Should paragliding be allowed in wilderness?
Lowell Skoog
everywhere. Most rec.backcountry posters feel that mountain bikes
should not be allowed in designated wilderness in North America.
I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
wilderness?
Currently it is prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
rare.
I am interested in your opinion. Feel free to post or send me mail.
--Lowell Skoog
Seattle, Washington USA
Ken Daly
>Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
>wilderness?
>Currently it is prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
>visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
>little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
>rare.
>I am interested in your opinion. Feel free to post or send me mail.
> --Lowell Skoog
> Seattle, Washington USA
Lowell,
Another issue to the National Parks seems to be their search
and rescue budgets. I remember seeing a show(possible 48hrs or
similar) about free-base skydiving. These thrill seekers would
climb up then jump off any vertical face that provided the necessary
height and landing area for there thrill. Yet, when they screw
up and hurt themselves and need S+R to drag there asses of the
mountain the budget for finding lost or hurt hikers/campers ect.
has been over spent. The free basing is not permitted in the park
but yet there is no way the park can recover the cost of the S+R.
This argument about dangerous activities ( however, even walking
could be considered very dangerous) being banned leads to other
issues if the cost of S+R is the deciding factor. When Joe
Simpleton goes to the park ill-prepared and poorly informed and
needs S+R do you sue him to get the cost back??
Just some things to discuss...
Ken
(no sig just the usual disclaimers)
Kelly Colfer
: flet...@aspen.uml.edu asks whether mountain bikes should be allowed
: everywhere. Most rec.backcountry posters feel that mountain bikes
: should not be allowed in designated wilderness in North America.
: I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
: Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
: wilderness?
I don't know about National Parks, but the Wilderness Act designates wilderness to be an area free from mechanical transportation of any sort. The purpose of this reg is to allow traditional uses to dominate the recreational opportunities there. I agree that visually, a paraglider is not very high impact, yet I believe that the crafters of the Act had in mind an area that could be used to forget the modern, high tech world in which we live.
As a past US Forest Service wilderness ranger, I frequently wished for a paraglider so that I could fly from one area to the next. We could have accomplished lots more this way!
John Witters
>
>I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
>Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
>wilderness?
>
>Currently it is prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
>visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
>little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
>rare.
What reasons were given for the prohibition? Is paragliding considered
incompatible with Wilderness? If so, I'd like to use this argument
against the jet jockeys from Whidbey Island Naval Air station, who
scream through the Cascades at low altitudes. Give me a paraglider
over an A-6 any day!
(Another reason might be that the land use managers don't want to be
faced with rescuing paragliders. See climbing fees for arguments on
this point.)
>I am interested in your opinion. Feel free to post or send me mail.
I guess my opinion could be swayed by the reasons used for the
prohibition.
I hope you don't mind an uninformed opinion (I've never gone
paragliding.) The peak that required two days to climb, may require
only a few minutes (or hours?) to return from using a glider.
Paragliding reduces the travel time (like mountain bikes do,) and make
the wilderness seem smaller.
However, as a wilderness user, I'd have no objections to seeing
paragliders. I wouldn't use that mode of travel myself, but I don't
mind seeing others use it. I think they might be denying themselves a
true wilderness experience, though.
-John
--
* * * John Witters voice: (206) 356-5274
* \ * domain: wit...@tc.fluke.COM
* DRIVING * uucp: {uunet,sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!witters
* \ * Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Add me to your .signature and
* * * join in the fun!
David Paul
>Subject: Should paragliding be allowed in wilderness?
>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 21:36:53 GMT
>flet...@aspen.uml.edu asks whether mountain bikes should be allowed
>everywhere. Most rec.backcountry posters feel that mountain bikes
>should not be allowed in designated wilderness in North America.
>I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
>Should paragliding be allowed in national parks
Sure, why not. (read: I don't care, I don't go threre)
>or designated wilderness?
No!
>Currently it is prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
>visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
>little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
>rare.
It has the same visual effect as a billboard. It just doesn't belong there.
