[WTM]

Oh well. Looks like a good thing that I've gotten used to getting to the N. Fk Sauk Trail via Darrington. Group opposes reopening Mt Loop I think this is a continuation of an old story. I have heard that it was once proposed that the section of the Mt Loop between Barlow Pass and the White Chuck Road be paved. But this was opposed by 'certain environmental groups'. Are these the same groups that now oppose reopening of the road? I'm not sure I disagree with them.

[Tom]

[MtnGoat]

same old crap, different day. same elitist arguments, making demands to satisfy their selected user groups while locking others out. Now they don't even bother confining their predation upon access to wilderness. count on other groups who supported the closure of other roads to jump right in, after all, the religious ideal of the acceptable ways to recreate casts it's spell on more folks than just these. gee, every ten years a very popular road washes out. so reroute it. problem solved. of course, that assumes the problem is actually the costs... when really, it's that people can drive the road in the first place. it offends the sensibilities of the foot only crowd to have people who don't want to walk being in the mountains. just like leaving another road open but unmaintained simply was not good enough.

[Guiran]

[MtnGoat]

Don't be surprised when it happens. This mission creep occurred with the Md Fk, it occurs in the areas surrounding what was agreed to be wilderness, and since they have found success, it will occur elsewhere.

[aestivate]

[aestivate]

[MtnGoat]

I can't see why paving the road is a bad idea, other than the cost since budgets are tight. doesn't this create a more stable roadbed and eliminate erosion from the road surface as occurs with dirt roads, as well as cutting down on dust, as well as adding gravel and grading every few years? seems once you paved it, maintainance may get cheaper as well. of course, this also means more access.

[Quark]

Proves that the hands of the FS are often tied - many times their decisions aren't theirs alone (or at all); they're forced by public interest groups. This month's Washington Trails magazine interviewed Gary Paull, MBSNF Wilderness Trails Coordinator, who said that of all the pleas for public input on the Suiattle Rv trail rebuilding, only 6 comments were received. Even though only 6 people in the Pacific NW cared about the trails in Darrington District, the roads leading to them, barring a legal suit, will be repaired, thanks to FS personnel who lobbied hard on behalf of those 6 hikers. (acutally I think Congress was laughing so hard at this pitiful plea for 6 people that they couldn't think straight, and the FS got 'em at a weak moment). Money for these roads is available, but the numerous required studies and reports haven't yet been finished. see this on usfs region 6 website The bridge over Downey Cr has even been designed and $ is there, but one EA brought up a few minor issues with the fisheries service that needed to be addressed before going forward. Expect harmony in time for next year. $ for the PCT is available, but the bridges need to be designed and EIS/EA need to be filed.

[MtnGoat]

build the ding danged bridge and be done with it, take the EIS money and fix trails or something. git 'r done.

[Quark]

agreed. Democracy is usually a pain in the ass.

[greg]

Disagreed. The Skagit River system was once one of the most powerful producers of anadromous fish on the West Coast, now home to ESA-listed chinook salmon and bull trout and depressed stocks of wild steelhead and a whisp of its former self. Downey Creek itself is spawning habitat for bull trout, probably steelhead and maybe chinook. I like to catch salmon and steelhead, I like to eat 'em too, and I think its important that when they replace the bridge they do it without impact on fish and habitat. Sound harming fish? May seem farfetched, but if they're blasting during a critical migration period it could have an impact.

[Quark]

I understand about hte sound bothering the fish, too - the Rattlesnake Ridge trail was put on hold because blasting was necessary, but blasting would interrupt the falcon nesting processes. The sound of road construction bothering the fish should be a timing issue, not an issue to nix the road all together. The article said a FS engineer advised the new road has been designed to alleviate disturbance through the life of of the road. If the fisheries people don't think the road is going to bother the fish, why does the Pilchuck Audubon society think it will? What about the fish, is not good enough for the Audubon people?

[MtnGoat]

so don't blast during the run. problem solved. we can work it out.

[Scrooge]