As part of developing its backcountry access plan, Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida will also conduct a wilderness eligibility assessment for lands within the original boundaries of the preserve.
The Preserve first initiated public scoping for the backcountry access plan in the fall of 2013.
“Public comments received during the scoping period recognized a need for the Preserve to identify areas eligible for Wilderness designation as a part of this planning effort to identify off-road vehicle (ORV) secondary trails, non-motorized trails, and a camping management approach within the Preserve. This step is consistent with National Park Service policy and is necessary to ensure a thorough and defensible planning process,” Superintendent Pedro Ramos said last week in announcing the assessment.
National Park Service lands are considered eligible for wilderness if they are at least 5,000 acres or of sufficient size to make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and if they possess wilderness characteristics (as identified in the Wilderness Act of 1964). The wilderness eligibility assessment process is anticipated to take 4 to 6 months and the final eligibility determination will be announced through an additional press release and by publication in the Federal Register.
Big Cypress officials, including Superintendent Ramos, have been criticized over their handling of past wilderness assessments associated with the Additional Lands. The Addition Lands had been closed to both ORV use and ORV-assisted hunting ever since they came to the preserve in 1996 while officials worked on developing a management plan for the area. After announcing in their 2009 Draft General Management Plan for the Addition that approximately 109,000 acres were “wilderness eligible,” the NPS subsequently conducted a “re-assessment” completely outside of public view and which concluded that only 71,000 acres were eligible and recommended just 47,000 acres be proposed to Congress as future wilderness, according to opponents.
“This suit is necessary because the Park Service improperly rewrote wilderness mapping to produce a result which had been decided behind closed doors,”Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said at the time. “We expected better of the Park Service under this administration and, thus far, we have been sorely disappointed.”
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
There we go. More useless wilderness to appease the PEER fanatics.
Good, hopefully the 109,000 that was suggested is actually considered, and during the 2016 cenennial that everyone says must show a clear and concise vision, they can say "Now that most of this is wilderness, we hope in the next 100 years, after this land has recovered enough that it will merge with the Everglades creating the largest protected natural wetlands ecosystems on the planet.
Sorry, but calling fans of wilderness 'fanatics' does kinda paint the walls of your own box.
I'm not the one who's trying to close every single square inch of outdoors to the chosen few recreationists.
You can still canoe it, even if it's wilderness.
One might want to visit the Big C and Addition Land before claiming they know what is possible there. Canoing - not much to none. And when one does carry a gun for the gators that like to play in a lethal manner.
This debate primarily boils down to how much of the park will be open to ORV use. The park website notes that much of the interior of the park is swamp, and "nearly impossible to reach by foot; " travel options are mainly airboats, swamp buggies, canoes and kayaks.
The park contains about 729,000 acres, so a reasonable question is how much should be open to airboats and swamp buggies, and how much might be protected as wilderness for other values and uses.
Whether you use the initial assessment that 109,000 acres were "wilderness eligible" or the latest recommendation that would list 47,000 acres as potential "future wilderness," the amount of the preserve being discussed for wilderness designation ranges from 15% down to 6%.
" . . . trying to close every single square inch of outdoors to the chosen few recreationists"
So if you read that as written, it means that the outdoors will be closed only to the chosen few but will be wide open to the rest of us. Interesting concept.
If the chosen few are those on ATVs and other potentially destructive mechanical devices when they are unregulated, I hope so.
Thank you, Zeb, for supporting common sense in resource management.
Why is wilderness useless? Solely because you can't drive on it?
Jim's comment sheds great light on the subject. A mere 15% of the park would be designated wilderness if all 109,000 acres recommended under Superintendent Ramos administration is designated. And of course, the anti-wilderness activists come flying out of the woodwork screaming conspiracy and all the garbage that comes with it. Considering this is one of the last best refuges for the florida panther, I think wilderness is a necessity if you wish to save large carnviores in the eastern united states.. but hey...
There are other designations that could be used to protect the resources without the inane regulations that come with wilderness. Obviously, it's never good enough, so here comes more wilderness...
If we care really about the Panther, maybe we should close the area to all uses. There you go: no more human activity. Now, let's see how many of you still support it.
Zeb, you are the only one here talking about extremes and inane regulations. How about a little sensible moderation?
The hyperbole of 'always', 'never', and so forth don't help to understand the issues.
They actually do have human management closures in places like Yellowstone especially when Grizzlies are eating moths, and during the time they emerge from their dens. Granted, it's only in certain areas where they are frequent. So, if it's to protect wildlife during sensitive times like when the cougars are denning, I think it's fair to protect their species. Cougars need to be back in the eastern US. It's a species whose role is necessary, but has been wiped out except in this small patch in Florida.
So, Zebulon, wilderness isn't useless? What inane regulations comes with wilderness designation? What designation do you propose to use?
