[REJ]

Will Sky Wilderness bill passed the Senate and awaits vote in the House. Everett Herald

[sarbar]

3 days to pass the house! Oh, how I hope it does!!

[MCaver]

I wouldn't hold my breath. The odds of it getting through this House of Representatives is slim, i'd say. Next year's House will be even worse. And even if it does, it would have get Bush's approval as well. I don't see that happening. Maybe if it was a rider on some other bill, but not as a bill in itself. The current political climate is not oriented toward protection. I hope I am wrong.

[MtnGoat]

and if you are wrong, will you decide that maybe you are making too many assumptions about Bush, or just decide it's a political trick and this proves your assumptions were right?

[MCaver]

If the bill passes the House and Bush signs it into law, I will be happy to announce right here in this forum that my belief that the Republicans in power don't give a damn about the environment is wrong. But again, I'm not holding my breath.

[McPilchuck]

According to what I heard, it passed the Senate 96 to 3. As far as what I think...it will pass the House whenever the House gets around to it. Why? Because all of the Washington State Delegation is for it as well as the vast mulitude of sign ons (organiztions) and pressure to do so. Will Bush sign it after it passes the House? I think so. Why? Because it will be something he can show he has done good for the environment. I may be wrong, but I am sticking my foot out on this one and calling it a "done deal." And as far as I am concerned, it's a positive benefit to our region, thus I endorse it.

[hikerjo]

[C Dog]

The House moved to adjourn without considering the Wild Sky Wilderness Area, a proposal that won bipartisan approval in the Senate as well as broad local support. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/96700_wildsky22.shtml

[Sore Feet]

[MCaver]

I hope that my own cynicism is clouding my judgement. The bipartisan vote in the Senate certainly gives hope, and I didn't realize the bill was cosponsored by a Republican in the House. Maybe this bill has more of a chance than I give credit. I hope so -- I really want this bill to pass. I'm afraid to be hopeful, though. I stick to my pledge. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it.

[MCaver]

[Backpacker Joe]

I hope it doesn't happen at all!

[Allison]

I hate the "how", but I love the "what". It wouold be huge for us to get this. It sucks that it is likely symbolic, but the result is something most of us will enjoy for the rest of out lives.

[MtnGoat]

"If it passes, I bet it'll be more of an attempt to appease the liberal side of things, to show that he is indeed an conservationist." Could it possibly be, maybe, that he *is* a conservationist? I am a conservationist as well and I fiercely disgree with much if not most of what "environmentalists" propose. I can value the environment and *still* favor usage of raw materials. I can favor preservation and still support drilling a tiny percentage of an arctic area. I've never understood why it's all or nothing, why any motion towards conservation is "appeasement" if done by a non enviro, and the same action will be proof of caring for the earth if done by an enviro.

[Tsolo]

Well, it definitely isn't going to happen this year. P-I article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/96700_wildsky22.shtml But at least nothing is at immediate risk. Since all the various interests (hikers, loggers, snowmobilers, fishermen, etc.) reached an agreement, that agreement will no doubt stay in place until another attempt through congress is made. P-I quote: "Unlike other wilderness areas that are threatened by development or from logging or mining, advocates believe the land encompassed by Wild Sky is safe in the near future. "