You are here

Big Cypress: Wilderness or ORVs?

Share

Published Date

April 23, 2007

Bicyorvrutsbear_island_copy       There's a unique opportunity in Big Cypress National Preserve to protect a large swath of wilderness, protect habitat for the endangered panther, and allow in-holders to remain within the park's boundaries.
    This opportunity arises as Big Cypress officials develop a management plan for 147,000 acres known as the "Addition" lands. Located in the preserve's northeastern quadrant, the Addition came to Big Cypress in 1996 as part of a land swap with the Collier family. At the time the Addition was added to Big Cypress, it was placed off-limits to ORV travel and hunting until a management plan could be developed.
    Well, Big Cypress officials finally are working on that management plan. However, there are concerns that the preserve's administration is leaning towards an alternative that would allow managed ORV trails to be cross-stitched across those 147,000 acres.

    Currently, the preserve is taking public comment on six preliminary alternatives, one of which is a "no action" alternative. Once a set of alternatives has been settled upon, Big Cypress officials will draft a general management plan for the Addition and then conduct an environmental impact statement on the various alternatives.
    But the preserve's assistant superintendent already has indicated that the park would like to see a managed ORV trail system through the Addition, Matthew Schwartz, the political chairman of the Sierra Club of Broward County, told me today.
Bicyswampbuggy3_copy    "That was before the public hearings even came out," he added. "So we fear they’re putting the wilderness (option) in there simply as a formality. They need to have it included.”
    When following this story, it's important to remember that earlier this year preserve officials seemingly went out of their way to open up the Bear Island Unit of Big Cypress to ORV traffic despite studies that indicated ORVs disturb panthers and despite a request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that preserve officials study possible impacts of ORVs on panthers in Bear Island before they lifted the closure.
    It's also important to realize, as the accompanying pictures show, that the ORVs we're talking about are not all your typical, run-of-the-mill ATVs one thinks about when ORVs are mentioned.
    "These things are homemade, they use a combination of parts," explains Mr. Schwartz. "It takes $25,000, $30,000 to put these things together."
    Additionally, the ruts these behemoths create can swallow smaller ATVs, which forces those machines to expand trails by seeking untrammeled ground, he adds.
    Now, the management alternative Mr. Schwartz prefers can be found in Preliminary Alternative F. It proposes to set aside 109,000 of the 147,000 acres in the Addition as designated wilderness with no motorized access; provide for new access points for foot traffic off Interstate 75 at mile markers 51 and 63; allow existing in-holders to remain, and; ban ORV use.
    Preliminary Alternative A, the no action alternative, provides for no official wilderness designation and no motorized use.
    Preliminary Alternative B would set aside 50,000 acres as wilderness and establish up to 139 miles of designated ORV trails.
    Preliminary Alternative C would set aside 69,000 acres as wilderness and establish up to 131 miles of ORV trails.
Bicyswampbuggy5_copy    Preliminary Alternative D would set aside 104,000 acres as wilderness and create up to 76 miles of ORV trails.
    Preliminary Alternative E would set aside 109,000 acres as wilderness and create up to 37 miles of wilderness.
    To see additional details of each preliminary alternative, visit this site.
    At a time when development is erasing more and more of this country's natural landscape and when human pressures are turning national parks into isolated islands that threaten to endanger genetic diversity, it seems that Preliminary Alternative F is not only a reasonable alternative but the most reasonable alternative.
    Public comment on the alternatives that will be included in the draft general management plan is being taken through June 15th. Study the preferred alternatives and file your comments before June 15th.

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

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.

Comments

Richard, I appreciate the time you took to comment. There is always more than one side to an issue; often there are at least a good half-dozen. And there also are many sets of "facts." I can tell you, though, that the photo of the ruts came from a very reliable source and so I don't question its authenticity. Also, it's accurate to say that past studies have shown that panther use of the Bear Island Unit has gone down during hunting season and that the Park Service overlooked a request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study possible impacts on panthers before the Bear Island Unit was reopened to ORVs. People interested in commenting on the Addition Lands proposal should definitely ask Park Service personnel about panther use in that area of the preserve and whether any studies have been done into how ORV use could impact the panthers. A larger question, I think, is how do we as a society value America's landscape? Do we want everything to be developed and overrun? Do we want any patches of land protected as wilderness, both to protect the land and all the species contained within for future generations to enjoy and benefit from? These are tough questions and will spur many different answers. But only by asking them will we come to a better understanding of the issues and possible solutions.

Having grown up in the Big Cypress even before it was a national preserve, I find it very frustrating that people that know nothing about the area or it's history submit comments for consideration and this information is used by the NPS planning departments. Swamp buggies have been used for over 50 years as necessary for travel in the Everglades. They have not destroyed the Everglades as some would try to make you believe, development of the glades is the real enemy!. This issue is what caused sportsmen to lobby for the Big Cypress creation at it's beginning. A rut may not seem pretty to some but is it a real damage issue? Modern enviros want everyone to believe that a buggy rut destroys the land. The truth is a rut aids many forms of wildlife with drinking water, gathering minnows, bugs and crawdads as a food supply, promotes green grass and aids in stopping wildfires. Buggy trails cover less than 1% of the Big Cypress land area. The addition lands should be managed as a unit of the original preserve with designated trails that wildlife, ORV users, hikers, bikers and people that get lost can rely on.

Protecting the Addition Lands, one of the largest tracts of rapidly vanishing landscape, is essential to ensuring the long-term health of the greater south Florida ecosystem. The National Parks Conservation Association feels very strongly that the Addition Lands must be managed in the most conservative way possible and supports Alternative F as the preliminary alternative for the General Management Plan. We remain opposed to re-introducing ORV use in a highly sensitive area. The re-introduction of ORV's will cause considerable deep rutting and scaring in the Addition. No ORV access plan, even the most conservative one, can protect the Addition Lands in the way the park is required to protect them. Experience shows us that if ORVs are allowed, accidents, misuse and abuse will occur. Just one large buggy stuck in the mud, or one small group of ORVers venturing off the designated trail, can damage the ecological integrity that the National Park Service is mandated to preserve.

When NPS opened the parks to snowmobiles 40 years ago, it was said they would have no impact. Now we know better, and the Yellowstone case shows it can be difficult to curtail an established motorized use. NPS should also be thinking about the impacts of growing ORV traffic at Big Cypress, because that's where the biggest impact comes in.

Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

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.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.