(IMHO)
As far as having less of an impact than hiking, how do you get in and out?
Steve Helle
> flet...@aspen.uml.edu asks whether mountain bikes should be allowed
> everywhere. Most rec.backcountry posters feel that mountain bikes
> should not be allowed in designated wilderness in North America.
>
> I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
> Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
> wilderness?
>
> Seattle, Washington USA
My 2 cents worth: I spend alot of time in a wilderness area with cliffs
that people used to glide off of. It is about .5 miles from a very
accessible road, 3.5 hrs. from Denver. Personally, I am against anything
that will bring any kind of non-foot traffic into this pristine area.
Although it is highly accessible, many "non-wilderness" people don't go
there because there is nothing to do except enjoy the wilderness.
I am an avid MTB'er, and also don't think MTBs should be allowed in the
wilderness areas.
And while I'm at it, I don't think horses should be allowed in wilderness areas.
(boy, will that start a lengthy thread, or what?)
AND, I am getting sick and tired of cattle venturing into the wilderness areas - talk about a MESS!!! Let's quit renting this land for grazing - all of the Natl Forests.
--
***************************************************************************
* Steve Helle *
* dbINTELLECT Technologies *
* she...@dbintellect.com *
***************************************************************************
Lawrence Akutagawa
: I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
: Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
: wilderness?
: Currently it is prohibited.
Well, not in Yosemite - of all places. Was there in early June of '93 at
8:00 am one Sun morning at Glacier Point and was very surprised to see
folks assembling hang gliders. Questions revealed that with proper
permission, hang gliding is allowed at Yosemite from Glacier Point before
9:00 am...I may be wrong about that exact time. Folks took off the eastern
part of Glacier Point, just off the trail south of the geological hut.
Must be quite an experience to glide out and over the Merced River and
out into the valley proper. Photographs did not turn out well because
the camera had to be pointed towards the sun. But those gliders made a
beautiful sight against Half Dome.
Another revelation on that trip was that an astonomy group was allowed to
set up their telescopes at Glacier Point all night Sat night in exchange
for allowing the public access to those same telescopes. I looked on
Jupiter's moons and on Jupiter itself for the first time through one of
those telescopes.
Murray Tracey
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 21:36:53 GMT
Lowell Skoog, low...@tc.fluke.COM writes:
>I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
>Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
>wilderness?
>
>Currently it is prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
>visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
>little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
>rare.
The problem is not so much the paragliding itself, but the mode of
getting paragliders in and out, ie cars. In general they are not going
to hike to the take of point, and in general they are not going to want
to hike out again when they land.
we hav a problem in New Zealand in that we allow paragliding, perhaps not
a big problem, BUT the rights are sold to tourist operators!! Hence
someone is now making money off the National parks. This is happening
more an more over here with a government that has gone crazy on 'users
pays' and make a buck at any cost.
(Just an aside; the government is planning to increase the number of
tourists to this country to by about twenty times the current level, by
pushing the "green' 'natrual' image, all the time dispoiling the national
parks to accomodate the influx of tourists. If you are thinking of
coming, come soon, it looks set to get ruined.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Murray Tracey
Consultant-Administrative Systems Internet:
m.tr...@waikato.ac.nz
The University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ Phone: 64-7-856 2889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Reece
>>This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>>Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
>>visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
>>little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
>>rare.
Nonetheless, it is basically _mechanized_ transport. _Mechanized_
transport is generally contrary to the philosophy underlying
the establishment of Wilderness Areas.
John Reece
not an Intel spokesman
Eugene N. Miya
One or two times in your absence.
>Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
>wilderness?
Well, I think you guys should be allowed, BUT I won't stand for
the new "need" for roads, etc. to get where your jumping is made easier.
You guys walk in and carry stuff and not build up launch ramps: no problem.
No helos.
Specifically in the case of Parks: so what if grandpa crashes into a
tree while watching you descend. That's his McD's coffee cup he spills
and his responsibility. If he gets burned, tough.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
My 3rd favorite use of a flame thrower is "Fahrenheit 451."
