Wilderness Rides
Have you ever seen a horse climb a tree? Some of you, like myself, may have been riding one that has tried it when spooked by a noisy, mechanical “thing” on a narrow forest trail where there was no place to go but up. Chances are that if you have escaped such an experience so far, you will have it to look forward to one of these days.
It’s not a tall tale anymore, but an increasing, serious reality. Horsemen are being faced with expanding access to primitive country by all modes of travel and types of recreation not compatible with horseback riding or in harmony with wilderness surroundings. At the same time, wilderness areas are being reduced in size an are decreasing in remoteness due to “improved” development in them or on the fringes.
Only a small portion of the total land comprising the lower 48 states is still roadless and undeveloped. These remaining wild lands are areas having only horse and foot trails and an occasional old mining road that has reverted to nature with disuse. The largest percentage of this undeveloped land is in our National Forests, but only a fraction is protected from timber cutting and road building for vehicular-type recreation that would damage the wilderness values of watershed, wildlife, and scenic beauty. Out of 187 million acres of National Forests, only 11 million acres are in the Wilderness Preservation System, and 4 million acres more in Primitive Areas are being considered for addition; but 34 million acres of wilderness quality land is still subject to development, and five-sixths of that may be eliminated altogether. Why is this happening to our wild lands?
True wilderness is “an area of at least 5,000 acres (or less if it is a natural entity) where the imprint of man is substantially unnoticeable, where the primeval character has been retained, and where there are no permanent improvements or human habitation.” Neither livestock grazing nor horseback trail riding adversely affect these conditions of wilderness, provided areas are not over-grazed and horsemen leave no permanent signs of impact. As extensive users of our wilderness lands, ranchers and horsemen of all kinds have an awareness and concern regarding wilderness protection and land-use policies basically similar in philosophy to that of other wilderness lovers.
A roadless area inventory completed in June 1972 by the U.S. Forest Service was supposedly done for the purpose of selecting areas out of that inventory to be set aside as potential wilderness candidates, so that they could be further studied for possible inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System. However, most forest rangers were given only 18 months (when snow covered the areas much of the time) to complete field studies of 34 million acres, whereas it took them 8 years since passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 to finish studies of 5.4 million acres of Primitive Areas. Though the public was invited to participate in the studies, insufficient advance notice and the mechanics of the public meeting process limited citizen involvement.
Handicapped by these conditions, the reviews have resulted in only 6 million of the 34 million roadless acres being submitted as possible candidates for further wilderness study. This has left approximately 28 million acres, or 80 percent, of the roadless inventory open to future logging and “intensive recreation,” when already three-fourths of National Forest land is available for such uses. In spite of a temporary moratorium on development until decisions are finalized, 145 areas are now being timbered. Subjecting these areas to other uses will disqualify them permanently as wilderness.
Some results of the inventory indicate how much wild land is being ignored in the review. For example, the northern region (eastern Washington to Minnesota) selected a mere 1.5 million acres out of an inventory of 7.3 million acres; the Pacific northwest chose 622,000 acres to consider out of 5.7 million acres; and 7 out of the suggested 15 areas in California have already been eliminated! All of the inventory may not qualify as wilderness, but surely more than one-sixth of it should. Many people feel that because of the inadequate studies much of the wild land has been overlooked as deserving of wilderness protection; and that there should have been a more balanced assessment between wilderness candidate areas and intensive-use areas.
Riders enjoying the magnificent country found in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wild Area of the Colorado Rockies. Such an experience on horseback will become just a part of history if steps are not taken to preserve our present Wilderness Areas, and to designate more land for the Wilderness Preservation System.
Horsemen — whether pleasure riders, ranchers, cowboys, breeders, outfitters, resort and livery operators — will be affected sooner than they expect by any appreciable reduction of that meager percentage remaining as potential wilderness land. There are ominous implications for all horsemen in the results of this inadequate roadless review. It means that riding and even grazing will be incompatible in areas intruded by logging roads and other vehicular-use facilities that destroy wilderness character. Easy access for off-road vehicles will shut out horsemen and disturb livestock. It means that millions of acres of our last wilderness will be in jeopardy by exposure to development and commercialism, spoiling them for wilderness experience. The loss of wilderness will be thrust home when we realize that the primitive type of use to which horseback trips so easily adapt will be confined to smaller and fewer areas as the wilderness diminishes, resulting in over-use that also detracts from the wilderness experience.
This casual elimination of wilderness potential comes simultaneously with unprecedented increase in use of pristine areas by horsemen and hikers, the prime users of wilderness. It is improbable that there will be any leveling off of the use as the pressure of increasing population intensifies and with it the need and desire to “escape to the woods.” Terms like “controlled use” and “reservations” are no longer unrelated to wilderness — they are a reality. There are 98 wilderness units already under restrictive management. With such a future to clearly predictable, surely the 28 million acres overlooked should at least get consideration as wilderness. Once destroyed, they will be lost far beyond the foreseeable future. Thus, it is a finite resource, as all land is finite. It should be remembered that wilderness areas are public lands, and though concentrated in the west, they serve the total population of the U.S. and are a legitimate concern of all of us.
The argument that those who wish to preserve wilderness are “locking it up” for their own exclusive use is a fallacy. A real wilderness lover wants only for man to keep the wilderness as such by visiting and accepting it in its natural state, on its own terms, and by leaving as few signs as possible of his visit. There is minimal impact on the land, or intrusion, if any, by the horseman and hiker on anyone else’s privacy or on the solitude and natural features that are fundamental to a wilderness environment — if there is enough of it to disperse the use.
It is just as false to argue that wilderness serves but one purpose. It has multiple uses: it provides wildlife habitat, watershed protection, hunting and fishing, and scientific, educational, and historical purposes; and is always a standby reserve of natural resources for the future. It can be used for livestock grazing, which is permissible under the provisions of the Wilderness Act, as well as mining under specified conditions. These are all economically sound reasons for adopting a preservation-now policy.
One questions the expressed intentions of the Forest Service to give all possible consideration to these roadless areas as potential wilderness. Its management policy states the intention to yield to intensive recreation demands of an uninformed and unaware public that needs first to be educated to the why and how of protecting its wild lands. Since this policy of intensive multiple use is already going into practice, it is imperative that the selection of wilderness candidates be expanded so as not to risk losing any of our American wilderness heritage.
Wilderness maintained intact is a permanent resource reserve for the nation as long as we wish it to be, while serving as a source of the kind of recreation and escape a growing number of people are finding a necessity, not a luxury.
Wilderness cannot protect itself. People are responsible for its preservation and can affect it. The horsemen element of the population is large enough to throw considerable weight in favor of wilderness preservation if there is interest expressed by a substantial number of them.
This article was originally published in the March 1973 issue of Western Horseman.
The post Wilderness Rides appeared first on Western Horseman.