Re: Proposed law rears its ugly head again
Here's a letter I wrote to my cousin (a well-meaning, big-city, environmentalist-activist, lawyer type). I have additional viewpoints (i.e. our minerals and gas need to come from somewhere) but it's long enough as it is.
Hi XXXXX,
Interesting that H.R.2044, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act keeps coming back year after year. I fear that one day it may become law. That's right.. I am actually strongly opposed to this bill. Not because I don't support protecting wild land from harmful mineral development, or over-use by off-road vehicles. But I feel very strongly that a "wilderness designation" is the wrong tool for the job and would hurt many legitimate land users.
Many people are surprised to realize what rules actually come along with a federal "Wilderness Area." Anything "motorized" or deemed "mechanical transport" is prohibited. That means that many activities, including some which are fully compatible with the "leave no trace" ethic, are banned. These include paragliding, parachuting, and mountain biking. Even rock climbing is affected negatively. Also, dog owners beware: Dog policies vary within Wilderness Areas and can be quite draconian.
Anyone who thinks that mountain biking is no big deal to the State of Utah, does not know the State of Utah. H.R.2044 would prohibit mountain biking on some of the most precious and well-established trails in the world. A truly large part of the tourism industry which supports towns like Moab depend on mountain bikers. Outdoor tourism in towns like Moab and St. George is the economic engine that keeps these towns afloat, given that mineral exploitation is already relatively curtailed. Yes, mineral activities are already substantially curtailed in many of these areas. The mountain biking community has proven solidly that it can manage its activities in a sustainable, environmentally-friendly way. Why punish this group that enjoys the wilderness as much as hikers and bird watchers, and in fact has done a tremendous amount to advocate for its protection in the past? The environmental cause loses a huge segment of allies when it selectively protects outdoor interests.
Powerless aviation activities, such as paragliding and parachuting, would also be banned. This user group is certainly much smaller, but the southern Utah desert is a prized territory for this activity. Given the distinct shortage of suitable or legal alternatives in the U.S., for this sport, this user group would be disproportionately injured. Telling BASE jumpers they have to stop jumping there, in order to protect the land from mineral exploitation, would be like telling surfers that they could surf in any states but Hawaii and California. "Hey, so what? There are 48 other states to surf in... right?" Right, silly surfers. Or telling skiers, they they can only ski in the Southeastern U.S. West Virginia gets plenty of snow, what are skiers worried about? (Full disclosure: BASE jumping is the main reason I moved to Utah, so I'll be especially pissed if this law passes)
Are you a rock climber? Do you appreciate fixed anchors on tall multi-pitch routes? Guess what, the Forest Service bans fixed anchors in Wilderness Areas under its control. Can you imagine if some of Utah's most iconic climbs, without fixed anchors for rappelling? Given it's an integral and essential part of many climbing routes, the new rules would be tantamount to turning rock climbing into a federal crime in many places (if not now, then in a few years when the anchors need replacing) where it's already well-established.
Other activities, such as 4x4 and dirtbiking would also be banned. Different people may have different views on this activity, and I can understand if you don't like it. But banning them outright is not the right way either. Smart management plans can mitigate and concentrate the impacts of this activity. It would be counterproductive to drive the activity underground, and lose the ability to manage it smartly. This user group also has a unique interest in the Utah desert, and alienating them would drive a large contingency away from supporting sensible, balanced policies. Besides, I've seen inconsiderate hikers be just as damaging to the environment as inconsiderate drivers. The vast majority of offroad vehicle operators love the wilderness and want to protect it too. We need to learn to share the land with them, even if we don't love their style. Their true impact on the land is superficial and short-lived compared to a mining operation, so they should be managed differently. ARRWA fails in that distinction. (And if you've never tried offroading, it's also really fun... just sayin')
Another little-known consequence of the bill is that it would require the transfer of some land in the Utah public school trust to the federal government. One of the best things about the Utah public education system, is that our school budgets benefit from a very well-run land trust. It has been managed intelligently for many decades. The public domain clause of the Red Rock Wilderness Act undermines the state's proven track record and would harm Utah's public schoolchildren. The clause for land swapping, meant to mitigate the harm by transferring other approximately equal land amounts from the federal government to Utah, is vague, poorly written, and amounts to a "take it or leave it" offer without any guarantees that the swapped land isn't worthless for it's needed use. There is no faith that the swapping would take place equitably, since the state would have basically zero leverage to negotiate.
This bill, in one form or another, has been submitted to Congress pretty much every year since 1992, but it has never gotten very far even when the Democrats had full control of government. The bill has never enjoyed any support from any Utah Senator or Congressperson. Outdoor companies with exemplary environmental records, such as Patagonia and R.E.I., have dropped support for measures in the past (such as the Greater Canyonlands National Monument movement), after it was revealed just how restrictive the proposal would be. Another very real concern is that a successful Wilderness Act worsens the conservative backlash against environmental policy. It's a backlash that already simmers every day in Utah, and has been recently unsettled by the creation of the Bears Ears National Monument. A reversal of momentum is a very real danger, paradoxically, in undoing other effective environmental policy.
There are plenty of alternatives that are healthier for Utah's local communities, without the negative consequences of a Wilderness Land designation. A tremendous percentage of the land at stake is already successfully managed by the BLM. The BLM already does offer a great many protections for the land, and if the goal is to limit mining activity, these protections can be strengthened further. Using existing policy actions has several advantages: legitimate user groups can continue their incidental activities, the legal infrastructure is already in place, it would create less of an anti-environmental backlash, and the local communities would have more input into the process.
Bottom line: H.R.2044 is full of unintended consequences. It blacklists legitimate land users, it alienates environmental allies, it has never enjoyed majority support from the people closest to it, or even many traditional environmental groups, and it would hurt Utah public schools. It's simply the wrong tool for the job. If we want to protect the land from destructive mining practices, we should use BLM policy pathways that already exist.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can protect this land from permanent destruction, without banning our dogs, our mountain bikes, our climbing gear, our parachutes, or pissing off the locals. It's time we stepped away from this unpopular option, and focused real energy on a different, more feasible strategy, for preserving our outdoor resources.
Thanks for reading this far,