A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
Todd Ourston
: I don't know about National Parks, but the Wilderness Act designates
: wilderness to be an area free from mechanical transportation of any sort.
It does not. In fact, a section of the Wilderness Act of 1964 states:
"Within wilderness areas designated by this Act [citation omited] the use
of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become
established, may be permitted to continue. . . ." The portion of the
Wilderness Act that is titled "Definition of wilderness" says nothing at
all about types of transportation that may be present within wilderness
areas.
Rob Gendreau
wilderness. Suburb, CurryCo slum, tourist trap, climbing gym, parking lot:
yes; wilderness: not.
Somebody wrote that paragliders are "mechanized" transport. Huh? Are we
talking about those rectangular parachutes? I guess my cross-country skis
will now exclude me since the bindings do have a metal hinge....
--
:::Rob Gendreau:::Oakland, California:::
::: Internet: gend...@holonet.net :::
::: AOL: Gendreau :::
Jon Heaton
: Somebody wrote that paragliders are "mechanized" transport. Huh? Are we
: talking about those rectangular parachutes? I guess my cross-country skis
: will now exclude me since the bindings do have a metal hinge....
When I saw comments on how you need to drive and the mechanized comment
I assumed that people were getting hangliding mixed up with paragliding.
*shrug*
Jon
David Paul
You may be right about the wording of the act Tod (I left my copy at home) but
the signs posted on the boundry say "NO MECHANIZED VEHICLES" I follow the
signs. If it's not writtten in the act, does anyone know where this policy
originated. BTW, I agree that ALL mechanical transportation should be banned
from wilderness areas.
Tony Russell Rogers
>>I have another question that I haven't seen discussed before.
>>Should paragliding be allowed in national parks or designated
>>wilderness?
>>Currently it is prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>>Paragliding has less impact on the landscape than hiking. It has a
>>visual impact when you see a paraglider flying overhead, but it is
>>little different than seeing a tent or another hiker, and much more
>>rare.
>The problem is not so much the paragliding itself, but the mode of
>getting paragliders in and out, ie cars. In general they are not going
>to hike to the take of point, and in general they are not going to want
>to hike out again when they land.
I don't think that cars are really a legitemate problem at all. I've
encounted several paraglidors in the western US who have taken off from
mountain tops accessable only by trail, soared all morning, landed in my
field in the afternoon and hiked back to their cars, several miles away.
Now I don't know the first think about jumping off a mountain in a
paraglider, but I talked to a couple of those airmen and they were _very_
aware of their environment, and their impact on it. Their packs weigh less
than my normal weekend pack, they only make one trip over the trail and they
don't usually camp in the area. To me that seems like less of an impact on
the wilderness than a backpacker would have, and _definitely_ less than a
horse--and no crap all over the place! Sorry, it just slipt out:) To the
non-mechanical zelots, would you be happier if I brought my pet pteradactyl
into the wilderness to glide with?
I think that's all I'll let myself say today, lest I forget to be
dispassionate and start preaching the gospel acording to Tony:) I think the
main point that needs to be addressed here is what are our wilderness areas
for? Once that is clearly understood, then the of specific issues and
their impact can be examined and considered for acceptance.
--Cheers!
ÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄ
ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ0ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ;
Ò Ò
º Tony Rogers The FIRST AMENDMENT: º
º ROG...@WWC.EDU --Void Where Prohibited by Law-- º
Ð Ð
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄéÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Á
Rene Casteran
>: I don't know about National Parks, but the Wilderness Act designates
>: wilderness to be an area free from mechanical transportation of any sort.
>"Within wilderness areas designated by this Act [citation omited] the use
>of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become
>established, may be permitted to continue. . . ." The portion of the
>Wilderness Act that is titled "Definition of wilderness" says nothing at
>all about types of transportation that may be present within wilderness
>areas.
Sorry Todd but I disagree. Under Prohibition Of Certain Uses, Sec. 4,
(c)" ...and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including
measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of
persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of
motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of
aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or
installation within any such areas."
