[Frank]

Published: Sunday, July 30, 2006 Wild Sky backers may soon try again By Jerry Cornfield Herald Columnist When last seen, the Wild Sky wilderness proposal had been left for dead on a heap of federal legislation. That was 2004. Republican George Nethercutt needed a boost for his campaign against incumbent Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. He vowed he could pry the wilderness plan from the grips of the House Resources Committee and get it passed into law. He couldn't. U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., the committee's chairman and devout foe of creating wilderness areas, nixed the idea, and no one's heard much of Wild Sky since. This month Pombo unexpectedly allowed bills adding wilderness in Oregon, Idaho and California to emerge from his committee. Each easily passed in the House of Representatives. Is Wild Sky next? Supporters hope Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., the Wild Sky's champion in the House, can seize this moment to secure a compromise. Larsen proposed protecting 106,000 acres north of Index and Skykomish while Pombo in 2004 said he only viewed 93,000 acres as worthy. Talks are at a sensitive stage. The two congressmen have spoken. There are negotiable items on the table. Whether a deal is doable is unknown, but it may be up to Pombo.

[Jamin Smitchger]

The wild sky wilderness is not a good thing. I am sorry if I do not have a works cited page. Jamin A. Smitchger Section E, English 98 Essay 4, Argumentation Date: 11/25/03 The proposed Wild Sky Wilderness Area, which consists of high ridges, lowland valleys, mountain lakes, and old growth forest, should be protected. However, it does have several drawbacks, such as limiting recreational opportunities for some user groups and also possibly hurting the economy of some local towns, that should be dealt with and solved before the bill is passed. The proposed Wild Sky Wilderness is located about 25 miles east of the city of Monroe near the towns of Index, Baring, and Gold Bar. If the Wild Sky Wilderness Act becomes law, 106,000 acres of the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, the area on the western slope of the Cascade Mountains which extends from Canada to Mount Rainier National Park, (About Us, para.1) would become a designated wilderness area. A wilderness designation is the federal government’s most restrictive form of land management. It prohibits, timber harvesting, road building, mineral removal, and all motorized vehicles (Mace, Sam pg. 7). It also closes all roads and jeep trails in the affected area. The Wild Sky Wilderness Act’s supporters, which include Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and many environmental groups, say that one of the benefits of the Wild Sky Wilderness Act would be that it will provide recreational opportunities in the wilderness area if this bill is passed. For instance, a two mile long trail that has wheelchair access would be built along an old logging road,( Haley, Kelley pg. A1) and some new hiking trails also might be built. “It will provide recreational opportunities for generations to come,” says Senator Patty Murray. (Haley, Jim; pg.B2) “Wild Sky will be an outdoor playground for the millions of people who live within a two hour drive”(Haley, Jim pg. B1). However, the many people who enjoy different activities than hiking, backpacking, or horseback riding, would be excluded from the recreational opportunities in the area. Because 27 miles of roads would be closed(Rey, Mark par 4), much of the area would be rendered inaccessible to all but the hardiest hikers. While hunting and fishing would still be allowed, the area would be, by all standards, unavailable to use by hunters and anglers because of the lack of roads. For instance, bear and deer hunters are not able to hunt far from roads because it is nearly impossible to remove large game from deep in the forest. Because the wilderness designation prohibits all motorized vehicles, people who drive off road, with ATV’s, or for enjoyment would have to travel elsewhere to enjoy those sports. Lastly, the wilderness designation would limit recreational opportunities by excluding people without an enormous amount of time or who are not in excellent physical shape from some of the beautiful places in the area. For example, if S 391, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, becomes law, the Trout Creek Road, an old logging and mining road about five miles east of the town of Index, would be closed. If this road is closed, a hiking trip to Sunset Lake, a half mile long impoundment built in the late 19th century up the Trout Creek Valley, would entail a grueling, two day climb over a 5500 foot ridge instead of a moderately difficult day hike. Proponents of S 391 also say that the bill would save critical habitat for the spotted owl and preserve the water quality of hundreds of miles of salmon, trout, and steelhead streams(Haley, Jim pg. B2). The bill would also save habitat for deer, elk, bear, and other wildlife. Many hundred acres of old growth forest, some of which is five feet or more in diameter and has been growing for hundreds of years, would be protected from commercial uses. Although the vast majority of the proposed wilderness, including most of the old growth forest, should be protected, the claim that the