When you say "...reverted to the Wilderness..." does that mean it was once wilderness then changed to non-wilderness and is now miraculously "reverted to the Wilderness"???
Perhaps you could say everyone a lot of time and identify which "the Wilderness" you are referring???
Perhaps it is time for Civics 101...
To refresh your understanding of wilderness designation, please refer to the Wilderness Act of 1964. To paraphrase, Congress retains the right to designate wilderness.
As you state, the "reverted" means that Congress designated wilderness (including Redlands Canyon) and then somehow it was un-designated as wilderness, only to revert (be re-designated) as wilderness.
I have researched the wilderness designation laws passed by Congress over the past 48+ years. While I have found numerous examples of wilderness boundary adjustments, I have yet to turn up a situation you are describing.
So, in short, wilderness designation in that area has been frequently covered in the InGear going back more than 20 years.
In addition, the continuing efforts by BLM to adhere to the requirement to mark wilderness boundaries has been covered in the InGear.
It should be no surprise to anyone that has been paying attention to understand that BLM is engaging in accomplishment of tasks that are required by law.
As I have stated many times, should you encounter an instance where you believe a wilderness boundary was placed in error, I need to have a photograph and GPS coordinates. The GPS coordinates can be verified against the official GIS database of wilderness boundaries. Errors can be protested and requested to be corrected.
Perhaps it is time for Charm School 101, Week 2, How To Debate All Nice And Stuff, in that, we can discuss issues, we can debate, but once you drop to condescension or even to some degree semantics, you’re going to fail to make your point as I focus more on how you are communicating and not at all on what you are trying to say.
Play nice or say good bye.
In In Gear, I didn’t read the Redlands Canyon from Wood Canyon to the waterfall was closing this year. If I missed a mention of this closure in the last few months, point me to the In Gear issue. I have run down that trail and then hiked to the falls many times. So, finding the closed sign this year was a surprise and one that you indicated, via your request for pictures, is a surprise to you as well.
Standing there, looking at the sign, as the sun set in the canyon, knowing what was down there, the history, the places, made me wonder, what the heck, who is really fighting for us?
As the land consultant, maybe you need to look at the communication you have with the various agencies involved in the Panamints so that proactive work might be done rather than reactive. It is just a suggestion, you can ignore it, but a picture of the closed sign and the Lat/Lon of Wood Canyon aren’t going to open anything.
kf6zpl wrote: I will let you carry on your debate and fault finding by yourself.
I see, you do not like being called out a bit for missing one, my beloved canyon. I can understand that, but the condescension in your post was appalling and you needed a little slap for that. You have not earned the right to communicate to with me (or anyone) in such a manner. Please refrain from it in the future or say good bye.