The next section, Special Provisions, which you have referred to relates
to exceptions made subject to existing private rights. It was a
compromise to accomodate already established use on newly designated
Wilderness lands in 1964. These compromises were a necessity to obtain
passage of the Act in Congress. These allowable, but nonconforming uses,
(such as permitted use of aircraft, motorboats, prospecting, mining,
livestock grazing, commerical outfitters, and administrative uses
as control of fire, insects and disease outbreaks) are still
considered nonconforming or incompatible with the goals of the Act. And
to that extent are also "...subject to such conditions as the Secretary
deems desirable."
Of course the Act does get interpreted via agency regulation and I
believe you have already indicated your views on how mountain bikes/hang
gliders were included in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). Thats
another political argument.
The Wilderness Act, now 30 years old, is a wonderful piece of
legislation, despite it's compromises. If if hadn't been effective, we
wouldn't have these wild areas left to argue over today!
Rene Casteran (REN...@delphi.com)
An ole Wilderness Ranger
Jerry M. Wright
............
>It was a compromise to accomodate already established use on newly
>designated Wilderness lands in 1964. These compromises were a
>necessity to obtain passage of the Act in Congress. These allowable,
>but nonconforming uses, (such as permitted use of aircraft, motorboats,
>prospecting, mining, livestock grazing, commerical outfitters, and
>administrative uses as control of fire, insects and disease outbreaks)
>are still considered nonconforming or incompatible with the goals of the
Quite right. There are a lot of detailed legal aspects to managing a
wilderness area that people in general are unaware of. Keep in mind that
in most cases the exemptions for preexisting uses will eventually result
in the land being recovered for wilderness management. The exemptions
function to ease out people over a period of time rather than by outright
mass eviction. The establishment of Great Smokies NP and Shenandaoh NP
in the east each resulted in forcible evictions of thousands and
homesites were burned to keep people from returning. This did not go
over well and politicians dare not repeat this tactic.
The capture of exempted land within wilderness areas is a slow
but steady process. Case in point is the Mazatzal wilderness in Tonto
NF. Near Payson, the LF ranch is still functioning within the wilderness
The other site adjacent to the ranch had been exempted as a processing
point for ore. After the owner died, the heirs did not keep up the site
and it was forcibly returned to the forest service. It wasn't maintained
because there was no ore to process as the mine was not active. Simply
having a site for exempted use does not allow someone to retain control
over the site if it is not being used for that purpose. The catch is
that it is difficult if not impossible to switch uses. It was exempted
as an ore processing site, not as a ranch.
The ranches will eventually go the same route as the ore processing
site. Although use of the wilderness is permitted, economics are forcing
managers to closely examine if it is a worthwhile activity. Some of the
grazing permits for backcountry areas were held until the economics of
fence repair forced a decision to abandon the remoter areas. The permit
holder is not permitted to use machinery or vehicles in wilderness thus
the cost of labor for repair was too high to justify doing it. It is
not cheap to maintain a crew in the field if everything has to be packed
in on horseback and work done by hand. Keep in mind that the permitted
use of machinery is on the property the ranch owns, not on the
grazing rights land. Most ranches within wilderness areas own very small
plots (relatively) and have rights to graze on large areas. The remote
location and limited access for ranches within the wilderness raise
costs and no beef buyer is going to pay more for cattle because they were
raised in a wilderness.
Another area of contention is mining claims within wilderness areas.
However, having a claim do not automatically allow someone to mine.
There is an additional step of filing for a patent on the claim which
then allows development. The way the process works effectively shuts out
anyone but major corporations because numerous groups would immediately
file court challenges to a patent. The developer would have to determine
if there is a profit after paying the lawyers plus needs deep pockets to
pay the up front costs. One change was enacted recently to reduce the
number of claims. It now costs per year to have a claim on file.
Previously the claim only had to be worked one day a year - this usually
involved repairing the claim markers. Annual fees force the owner to
look at how viable the lode may be. For some people with 15 or 20 mining
claims the expenses can be substantial.
************************************************************
"Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius."
