View Full Version : Senate considering expanding wilderness protection
Senate to consider expanding wilderness protection AP
posted: 3 HOURS 25 MINUTES AGOcomments: 14PrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON -
Congress is considering whether to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness in an early showdown that threatens to derail pledges by Senate leaders to work cooperatively as a new administration takes office.
The largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years has bipartisan support and would include 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.
The bill was scuttled last year after objections from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who said spending in the bill was excessive — nearly $4 billion over five years. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is seeking a rare Sunday vote in an apparent effort to punish Coburn and antagonize his GOP colleagues.
The scheduled Sunday session would try to limit GOP stalling tactics and move the bill forward.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the measure represents years of work by lawmakers from many states and both parties. The legislation combines about 160 bills covering nearly every state.
Besides new wilderness designations — the highest level of government protection for public lands — the bill would designate the childhood home of former President Bill Clinton in Hope, Ark., as a national historic site and expand protections for dozens of national parks, rivers and water resources.
In a statement, Coburn said the "earmark-laden" measure "makes a mockery of voters' hopes for change."
For example, Coburn said, the bill includes $3 million for a "road to nowhere" through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; $460 million for a water project designed to save 500 salmon in California; and $3.5 million to help celebrate the 450th birthday of St. Augustine, Fla., in 2015.
Environmental groups also oppose the Alaska road. The rest of the bill, they say, would be a huge accomplishment for Congress.
hopefulhiker
01-11-2009, 11:26
Sixty miles of the AT pass through the Jefferson National Forest..I believe in buffering and protecting the area of the AT.
This isn't about politics so hopefully people will keep their opinions to themselves. This is about protecting wilderness areas and I though it appropriate since the AT goes thru the Jefferson National Forest.
This is an fyi post. I thought people might like to know so they can write their senator in support of this.
Rain Man
01-11-2009, 11:48
This is an fyi post. I thought people might like to know so they can write their senator in support of this.
Definitely should write all our Senators and support this bill. This is an example of the progressive change that America overwhelmingly wants. Besides, it's a literal, not just rhetorical, drop in the bucket compared to the financial bailout of Wall Street, and we get some real, physical bang for our pocket change.
Rain:sunMan
.
Tennessee Viking
01-11-2009, 17:50
As long as its news worthy and not personal politics then its all good.
It would be great to see a bit more of Virginia set aside as wilderness areas. With how much of rural is being developed into upcoming communities and corporate farms, I would love to see some of its land preserved.
It will also give the Virginia clubs a bit more work since they will not be able to carry chainsaws on trail. lol
gollwoods
01-11-2009, 18:04
you have to type the search as S 22 and hit bill number
http://thomas.loc.gov/
This is the Omnibus Bill that I wrote about yesterday in the North Country Trail forum.
It also provides for the North Country Trail and Continental Divide Trails to purchase land for trail protection from willing sellers. It does not allow condemnation, thus no real property rights issues. This has been something these two trails have been seeking for many years, Every year, in spite of no property rights issues, it gets defeated by property rights advocacy groups using scare tactics.
Please write your Senators to encourage support. Even if they've already voted, the issue will be addressed again.
It passed.
"WASHINGTON (AP) – In a rare Sunday session, the Senate advanced legislation that would set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness...."
Full story HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_go_co/congress_wilderness)
and the bill can be viewed HERE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.22:)
TrippinBTM
01-11-2009, 20:34
I hate it when they play politics with the environment (or at all, really. Just do your damn job, Congress!). I'm referring to this:
Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is seeking a rare Sunday vote in an apparent effort to punish Coburn and antagonize his GOP colleagues.
I'm in full support of this, though. Well, not full. The backcountry needs fewer, not more, roads. So I'm against that part mentioned about the 3 million dollar "road to nowhere" which sounds like hyperbole rather than reporting (who wrote that article, anyways?), but I figure roads only lead to logging/mining/raping.
