felt I had to offer another view. As a hunter, fly fisherman, ATV enthusiast, search-and-rescue volunteer and also hampered by the late effects of polio, I think I can show another side of this issue.

In Dentry's column, he quotes Sen. Ken Salazar: "This area boasts some of Colorado's most pristine forests, great hunting and fishing habitat . . . " But he also paraphrases the response of the organization, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, as saying "the area already has been degraded by off-road vehicle overuse."

Huh? How can it be "most pristine" and degraded by overuse at the same time? And regarding fishing, the senator's proposal to designate Browns Canyon as a wilderness area will triple or quadruple the hike necessary to access this great fishing.

Recently, the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition helped push through two Colorado laws making our forests a better place. One gives authority to Division of Wildlife personnel to enforce off-highway vehicle laws. The other limits the sound level of OHVs to get the loud, obnoxious vehicles out of the forest. The coalition also initiated their Stay The Trails program which spends tens of thousands of dollars educating OHV users on responsible riding.

And what is the group's reward for promoting this good stewardship? Why, more areas closed off in the name of "protection," with Salazar's Browns Canyon bill and Rep. Diana DeGette's wilderness bill making another 1.65 million acres off-limits.

Seems no good deed goes unpunished around these parts.

Why such a big stink over just 20,000 acres?

The majority of wilderness areas are at relatively high elevation with large tracts of land above timberline. They are mostly untouched by man and far from civilization. But the proposed Browns Canyon "wilderness" has a 100-plus-year-old road running right through the middle of it, is at a comparatively low elevation, is littered with old mines and holds six taxpaying claims. If this can qualify as wilderness, then East Colfax Avenue may be next.

A popular myth that always appears in the Browns Canyon Wilderness discussions is the "overwhelming local support." A thousand local OHV users and four-wheel-drive fans would beg to differ. I've asked a few acquaintances who favor the wilderness bill, "What will be saved that justifies kicking handicapped people out?" I was met with either blank stares or, "Well, I never thought about that."

Exclusivity is the real issue, not protection. Exclusivity in that some horseback hunters and outfitters don't want to compete with the vast majority of hunters who have no horses. Some backpackers want their solitude at the expense of all other users. Lost in all this bickering are those whose mobility is impaired, including war veterans with missing or badly damaged limbs, old polio survivors like myself and other taxpayers with worn-out body parts. They are the ones being shut out of their public lands in the name of "protection."

Why don't we all work together and make more opportunities for all users.

Most horsemen and backpackers are reasonable people and aren't comfortable with booting out those whose mobility is impaired. Most OHV users respect the land and other users. The reasonable folks on both sides are being drowned out by the not-so-open-minded and by the loudest and most obnoxious of riders.

I say we tell both extremes to take a hike and the rest of us work toward respecting all reasonable users. Colorado has made two good moves lately in removing OHV abusers. Now let's "just say no" to more wilderness and work together on protecting land while still affording reasonable recreational opportunities.

Unfortunately, the message to the handicapped from Salazar and DeGette is clear: "We gave you access to McDonald's, now stay the heck out of our forests!"

Carl Bauer is the president of High Rocky Riders OHV Club, director of the Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition and has 20 years' service in volunteer emergency response. He is a resident of Buena Vista.

Comments

  • June 13, 2008

    1:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mark79trans writes:

    Thank you for this response. I second everything you said!

    I too am tired of the exclusionary and protectionist, it is our way or no way attitude.

  • June 16, 2008

    11:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DK writes:

    The majority of public lands are open to ATV's. It fact there are over 6,000 miles of roads and trails available to ATVs within 100 miles of Browns Canyon. Just to the north of the proposed wilderness is a 100,000+ acres area with over 150 miles of ATV and dirt bike trails.

    It seems totally reasonable to me to protect 20,000 acres for hiking, horseback riding, traditional hunting, quality wildlife habitat, scenic vistas – wilderness - just the way it was created.

    Most of the folks I’ve talked to that ride ATVs and dirt bikes recognize they are not the only folks out there using public lands and that there should be some places that should be enjoyed by foot or horseback.

  • June 16, 2008

    11:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dowright writes:

    I am totally opposed to the Brown's Canyon Wilderness Area. Because historic uses of the Ute Trail/Aspen Ridge area, such as mining, ranching logging and recreation (hunting, rock hounding,4- wheel driving, etc.) did create many roads and trails, so how could the proposed area even begin to meet the pristine criteria necessary for wilderness designation.

    The boundaries of the proposed wilderness area are in close proximity to many private residences in the Pinion Hills and Ute Heights subdivisions as well the old townsite of Turret. With the current lack of sound maintenance policies by our public land managing agencies, this proposal would create a definte liability to adjacent private property owners by significantly increasing the wildfire danger.

  • June 16, 2008

    10:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HarveyMushman writes:

    I totally agree with Mr. Bauer. I've spent considerable time in the area and have found it not to be pristine. And I'd like to know where are those 150 + miles of trails DK writes about are located. CR301 is NOT an ATV trail as they might have you believe. I know of only 7 miles of dirt bike trails. 4wd trails are NOT dirt bike trails. I'm talking about motorized singletrack.
    The proposed wilderness area was laid out to sever existing atv trails as to make them unusable dead end segments.
    Keep the public lands open to ALL users, not just the young, physically fit, few.
    There are a FEW places set aside for ATV use. There is a whole heck of a lot more areas available for foot and horseback use ONLY. Why does there need to be more exclusionary lands? There should be more trails opening across public lands for the increasing numbers of users on the finite amount of land available.

  • June 23, 2008

    4:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnGusman writes:

    Mr. Bauer and others should learn the facts about the proposed Wilderness and Wilderness in general and not spread misinformation.
    Wilderness does not exclude entry to or "shut out" any human being. Cattle grazing, hunting, rock hounding, etc. are allowed. Wilderness land does not have to be "pristine" and adjacent development is ok. There are no patented mining claims or mine permits in the proposal. There is no official legal route that goes all the way through the area.
    In 1979 through 2001 the USDA Forest Service identified their section of land in the wilderness proposal as roadless land. Numerous unauthorized motorized routes were illegally created, and almost 40 miles of these became "official" motorized routes in the 2002 Fourmile Travel Plan. (Over 3 miles of new official motorcycle trail are being built on this "roadless" land this summer.)
    Preserving less than half of this roadless land as a Browns Canyon Wilderness would represent a balanced use of the area.

  • June 30, 2008

    3:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dowright writes:

    Mr. Gusman doesn't know his history because there were two old mail routes that went through the proposed wilderness. And the old mining claims in the area of the proposed wilderness, have also created a lot of old roads. With five wildernesses already in this area, we don't need any more.