"jmwr...@helix.nih.gov Jerry M. Wright
************************************************************
Todd Ourston
: >Kelly Colfer (lowr...@lamar.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
: >: I don't know about National Parks, but the Wilderness Act designates
: >: wilderness to be an area free from mechanical transportation of any sort.
:
: >Todd Ourston (our...@crl.com) replied:
: >It does not. In fact, a section of the Wilderness Act of 1964 states:
: >"Within wilderness areas designated by this Act [citation omited] the use
: >of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become
: >established, may be permitted to continue. . . ." The portion of the
: >Wilderness Act that is titled "Definition of wilderness" says nothing at
: >all about types of transportation that may be present within wilderness
: >areas.
: Sorry Todd but I disagree. Under Prohibition Of Certain Uses, Sec. 4,
: (c)" ...and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
: administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including
: measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of
: persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of
: motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of
: aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or
: installation within any such areas."
It looks to me as though you do agree. Kelly said that wilderness areas
must be "free from mechanical transportation of any sort," but both you
and I have identified sections of the wilderness act that show this not to
be true. There are sorts of mechanical transport (whatever that means)
that are permissible under the Wilderness Act. As you have pointed out,
there are also provisions for mining, grazing, fire fighting, timber
harvesting, etc.
That it was necessary to include these provisions in the law in order to
get it passed (after over 60 unsuccessful attempts to do so) does not make
these provisions any less a part of the law than the portions that you or
I may find more to our liking. As an ole forester, you should be aware
that a good deal of the opposition to prohibitions of mining, grazing,
etc., came from the U.S. Forest Service, which claimed that laws to that
effect would undermine its "multiple use" mandate, as defined at 16 U.S.C.
Section 531(a). Congress recognized the merit of the pro-multiple use
arguments put forward by the Forest Service and others by making
conditional provisions for mining, grazing, motorboating, etc., and
repeatedly stating that wilderness areas should be "used and enjoyed."
: The next section, Special Provisions, which you have referred to relates
: to exceptions made subject to existing private rights. It was a
: compromise to accomodate already established use on newly designated
: Wilderness lands in 1964. These compromises were a necessity to obtain
: passage of the Act in Congress. These allowable, but nonconforming uses,
: (such as permitted use of aircraft, motorboats, prospecting, mining,
: livestock grazing, commerical outfitters, and administrative uses
: as control of fire, insects and disease outbreaks) are still
: considered nonconforming or incompatible with the goals of the Act. And
These uses are not nonconforming, they are specifically provided for
within the original text of the act. That there is an inherent conflict
within the stated purposes of the Wilderness Act (to "preserve . . .
wilderness character" while allowing the public to "use and enjoy"
wilderness areas through "recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical" and other specified uses) does not provide
a basis for pursuing some of the purposes of the Wilderness Act while
ignoring others.
Todd Ourston
long-time user and enjoyer of Wilderness Areas
space
geez!
ok, i'm not an attorney and never hope to be, so i'm not going to respond to
all that. however, here's my x worth.
1. mountain bikes and atvs and snowmobiles are pushing my trail-tennie-clad
feet off my choice of trail. they're nasty. that're pushy. they inhale hard.
2. paragliders are quiet, pretty, amusing to observe and *not using my trail
surface.*
3. mechanical transportation, eh? how,please, is a body kite more
mechanical than pitons and carabiners? [note that there's one local urban
trail near where i live with a cliff face so full of abandoned carabiners
you can't see the rock any more.]
basic point: a kite is not a bike. bikes are pushy and ghastly and kites are
cool. [i won't even go into adjectives appropriate to motorized gear on
trails.]
--space[moi]
paxans...@gmail.com
I definetly agree, that paragliding should be allowed in NP or wildrness area, besides of airport.
I always suffering from that when try fly from good mountain.
--
Regards,
Pavel
jameshi...@gmail.com
Lender's Email: sloans...@gmail.com
Phone#: +1-254-242-0879
BORROWERS INFORMATION
NAME:
LOAN AMOUNT:
DURATION:
PHONE#:
COUNTRY: