| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
reststep
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4757 | TRs | Pics
|
|
reststep
Member
|
 Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:16 am |
|
|
According to yesterdays Bremerton Sun a judge has decided that the park service cannot airlift new shelters to 2 locations in the park.
Article
They require a log in to read the article.
You can log in by using
email: nwhikers@nwhikers
password: nwhikers.
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
lookout bob
WTA proponent.....
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 3045 | TRs | Pics
Location: wta work while in between lookouts |
|
lookout bob
WTA proponent.....
|
Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:55 am |
|
|
I guess I can understand both sides of this issue. However, if ONP thinks it's important enought to put it on their (extremely stressed) budget, perhaps the idea has merit. Thanks for providing the link and interesting things to think about....
"Altitude is its own reward"
John Jerome ( from "On Mountains")
"Altitude is its own reward"
John Jerome ( from "On Mountains")
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:21 am |
|
|
I think everybody's hands are tied by the law designating the park as 95% wilderness. It very specifically prohibits buildings. A more open question is the Enchanted Valley chalet. It is already there and so may remain, grandfathered in. But with the river approaching it, it will have to be moved or lost. So, is dis-assembling and then re-assembling a building the same as replacing a decrepit building with a new one? I think that there is a fine line there, with a new building on the "bad' side of the line, but simply moving an existing building just slightly on the "good" side of that line. But I won't cry if the NPS just decides to let the river take it when that time comes. Nothing lasts forever.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Member
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2013 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fairwood, WA |
|
Don
Member
|
Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:03 pm |
|
|
It's unfortunate that all the national parks have to be governed by the same blanket rule, though I can understand the benefits to such. ONP is synominous with trail shelters and backcountry buildings. It's a shame to witness such history destroyed.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liason
Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 8 | TRs | Pics
Location: catbird seat |
|
Liason
Member
|
Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:30 pm |
|
|
| Don wrote: | | It's unfortunate that all the national parks have to be governed by the same blanket rule, though I can understand the benefits to such. ONP is synominous with trail shelters and backcountry buildings. It's a shame to witness such history destroyed. |
Which brings up an issue. Of course we cannot have a National referendum on issues like this, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans would want the shelters replaced. The Alpine mountains of Europe and New Zealand have shelters, why is this bad ??
The larger issue is that a small minority are using legal pressure points to enforce their view on all hikers and ONP users. We need to look at the legislation with the idea of slightly modifying the Wilderness definition to remove such language as 'untrammeled'. Ultimately this means NO HIKERS ! 
Let Truth and Justice Prevail
Let Truth and Justice Prevail
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:19 pm |
|
|
| Liason wrote: | | Don wrote: | | It's unfortunate that all the national parks have to be governed by the same blanket rule, though I can understand the benefits to such. ONP is synominous with trail shelters and backcountry buildings. It's a shame to witness such history destroyed. |
Which brings up an issue. Of course we cannot have a National referendum on issues like this, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans would want the shelters replaced. The Alpine mountains of Europe and New Zealand have shelters, why is this bad ??
The larger issue is that a small minority are using legal pressure points to enforce their view on all hikers and ONP users. We need to look at the legislation with the idea of slightly modifying the Wilderness definition to remove such language as 'untrammeled'. Ultimately this means NO HIKERS ! |
There are some apparent errors in the above post and quote. There is no "blanket rule". Many National Parks have no designated wilderness areas at all. Even Olympic NP has large areas of non-wilderness, such as allows the Hurricane ridge area to exist as it does. All wilderness designation decisions were made on a park-by-park, almost acre-by-acre basis. And if the "vast majority" of Americans want the laws governing wilderness amended, they would demand that of their representatives, yet those demands are few. So there is no "small minority" using "legal pressure", but rather an silent majority who are asking for the enforcement of the law, not just their own wishes. And to say that the wilderness act prohibits hiking even in theory is a misreading of the act in my opinion. It specifically states that in wilderness areas, "man is to be a visitor only". Hikers are visitors in every sense of that word. The closest you could stretch the wording of the wilderness act to banning hiking would be to claim that it bans the building of hiking trails. When a new trail is considered for construction in a wilderness area, the plan must run a gantlet of rules and regulations designed to comply with the wilderness act. If it can't comply, it isn't built. New trail construction in wilderness areas is indeed rare.
PS: the word "untrammeled" doesn't mean what I think you think it means, or what I thought it to mean. I had to look it up. It does not mean "untrampled". It means unfettered or unrestrained, meaning, I think, nature should be left to run it's course and not be bound in by the hand of man in wilderness areas. It doesn't mean that nobody can walk on the ground in a wilderness area, so it does not ban hiking in any way.
Personally, I'm not against the shelters. But I understand why some people are. It is the "nose of the camel" theory. They believe that if any exceptions are made to the law, then soon more exceptions will be made, and then the wilderness will gradually disappear. I think that is somewhat of an alarmist attitude. But if principles are to be upheld, then they can't just be upheld when they are convenient. The true test of a principle and the belief theirin by the people is in how that principle is applied or not applied when it is inconvenient.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