passage of this bill would provide habitat for fish and other wildlife obviously does not take into consideration the existing laws. For instance, the area around salmon streams already is protected by law from deforestation, and it is difficult if not impossible to harvest timber in areas where the spotted owl, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act, is known to live. Moreover, many areas which have been used for commercial activities for most of the past century will be placed off limits to those activities by this bill. Mark Rey, Natural Resources and Environment Under Secretary for the United States Department of Agriculture, stated before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, “While the vast majority of the lands described in S 391 are appropriate for wilderness designation, the Department (United States Department of Agriculture) has significant concerns with approximately 16,000 acres. These acres would not be considered suitable for wilderness designation under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act or under existing forest service regulations and planning direction.” (par 3) Recently, while hiking in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness, I was in some of these controversial 16,000 acres which Rey describes. It was a remarkably beautiful place, but it was not wilderness. Old, grown over logging slashes extended high on the slopes of the surrounding mountains, and I passed three private mining claims along the way. These acres, if not protected, will provide jobs and lumber for homes when they are harvested in the future. Section 2c of the 1964 Wilderness Act describes wilderness as “An area of federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which generally appears to be affected primarily by the forces of nature”(Wilderness Act). The area that I hiked through that day and most of these 16,000 acres do not fit this description and therefore should not be included in this proposal. One more claim that proponents have about the Wild Sky Wilderness is that tourists visiting the wilderness would help the economy of local towns. The increased amount of people visiting the area would supposedly provide jobs and needed money to towns such as Index, whose entire economy is fueled by timber, retirees, and the occasional visitors. Although the wilderness designation might create some jobs, these jobs would likely be seasonal, limited to serving hikers and backpackers in the summer and the few cross-country skiers during the winter. Also, in the future there would be no money produced from timber sales in the wilderness area. In addition to the loss of timber jobs, a study by the United States Forest Service shows that there were an estimated 5,006,932 visitors to the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest in 2001 including an estimated 700,814 wilderness visitors.(nvum/report/Chapter 2). This means that an estimated 83 percent of the people visiting the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest preferred to not visit one of the eight wilderness areas within the forest. These facts are almost shocking because 42 percent of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is designated wilderness (About Us para.4), yet these areas receive fewer visitors than the rest of the forest. This is probably due to the fact that fewer user groups are able to use wilderness areas. For example, many older people are not able to hike or backpack and therefore do most of their recreating from a vehicle. Considering the fact that fewer people visit wilderness areas as compared to other parts of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act would actually probably hurt the economy of the surrounding towns. While I do not oppose the entire Wild Sky Wilderness Act, I do oppose the inclusion of most of those 16,000 acres which Rey describes. Because most of these acres do not fit the description of wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act, to include these acres would probably result in court challenges and loss of taxpayer dollars. In my opinion, wilderness is not something that a politician can create. It is a word, that to me at least, speaks of being in a place where a person can feel that they are one with nature. However, it does not take designating a place a wilderness area to feel a nature high because I personally have felt this way in many areas which are not designated wilderness. Although I believe that most areas of old growth forest should be protected, those areas in the proposed wilderness which have been used commercially, are not old growth forest, and which are used by a wider range of groups than just hikers, backpackers, and horsemen, should be excluded from the proposal. I believe that not doing so would discriminate against those in the Puget Sound region who enjoy other outdoor sports, and would also negatively impact surrounding communities.

[Backpacker Joe]

Way to go JS.

[Allison]

JS's argument is holier than the Pope. I don't have the inclination to rip it to pieces right now, but hopefully someone else will.

[Backpacker Joe]

Im just having fun with him. Im not for it for other reasons, but any will do.....

[Tom]

[Backpacker Joe]

Obviously I didnt read enough of it. Those are most of the reasons Im not for it as well.

