Next Gen Journal

By Milan Brandon

What you are about to read may come as a shock to those who are convinced that our nation is already an industrial wasteland, but the last thing we need is a new wilderness area to preserve the Eastern Sierra.

NGJ Columnist Milan Brandon

Senator Barbara Boxer (D) and Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon (R) of California joined forces in early 2008 to create an omnibus bill, known as the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, designed to add over 470,000 acres of California desert and mountain landscape to the United States’ vast wilderness system.  For those of you who don’t know, wilderness (in the legislative sense of the word) is uninhabited land – untouched by development – which is meant to be preserved for its ecological value.  In order to preserve wilderness land, government applies extremely strict regulations as to its use.  This means that no wheeled or motorized vehicles are permitted on these lands – only your own two feet.

These two legislators play on the heartstrings of the environmentalist in all of us.  They say their bill will assure the existence of the rare great basin bristlecone pine, Paiute cutthroat trout, sierra bighorn sheep, and speckled rattlesnake.  They take advantage of a misconception that the entire California interior is subject to development and environmental exploitation and that only by expanding already vast tracts of wilderness will these “imperiled” resources be saved.

This past march, the new wilderness bill reached the desk of the President with no coverage in the mainstream media – knocked out of the spotlight by a massive, “emergency” bailout.  In his typical, self-righteous fashion, President Obama signed the bill into law.

Since the 1970s, millions of acres of California backcountry have been set aside as wilderness – and rightly so.  The vast Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses west of Mammoth Lakes, Hoover Wilderness east of Yosemite National Park, Golden Trout Wilderness and South Sierra Wilderness south of Sequoia National Park, San Gorgonio Wilderness east of Los Angeles, and many others together preserve the most sublime scenery in North America.  To date, 47% of California is owned by the federal government and over 14% of California’s total land area is designated wilderness.

I have spent many summer days in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness areas and could scarcely imagine them becoming accessible by vehicle.  To tell you the truth, that’s the last thing I would want to see. Standing among the cathedral-like forests of fir, hemlock, and pine and gazing at the serrated teeth of the Ritter Range is an experience that solidifies my belief in an almighty God; they are sublime, awe-inspiring tracts of unspoiled land that should be protected.

Why, then, am I against THIS wilderness bill?

Unlike the average, urban-dwelling greenie (driving to work everyday in a green Toyota Prius), I have seen the places this law is slated to protect.  For every acre of scenery that meets the requirements of wilderness designation, there are ten that do not warrant protection.  In fact, closing off these areas for preservation threatens to destroy the already slumping economies of several townships in the eastern half of California.

THE SPOILED VS. THE UNSPOILED

Dirt Road Leading into Proposed Wilderness

A cursory glance at the list of areas to be preserved offers some perspective.  Truthfully, several thousand acres guaranteed protection are untouched by little more than early, twentieth century mining claims.  These additions to the Hoover, Ansel Adams, and John Muir Wilderness areas have been planned for decades.

However, many more thousands of acres are far too developed to be considered wilderness.

A case in point:  High above the town of Aberdeen rests a high-elevation plateau known as Coyote Flat.  The area was extensively mined in the early twentieth century and small-scale mining continues today.  Sprinkled throughout the maze of dirt roads, singletrack trails, and mine tailing piles are several inhabited homesteads only accessible by rocky dirt roads.  The area is also the location of the state’s most popular “bikepacking” (a hybrid of mountain biking and backpacking) route.  Because of the amount of development in this area and the presence of homesteaders, this land is, technically and truthfully, unfit for wilderness designation.

This wilderness bill stands to surround all of the private land held on this plateau – as well as bar mountain bikes and ATVs from accessing the extensively scenic terrain.  When a wilderness area is established around a section of private property, official law dictates the governing body in charge of administrating the wilderness area must allow the landowner access to his land.  Predictably, the United States Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and Bureau of Land Management rarely grant the landowner the means to build an access road through the wilderness to reach his property.  Only after long, expensive litigation is the land opened up for personal or commercial use.  On several occasions, these government entities have used a set of bureaucratic regulations to exercise a measure of quasi eminent domain; they offer to allow the owner to sell his land to the government in return for a lease that allows him to use the land as he sees fit until his death.  The land then falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government and is not bequeathed to surviving family members.

In this specific case, this new wilderness bill stands to deny homeowners and landowners on Coyote Flat their rights to own, access, and improve their private property.