You quickly offer your opinion but I don't read of any reasons why or better alternatives you propose.
You hold wilderness as useless. I would like to know why. You believe the regulations are inane. Are there particular regulations, or all of the regulations? You believe there are other designations that would serve equally well. What are they? What is the difference between that and wilderness? What regulations do they have that aren't inane?
Before I can agree or even discuss your point of view rationally, I need a better understanding of it.
Before I can agree or even discuss your point of view rationally, I need a better understanding of it.
So does he, dahkota.
I believe dahkota has a clear understanding of where he stands and if you have paid any attention at all to his posts, so would you. One may disagree with dahkota but his objections are quite clear.
ec--Don't you mean Zebublon? And while his point of view is quite clear, he rarely provides any supporting documentation.
Rick
Yes Rick - I meant Zeb.
I don't recall him not responding to a request for documentation. Most of what he claims (as facts) is self evident or undisputed. Again you (and I) may not fully agree with his opinions, but as you concede, his point of view is quite clear.
ec, I know where he stands. However, I do not understand how he got there.
I don't think his objections are clear at all. It boils down to, 'wilderness sucks because I think so and it has rules I don't like and its stupid.' He didn't explain the reasons he believes this. If he wants others to see his point of view he needs to explain it better.
If he doesn't, then fine. I come here to learn. Zeb has a different point of view. I would like a clearer understand of his view. That's all.
I think if you go back and review his posts, you will see exactly the issues that he objects to. A summary is that he believes the blanket prohibition on mechanical items is illogical and even counter productive. But I will leave it to him to clarify or you to review his contributions.
Guys, sorry for being MIA today. I don't feel like retyping what I wrote over the last few years. But here are a few salient points:
- Wilderness is needlessly restrictive on usage. Rangers can't even use a chainsaw and have to revert to 19th century tools to do trail maintenance (so it does not get done because of its extremely high cost)
- Historical usage gets banned (mountain biking, etc.)
- The false choice given is usually Wilderness or fracking! There are other designation out there that protect our land without putting inane restrictions on it
Does this help? Now, if the Wilderness Act was updated to join the rest of us in the 21st century, I may be more interested.
Zeb, although I disagree with most of what you believe, I do thank you for finally providing a cogent statement without reverting to hyperbole.
That is a kind of tired accusation. That everyone who holds a belief counter to the "bureau" is guilty of hyperbole, Lee. I expect a bit more civility from a contributor to this magazine. Let's keep this focused on the issue and desist with the personal degradations.
So Lee, do you think that it makes sense to use 19th century tools to work in Wilderness? How about being forced to use helicopters, at great cost to the taxpayer, to deliver supplies in the backcountry? Do you support this as well?
Wilderness believers act as if resources were limitless and that we can put in incredible restrictions without any consequence. I'm probably too rational.
I doubt i'll be speaking to many, but the best wilderness areas are those places that don't have trails, don't need trail crews, and don't need helicopters. It's just you a topo map, and the elements. The end. There are still a few of these places left in America, but not many. We're striving to become as bland as Europe with each call to erode what's left..
Gary, so how much time have you spent in Europe?
Gary, so how much time have you spent in Europe?
I spent 3 months there.
Zeb,
Actually, I do think that banning chainsaws in firefighting and other aspects of wilderness management is a bit extreme. I question your claim that agencies are "forced" to use helicopters in wilderness except in emergencies. All the wilderness areas I'm familiar with use pack strings to deliver supplies.
I also don't think many "wilderness believers" think resources are limitless. In fact, I'm pretty sure almost all of us believe the opposite. Resources are NOT limitless and too many have already been squandered. That is why we need to hang on as hard as we can to the few wild places that have survived.
As for the idea that existing restrictions on use are "incredible," I shudder to think of the consequences that would ensue without them.
I sincerely hope that my great grandchildren and their children may still find wild places when their turn finally comes.
Backpacker, I was the one who used the term 'hyperbole', not Lee. It's defined as "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
That's an honest and accurate term for "I'm not the one who's trying to close every single square inch of outdoors to the chosen few recreationists..". It isn't ad hominem to point it out.
Gary, what specific parks did you go to?
Lee,
Your comment is no more than chicken little fears. Wilderness restrictions could be easily relaxed without destroying their characters. As for the use of pack strings to deliver supplies, what a joke! Seriously, in 2014 we still have to use 1850 means to move supplies... It's a true waste of resources. A guy in a UTV could probably get more done at a fraction of the cost. It would not have that period piece charm, but then again, if I want to see 19th century reenactments, I can always watch PBS.
Ultimately, these inane restrictions drive up the costs of managing those places without any tangible benefits.
I spent a little time in Berchtesgaden. While the alps are scenic, they are not anything close to being as wild or protected like we have in the US. Europe is a mess.
