Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness Designation - Change it or Keep it?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 3:23 pm 
I think that wilderness designations are outdated, but my quibble is with the definition of wilderness. The way the Wilderness Act was written discourages the inclusion of areas with visible man made alterations. This means that areas with old fire lookouts, usuable roads, etc, can be excluded from wilderness designation, and thus protection. This makes no sense to me. There is no place on earth that has not been shaped and altered by human activities, from huckleberry fields in the Cascades that are a result of hundreds of years of Indian burning and cultivation, to old mining roads. Pretending that a potential wilderness area needs to have been "untrammeled" humans means that many otherwise worthy or threatened areas are disqualified from protection. Redefining wilderness and recognizing that humans have left imprints on the land whereever they have been would open the door to more protected lands. Here is the definition of wilderness according to the act, if anyone is wondering what I am talking about: Definition of Wilderness (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped 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 (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dante
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2815 | TRs | Pics
Dante
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 3:44 pm 
I suspect the areas designated for wilderness were and are those of least interest to extractive industries (timber, oil, mining, pertolium and natural gas, etc.). Whatever constituency the Wilderness might have, my money is still on the extractive industries' lobbies when it comes to making law frown.gif I think increasingly we will see the threat to Wilderness coming from the recreation industry and it's lobby (e.g. the American Recreation Coalition). I expect increasing pressure to open Wilderness to motorized recreation, develop recreational facilities, etc. etc. I hope I am wrong.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 3:46 pm 
If you like the idea of commercial cafes in your wilderness as in the Alps, or huts, to include blacktop roads leading up high as access, that is the place to climb and hike. As for here, I'd hate to see huts built (reserve status as in most of the Alps) at every scenic point you wish to camp at and or cafes "in sight" waiting beneath you climb for your dollars, and the specific blacktop roads leading up high as your access points. No, not in this man's book ever. Wild lands (wilderness) in America is just that, set aside for the people and the creatures that flourish within it (tho hunting & fishing is allowed) in its state as it was found as nearly as possible. If you breach that, it will never be same, and thus an innocence of the land is lost. As long as I breathe, I'll hold steadfast that the concept of having wilderness as it is defind, is far better than not, to include altering it. And not for me, but for those that follow in my footsteps..... McPil

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Larry
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap
Larry
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 3:57 pm 
McPil: I agree with your statements. Don't know what else to say. biggrin.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 4:30 pm 
..and the idea that our modern congressional folks could somehow improve what we have seems pretty unrealistic. I'd hate see to what they'd come up with to replace the current wilderness act. The areas Stefan mentioned can be crowded, but aren't unmanegable under current rules and regs. I don't see wilderness areas as broken - so why fix them?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
A. Greer
Guest




A. Greer
Guest
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 6:42 pm 
Larry wrote:
McPil: I agree with your statements. Don't know what else to say. biggrin.gif
I agree that Larry agrees with McPil. If you agree too then please add on to this thread!!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
polarbear-
Guest




polarbear-
Guest
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 7:29 pm 
First of all, on long posts I only read the first sentence, so you have to say it all there--I disagree with some, but I"m addding to this thread anyhow(so there)--because while shelters may make sense at some real lowland lakes like the ones on Wheyerhauser property (or whoever owns it now), I'd prefer not to see huts in ALW or anyother W area, and day hiking should always be unlimited--no permit required or fee of any kind--and if demand for campsites grows to large, camping permits could be distributed (figure out a system which doesn't include fees), but remember that once you introduce permits, then you have to have rangers patrolling the area checking permits, so I'd just as soon see that money go to trail maintenance, so now I am disagreeing with myself so I will change my mind and say no permits of any type, but as luck would have it I"ve kept this all in one sentence and hopefully the reader now agrees with me and as read these words of wisdom to the tail end...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 8:43 pm 
I think in the truest, purest interpretation of the Act that there should be no trails. I don't think this will ever happen, but it won't break my heart if it does.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 10:11 pm 
I think huts and such have their place, but in a limited number of places. This seems more like a national park idea than a national forest idea. The more pristine a wilderness is now, the more strict the rules should be to protect it, WITH ENFORCEMENT. Rules without enforcement of some kind are really just suggestions. Some huts, a backcountry toilet and a bear wire would actually help protect a place like Royal Basin in Olympic NP. We are not protecting places by letting people camp anywhere and sh*t in the lake!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostSat Aug 02, 2003 1:44 pm 
In National Parks (ie. Royal Lake Basin) and in perhaps some other extremely popular backcountry areas, I can see the need for furture toilets like the established ones on the Railroad Grade up in the Mt. Baker Recreation Area. I have no problem with that if is planned right and where. I do have a problem with huts being built. In Wilderness, I believe it has to be kept "somewhat and as possible" in its wild state. "...like paintings, children, and wilderness, that should be kept whole. If the Cascades are not mutilated, as so many other wild places have been, all of us are going to have help; and if we succeed, the Cascades will endure, carrying down through time all the knowledge acquired in life's long history on this planet. They will stand as living testimony that in our generation, at least, truth and beauty were not severed." "Wildness is the product of rhythm of the earth. Man in an apartment or motor car--like man in a spaceship--is an occupant of the universe but not a part of it. Only when there is wilderness, can man harmonize his inner being with the wave lengths of the earth. When the earth, its products, its creatures become his concern, man is caught up in a cause greater than his own life and more meaningful. Only when man loses himself in an endeaver of that magnitude does he walk and live with humility and reverence." --- William O. Douglas (epiloque & excerpts from book: The Wild Cascades by Harvey Manning) http://www.alpinequest.com/alpineframe.htm McPil

