[Klapton]

Here's why FS roads get closed in areas near wilderness areas: There's no longer any place up those roads to cut trees down. So, even if the road itself is outside the wilderness area, if it doesn't lead to a place where they CAN cut trees down, the FS can't justify the upkeep on the road. They have no motive to keep it open, except to be "nice" or something.

[Tom]

Lack of funds was not the driving force behind the gating of the MFK. The FS did not oppose the coalition that wanted it closed, no doubt because the FS did not want to spend the money to maintain it, but lack of funds was not the driving force. http://www.midforc.org/fram?url_id=16 "A Rare Opportunity To Protect Wildlands And Create New Trails In The Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley, our Backyard Wilderness!" aka "Defacto wilderness expansion"

[Backpacker Joe]

Tom's right. It bothered the crap out of them (FS and other beaurocrats) that we could access the very heart of the ALWA so darn easily. They found/created/invented a way to prevent that, and prevent that they did. Nobody (relatively speaking) will be hiking into the Dutch Miller Gap from the MFK anymore. Oh Im sure there will be horsey haulers heading up there, but not many hikers.

[Foist]

Hmm, I'm sorry I only saw this discussion now, it's really interesting (still haven't quite gotten through the whole thing). But it's a bit frustrating to read, because as often happens with these discussions both sides overstate their cases and make blunderbuss arguments, sometimes maybe just to be contentious. There are a couple issues here that require finding the right balance. I think if we recognize the competing values here we can try to get at where the equilibriums (equilibria?) are. One issue is the extent of wilderness area. I think most of us agree that some wilderness area is good, at least for us hikers. If those spectacular high alpine lakes and snowy peaks at the heart of it all were themselves not protected, they might be marred by logging, roads, etc. But obviously EVERYTHING shouldn't be wilderness, illustrated by the extreme example of the Pioneer Square wilderness. So where do we draw the line? Tom makes an excellent point about too many ugly, clearcut areas being included in the Wild Sky Wilderness that just make it harder to get to the actually-wild and beautiful parts (of that wilderness or others). Some areas might be able to "turn" back into worthy wilderness, others are less salvageable or worth salvaging. A related issue is "access." I was new to the Middle Fork road issue when I first joined the site a couple years ago. I asked some questions, just trying to get at the facts, and unwittingly provoked some knee-jerk reactions. After wading through the emotion I was convinced that de-commissioning that particular road was a bad idea. But on the way, the "access" argument confused me -- no matter where you put the boundary, there will be parts, nearer the boundary, that are more easily accessed and parts, further in, that are less easily accessed. So arguing for "access" just begs the question. The real question is, access to what? I was only convinced about the Middle Fork road when it became clear that what was worth "accessing" in that area were the high lakes and peaks around Dutch Miller Gap (and up the other valleys off the MFK), not the MFK valley itself, at least the (formerly) roaded parts. Take another example that is only subtly different but would have a different result. It's hard to get to Whatcom Pass. Access is super difficult there. But would we want to bulldoze a road through the Big Beaver valley to gain more easy access to it? Surely not. The Big Beaver valley itself with its towering cedars and lush marshlands is worthy of protection and "access," and makes the long trip itself to Whatcom part of the pleasure. So I think there is, theoretically, some kind of perfect equilibrium where we have enough protected, pristine wilderness, with the boundary just close (or far) enough so that the "good parts" -- whatever they are -- are both as wild and as accessible as possible. We just have to find it. That's the hard part.

[Jeepasaurusrex]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080601/OPINION01/625034983#One.barrier.remains.to.full.Wild.Sky.access I thought the idea was a "road less" area I guess it was created for lazy hikers.

[Gil]

I always wondered how long it would take that river to take out that road. I loved that drive -- what a great circle trip! But one can still get to most of the hikes, even if it takes a little more walking.

[GlacierGlider]

make more roads, to access the better hiking areas...heck just log out more areas, then there will be more access points. Gate + Dynamite = access to MFK and any other area that is gated off.

[jimmymac]

Well... at least we have you on scout's honor that you don't plink road signs.

[Foist]

Plink? Like Plinko?????