Forum Index > Stewardship > Wild Sky Wilderness Endorsements
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 859 | TRs
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
  Top

Wild Bagger
PostSun Feb 02, 2003 4:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"Question...If this passes, can our Buddy Bush in the other WA over ride at anytime for any of his reasonings?"

Another Good Question.  I suppose he could veto the bill if Congress passes it, but that is highly unlikely in this case I would think, but you never know.  Once his signiture or any other president signs it (a wilderness bill) it becomes solid law, and of course only congress can over ride or change that, and that I believe would never happen because of the huge amount of pressure that would come to bear on the resubmission of a bill change in effect declassication of a wilderness designated area.  Very highly unlikely.

McPil

--------------
in the granite high-wild alpine land . . .
www.alpinequest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10542 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 02, 2003 7:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Many of the roads around the designated area are to be left open for motorized travel.

The idea that they will now pick and choose closures of more access *outside* the boundaries is precisely what I was concerned about. Are you aware of any closures outside the boundaries intended or discussed at this time?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Timber Cruiser
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 220 | TRs
Location: Cosi
Timber Cruiser
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 03, 2003 11:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
McPilchuck wrote:
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.

greed n. An excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves

Interesting that in matters of timber preservation vs. timber production greed is always associated with the parties advocating production of goods and services from the forest, and always assigned to the loggers or timber industry.  That just doesnít make sense to me on a business level since excessive supply of a product leads to lower prices and does not contribute much to the bottom line.  Makes more sense if you lay it on the consumer of forest products.  They want the cheapest lumber and fiber they can buy.  The less the wood costs, the bigger the house they can afford.  Are you prepared to live in a society that decides what is excessive when it comes to the size of your house?  Car?  Water, gas or electric bill?  If you are, please re-locate to a country that is currently under such a regime. It's a failed social experiment that doesn't need to be tried here.

I wouldnít label environmentalists as greedy when they propose that logging be banned from all public forests, just extreme.  Our national forests are still under the mandate to be managed for multiple resources.  In the early years of federal land management forest production was emphasized.  For the last three decades, society has focused on habitat and forest protection.  Despite claims by environmentalists, I donít see these uses as mutually exclusive.  In fact, there have been many advances in the science and application of forestry to promote wildlife habitat and maintain forest health.  We are a nation of consumers.  We are currently importing between one third and one half of our solid wood needs.  Itís time for the pendulum of public forestland management to swing back towards addressing our forest products needs and help meet that demand here at home.  Polar Bear posed the question in another thread as to whether the U.S. was practicing globally responsible forestry  (didnít take the bait at the time but guess I am now)?  I would say a definite yes.  We manage some of the most productive forestland in the world, using the best practices, under the heaviest regulation and do so at a sustainable rate.  Countries that do not meet such rigorous inspection however supply our unmet domestic demand.

My reservations about the Wild Sky Wilderness designation grow mainly from the fast track status of the bill.  Although certainly not of the same speed class of some of the monuments created by Clinton as he exited office, I do not think this proposal has had the scrutiny it should to make sure we are making the right decision for our long term needs.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
REJ
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 100 | TRs

REJ
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 03, 2003 12:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I am at best ambivalent about the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal.  I like wilderness protection because they keep out roads, but I donít believe that wilderness protection necessarily benefit hikers and trail users on forest service lands that are already under roadless protections.  Wilderness regulations will in the long run bring increasing restrictions for hikers and trails in the name of protecting the land from recreation.  Apparently the only reason that the Mt Baker-Snoq National Forest has not adapted wilderness permits and user limits in wilderness areas currently under their jurisdiction is because they claim that they donít have the money and staff (Ever heard of fees?)

This proposal is also somewhat of a compromise depending who had some leverage.  For example I donít believe that landing floatplanes on Lake Isabel (which would be inside the wilderness boundary) is consistent with the Wilderness Act but there is an exemption for this activity (of course subject to ďreasonableĒ regulation).  Barclay Lake was carved out of the wilderness proposal (newspaper reports blamed the Boy Scouts for this).  This could be a good thing because at the present time Barclay Lake does not meet wilderness standards and therefore wilderness designation would have required the Forest Service to limit recreational use to meet wilderness standards.

The proposed Wild Sky legislation requires the Forest Service to develop a trail plan but does not provide any money.  Without money there will not be any changes to the trail system.  The environmental groups have already proposed some ďtrailsĒ, which consist mainly of old roads or former routes to mountaintops.  Trails to lakes or along creeks are out of fashion.

