Our World and Everything in It

In an unusual Sunday vote called by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Bill 22 moved forward with a vote of 66-12 that would add 200 million more acres of U.S. land under the Wilderness Protection Act. The Associated Press reported that this bill is “the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. Prior to this, the bill met with opposition from Republicans. The Sunday vote was an effort to bypass their stalling that some say will “derail” the pledged cooperation between Republicans and Democrats in the near future.

In any event, the bill is making its way through to senate approval and according to the same AP article includes California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range, Oregon’s Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia for protection under the act.

This is pretty binding stuff once it’s decided. It would take another act of Congress to take the same land away from the Wilderness Protection Act. I wondered what the Wilderness Protection Act actually does. In my mind if a place is already a national park, why does it need further protections? According to Wikipedia, which is a good enough source for explaining things, the basics of the Wilderness Protection Act are:

•  
  • The lands protected as wilderness are areas of our public lands.
  • Wilderness designation is a protective overlay Congress applies to selected portions of national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.
  • Within wilderness areas, we strive to restrain human influences so that ecosystems [the Wilderness Act, however, makes no specific mention of ecosystems] can change over time in their own way, free, as much as possible, from human manipulation. In these areas, as the Wilderness Act puts it, “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man”—untrammeled meaning the forces of nature operate unrestrained and unaltered.
  • Wilderness areas serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” For example, these areas protect watersheds and clean-water supplies vital to downstream municipalities and agriculture, as well as habitats supporting diverse wildlife, including endangered species, while logging and oil and gas drilling are prohibited.
  • Along with many other uses and values for the American people, wilderness areas are popular for diverse kinds of outdoor recreation—but without motorized or mechanical vehicles or equipment. Wilderness is the haven of quiet beyond the end of the road, the wild sanctuary we meet on its own terms by leaving the machinery of twenty-first-century life behind. The wild popularity of wilderness recreation shows how hungry Americans are for just such sanctuaries.
  • The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas.

Interesting, because I did see some protesting the fact that this will be 200 million more acres no one can use, unless we decide to see the place the good old fashion way—by hiking. But the whole idea is to protect the wilderness from man so we either walk through it leaving the least amount of impact, or we don’t see it at all. 

There is also the questionable $3 million earmark to Alaska for another road to nowhere through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge there. Maybe they should add that area to the Wilderness Act. No mechanical or motorized vehicles in protected areas, no need for a road. And didn’t Alaska’s governor denounce earmarks anyway?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ja3vNS7u_ovPaeUpzrEKqDzs5TjAD95KSENO0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act

Temperatures soared in Las Vegas today.�They might break a record. All through the Southwest temperatures are in triple digits. I was in Vegas last year this time when it was 105 degrees. All I could think of was the strain on everything because of the heat. The water usage and power for A/C is what really takes a hit. It’s a shame in a city where the sun consistently beats on the buildings, that those buildings are not solar powered. But Vegas is trying to become more environmentally friendly. Vegas water czar, Patricia Mulroy has issued mandates to conserve water, but is always searching elsewhere to maintain the water supply for the ever growing Vegas population.

When I saw the temperature in Vegas this morning, I started wondering if the plan to procure water for Vegas 300 miles away in the valleys of Nevada and Utah happened yet? The Vegas water authority bought 5 ranches for water already. Five ranches were sacrificed that is. They raised food for Americans, but were sold for a price so Vegas citizens and tourists can get more water. On the one hand Vegas is trying to be more environmentally friendly, but the argument used to get the water is based purely on the economy, which breaks down to money. It was put this way: 90% of Nevada’s water goes to agriculture, which generates 6000 jobs, so Las Vegas utilizes the water for the greatest economic return. So Vegas should get the water. Is this a wise move in the long run?

