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.”
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
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.