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie



Joined: 22 Dec 2001
Posts: 1686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Martinique
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie
PostSat Aug 02, 2003 8:19 pm 
I oppose any change to the definition of Wilderness. If Congress thought the public supported tinkering with the definition there is no telling where it will go. We could end up with all kinds of resource extraction or other development. Changing the Wilderness Act is a high-risk endeavor. As for huts in the wilderness, I see no advantage to constructing shelters for packrats and vermin, occasionally vandalized by humans. This area formerly had shelters throughout the Cascades and Olympics. The idea was abandoned because it wasn't practical.

Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jill
Got Rock?



Joined: 12 Sep 2002
Posts: 229 | TRs | Pics
Location: Vancouver
Jill
Got Rock?
PostSat Aug 02, 2003 10:31 pm 
Rich Baldwin wrote:
As for huts in the wilderness, I see no advantage to constructing shelters for packrats and vermin, occasionally vandalized by humans.
I believe this to be a very valid point. I recently went to a Wildlife Refuge area that has a lookout hut, (It has an official name but I can't recall now) to take pictures and such. It has been inhabited by birds and it was just gross. I'm not generally a picky person but it was so bad I wouldn't even go into it.

"Security is mostly a superstition. <snip> Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." Helen Keller
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Eric
Peak Geek



Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status
Eric
Peak Geek
PostSun Aug 03, 2003 12:43 pm 
Quote:
Wilderness - can be designated in an area where there are current roads. The Proposed Sky Wilderness area is full of roads. A fire lookout would be taken down. Trailhead parking lots moved out of the boundary.
If you are talking about the Evergreen Mountain Lookout which is the only one that I am aware of in that proposed wilderness then this contradicts my understanding, unless I missed some new development. I had heard they wanted to highlight the view from this summit and were talking about building a better trail rather than just what remains from the end of that loggign road but I had not heard the lookout was to be removed. confused.gif Also, both of the bills offered this congressional session offer an exception for the lookout, at least in the original versions of the bills: "EVERGREEN MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT- The designation of the Wild Sky Wilderness shall not preclude the operation and maintenance of the Evergreen Mountain Lookout, in the same manner and degree in which the operation and maintenance of the lookout was occurring as of the date of enactment of this Act. " See H.R. #822 Sec 3 (e) (2) and S. #391 Sec 4 (2) (e)

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
REJ-Guest
Guest




REJ-Guest
Guest
PostSun Aug 03, 2003 9:05 pm 
For some I don't necessarily believe the issue is "wilderness" but how the "wilderness" is managed. How the "wilderness" is managed is not necessarily controlled by the Wilderness Act but by the regulations (adopted with little public comment or understanding) used by the various federal agencies to manage "wilderness." It won't be long before more than 50% of the Mt. Baker-Snoq National Forest (currently 40+%) will be designated wilderness protection. When this occurs the vast majority of high lakes, trails and peaks of significance in the North Cascades will be "protected" by wilderness standards and regulations. In my opinion, much of the existing designated wilderness under federal management in the North Cascades does not comply with the established solitude and environmental impact standards. If this is indeed the case, significant limitations on recreational use should be established immediately to protect the fragile and extremely limited "wilderness" resource. Since the establishment of the Wilderness Act, National Forest backcountry users in the North Cascades have had an essentially free license to love the "wilderness" to death. "Wilderness" recreational users should welcome significant restictions in the future to protect the "wilderness" experience for existing and future generations.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
rubberlegs
Guest




rubberlegs
Guest
PostSun Aug 03, 2003 9:27 pm 
We are fortunate to have something that Europe can't have -- areas never trammeled by humanoids. Europe has been "civilized" for so many centuries that these places barely exist there. But our history is barely over 100 years old in these mountains. If they had a chance there, with the current standard of living, maybe they'd do the same thing. Let's keep ahold of the romantic notion that we can keep lands unspoiled. It's a difficult ideal, perhaps, but one worth striving for.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness Designation - Change it or Keep it?
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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