The ranchers that farm in the valley where the underground springs are threatened, claim that if water is taken from one spot, it disappears at another. One rancher pointed to spots where wildlife, sheep, and horses watered.� It dried up when new wells were tapped miles away. A U.S. Geological Survey confirms that the underground water systems in Nevada are interconnected. Vegas water czar Mulroy claims the water Vegas will extract from the underground springs is not water that is currently used by the ranchers. Current is one thing, the future is another. Five ranches growing crops for us are already out of commission for water for Vegas and now Mulroy hopes to “eventually tap 65 billion gallons of rural water a year with a 300-mile-long pipeline expected to cost more than $2 billion. That’s enough water for 50,000 families a year” in Vegas. Read the article about the rancher’s side of the story at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10953190. What about all the American families looking for locally grown food? Since China is not to be trusted for food imports, skepticism about any food imports is growing. Buying up farmland for water seems like a waste.

These are some of the questions that are going to keep coming up as our weather changes. It is a dilemma concerning� trade offs. Mulroy and other major investors/developers in Vegas have done much to conserve, read: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10939792, but they fall short when it comes to curbing population growth in that area.�What do you think?�

I don’t think the problem is about rural versus urban as Mulroy thinks. I think her argument for Vegas is blind to anything but economics. It’s about jobs, about money and growth. She misses the point about global warming crisis. If the temperature continues to increase in the Southwest, in other words, if Mother Nature takes over, there won’t be any people around to sustain an economy anywhere. People will move sooner or later when the heat keeps escalating. And surrounding states that are getting beat to death by nature in other ways, flash floods, tornadoes, fires, and hurricanes, won’t be able to offer the support for neighbors like we saw for Katrina victims

Since Mulroy and businesses in Vegas don’t want to curb the population growth, the ranchers that are threatened ask if this has come down to “Crops or Craps?” I’d like to know if we really mean to sacrifice our food supply for urban sprawl, and entertainment, to include all new the water parks, and amusement places that take up acres and acres of land? Importing food from other countries will become a necessity if we don’t start protecting our farmland. It’s a real revelation�to see how interconnected our lives are with farms and farming practices throughout our country isn’t it?� Lately, I’ve really learned to value that guy on the tractor in the field.�
�

Gusty winds have caused the ongoing Lake Tahoe fire to jump barrier lines today. 2000 more residents are literally running from their homes. The fire is facing winds that are much greater than those that caused the fire to spread. It seems incredible doesn’t it, that a Lake area can actually burn? It’s a scary thought for Michigan residents, especially when it’s been dry around here.

Monday I was in a shopping area at Allen and West Rds., and passed a median in a parking lot, covered with what apparently was some pretty dry mulch that was smoking and on fire. Someone may have innocently flicked a cigarette butt out his or her window. I think we need to watch where we use any type of fire on hot, dry days like this, especially since we know that lake areas can burn.

I caught a little bit of an interview with a person who lost his home in one of the fires that admitted he used to think and practice what many of us still think and practice; it isn’t me, isn’t going to happen to me, or it doesn’t concern me. And then it happens. He said the reality is numbing. There is absolutely nothing left of a lifetime. Everything is in cinders or melted. He and his family are displaced. They are going through any savings they had, waiting for insurance benefits to kick in. They have pets and need to find housing. They have very little in clothing. The reality is devastating.

I think we need to concentrate on important things in the news. There are fellow citizens everywhere whose lives are being ripped out from under them because of natural disasters. Texas is flooding; the Missouri area has been flooding. Fires in Florida really took a toll in the Lake Okeechobee area. The news reports these things of course, but immediately following new clips like this, is the latest news about Paris Hilton. With all the important things going on in the world, when a 16 year old married her 40-year-old coach from high school, abcnews.com got 80,000 hits on that one piece. What’s wrong with this picture? Everyone’s got an opinion about a 16 and 40 year old marrying, but nothing about all the cuts being made in the federal budget that affects our lives and our environment?� Or maybe it’s because government news isn’t being reported as readily as it should be. What is reported appears to be watered down. Does anyone else think we’re getting selective news in the media these days?