Forum Index > Stewardship > Skykomish Wilderness (proposed)
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



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

Wild Bagger
PostFri Dec 21, 2001 9:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
As many of you know, there is a proposed Skykomish Wilderness in the works which will encompass an upper stream lowland area of the North Fork Skykomish, and protect a wonderful surrounding forest of huge old second growth to virgin trees, as well as permit fishing and hunting recreation as per all other wilderness areas in Wa. State, I came to a conculsion to endorse it. Especially, after reviewing the info and maps, as well as having conversation with Rick McGuire (Alpine Lakes Protection Society) for about half an hour after his presentation at the Snohomish Sportsmen's Club last Monday night. Mind you though, as long as main road access is not cut off for the young and elderly that can't hike to those areas. Some roads are necessary. The defined lowland areas will probably circumvent the main road. At any rate, this guy is and always will be for more wilderness areas. Comments?

--------------
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
Jonathan
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 99 | TRs
Location: Bothell
Jonathan
  Top

Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2001 10:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hey Pilchuck or anyone else,
Is there any on-line info on this proposed Skykomish Wilderness? I found some info and a map but it is on a Snowmoblie web site and not very complete. I would like to learn more.
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
salish
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2280 | TRs
Location: Seattle
salish
  Top

Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2001 11:47 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That's a Ditto for me. A few months ago I was given the name & number of a guy at The Mountaineers who suppsoedly had maps and information about this Act (Brian Curtis - was it you who told me?) but the guy never phoned me back or returned my emails. I'd like to find out more about this.
Salish

--------------
My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1486 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 12:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yeah, that was me. Bummer he never called you. The info he had was extremely preliminary anyway. They are probably getting closer to a realistic proposal by now.

--------------
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
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
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 12:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You might just try a search for Proposed Skykomish Wilderness, I think you may find a few things if you seek. I know the ALPS has some stuff on it.

--------------
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
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23122 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 10:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Where will this area start, and where will it stop? The Skykomish runs a very long ways.

TB tongue.gif

--------------
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

Abraham Lincoln
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: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 11:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I could support this if it did not include roaded areas. It seems the bar for considering an area wilderness is continually being lowered in order to accommodate limiting access. If we're talking a single spur into a contiguous area of forest somewhere, as is the case on Phelps creek, Van Epps Pass, Johnny creek, etc I don't have too much problem with it. If they want to close off Barclay creek, Eagle Creek, Jack's pass, or any of the heavily roaded areas, I'll probably oppose it.

Part of the problem is that the use of "wilderness" as defined by congress brings with it a lot of baggage, such as the ill defined and vague "solitude" clause, which contains the seeds of exclusion for any area which is popular. If we wish to preserve trees, I can't see why we can't just apply a cutting and roadbuilding ban in the areas desired if they have been used in the past. This satisfies the stated desire for protection without the exclusionary aspects of a wilderness definition.

Also I have trouble with the assumption that non foot access should be preserved in some areas for old folks or kids, the a priori assumption being that the forest is a place where access only belongs to those who choose to walk and those who don't need a physical reason defined by others (age or infirmity) to beg for non foot access. I personally believe this assumption is faulty, because people who simply choose not to visit that way, have just as much right to roaded areas as anyone willing to walk.

Adding roaded areas to a wilderness simply excludes numerous user groups and reduces opportunities for those groups, at no access expense to other groups who can always choose to walk those same roads or use those same approaches *anyway*. Basically, it takes an area open to 4x4 folks, snowmobilers, folks out for a drive, mtnbikers, hikers, etc and reduces the user group to one, hikers, in an area already containing roads to begin with.

I'm sure this makes sense to some people who only want to hike, but the exclusion of numerous other users who's opportunities will be curtailed is unsupportable to me. We need to preserve opportunities for all users, not reduce them when the one user group who would remain *already* has access.

As I said above, my personal support is contingent on the areas to be added.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23122 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 11:41 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You said that very well, Mr. Goat. I couldnt agree more.

TB cool.gif

--------------
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

Abraham Lincoln
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
borank
Lake dork



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 490 | TRs
Location: Lynnwoot
borank
  Top

Lake dork
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 3:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
As Jonathan mentioned, this site seems to have a decent map of a proposed wilderness area

Proposed Skykomish Wilderness
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
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 5:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn. Goat's words express my own feelings, I don't wish to see areas closed off to users, epecially to the young and the very old who can't hike too far if indeed roads are shut down. But I don't think (at least I hope that doesn't occur) will happen if the boundries are designed around the roads like Jack Pass. I think one needs to see the map more closely, including me, but I am all for wilderness designation as long as access is maintained to it.

--------------
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
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
  Top

Feckless Swooner
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 5:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'd love to see a new designation of FS land, something with a level of protection between wilderness and non-wilderness where development is prohibited beyond what is there (roads), trees are protected from being logged, but where road and trail maintenance can involve the use of power tools. I call this concoction of mine "Wilderness buffer" zone. In order to further this idea, no existing wildenress could turn into one of those, and Wilderness buffers would probably have to be adjacent to Wilderness areas. This designation would get a lot of play in our state, the Sky area and a lot of the MFk could benefit from it. Does anyone know if this has ever been considered? Or did Big Timber have a cow?

--------------
www.allisonoutside.com

follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
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
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 5:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
This I am not sure of, but I like this ideal, in fact it's the most logical thing I've heard of and should be promoted to those legislative folks involved. Good thoughts! Does anybody know of what WTA or even the Mountaineers think of the proposed wilderness. Having reviewed the map, I see no major road closures that would deny access to the like of the Beckler or Jacks Pass or up the NFK, other than perhaps old logging spurs being restored or put to bed.

--------------
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
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3683 | TRs
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
  Top

Member
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 9:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I also like Allison's idea of a wilderness buffer zone. This makes alot of sense. I wish that whole resort area over by Roslyn could have been a wilderness buffer zone rant.gif rant.gif rant.gif

--------------
...and a window that looks out on Corcovado...  Corcovado Hill
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: 6192 | TRs
Location: I'm on a boat
Sore Feet
  Top

Random Quippy Bit
PostSat Dec 22, 2001 11:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm all for it. Some of the areas in the proposed land do need a little mre protection than they are currently getting (Isabel Lk, Silver Creek / Mineral City, etc). It looks like the roads that will get cut off are left to a minimum. It looks like the North Fork road beyond Quartz Creek will die, a portion of the Howard Creek raod (I can't tell if it's Howard Creek or not, map isn't labeled - whatever the largest creek flowing west into the NF Sky is between Index and Galena), and a few other small pieces here and there. I'm all for it.
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: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSun Dec 23, 2001 11:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Closing spurs that are *not* single spurs surrounded by wilderness area is precisely what I oppose. It's spur roads that provide much access and opportunity regardless of the main roads that serve them.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Skykomish Wilderness (proposed)
  Happy Birthday Snowdog, Man-inna-hillz!
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