The opponents to the Wild Sky proposal are the usual suspects: timber and mining interests and motorized recreational groups.  I donít believe that the snowmobile enthusiast organizations endorse the proposal. Rather they neither endorse nor actively oppose the proposal.  The mountain bike organizations have been relatively quiet (there are bigger battles to come?) although they seem to have the most to lose since mountain biking would be banned on the Johnson Ridge trail and the old road to Mineral City which are currently opened to biking.


Some articles of interest

High County News
Everett Herald
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 22875 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostMon Feb 03, 2003 1:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jesus Pappy, it doesnt SAY that there should be equal anything anywhere!  It doesnt have to say that anywhere for me to feel that there should be some FARENESS twords other types of recreation!  As it stands now other types of recreation are on the defence and in fear for their lives! 

Well I guess YOU can do whatever you like if you can legislate it! To heck with the rest of us aye!   ELITEISTS bother the heck out of me, but then that's ok isnt it?

Someday something you love is going to be taken away from you by a bunch of eliteists.

TB
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6184 | TRs
Location: I'm on a boat
Sore Feet
  Top

Random Quippy Bit
PostMon Feb 03, 2003 1:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
REJ wrote:
The mountain bike organizations have been relatively quiet (there are bigger battles to come?) although they seem to have the most to lose since mountain biking would be banned on the Johnson Ridge trail and the old road to Mineral City which are currently opened to biking.

Even though the old road to Mineral City is open to biking, between Pole Gulch and the Galena site the road is rather unfriendly to biking.  First time I went up there (walking), a couple on bikes passed me on a small, rather moderate hill, one of the people had to get off and walk because the rocks were too big, the other fell off her bike after going the wrong way over a bigger rock.  I imagine it'll only get worse as water starts to overtake the trail (like the section near Moore Gulch where there's a stream coming right down the trail).

Nothing against bikers, it's just already in a sad state, and I don't hear of many people biking it anyway, so it may not be all that much of a loss...

--------------
Bryan Swan
Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan
Waterfalls - www.waterfallsnorthwest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 03, 2003 2:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Jesus Pappy

Hey that has nice ring to it. lol.gif

BPJ, I just don't think it has to be 50/50.  Not much in life is, is it?

I am very much in favor of multiple use.  I think motocylists (among others) need a place too.  But how much?  That is for smarter folks than me.  But, seeing how I love wilderness, how could I not be in favor it?  They (I'm  biggrin.gif ) are'tmaking anymore...

If that is eletist, then I am.

What was taken away from you that you love?(that is a sincere question)
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 859 | TRs
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
  Top

Wild Bagger
PostMon Feb 03, 2003 11:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"Interesting that in matters of timber preservation vs. timber production, greed is always associated with the parties advocating production of goods and services from the forest, and always assigned to the loggers or timber industry."

When there is commercial interests involved there will always be greed. Greed for the dollars that rest with whatever the items are to be sold, the natural resources of this country are no exception.  Granted, we need them and the use of them, but much in the past much was done with no regard to the environment and the only concern was to "get the take."  The difference between preservation of forests vs. timber harvesting is quite simple: the trees are not cut for dollars and remain a vital part of the ecosystem, especailly in areas wherein salmon & steelhead runs have become depressed.  Now, if we are to take that specific area out of timber production, then it can be said user fees collected for those wishing to recreate upon the land need to pay for the care of it (not that I am entirely supportive of the Trail-Park-Pass thing cause I think it's too high) but it is a good arguement to offset the dollars lost from budget revenue of logging.  I would also add that (and you know) a great amount of timber harvesting in this state is done on private lands...Georgia Pacific, Crown, Plum Creek, and the big W.

Need we continue to mine the remaining forests and the old growth left here, especially in places like the proposed forks of the Sky?  I think not! If that qualifies me as an elitest you are mistaken.  What I care about is that you and your childrens-childrens, as well as others, have places that remain in their natural state...as close to the wild or in said wilderness as possible here in Washington State.  I consider myself a sportsmen, fisher hunter, hiker, climber, etc., (come from 5 generations of Washingtonians who have lived that life, but I am also one who cares deeply about the environment and what remains.  If I am labled an environmentalist for caring deeply about what I cherish, so be it.

Lastly, we don't hunt grizzlies for pleasure or profit anymore in the lower 48 either...

nuff said,
McPil

--------------
in the granite high-wild alpine land . . .
www.alpinequest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Wild Sky Wilderness Endorsements
  Happy Birthday johncla!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy