We are an all-volunteer organization committed to the health and preservation of three Wilderness Areas, and to spreading wilderness ethics to all who visit.
CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS
Tens of thousands of annual visitors are placing Eagles Nest Wilderness (ENW) at increasing risk of being “loved to death.” Today the US Forest Service rates less than half of ENW as pristine – the purest, most natural state (rollover map). Definitions HERE (pdf)).
While our fiscal condition is sound, we need more volunteers, both in the field but especially to help with administration. Yes, we do need more “boots on the ground” volunteers …
…but we also need to do more back office work in order to help increase our volunteer recruiting and promote the FENW mission.
You can help by working with the FENW Board on any of several new initiatives to expand our ability to preserve our wilderness resources:
Your skills and experience are needed to assist with this important work. Please join in by contacting Bill Reed (email@example.com).
THANKS! We look forward to hearing from you.
BIKES IN EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS?
The FENW MAY NEWSLETTER features an essay by TIM DRESCHER about the growing cry to allow mountain bikes in Wilderness Areas.
As one of the founders of the International Mountain Bicycling Asso (IMBA) and as a board member for 12 years I believe bicycles should not be allowed in wilderness. In my experience Mountain bicycling does alter the desired serenity obtained in the wilderness. National, State and Municipal Parks have lots of other lands which can be used for mountain bicycling. I believe you should concentrate your considerable passion for our sport to open up these other areas to mountain bicycling. Leave the wilderness as wilderness.
I am writing in support of FENW’s position to continue to ban bikes in wilderness areas. Thank you for taking a stand on this important issue. I am a former volunteer wilderness ranger w/ FENW-now living in Southern Calif. My 40+ years experience hiking backpacking climbing mountain biking skiing in the Sierras and Rockies makes me think that the balance we currently have between wilderness areas as we currently define them and non-wilderness is a good mix. Especially in Summit Co which has many miles of bike accessible trails just across I-70 from no bike wilderness areas. The basic principles creating the wilderness act still exist. We need a place unmarked by man-made (other than trails) things. Let’s leave it like it is.
Terrific job on the newsletter. I liked how you paraphrased what I wrote you ~ FENW’s position on bikes in the Wilderness. Kudos.
What a great site! Congratulations on a job well done.
P.S. No to bikes!
NO bikes in the Wilderness! Too many people in these already. Bikes destroy trails.
I totally agree with FENW—no bikes in the wilderness—please
NO, NO, NO!!! to Mountain Bikes in the Wilderness. Keep them in the state forest or designated trails in State Parks but don’t ruin the Wilderness.
Leave them out.
I really don’t think so. Bikes come on you so quickly that I personally get startled every time. I also have a little 6 pound dog that I walk on an extended leash in the woods so he can feel like he’s free. When bikes come by I am always shouting please watch out for my dog, as they never see and several times have almost run him over. I am in the woods for peace and harmony, not to be startled by a biker.
I like your position supporting no bikes in Wilderness, but endorsing special provisions for keeping important mtn bike trails and allowing bikes, but excluding motorized travel. I hike and mtn bike and would prefer to allow non-motorized bikes in Wilderness, but there is too much prejudice against bikes, so your position is most practical.
Thanks ———–Bill Adamson
just a quick note to express my appreciation for the FENW e-newsletter, “Eagle Post” you are putting together. The last one, featuring the issue of mountain bikes in the wilderness, was particularly informative with links to related information and a concise summary of where this topic is now. Education of the public, in this case all those who benefit from our wilderness areas, whether spiritually, financially, physically, etc., can go a long way towards protecting our wilderness areas for the present and future. FENW Eagle Posts are hopefully reaching those who can(or should) benefit from this information. As the trail project season gets underway, an Eagle Post illustrating what it takes to maintain our existing trails into the wilderness – allowing the pubic to enjoy these areas, – would be great. I have found most people have no idea who maintains these trails and the effort (volunteers and FS) involved. And trail construction and maintenance is one of the main reasons I am NOT in favor of bikes in the wilderness. I have had some experience in building and maintaining trails used by mountain bikers – a HUGE amount of work requiring MANY people!!
Keep up the great work for FENW!!
HELP PROTECT PUBLIC LANDS
After the Malheur Occupation
FENW President Currie Craven wondered if the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge could happen here. In this thoughtful and passionate essay (rollover below), he presents FENW’s stance on the issue of Public Land ownership. A pdf version is HERE
I am confident I am not the only citizen who is grateful the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is finally over. Being Westerners, many of us passionately care for our great American tradition of public land ownership. Like most passions, individuals are entitled to have great zeal to influence our actions in the public, political windstorm that has become current political discourse. Following a course of domestic terrorism is beyond accepted norms and, indeed, the rule of law.