But based on what I know, I'm glad it passed.
rbonnett
01-12-2009, 13:36
Yesterday's vote was on cloture, not on the bill itself. Its still up in the air whether it will pass the full Senate or not. Consideration of the bill is scheduled for the full Senate this afternoon, so there may be a vote today or may not.
Whichever side you come down on, there's still time for you to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel.
Now, to the original post, it is of my opinion that this bill would be mostly a good thing. I too, am concerned about 'road building'. In my state (Mississippi) we have a lot of National Forest, but very little Federal designated 'wilderness area'. I can think of only one, actually.
However, the wilderness area is something to be cherished and protected. The only negative I see about our wilderness area here, is that a hiking trail does go through it, however, since hurricane Katrina, the trail is impassible. The Forest Service told me that due to the area being a 'wilderness area', chainsaws are NOT allowed to clear the trail. It can only be done by hand (ax, cross saws). That kinda sucks, for we have some BIG trees down over the trail.
Mountain Dog
02-16-2009, 19:57
Wilderness area regulations while including some good regulations, also include some regulations that basically prevent any sign of man from being allowed. No blazes, no chain saws to clear areas from storms or ice storms, no shelters, etc. For example, a man had what his friends thought was a herat attack in the Sipsey wilderness area in Alabama. The trail, or what used to be a trail, going closest to him was basically closed because of some downed trees. The local rangers did not have the authority to use chain saws to rescue him. Another example, Hurricane K destroyed a beautiful trail in Mississippi. The trail has been cleared, all except the wilderness area, because the volunteers could use chain saws to reestablish the trail where it was not a designated wilderness area. They are clearing the wilderness area by hand. Another example is the Pinhoti Trail in Alabama. A portion was destroyed by a really bad storm last year. The trail is still closed until enough volunteers and hand saws can open it back up. Another example would be .... Oh heck, you get the point. I'd like the forests to be preserved but not at the cost of basically preventing anyone without Davy Crocket's experience from enjoying the woods.
Under certain circumstances I believe trail maintainers can get a permit to use chainsaws etc. in wilderness areas. It would be nice if once a year for week it was permitted, then anyone that didn't want to hear it could plan around it.
Tipi Walter
02-16-2009, 21:19
It passed.
"WASHINGTON (AP) – In a rare Sunday session, the Senate advanced legislation that would set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness...."
Full story HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_go_co/congress_wilderness)
and the bill can be viewed HERE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.22:)
This is good news. Somebody must be reading my Trail Journals:).
Wilderness area regulations while including some good regulations, also include some regulations that basically prevent any sign of man from being allowed. No blazes, no chain saws to clear areas from storms or ice storms, no shelters, etc. For example, a man had what his friends thought was a herat attack in the Sipsey wilderness area in Alabama. The trail, or what used to be a trail, going closest to him was basically closed because of some downed trees. The local rangers did not have the authority to use chain saws to rescue him. Another example, Hurricane K destroyed a beautiful trail in Mississippi. The trail has been cleared, all except the wilderness area, because the volunteers could use chain saws to reestablish the trail where it was not a designated wilderness area. They are clearing the wilderness area by hand. Another example is the Pinhoti Trail in Alabama. A portion was destroyed by a really bad storm last year. The trail is still closed until enough volunteers and hand saws can open it back up. Another example would be .... Oh heck, you get the point. I'd like the forests to be preserved but not at the cost of basically preventing anyone without Davy Crocket's experience from enjoying the woods.
In November '07 a group of NC forest officials blundered thru a series of poor choices and clearcut an area of the Slickrock Wilderness at a 5000 saddle gap called Hangover Mountain. They landed a helicopter on top and chainsawed about a hundred trees down, all for what they called "fire suppression". So, even a wilderness area is subject to man's rape.
Designating a wilderness area is about the most patriotic thing an American can do, as it saves it bit more of America The Beautiful. And with wilderness comes, uh, wildness. The possibility of bear attack, remote heart-attacks, the whole point of wilderness is to keep a place wild, or at least free from chainsaws and bulldozers and road building and cars. With it comes risk. Reminds me of a Ed Abbey thought: We all should have the right to die by grizzly bear. We should have more wilderness areas, in other words.