[Slugman]

Several problems exist with those arguments: #1, large areas have already been taken out of the Wild Sky to address those very claims (of limiting use by groups like snowmobilers and motorcyclists). Enough acres were removed to mollify the groups that represent those users to the point where they agreed to not oppose the wilderness designation. To say that 100% of the acres usable now by those groups should be removed, or else the bill is discriminatory, is to be descriminatory yourself. Nobody gets 100% of what they want in a negotiation, otherwise it is not a negotiation, but simply one group getting to be dictator. #2, the wilderness act does not require that every inch of a wilderness area meet every requirement of wilderness status at the moment of the creation of the wilderness area. So any lawsuits against the wilderness on that account are doomed to failure and would be frivolous lawsuits. #3, it is also not fair to say that wilderness designation is not required for an area to be wilderness in the sense of what it is like to be there. While it's true today that the area feels like wilderness even without the designation, it won't feel much like wilderness after it is clearcut to the last tree, something that is somewhere between possible and probable at some future time if the area is not protected. As has been suggested by several politicians, I would like to see a new class of semi-wilderness created, one that would allow motorcylces, snowmobiles, and mtn bikes while still prohibiting resource extraction that would destroy the wilderness quality of the area. When I hiked the Golden Lakes Loop near Twisp, the presence of motorcylces along parts of the loop did not ruin my experience at all. It's a shame that we have an "all-or-nothing" system right now in our National Forests. I would rather see the Wild Sky protected from logging but still allow motorized travel in parts of it than to see it get no protection at all. The same might apply to other places like Dark Divide and the afore-mentioned Twisp area.

[Allison]

[Malachai Constant]

there is really no constiuency for such a designations many bikers (mountain or motor) don't vote and most do not gointo wild areas anyway. Snowmobiling lobbying is mostly done by towns in areas that rent them i.e. West Yellowstone. Conservation Orgs. find it mush easier to raise funds opposing clear cuts and strip mines than a few bikers. Extractive industries like it the way it is because they can peel off natural enemies to their actions. We are just luckily that they allow hunting and fishing in wilderness areas otherwise there would likely be none

[Slugman]

Anything done by one Congress can be undone by another, so no law from 1984 can in any way preclude another law passing today or tomorrow. Only a constitutional amendment is binding upon future Congresses. Besides, a buffer zone is not what I had in mind. Rather a new level of wilderness-like protection, less stringent than the one level we have now, that would protect areas from being wiped out completely but not prevent most types of recreational use. The National Parks already have something like this, at least in practice if not in law. Parts of a park can be considered "frontcountry", and parts backcountry, with completely different rules in the different parts. This is what allows snowmobiles in Yellowstone, for example, or closer to home, the Hurricane ridge road and visitor's center, etc, while at the same time most of Olympic NP is managed under strict wilderness rules. Another example of this multi-layered approach exists in Washington state: the Ross Lake National Recreation Area, which abuts North Cascades NP. It, for example, allows dogs on trails, unlike the adjacent NP. My main point is that we have areas like the Twisp Golden Loop area, and the Dark Divide, where such "neo-wilderness" protected areas exist, so why not make it official since we are doing it anyway?

[Quark]

Interesting, Jamin. Thanks for posting your paper. I didn't know an argument for Wilderness designation was increased tourism dollars. It might support one espresso stand for a minimum wage teenager working parttime, but other than that, I agree that that is not a stellar claim that stands up and says "wow! ok!"

[Brian Curtis]

As others have pointed out, there's nothing in the Wild Sky proposal that isn't suitable for wilderness. In some parts of the country there wouldn't be any designated wilderness if everything had to be untouched. I've hiked in Wisconsin wilderness that was criss-crossed by old RR grades and had been 100% logged over. The access to Sunset Lake is a non-issue. Trout Creek isn't the best approach anyway and no 5500 foot ridges are required.

[Allison]

JS might find employment opportunities in notoriously anti environment congressman Larry Pombo. Both use many of the same specious arguments for why they do not support Wild Sky, which if carried to their conclusion, would eliminate virtually every federal wilderness in the system.

[Tom]

Pombo is definitely a shady character, but why not focus on the arguments at hand? There's several Pombo bashing threads if you want to revive them. Brian states there's nothing in the Wild Sky proposal that isn't suitable for wilderness. Logic tells me such a statement can't be correct if it includes existing roads that are to be closed? Also, the 13K acres being contested. It would help turn this into an intelligent discussion if someone could clarify exactly what those acres are. Nobody has been able to do that in previous discussions. Without that, it becomes a silly debate about whether these mystery acres are "suitable for wilderness" with no objectivity.