Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Alternate view of Nethercutt's compromise
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 7:01 am 
Times article

Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger



Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3705 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lake Wittenmyer, WA
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 9:31 am 
I doubt that the proponents of the original legislation simply bumbled their way into killing the proposal through intolerance. I suspect that those closest to the sausage factory knew that the current Wild Sky effort would fail if the compromise were rejected. They made a value judgement: kill (delay) Wild Sky and blame it on Nethercutt, or secure Wild Sky now and grant Nethercutt a right to claim credit. Democrats correctly identified the Murray/Nethercutt question as the war, and the Wild Sky question as an expendable battle. In the weird world of professional politics, you and I are seen as being too stupid to be able to thank Nethercutt, yet vote for Murray.

"Profound serenity is the product of unfaltering Trust and heightened vulnerability."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 10:30 am 
Moved to Stewardship forum, although this may end up in the DC. wink.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger



Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3705 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lake Wittenmyer, WA
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 10:54 am 
MCaver wrote:
Moved to Stewardship forum, although this may end up in the DC. wink.gif
shakehead.gif Ye of little faith... paranoid.gif paranoid.gif

"Profound serenity is the product of unfaltering Trust and heightened vulnerability."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Eric
Peak Geek



Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status
Eric
Peak Geek
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 11:13 am 
Hmmm, what roads and bridges is he referring to as being within the proposed wilderness boundary?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bob K
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 433 | TRs | Pics
Bob K
Member
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 12:26 pm 
Eric wrote:
Hmmm, what roads and bridges is he referring to as being within the proposed wilderness boundary?
The 13,000 acres that are in dispute apparently have roads and bridges that would be closed. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone is arguing that roads and bridges don't exist in that specific area. The opponents say that the fact that there are roads there already breaks the definition of a Wilderness area "untrammelled by man," and it would cost millions of dollars to close those roads and bridges. I'm not sure why it would cost millions. Bulldozing some permanent blockades won't cost that much. Maybe in a Wilderness they need to get the road areas back to a pristine state? These are all questions that we need answered. I think there are enough questions like these that this delay is a good thing. It's not even clear just from the news accounts or web information just where the 13,000 acres are located. A Wilderness designation is intended for perpetuity and shouldn't be rushed into. It's not like there is immediate impending doom for the area if they don't rush in with protection right away. There should be a public debate on the 13,000 acres; ideally a rational, non-political debate with open minds on both sides instead of people with blind causes shouting back and forth without enough information. What I would especially like to see are town meetings for only the people living in the area and have them be the driving force behind the decision. The previous meetings were long before the specifics were formulated and there was no inkling that those 13,000 acres were included. We need to ensure that we aren't trampling on peoples lives or livelihoods, or at least know the extent we are doing it. We spend millions of dollars on environmental impact studies for even the most trivial construction projects, why not spend just a fraction of that trying to understand the "human impact" of something as important as this? Likewise, the proponents should not accept an area less than what they think is necessary or appropriate. It's better to wait and get it right. There is time to work things out. The decision is for eternity and the next Congress is only a few months away. -

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Eric
Peak Geek



Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status
Eric
Peak Geek
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 4:51 pm 
Quote:
The 13,000 acres that are in dispute apparently have roads and bridges that would be closed. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone is arguing that roads and bridges don't exist in that specific area.
Right. I'm not questioning that they are there as I'm sure that is not in dispute. I've got the back story, I'm just curious as to where the roads specifically are and/or the area which is in dispute or rather most in dispute. As in, if FS road X is in the boundary then I'm curious what X is ala is it for example 6210(300) or 6320(100). I looked at http://www.wildsky.org/fram?url_id=21 and I can find no roads shown within those boundaries but I may have missed them or the map for the 106K proposal may be different or they may not even appear on that map if they are old logging spurs and so forth which sometimes exist on the ground but not on FS maps.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bob K
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 433 | TRs | Pics
Bob K
Member
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 5:22 pm 
I'd like to know that myself. Also a more basic question: which 13,000 acres are in dispute? I can't find that info anywhere. I don't think Nethercutt's proposed compromise is public. The wildsky.org web site does not have contact info and, of course, it's useless trying to get any real info from the politicians that are involved. -

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



Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 3143 | TRs | Pics
Location: Full Moon Saloon
mgd
Member
PostTue Oct 05, 2004 9:04 pm 
I would have gone for the compromise. The Wilderness can always be expanded at a later date.

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 > Alternate view of Nethercutt's compromise
  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