Scott attempting to relax Photo by Vickie Riebel

Welcome to Colorado. Now go home!

I was sitting in my car at the bank parking lot today gazing at the most magnificent azure blue sky. The high cirrus clouds lined up one after the other giving the sky the appearance of waves breaking on some tropical beach. In front of me was a newer model Jeep Cherokee. It's license plate read BUK I DOC. I assumed that the owner was a doctor who received his degree from Ohio State and I began to wonder why he had moved to Colorado. Being a native of Colorado, I know the pleasure and have tasted the splendor of the land. It doesn't surprise me that people from all over the country visit Colorado. But what is it that draws so many from their home state to live in Colorado?

In a word: lifestyle. The mystique of the frontier, the rugged individualist, the illusion of wide-open spaces, calypso, starry nights, Rocky Mountain High, a land of promise and opportunity; many of the people moving to Colorado do so because of all those things that the western lifestyle embodies.

The Coloradoan is inextricably linked to the outdoors. The settling of the new frontier involved ranching, farming, logging, mining and recreation; sometimes on private land but most of this activity occurred and is occurring on public land. But that heritage is being undermined under the guise of environmentalism.

The State of Colorado consists of roughly 66 million acres (Bureau of Land Management, Colorado. Home page. 26 Jan. 2000. BLM 11 Feb. 2000. http://www.co.blm.gov/). Of that 66 million acres over 27 million acres is Government owned public land; managed by either the Bureau of Land Management or the National Forest, and to a lesser degree, other state and federal agencies. Unfortunately, there are dark clouds on our horizon. The residents of Colorado are being systematically locked out of our public lands. And why are we being locked out? That question is steeped in emotional controversy and inflammatory rhetoric, but we must not allow the rhetoric to cloud our thinking.

Most reasonable people agree that we need to preserve wilderness areas and promote biodiversity. How much wilderness and at what costs are central to this argument. I agree, and in fact most people agree, that it is necessary to set aside some public lands to preserve and protect the lands wilderness character for future generations. Unfortunately, there are many people who believe that wilderness areas are places that you take the Winnebago on weekends, meet other Winnebago owners, camp out with the family, drink beer around the campfire and then go home on Sunday. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as: federal lands officially designated by Congress and the President as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. These are lands where the earth and its community of life are undisturbed by humans. They are places managed to preserve natural conditions and processes; where people are only visitors, (Bureau of Land Management, Colorado. Wilderness page. 19 Dec.1999. 2000. BLM 11 Feb. 2000. http://www.co.blm.gov/).

A wilderness designation does not guarantee forest health. One of unintended side effect of wilderness designation is the threat of insidious and opportunistic elements like the Asian Pine Beetle, the Colorado Pine Beetle, Creeping Mistletoe and wildfire. In fact, so much of the designated wilderness in Colorado is infested, decaying, old growth, that the Forest Service has categorized it as a class II fire threat.

In addition, a Wilderness designation precludes, actually, prohibits access by mechanical means. Mechanical means include, snowmobiles, ATV, motorcycles, mountain bikes, wheel chairs, four wheel drive vehicle etc. So unless you are walking in youe not going. That would exclude families with young children, the physically disadvantaged, many elderly, the infirmed and about 54 million Americans with disabilities. That would leave only the physically elite to their private playground. The White River National Forest (WRNF) as a perfect example of how this lock out is working.

Every ten years the Forest Service must put together a management plan for the management of the forest. That plan is called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). As part of the DEIS, the Forest Service proposes a number of different alternatives for the management of the forest. Those alternatives range from No Action to the complete closure of the forest. This year the National Forest Service has proposed an alternative that, if adopted, will effectively close all but a few accesses to the White River National Forest.

The White River National Forest, located in the northwest 1/3 of the state, is the fifth largest and the most visited national forest in the United States (United States. Department of Agriculture. White River National Forest revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Glenwood Springs. Colorado 1999). It borders stretch from the City of Aspen, north to the Wyoming border and west to Utah. Of the 2,270,000 acres managed by the WRNF, 750,000 acres are currently managed as wilderness areas. That is nearly 1/3 of the total acreage.

According to the WRNF own estimates of its forest users, only 1% of the forest users backpack, camp, hike, bird watch or visit within the managed 750,000 acres of wilderness. WRNF estimates that those 1% utilize only 2% of the available acreage, approximately 15,000 acres.

The remaining 2/3 of the forest(15 million acres) is currently managed under a multiple use policy which accommodates grazing, timber harvesting, mining and recreation.

Historically, the Forest Service has placed particular emphasis on recreational access. Again quoting the WRNF own figures, recreation and tourism pumps approximately $720 million into Colorado economy and serves as the principle economic driver for Eagle, Grand, Pitkin, Garfield and Summit Counties.

It is important to establish that the forest biological diversity and natural habitat should be preserved. No one disputes that this is a beautiful place that future generations should be able to enjoy. Unfortunately, the Forest Service ignores that fact that conservation and human access can occur concurrently. The Forest service is creating the illusion that the management of the WRNF is a zero sum game where seemingly man and nature cannot coexist.

If the preferred alternative is adopted, it will impact all forest users. Cars will be restricted to one trail, motorcycles to another, ATV to yet another, mountain bikes, snowmobiles, cross country skiers, snow shoers, and yes even hikers will be restricted to their designated routes (United States. Department of Agriculture. White River National Forest revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix O. Glenwood Springs. Colorado 1999). With severely limited access, the net effect will be greater resource damage because of increased population density and more frequent user conflict.

The DEIS and the preferred alternative are an affront to everyone in this state. But that is my opinion and I do not want you to take my word for it. Call the WRNF and ask for a copy of the DEIS, not the management summary, the entire EIS including the maps. Open appendix O, look at the map, read the preferred alternative and form your own opinion.

Then just go home. Because if the Forest Service has it way, we will all be confined to the greenbelts and parks of the city. I imagine that the Colorado backcountry experience will soon resemble that of a New Yorker visiting Central Park.

That is, unless you are willing to do something about it.

Editors Note

Hard copies of the White River National Forest Planning documents are real hard to find, but they are available on the web at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning.html and Colorado Forest Service offices. After, you have reviewed the plan and feel free to comment: fpc/r2_whiteriver@fs.fed.us