As far as having a wilderness area with blocked and blowdowned trails, well, let's hope the locals-on-foot love it enough to get out there and do some volunteer crosscut saw work. We have plenty of trail workers in my neck of the woods and the wilderness trails stay open. And if not, we bushwack around and continue on.
As far as having a wilderness area with blocked and blowdowned trails, well, let's hope the locals-on-foot love it enough to get out there and do some volunteer crosscut saw work. We have plenty of trail workers in my neck of the woods and the wilderness trails stay open. And if not, we bushwack around and continue on.
In certain areas and 100's of blow downs it's just not feasible to use cross cut saws, which is why I think they allow emergency permits.
RedneckRye
02-17-2009, 00:28
Designating A Wilderness Area Is About The Most Patriotic Thing An American Can Do, As It Saves It Bit More Of America The Beautiful. And With Wilderness Comes, Uh, Wildness. The Possibility Of Bear Attack, Remote Heart-attacks, The Whole Point Of Wilderness Is To Keep A Place Wild, Or At Least Free From Chainsaws And Bulldozers And Road Building And Cars. With It Comes Risk. Reminds Me Of A Ed Abbey Thought: We All Should Have The Right To Die By Grizzly Bear. We Should Have More Wilderness Areas, In Other Words.
Speaking of America the Beautiful, in the next couple of weeks I should be receiving an awesome full color woodcut print from the folks at www.tugboatprintshop.com titled "America The Beautiful", I can't quite figure out how to post the direct link - sorry about that.
Hooray for Ed Abbey...
"A venturesome minority will always be eager to set off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks, for godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American."
“The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.”
“One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork.”
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
"There are some good things to be said about walking. Not many, but some. Walking takes longer, for example, than any other known form of locomotion except crawling. Thus it stretches time and prolongs life. Life is already too short to waste on speed. I have a friend who's always in a hurry; he never gets anywhere. Walking makes the world much bigger and thus more interesting. You have time to observe the details. The utopian technologists foresee a future for us in which distance is annihilated and anyone can transport himself anywhere, instantly. Big deal, Buckminster. To be everywhere at once is to be nowhere forever, if you ask me."
"The missionaries go forth to Christianize the savages - as if the savages weren't dangerous enough already."
mtnkngxt
02-17-2009, 07:42
I'm worried we'll end up with more GSMNP.
Tipi Walter
02-17-2009, 08:52
Speaking of America the Beautiful, in the next couple of weeks I should be receiving an awesome full color woodcut print from the folks at www.tugboatprintshop.com (http://www.tugboatprintshop.com) titled "America The Beautiful", I can't quite figure out how to post the direct link - sorry about that.
Hooray for Ed Abbey...
"A venturesome minority will always be eager to set off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks, for godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American."
“The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.”
“One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork.”
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
"There are some good things to be said about walking. Not many, but some. Walking takes longer, for example, than any other known form of locomotion except crawling. Thus it stretches time and prolongs life. Life is already too short to waste on speed. I have a friend who's always in a hurry; he never gets anywhere. Walking makes the world much bigger and thus more interesting. You have time to observe the details. The utopian technologists foresee a future for us in which distance is annihilated and anyone can transport himself anywhere, instantly. Big deal, Buckminster. To be everywhere at once is to be nowhere forever, if you ask me."
"The missionaries go forth to Christianize the savages - as if the savages weren't dangerous enough already."
Abbey's quotes bear repeating, thanks for posting some clear-headed thought. Here's my favorite Abbey quote:
"The most common form of terrorism in the U.S.A. is that carried on by bulldozers and chainsaws."
I'm worried we'll end up with more GSMNP.
The Park is not a wilderness area, road access alone accounts for millions of rolling couch potato visitors(cars)and such traffic is in part responsible for the Park having the worst air pollution in the country. For the most part, wilderness designation kills tourism cuz people have to get off of their wheeled couches and walk. Maybe your comment is related to the No Hunting regulation in the Park. But most wilderness areas allow hunting, so the Park falls under a more stricter designation called National Park.