Regardless, your claims provided zero studies that showcase that ATV's don't erode trails. So, until I actually see more than just words from you, I'll go by real world accounts. Maybe this is why a lot of the BLM lands in the US are trashed when compared to the wilderness areas. Its like night and day.. But for some reason, you have all this BLM and USFS land at your disposal to play in and have your 21st century playground experiences with your motor toys, and that's not good enough.
Then you provide zero studies that canoes do anywhere near the damage that airboats do. Interesting that the park management way back in the day saw the damage that airboats were doing to the everglades. The damage they do to the ecosystem is very well documented, if you look at the image in this link. Theres also been a lot of times where drunk people have tossed their motor boat into a fragile bed of sea grass, pretty much desroying the micro-ecosystem which would take many years, if not decades for it to recover with human involvement. I don't believe that I can recall hearing the same sort of destruction occuring, in regards to those that canoe and kayak the same region.
Without any tangible benefits?
You mean the preservation of a few almost really wild places produce no tangible benefits?
What was it Wallace Stegner said? "“[The modern age] knows nothing about isolation and nothing about silence. In our quietest and loneliest hour the automatic ice-maker in the refrigerator will cluck and drop an ice cube, the automatic dishwasher will sigh through its changes, a plane will drone over, the nearest freeway will vibrate the air. Red and white lights will pass in the sky, lights will shine along highways and glance off windows. There is always a radio that can be turned to some all-night station, or a television set to turn artificial moonlight into the flickering images of the late show. We can put on a turntable whatever consolation we most respond to, Mozart or Copland or the Grateful Dead.”
― Wallace Stegner, Angle of Repose
As for me, I hope we will be able to prevent those who simply cannot, or will not, understand what wildness really is from destroying it before my great grandchildren may experience it. I believe Stegner was exactly right when he wrote:
"Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last virgin forests to be turned into comic books and plastic cigarette cases; if we drive the few remaining members of the wild species into zoos or to extinction; if we pollute the last clear air and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved roads through the last of the silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste . . . ”
What exactly, is a tangible benefit? Can a tangible benefit be something deep within the human heart and mind that simply cannot be defined? That, to me, is what wildness is really all about and why it must be preserved.
"Without tangible benefits..." - perhaps a confession, from those too numb to perceive the intangible benefits of wilderness. If you get it, you don't need more explanation. If you can't get it, words alone will not be enough to enlighten you.
This argument is both circular and quite funny. Let's go through the argument timeline
I make a negative judgement on wilderness
I'm being told that I'm not cogent enough
I make a cogent pointed argument
You answer by quoting authors and not addressing my salient points.
Throughout this thread, it's going back to a forced choice between Wilderness and land development, while completing avoiding the fact (because that takes the whole Wilderness argument down...) that there are other land designations that protect wilderness without being overly restrictive.
As for Gary, so you spend 3 months in the Bavarian Alps, and somehow you can make a judgement about all Europe... It's obvious that north America had more room for parks since there was more room, less people (especially after killing off the natives).
Trust me, i'm not the only one making that judgement on Europe. Even Europeans that I know make that judgement about their own lands when compared to the US, and other countries in places like Africa. Even David Attenborough talks about this subject in a few documentaries. And yes, European expansion did vastly alter Native American populations in the United States, and South America. However, Europe has had their chances, and now they are playing catch up by trying to restore ecosystems. At this point, it will take 300 to 400 years to rewild any considerable section of about 300,000 acres on the European continent outside of Scandanavia where the population density is much less.
And I did address many of your points, and you never commented about any of them, other than the part about the European continent. I posted an article that is based on facts, and observations about the Big Cypress and how ORV's altered them - You seem to have skirted that issue completely. So what is YOUR solution for the Big Cypress? Let it be like BLM lands? Just let people carve it up with ORVs and Jetboats? Who needs wilderness? It has no intrinsic value, and off with the cougar, since it's unnecessary? What's your solution for long term preservation?
Can you present solid concrete ideas? This board is filled with a lot of snipers, but never any ideas that lead the way and show a better path. It seems the sniper solutions are always one that erodes or destroys the natural values as a wildland. And yes, there is a difference between the wild areas and the urban areas in our country. Many of our national parks and wilderness areas fit the wildland criteria.
Gary,
Re. Europe. One needs to not ignore history. In 1900, there were about 1M inhabitants in CA, and the west was similarly sparsely populated. While carving out parks (national or not) was a stroke of genius, it was also made possible by the vast emptiness of the land, again especially after displacing and killing off the natives. Europe has not been in that situation since the 19th century. So, by default ,carving 1000 of square miles of land devoid of human presence is not exactly possible there.
As for your other points, your argumentation is nothing more than gross exxageration. Nobody calls for jetskis and ATVs everywhere. You need to read my posts more carefully.
Off to riding... maybe in Wilderness!!!
That's cool. In that case you are fine with wilderness.
Good luck on your wilderness ride!