[Allison]

[Tom]

I suspect those roads are within or lie very close to the proposed wilderness boundaries. If outside the boundaries, I see no reason for their decomission to be included in the proposal, other than to expand the boundaries in a defacto sense.

[Allison]

And that is in keeping with your generally anti-wilderness philosophy. Nothing new, and I wonder why it even comes up in this discussion.

[Tom]

[MtnGoat]

[Allison]

[Tom]

I did read it, including your edit. You basically confirmed my supposed "anti-wilderness philosophy" is in fact quite consistent with the intent of wilderness, that congress did NOT intend that the designation of a wilderness lead to the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around such wilderness areas.

[Quark]

Everyone's opinion is important; pro-Wilderness or not, and everything in between.

[Brian Curtis]

The roads in would question lie within the wilderness boundary. I know that you can name all sorts of structures that don't belong in wilderness, but are included in existing wilderness. A legitimate discussion can center around whether or not those roads should or shouldn't be included, but there isn't much discussion to be had around whether they can't. Here is an example from the FS description of the Rainbow Lake Wilderness: "Among the unique features of this wilderness are the numerous narrow gauge railroad grades that were used for log hauling in the early 1900's."

[Slugman]

I agree that buffer zones around existing wilderness areas are out. They were specifically excluded from the original legislation precisely (IMO) because the boundaries were the boundaries, and extending the boundaries in a defacto way with buffer zones would be unfair to loggers and motorized users. Therefore there are no limitations on activities in areas adjacent to a wilderness just because they are adjacent to a wilderness. My general complaint with our present system is that the NF appears to not have an official method of protecting wilderness-like areas currently open to bicycles, motorcycles and snowmobiles. What can be done to protect areas like the Dark Divide, Twisp/Chelan area trails, etc, short of making them wilderness areas and therefore banning motorized uses? And could this theoretical method be used to protect some or all of the Wild Sky area, making the whole deal palatable to it's current users? I'd like to see a three-tier system, at least two of which already exist in one form or another. Highest level, or "ultra-wilderness": this would be like we already have in the Enchantments area, limited permits available for camping, unlimited dayhiking, no dogs allowed at all, of course no bikes etc. Mid-level, basically the wilderness designation we have now: unlimited camping and dayhiking, dogs OK, mainly on-leash except for some areas off-leash as conditions favor, still no bikers. Low level, kind of a "semi-wilderness": this would allow unlimited camping and dayhiking, dogs off leash, and mtn bikes, motorbikes and snowmobiles in areas where it makes sense to allow them, basically anywhere they can get to except where erosion would be a big problem. I'd like to see the entire NF system gone over for areas that fit these designations, areas that do should be so designated, and if the areas then existant are sufficient for wildlife habitat, then the rest basically used as well-managed tree farms with recreation a secondary activity where feasible. Then we can "end this destructive conflict" (appologies to Darth Vader) and get on with the business of harvesting trees and enjoying nature, knowing that our grandchildren will have much the same opportunities that we did to enjoy wild places in their favored manner.

[MtnGoat]

good god I almost agree with slugman, except for a couple points... in level one, permit only areas to be avoided if at all possible in level two, leashing dogs an is on a per need basis, not as the norm with off leash as an exception other than that no quibbles. now that we have that almost solved...

[Allison]

[jimmymac]

[Allison]

[Tom]