Those of us who follow public land issues through greater than usual observation have become increasingly alarmed with the trend some have likened to a resurgence of the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the 1960s and 1970s.
Current militant protest activities have been noted to be frequently ideologically based on interpretations of the US Constitution. These interpretations have largely been rejected by the courts. Undeterred, proponents of the view federal lands belong to states or counties have exhibited their rejection of the rule of law in extreme measures. Unlike the grazing, logging and mining interests of early days, the most extreme proponents bring modern semi-automatic weapons to the discourse, blatantly intimidating public servants, locals and their fellow Americans who would like to simply enjoy their public lands. These actions, whether in Oregon at a critical wildlife refuge, in Utah at Recapture Canyon over ATV abuse and damage to archeological treasures, or overgrazing in Nevada have correctly been described as domestic terrorism. As Americans, we support the right of other Americans to seek redress of grievance through protest. Bringing weapons, and threatening their use, is un-American, period.
Opponents of our legacy of federal public land use also demonstrate less lethal, but no less un-American tactics.
The concept of transferring control of public lands is challenged by national organizations as diverse as the Wilderness Society, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. A recent article by Josh Kuntz of the formerly mentioned group points out how lands under state control are frequently subject to mandates that they be managed “for the highest financial benefit of the state.” Josh points out “Idaho has already sold over 1.5 million acres of state land…over 30 percent of all state lands it owned. Nevada sold 2.7 million acres (99.98 percent) of its state lands.” The public is the loser of valuable access for short term gain.
Representative Rob Bishop of Utah has effectively ended the highly popular and almost zero cost programs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. According to an article by David Jenkins, Bishop has “recently unveiled a Utah public land initiative, which he describes as a ‘massive land transfer.’ ” David continues, “Using the language of sovereign citizen extremists like Cliven Bundy, Bishop claims his group will develop a legislative strategy to ‘return these lands back to the rightful owners,’ in other words, take them away from the American people.”
We at Friends of the Eagles Nest Wilderness (FENW) take our responsibility of active stewardship of all public lands seriously. This is not an issue of political division. Republicans, in the great tradition of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Democrats, can find common cause in accepting the responsibilities of supporting public lands by paying attention, sharing concerns with family, friends, and acquaintances, and demanding public land support from elected officials.
The Land and Water Conservation must be fully restored. Funding for catastrophic wildfire must be separate from U. S. Forest Service operational budgets. Land management budgets must be realistic to deal with the pressure of an ever growing admiring public who “love the resource to death,” and deal effectively with U. S. Forest Service stated four threats: negative impacts from irresponsible recreation, loss of open space, catastrophic wildfire, and invasive-noxious weed species.
FENW encourages our fellow citizens to pay attention and act. We must not allow threats to our cherished legacy of public land ownership on a national scale to be undermined by politics of division or budget impoverishment leading to neglect and despair. This is not for our time alone. I often quote President Teddy as he famously said, “the greatest good for the greatest number” applies to generations unborn “within the womb of time.” We owe protection and responsible stewardship of America’s unique public lands to those unborn within the womb of time, indeed not just our citizens, but of the world.
THE WOEFUL BUDGET OF THE USFS
BACKGROUND: 2016 USFS budget fails to stanch the hemorrhage: The magnificent White River National Forest – which includes all three Wildernesses that FENW helps look after – is being bled to death. In the dozen years after 2003, annual visits increased by 44 percent (to 13 million)…
…and special use permits doubled (to 500). To keep up, their budget should have increased (to $36.9 million), but is ONLY HALF that ($18.5 million). Moreover, the number of full time employees, which should have increased by about forty percent to keep up with the increased traffic, has actually fallen by 35 percent (to 116). You might think that they could compensate by hiring more temporary employees, but that number has fallen by even more – forty-six percent (to 113). It is a miracle that they function as well as they do… Full report here
SOME SOLUTIONS: It’s a double whammy to the US Forest Service budget:
First, significant funds are being diverted from the USFS general fund to fight forest fires.
Second, Colorado ski areas pay rent of $23 million to the US Forest Service, but most of it disappears into the U.S. Treasury.
REVERSE THE DOUBLE WHAMMY TO THE USFS BUDGET:
First, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, sponsored by Oregon Senator Wyden, will pay for big forest fires the way we pay for other disasters, like hurricanes and tornados, and not with USFS general funds.
Second, Increase the Retention of Public Lands Revenue for Public Lands Purposes is part of a bill, also sponsored by Senator Wyden, that will keep those ski area taxes here in Colorado, with the White River National Forest, where they belong.