Shuteye Wilderness Proposal

[donutnational]

I am not sure if this has been already mentioned here and sorry if it was.  But there is a proposal for wilderness in the Shuteye Ridge area.  I just learned of it from a friend and have posted a link from the plan.  Comments are due 2/1/2016. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd486856.pdf



 

[John]

Wow, did not hear about this. That is probably due to the microscopic time window they allowed for comments. They can't seriously be looking for public comments if there is no "public" mention of this and I couldn't even find a mention of it on their own site with their search functions. 

Thanks for the heads up donutnational.

[daniel banquo merrick]

There was a Shuteye Ridge wilderness proposal maybe 20 years ago. I can no longer find anything about it but as I recall it was supported or perhaps even proposed by some local groups. I think I posted about it either here or on ST.

Not necessarily in SOYO but I am generally in favor of wilderness designation since I find motor vehicles destructive and the fewer people and the less cattle grazing the better. I'd rather walk long distances and carry heavy loads than deal with 90% of the people that roads bring. It would also eliminate power drilling and reduce sport climbing development.

But any final proposals need to be considered carefully and the best time to have your say will be if and when congress votes.

[susan]

So just a quick read through the proposal as regards Shuteye and nearby surroundings, the aim of the proposal appears to be about manageability. Funds for the cause of protection being nonexistent, this is understandable.  Access roads are a significant challenge to manageability, so if this goes through it would be a severe loss of access with many more bermed roads and trails. Or, would it mean limiting access even on Minarets and Beasore Roads? Why build the infrastructure, have it in place for decades, only to take it away. Sure, improve protections against exploitation by industry. But not liking the thought of limiting current access for those of us who are mostly naturalists anyway and enjoy the area without much imposition as it is. Thanks for posting that link.

[daniel banquo merrick]

Beasore and Minarets Roads are not affected. I think the roads they are most concerned with are the networks of old logging and generally not maintained access roads. The relevant map is on the next to last page of the report.

[John]

Beasore and Minarets Roads are not affected. I think the roads they are most concerned with are the networks of old logging and generally not maintained access roads. The relevant map is on the next to last page of the report.

I didn't see the map, thanks Dan for pointing it out. It looks like they want to extend the wilderness on the Northern and Eastern margins of Soyo which would include a lot of rock some of which is already split in half by wilderness like the Fuller Buttes and Piyau. I see the climbing side of Piyau and West Fuller added in there as are the rest of the Balls formations. They left Jackass for some reason. I see some of my favorite camping spots in there which would require a permit to go to if this progresses.

[susan]

Driving Minarets again lately and seeing the fire devastation as if anew, it sure hit home with me that some protections might best be put in place for the area rather than none. The ridge just struck me as so vulnerable, and better have forests left for years to come than be left with lifetimes of none there.

[mungeclimber]

Draw that connection between the fire and federal management protecting trees?

[susan]

Hasn't worked so well anywhere else has it. Ugh, and fed mgmt. But what could help?