National Park: More rules and regulations concerning hunting and camping/backpacking but open to car traffic and the insane KOA style RV campgrounds, i.e. TOURISM
Wilderness: Generally open to hunting and foot traffic with few camping regulations(at least in TN/NC/Georgia--yet), and no RV campgrounds, roads, ATVs, bicycles, chainsaws, bulldozers or "nature motor loops."
Lone Wolf
02-17-2009, 09:26
Abbey's quotes bear repeating, thanks for posting some clear-headed thought. Here's my favorite Abbey quote:
[B]"The most common form of terrorism in the U.S.A. is that carried on by bulldozers and chainsaws.
he was a hypocrite like us all. he liked motor vehicles, living in a home, using electricity, making money, etc.
so he has catchy little quotes :rolleyes:
he was a hypocrite like us all. he liked motor vehicles, living in a home, using electricity, making money, etc.
so he has catchy little quotes :rolleyes:
He liked all those things. And beer too. And never said otherwise. Excepting maybe the "using electricity" part. Not that I can recall anyway. He was at home in a fire cabin.
A GREAT writer. He makes you think. Some of his stuff should be required reading in high school.
Nearly Normal
02-17-2009, 14:13
Well..there's protection and then there's protection. Just how is it designated?
peakbagger
02-17-2009, 17:57
There are "pocket wilderness areas" in the whites and until a few years ago they were managed relatively low key, mostly letting old shelters predating the designation fall down, a lower standard for trail maintenance and possibly less signage. In the last two years, it has turned into a bit more than that. Rangers are removing old blazes to the point where they are painting them over with gray paint, they are taking down small signs and cannisters on tops of mountains that dont even have trails and they are deliberately obscuring "paths" that were not officially designated trails but had existed long before the designation. These are all done under the guise that the regulations have to be enforced despite the fact that the WMNF is understaffed and unable to enforce far more obvious impacts to the forest.
Be careful what you wish for, as some folks will object when the bridge they were depending on fails in the middle of a wilderness area and it isnt repaired, or the folks who dont carry maps get lost when they miss a turn off, or the trail becomes unpassable because of blowdown.
There are other designations other than wilderness that are just as effective at controlling development and come with a lot less strings attached.
Tipi Walter
02-18-2009, 09:33
There are other designations other than wilderness that are just as effective at controlling development and come with a lot less strings attached.
And what would these be? I hope you don't say National Park.
The Weasel
02-20-2009, 14:57
Be careful what you wish for, as some folks will object when the bridge they were depending on fails in the middle of a wilderness area and it isnt repaired, or the folks who dont carry maps get lost when they miss a turn off, or the trail becomes unpassable because of blowdown.
Ummmm...."Wilderness" sort of gives you a hint that it's gonna be wild, doesn't it? As opposed to the typical National (Theme) Park charade of "more wild than downtown Omaha".
I hiked a wilderness in WV a few years back where the previous night's torrential rain took out about 100 yards steep-slope graded trail, which just collapsed. No way up. No way down. So no way around. Had to do about a 7 mile "detour" to get to my car. Felt good. Meant I was in a wild(er) place. Reminded me that we were letting Mom Nature decide about the adventure, and not some trail crew who made judgments about "too hard" or "not hard enough" or "just right." It may not be Alaska, but it beat hell out of those trails in Central Park.
TW
Mountain Dog
02-20-2009, 16:00
What do you call someone who call for the creation of a wilderness area, which basically means all signs of man must be removed, and they use extablished trails when they hike.
Another question would be, what do you call a person that bitches about where or how trails are maintained and has never been an active member of a trail maintenance group?
Blue Jay
02-20-2009, 19:40
Glad to see political threads are allowed now.:sun
Pokey2006
02-20-2009, 20:43
I agree that it's bull, the lengths they've gone to in the Whites to preserve the "wilderness." Taking down summit markers??? C'mon, give it up. As soon as they take one down, someone puts another back up. Just let the peakbaggers have their markers!
