Have you read the text of the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act? The very first thing you read is that it is not a "wilderness" bill, but a land giveaway. The title says it all: "Economic Development."
What does that have to do with wilderness? The first 14 pages of the bill describe how much of our public land will be given away to local counties to be sold to the highest bidders for "Economic Development." What does that have to do with wilderness? The bill supposedly considers all recreational users. That's right, throw the mountain bikers a 20-acre bone near Boise and they'll shut up (page 15). Meanwhile, 5,693.47 acres are given to "Economic Development." What does this have to do with wilderness? Representative Simpson's Web page doesn't even total it up. There are just a few small numbers on the page so it doesn't look like much. Sneaky.
Take a look:
(http://www.house.gov/simpson/ciedra_proposed_conveyances.shtml).
It's like reading a grocery receipt without looking at the total. Ouch.
We'll still have low-level military over-flights (page 33). The Off Road Motor Vehicle Program gets $1 million (page 44). Livestock will still be allowed to graze (page 47). What do these things have to do with wilderness?
Obviously, the big W wilderness label will bring more people to the area, so we need to expand and improve the Herd Lake campground to the tune of half a million dollars (page 20).
This is the part of the bill I find interesting: "APPLICATION OF WILDERNESS ACT.—Subject to valid existing rights, the wilderness areas designated by section 201 shall be managed by the Secretary concerned in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and this title." (page 23).
Under the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, I have a valid existing right to ride my bicycle on trails within the Boulder-White Clouds and will continue to do so.
Bicycle travel was never meant to be banned under the intent of the original Wilderness Act. Rather, it was later amended to preclude it. When bicycling, I tend to stay on trails and camp in fewer places than when hiking. My hiking boots are the ultimate all-terrain vehicle. The last time I rode a bicycle in the Boulder and White Clouds mountains I camped near a trailhead, outside the proposed "wilderness" area. Because a bicycle plus tools and spare tires weighs around 30 pounds, the cyclist in the wilderness cannot carry as much as a backpacker (38 years of back-packing and bike-packing experience).
The bicyclist has the least environmental impact of any wilderness visitor. I can travel to and through the Boulder-White Clouds from my house and back home on my bicycle without using any fossil fuels. Can a hiker or equestrian do the same within a standard vacation week?
The big W wilderness label in the Boulder-White Clouds will bring more people, increase environmental impact and reduce solitude. The area is protected enough. The SNRA cannot be strip mined or clear cut. Many proponents of CIEDRA claim the area needs more "protection." I agree. Protect the SNRA from the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act.
Arne P. Ryason
Hailey
