Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Skykomish Wilderness (proposed)
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostFri Dec 21, 2001 9:28 pm 
As many of you know, there is a proposed Skykomish Wilderness in the works which will encompass an upper stream lowland area of the North Fork Skykomish, and protect a wonderful surrounding forest of huge old second growth to virgin trees, as well as permit fishing and hunting recreation as per all other wilderness areas in Wa. State, I came to a conculsion to endorse it. Especially, after reviewing the info and maps, as well as having conversation with Rick McGuire (Alpine Lakes Protection Society) for about half an hour after his presentation at the Snohomish Sportsmen's Club last Monday night. Mind you though, as long as main road access is not cut off for the young and elderly that can't hike to those areas. Some roads are necessary. The defined lowland areas will probably circumvent the main road. At any rate, this guy is and always will be for more wilderness areas. Comments?

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jonathan
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 98 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Jonathan
Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2001 10:03 pm 
Hey Pilchuck or anyone else, Is there any on-line info on this proposed Skykomish Wilderness? I found some info and a map but it is on a Snowmoblie web site and not very complete. I would like to learn more.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
salish
Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2001 11:47 pm 
That's a Ditto for me. A few months ago I was given the name & number of a guy at The Mountaineers who suppsoedly had maps and information about this Act (Brian Curtis - was it you who told me?) but the guy never phoned me back or returned my emails. I'd like to find out more about this. Salish

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 12:23 am 
Yeah, that was me. Bummer he never called you. The info he had was extremely preliminary anyway. They are probably getting closer to a realistic proposal by now.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 12:58 am 
You might just try a search for Proposed Skykomish Wilderness, I think you may find a few things if you seek. I know the ALPS has some stuff on it.

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 10:46 am 
Where will this area start, and where will it stop? The Skykomish runs a very long ways. TB tongue.gif

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 11:20 am 
I could support this if it did not include roaded areas. It seems the bar for considering an area wilderness is continually being lowered in order to accommodate limiting access. If we're talking a single spur into a contiguous area of forest somewhere, as is the case on Phelps creek, Van Epps Pass, Johnny creek, etc I don't have too much problem with it. If they want to close off Barclay creek, Eagle Creek, Jack's pass, or any of the heavily roaded areas, I'll probably oppose it. Part of the problem is that the use of "wilderness" as defined by congress brings with it a lot of baggage, such as the ill defined and vague "solitude" clause, which contains the seeds of exclusion for any area which is popular. If we wish to preserve trees, I can't see why we can't just apply a cutting and roadbuilding ban in the areas desired if they have been used in the past. This satisfies the stated desire for protection without the exclusionary aspects of a wilderness definition. Also I have trouble with the assumption that non foot access should be preserved in some areas for old folks or kids, the a priori assumption being that the forest is a place where access only belongs to those who choose to walk and those who don't need a physical reason defined by others (age or infirmity) to beg for non foot access. I personally believe this assumption is faulty, because people who simply choose not to visit that way, have just as much right to roaded areas as anyone willing to walk. Adding roaded areas to a wilderness simply excludes numerous user groups and reduces opportunities for those groups, at no access expense to other groups who can always choose to walk those same roads or use those same approaches *anyway*. Basically, it takes an area open to 4x4 folks, snowmobilers, folks out for a drive, mtnbikers, hikers, etc and reduces the user group to one, hikers, in an area already containing roads to begin with. I'm sure this makes sense to some people who only want to hike, but the exclusion of numerous other users who's opportunities will be curtailed is unsupportable to me. We need to preserve opportunities for all users, not reduce them when the one user group who would remain *already* has access. As I said above, my personal support is contingent on the areas to be added.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 11:41 am 
You said that very well, Mr. Goat. I couldnt agree more. TB cool.gif

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
borank
Lake dork



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 640 | TRs | Pics
Location: Evert
borank
Lake dork
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 3:56 pm 
As Jonathan mentioned, this site seems to have a decent map of a proposed wilderness area Proposed Skykomish Wilderness

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 5:27 pm 
Mtn. Goat's words express my own feelings, I don't wish to see areas closed off to users, epecially to the young and the very old who can't hike too far if indeed roads are shut down. But I don't think (at least I hope that doesn't occur) will happen if the boundries are designed around the roads like Jack Pass. I think one needs to see the map more closely, including me, but I am all for wilderness designation as long as access is maintained to it.

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 5:32 pm 
I'd love to see a new designation of FS land, something with a level of protection between wilderness and non-wilderness where development is prohibited beyond what is there (roads), trees are protected from being logged, but where road and trail maintenance can involve the use of power tools. I call this concoction of mine "Wilderness buffer" zone. In order to further this idea, no existing wildenress could turn into one of those, and Wilderness buffers would probably have to be adjacent to Wilderness areas. This designation would get a lot of play in our state, the Sky area and a lot of the MFk could benefit from it. Does anyone know if this has ever been considered? Or did Big Timber have a cow?

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 5:55 pm 
This I am not sure of, but I like this ideal, in fact it's the most logical thing I've heard of and should be promoted to those legislative folks involved. Good thoughts! Does anybody know of what WTA or even the Mountaineers think of the proposed wilderness. Having reviewed the map, I see no major road closures that would deny access to the like of the Beckler or Jacks Pass or up the NFK, other than perhaps old logging spurs being restored or put to bed.

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 9:10 pm 
I also like Allison's idea of a wilderness buffer zone. This makes alot of sense. I wish that whole resort area over by Roslyn could have been a wilderness buffer zone rant.gif rant.gif rant.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 11:39 pm 
I'm all for it. Some of the areas in the proposed land do need a little mre protection than they are currently getting (Isabel Lk, Silver Creek / Mineral City, etc). It looks like the roads that will get cut off are left to a minimum. It looks like the North Fork road beyond Quartz Creek will die, a portion of the Howard Creek raod (I can't tell if it's Howard Creek or not, map isn't labeled - whatever the largest creek flowing west into the NF Sky is between Index and Galena), and a few other small pieces here and there. I'm all for it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSun Dec 23, 2001 11:10 am 
Closing spurs that are *not* single spurs surrounded by wilderness area is precisely what I oppose. It's spur roads that provide much access and opportunity regardless of the main roads that serve them.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Skykomish Wilderness (proposed)
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum