[Quark]

Thanks, wamtngal; I checked out the site & printed the page that says "Cleared for White House." Will put it in my stack of hiking stuff so that some lunatic 30-40 years from now can find it and say, "Lookee what I found!" and swoon over it and fondle it. Not that I know of anyone who would ever do that sort of silly thing. To see those historic words in print!

[Dave Workman]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_wild_sky_wilderness.html Bush signs Wild Sky wilderness bill in Washington state By MATTHEW DALY ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER WASHINGTON -- Nearly six years after it was first introduced, a bill to create a Wild Sky Wilderness northeast of Seattle has become law. President Bush signed a bill Thursday making Wild Sky the first new wilderness area in Washington state in nearly a quarter-century. The House gave final approval to the bill last month. It designates 167 square miles in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest north of Sultan, Wash., as federal wilderness, the government's highest level of protection. Wild Sky, sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen, both D-Wash., is the first new federally designated wilderness in Washington since 1984.....

[LizzyBob]

WooooooooHoooooooo! Finally! It's a done deal!!!

[Rich Baldwin]

<montyburns> Eeeeexcelllent! </montyburns>

[MtnGoat]

Say goodbye to access near the boundaries of this thing.

[Backpacker Joe]

[Malachai Constant]

Nobody likes a sore loser

[MtnGoat]

Not sure why it's being a sore loser to recognize the use of defacto closures to get users off land near wilderness. It's merely a statement of what occurs. Is the gloating that is seen in this thread, better? Look, if they want to play this "it will be wilderness when we kick everyone but foot traffic out regardless of what has already occurred on the land" game, fine. At least honestly defining the boundaries is something that can be debated. But when closures of *surrounding* areas occurs, and it was not debated or discussed with those agreeing to give up some access already for the wilderness, that's not square dealing.

[wamtngal]

Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but I have a question...has there been a commitment to close the *surrounding* areas? Or is this just an assumption? I haven't heard about anything, so I'm curious to know where this is coming from... From what I've read, acreage was left out of the proposal so motorized use (snowmobiling, for instance) could continue. One other question I've had for a long time...was there legal off-road motorized use in what is now Wild Sky Wilderness? Or was the motorized use unauthorized and therefore illegal?

[Malachai Constant]

Wamtngal, there are a number of people on this site who will oppose any environmental initiative as a matter of course. The rationals will differ but you can count on that. It is partially a matter of politics, partially philosophy and partially temperament. You will note that they are the same folks who deny global warming and land use regulation as socialistic. For this reason I do not take their positions too seriously if however persons from outside this group oppose something I more carefully consider their opinions.

[MtnGoat]

[Tom]

[MtnGoat]

That is correct. We fight and argue and hammer out a wilderness, then the 'buffer zones' start and it expands via an administrative backdoor that allows advocates a political and administrative advantage over all other users.

[wamtngal]

MtnGoat, thanks for clarifying. Your previous comment made it seem like it was a practically a done deal instead of an assumption based on history...guess we'll have to wait and see if the innocent are proven guilty.

[MtnGoat]

I appreciate the consideration. I sincerely hope the innocent stay innocent and no further loss of access occurs than was agreed upon when the bill was signed. However, I don't think this will be the case.