Another case in point: Along the eastern border of California rests one of the highest mountain ranges in the United States.  The White Mountains are world renowned as the home of Earth’s longest living inhabitant – the rare, great basin bristlecone pine (whose oldest known, individual specimen has surpassed 4700 years of age).  In the late 1970s, a special scenic area known as the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest was established and encapsulates some 100 square miles of high-elevation forest in an inhospitable, cold, desert mountain range.  In addition to ancient trees, the mountain range is home to several research stations overseen by the University of California, mountain bike routes, interpretive trails, primitive campgrounds, mining operations, and the only California peak piercing 14,000 feet that is accessible by vehicles of any kind.

One of the largest components of this wilderness act seeks to protect everything north of Westgard pass and the land bordering the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest.  This will result – again – in the encapsulation of mining claims and operations, the closure of mountain biking and bikepacking trails, and closure of high altitude plateaus to ATV access.

Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest

There are many other examples of lands being set aside as wilderness that should not.  The heavily ranched upper headwaters of the Owens River are slated for wilderness designation.  Sand dunes near Joshua Tree National Park; long a favorite location for off-highway vehicle competitions, are slated for inclusion in a new wilderness area.

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

The closure of small scale mines and restricting vehicle access may seem of little consequence, but the economic effects on local townships are much more profound.

Wilderness areas have long been touted as economic positives; they drive ecotourism.  True, resort towns like Mammoth Lakes, Aspen, and South Lake Tahoe are patronized by millions of backpackers who seek to utilize wilderness areas.  However, the economies of desert cities deep in the California interior (where many of these “wilderness” areas are to be situated) depend on a single, important industry – off roading.  It’s a small industry, to be sure.  However, the few million dollars these high-speed athletes offer is enough to keep even the most depressed town alive.

When wilderness areas are established in desert areas, they eliminate the central attraction to desert townships not located near a national park – off-roading.  When land is closed to motorized use, it is only available to foot travelers.  Wilderness areas attract backpackers.  Unfortunately, comparatively few people have the stamina or ability to carry enough water to travel into a desert wilderness area; especially when that desert area is trackless and has little scenic value.  With off-roading and biking eliminated as an economic force, these towns, and the livelihoods of close to 11,000 Californians, will be destroyed.

Of course, to environmentalists, the loss of these townships is the price man has to pay for “exploiting” the desert.

ENDANGERED?

The assertion that these areas protect regions endemic to endangered species is also questionable.  For example, except for a few stragglers, every known, living California bristlecone pine is already protected in the Inyo Mountains Wilderness area or Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest.  The speckled rattlesnake only lives on land in these two official zones and on Research Natural Areas controlled by the UC system.  The sierra bighorn sheep is limited to the current Hoover and John Muir Wildernesses and has never been sighted at Coyote Flat.

WILD?

The fact that many of these lands have been developed to a larger extent than areas previously set aside as wilderness (and continue to be used to this day – they are not abandoned) is another catalyst for opposing their inclusion in the system.  These areas are not subject to extensive exploitation as it is; 99% of the land slated to be added to the wilderness system is already administered by the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management by special, limited-impact based regulations.

SHOULD THEY BE PROTECTED?

Wilderness is undoubtedly the wrong designation for much of this area.

Road to White Mountain's Summit

I suggest that Senator Boxer and Representative McKeon move to reverse this legislation and create a system of “National Forest Scenic Areas” or “National Reserves” that put special focus on areas that need more area specific management (like the White Mountains, Coyote Flat, and sand dunes) and places that deserve AND qualify for wilderness designation (areas near Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Park) under the Wilderness banner.  By creating scenic areas or reserves in these other, more heavily developed and occupied areas, comprehensive land management plans could be created that do not infringe on the private property rights of individuals and companies while setting aside certain areas for environmental preservation and leaving others open to off-road and mountain bicycle use.  Areas where these systems are in place include the Mono Lake National Forest Scenic Area near Yosemite and the Mojave National Reserve near Victorville, California.  The establishment of these areas has revitalized the economies of Kelso and Lee Vining – providing access to natural, scenic wonders by automobile (including the Prius and not just four-wheel-drive workhorses), off-road access, and the viewable, environmentally sensitive areas crucial to driving ecotourism.

By establishing these kinds of reserves rather than wilderness areas (and focusing on conservation rather than preservation) no one’s rights are infringed upon and, in fact, their establishment drives more tourism into an area – much like a national park – and brings new people into previously unvisited areas.  Economies are improved, access is essentially unchanged, and citizens’ rights are not infringed upon.

It is the American thing to do.

Milan Brandon is a NGJ Columnist and a student at the University of San Diego.