But, on the other hand, I have enjoyed some of those more "wild" hikes. You can hike for hours, and hardly see another soul, even on a beautiful summer weekend. I just worry that after a few more years of neglect -- which is what it comes down to -- those trails won't even exist any more.
There's got to be a way to protect the wilderness aspect while still keeping trails and markers up enough so that people can actually use them.
Nearly Normal
02-21-2009, 19:07
I remember reading something and seeing a sign hiking to Tray Mountain about a more strict designation. Seems the area prohibited chainsaws and weed wackers or those type devices. I think the trail through there had to be maintained with hand tools.
??
Tipi Walter
03-02-2009, 11:19
Ummmm...."Wilderness" sort of gives you a hint that it's gonna be wild, doesn't it? As opposed to the typical National (Theme) Park charade of "more wild than downtown Omaha".
I hiked a wilderness in WV a few years back where the previous night's torrential rain took out about 100 yards steep-slope graded trail, which just collapsed. No way up. No way down. So no way around. Had to do about a 7 mile "detour" to get to my car. Felt good. Meant I was in a wild(er) place. Reminded me that we were letting Mom Nature decide about the adventure, and not some trail crew who made judgments about "too hard" or "not hard enough" or "just right." It may not be Alaska, but it beat hell out of those trails in Central Park.
TW
Amen. We agree on something.
What do you call someone who call for the creation of a wilderness area, which basically means all signs of man must be removed, and they use extablished trails when they hike.
Another question would be, what do you call a person that bitches about where or how trails are maintained and has never been an active member of a trail maintenance group?
Uh, trails are everywhere in wilderness areas: Deer trails, pig trails, places with no underbrush, 10,000 year old Indian foot trails. And using established foot trails in a wilderness is also what it's all about versus driving in or going on a bicycle or an ATV or snowmobile or landing a helicopter. I think people who complain about overgrown wilderness trails and the lack of their maintenance are people who are against the whole idea of wilderness areas. Not you Mountain Dog, but others on this thread. They say, "See! We need chainsaws and the area forbids it!" It forbids alot of things. Get used to it.
Glad to read these posts. Otherwise, we are faced with the alternative...
They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a hlaf just to see 'em.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.
--Joni Mitchell, "Big Yellow Taxi"
-Bolo
Chaplain
03-09-2009, 23:49
I am pretty much in favor of more protection for our Nat'l parks or creating more. But is it someone's property? Did they give it? Also, I'd sure hate to be the park ranger for the boyhood home of Bill Clinton. That part they could set aside.
In certain areas and 100's of blow downs it's just not feasible to use cross cut saws, which is why I think they allow emergency permits.
Sly, you're right. After major weather events that cause massive work to restore trails by volunteers, the administrators of a national forest or a national park can petition to allow a window (two or three weeks I think) for volunteers to get in and use power equipment within designated Wilderness Areas. It happened in SNP following Hurricanes Fran ('96) and Isabel ('03).
I remember reading something and seeing a sign hiking to Tray Mountain about a more strict designation. Seems the area prohibited chainsaws and weed wackers or those type devices. I think the trail through there had to be maintained with hand tools.
??
"Routine" maintenance using hand tools isn't a big deal IMHO (except where trail is many miles from a parking area).
Just that when a serious weather event happens, the workload is so great for a time that hand tools won't get the job done, and there are not in most cases enough volunteers to do the massive amount of work.
Everybody seems to want easy nowadays, and they want everything. Manicured trails through a wilderness? Some things just do not blend well or make sense. I don't get it, or maybe I do and it frustrates me.
IMO wilderness areas should be for people willing to learn wilderness skills like bushwacking with map and compass, knowing how to find, identify and follow animal tracks and trails, knowing how to find water, being able to read weather signs, knowing how to ration supplys and supplement them when necessary, and having a good knowledge of first aid are some of the basics.
Tipi Walter
03-10-2009, 01:14
Everybody seems to want easy nowadays, and they want everything. Manicured trails through a wilderness? Some things just do not blend well or make sense. I don't get it, or maybe I do and it frustrates me.
