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.”
Comments
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.