[McPilchuck]

To all of you who inhabit this board, I am compiling a list of personal endorsements from outdoor people who support the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness Bill. You will find a great many respected individuals on this list that I have personally contacted. Please copy & paste the below html and read, then if you want to add your name to the mix I'd love to have it, please email me either at the email address given for me on this network or at McPilchuck@AlpineQuest.com http://www.alpinequest.com/wildsky.html Thanks Sincerely, McPil

[Backpacker Joe]

What about an against list? Have you found one of those? TB

[MCaver]

Why would he, if he's not against it? Start one yourself if that's your position.

[Backpacker Joe]

I was just wondering if he had come accross anything, not if HE had started one! Maybe I will start one.

[Tom]

I haven't been following this bill. I thought it was pretty much a done deal? Is there a concern it won't pass?

[Oldtimer]

Who is opposed? The timber industry, for one. The wilderness does include some areas along N Fork (I know of) that were logged years ago. Timber people say formerly logged areas should not be included in wilderness. The Salmon Creek area is one. A railroad, which was built so logs could be hauled, used to run from Index at least to Salmon Creek.

[MCaver]

BPJ has said in the past that he's opposed. I believe his words were: there is too much protected land already. Something I whole-heartedly disagree with.

[Dean]

I found this site to be very helpful in explaining about the Wild Sky wilderness. John Roper has put many of his great photos in slide show #2.

[Backpacker Joe]

I didnt say there was TO MUCH, I said that I believe that there is enough! When there is EXACTLY the same amount of land area for OTHER types of recreation (and there absolutly is not) as there is now for backpacking and other limited useage, then you can LOCK up more land for feet! TB

[McPilchuck]

Tom wrote: "I haven't been following this bill. I thought it was pretty much a done deal? Is there a concern it won't pass?" Good question. Here is the answer...the bill passed all hurtles supported by our Washington State Congressional Delegation including Jennifer Dunn (R) and got to the US Senate floor where it passed almost unanimously (96 to 3 - I think it was), but it failed to get to the House floor the last week in Dec. of 2002 before Congress adjourned, primaraliy due to the Irag thing as with the holidays break. The bill is likely to come again in 2003 as soon as Feb. for possible passage to further it onto Pres. Bush for his signiture. I believe if it is passed by Congress and gets to him, he will sign it for reasons that he can point to as doing something GOOD for the environment. The main reason as to the why I have personally taken on gathering "personal endorsements" from individuals herein Washington State who feel as I (that the Wild Sky Wilderness should become reality) is to help aid and push it through to that stage. In answer to BJ: you are entilted to your opinion and I respect that, or anyone elses, the debate time is over however, and "most" of the original opposition is now on board (snowmobil groups) favoring the proposed designation, because they were included in the planning and say of what is to be designated wilderness. Of course the timber industry and commercial interests are and will always be opposed to setting aside any land for wilderness designation. That is there prerogative to do so. Lastly, there comes a time when mankind has to set aside greed where our natural resources are concerned, in specific areas such as the forks of the Skykomish Rivers I think, and hold them in trust (Wilderness Designation) for the betterment of the environment at hand, the earth itself, and humanity as well. Further, wilderness designation does not exclude fishing and or hunting. And the Wild Sky is just such an area... McPil

[Land Lover]

McPilchuck, I applaud your well-written response. While gas-powered travel is quite popular now, it's possible in seven generations we won't have that option. In that case, setting aside as much land as reasonable to save for those future generations may be the best gift we can give. Many parts of the world do not have this option, due to a longer resource-hogging human history. Our history being little more that 100 years of impact gives us a unique opportunity. Hey Backpacker Joe, perchance did you used to post notes to the old WTA Trail Talk? I recall much controversy about this type of subject.

[MtnGoat]

From what I've seen the boundaries are reasonably drawn and exclude most places folks used for dispersed camping or berry picking, or simply sightseeing and other uses which involve the road network. I don't mind this plan *if* they do not then add trail access to currently untrailed areas, as this increases the damage to previous little visited places. Protection as wilderness should be enough to do the actual protection, without then compromising the stated principles of protection of resources, by locking out *some* users of the previously road accessible, then proceeding to increase damage by other users in remote places. Once the wilderness is in place, the argument that it needs additional users in new places for protection is invalid, the protection is the designation itself. In addition, I expect that road access outside the area detailed will remain open, and not closed because it's "too close" to wilderness, thus creating a defacto wilderness closure though outside the boundaries. If they want a certain region protected, and can agree on where it is to be, that's well and good, attempting to spread this area is under the table dealing IMO. The size of a closed area should be detailed *before* the agreement is finalized, so everyone knows what they are supporting and agreeing on. Thirdly, though some can perhaps characterize timber opposition to some areas as "greed" ( as in "setting aside greed"), I hope this reference to greed is not an attempt to spread this label to other users who choose motorized access. They have their own entirely valid reasons and desires for access as they so choose, just as anyone who chooses to walk does, and do not deserve their chosen recreation barred for what are essentially reasons based solely in arbitrary (and near religious reasons IMO) of what are "proper" ways of recreating.

[#19]

[McPilchuck]

"Thirdly, though some can perhaps characterize timber opposition to some areas as "greed" ( as in "setting aside greed"), I hope this reference to greed is not an attempt to spread this label to other users who choose motorized access." MTn Goat, well spoken. I think you know this already, but the above quote as mentioned in my statement refers to the industrial greed (monetary gains) derived from logging, especially the old growth where in many cases the profit doesn't outweigh the cost/expense (as has been documented in many cases) or the loss of the specific environment, to include the salmonid resource by way of siltation of redds in spawning grounds...a direct result of mostly clearcut overlogging at hand. Not an attempt to label the other users of recreational forms, but in wilderness designated areas, motorized travel is prohibited. Many of the roads around the designated area are to be left open for motorized travel. The trail process is one that anyone should have a say in and the reason why one should provide input with their own opinion or view on what or not should be done...be part of the process of developing management plans when options or alternate plans are put forth on the table for discussions. I for one would agree trails don't need to go everywhere, specifically new destinations to lakes. McPil

[Newt]

Question...If this passes, can our Buddy Bush in the other WA over ride at anytime for any of his reasonings? I also see he thinks we shouldn't get paid OT and should work longer hours. Who the H@%# does he think he is? Just curious, NN