IMO wilderness areas should be for people willing to learn wilderness skills like bushwacking with map and compass, knowing how to find, identify and follow animal tracks and trails, knowing how to find water, being able to read weather signs, knowing how to ration supplys and supplement them when necessary, and having a good knowledge of first aid are some of the basics.
Your thoughts resonated with enough people in power to set up the Wilderness Act of 1964 and to now have wilderness areas that outlaw chainsaws and all the rest. Why curb these rules? In the case of a massive storm pulling down a thousand trees, well, sure a dozen chainsaws could fix it pretty quick, but then, why not bring in a helicopter to help move some logs or a bulldozer to even things up? Never underestimate the unbridled fascination humans have with the internal combustion engine.
And anyway, in the long term forest way of looking at things, those thousand downed trees will be rotted and gone in 30 years, so what's the rush? Like you say, the easy types want to breeze thru today, w/o a whole lot of effort. Waiting ain't in their handbook.
When a storm strong enough to cause large numbers of blowdowns occurs, it will probably deplete the population of certain animals. Birds of prey will suffer greatly. Youngling fall from nest and adults may flee if not caught in the destruction themselves. Hence, for a period of time there will be an absence of these. Thankfully, nature takes care of itself. The blowdowns create prime living space for the very animals that will bring the birds of prey back. Rabits, mice, snakes and other small animals will overpopulate for a short time. That is what will bring back the owls and hawks.
Nature and wilderness areas work this way. From grass, shrubs, trees to all of the animals, birds, etc. Once you put the human touch to it, you start a downward journey from wilderness to something else.
Tipi Walter
03-10-2009, 08:32
When a storm strong enough to cause large numbers of blowdowns occurs, it will probably deplete the population of certain animals. Birds of prey will suffer greatly. Youngling fall from nest and adults may flee if not caught in the destruction themselves. Hence, for a period of time there will be an absence of these. Thankfully, nature takes care of itself. The blowdowns create prime living space for the very animals that will bring the birds of prey back. Rabits, mice, snakes and other small animals will overpopulate for a short time. That is what will bring back the owls and hawks.
Nature and wilderness areas work this way. From grass, shrubs, trees to all of the animals, birds, etc. Once you put the human touch to it, you start a downward journey from wilderness to something else.
What I don't understand is why humans are a part of nature and yet we are so ignorant of the laws of nature and the long term consequence of our actions. We are mammals, we are animals, and yet we have no natural balance or ecological homeostasis, obvious in a world quickly spinning out of control, at least in regards to our place in it.
In the southeast forests and wilderness areas where I backpack, they are still recovering from dynamite, bulldozers and rail logging from the deforestation spree of the last 80 years. I just returned from a backpacking trip that in part encompassed the big tree loop in the Kilmer Memorial Forest, and marveled at the drastic difference between the sheltered, protected and never-logged Kilmer valley as compared to everything else. Even in various wilderness areas, I'd say 95% of all the trails I hike are leftover dynamited and blasted tracts alongside creeks or up on the ridgetops. I look at these massive cuts, with shattered rock for a treadway and much of it pushed down into the creek to make a primitive road(now recovering), as scars that may not heal in the next 10,000 years. Where I live, wilderness areas are designated after the fact, after the damage has been done.
I'd like to see more of these areas put into multi-use National Forests. The Wilderness designation will make these areas all but inaccessible to the majority of people who want to use them and pay for them, taxpayers, which includes hikers, campers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, hunters, and anglers.
Plus, good forestry practices can be done in NFs. Wilderness rules basically means the White Moutains will be full of dead, rotting hemlocks after the wooly algelid gets through there.
One thing I'm totally against: Taking an old industrial site and pretending it's Wilderness, like they did in the White Mountains. If you can gash your leg on a rusty railroad tie, it ain't wilderness and it's not natural. It's a manmade, new-growth forest.
Last, I am opposed to any rules that will remove shelters along the AT.