[JimK]

BPJ, that old piece of the Green Mt. Trail has been abandoned for many decades. Quark and I took a look for it on our bike trip up the Suiattle last summer. We found an old outhouse and a few cut logs at the start. We soon lost the route where it seems to have fallen into the creek. Bring loppers and gloves if you want to try and get anywhere on that old trail.

[Backpacker Joe]

Thanks James. Good info. to know.

[Quark]

I do want to add that along with Snowbrushy's comment about the frontier aspect that closed roads give, I have felt the same way, and still do, but not as a forever thing. As a matter of fact, I used the words, "romantic" and "frontier" in trip reports of these areas whose access was wiped out. I am drawn to these areas anyway, but in even moreso because of the access issues. I could have waited til the Suiattle Rd was fixed in 2009 to do Sulphur Mtn. I could have waited til the Boundary Bridge was in & access was restured to Circle Peak before doing that and Meadow Mtn (when we planned the trip, the Boundary Bridge was a sure thing in 2009). But the inaccessibility of these places played the object of desire, and I wanted to get in there. So yeah, I know what Snowbrushy is talking about. But to lose access forever? Naw. It's a thrill every decade or so, but folks oughta be able to get to these places.

[Snowbrushy]

[silence]

yeah snowbrushy .. my initial thought, too ... but, this road isn't in designated wilderness (which would've made it more about ideology/policy) and i lack knowledge about the specifics so just wanted to keep on subject: lack of funding for the FS (and NPS) -- a sad fact today -- and the need for our voices to be heard for whatever the cause.

[Snowbrushy]

No roads are in Wilderness. Why was the road put there in the first place? Was it a fire lookout to protect timber for possible harvest? If so, that would be a Multiple Use philosophy ( Read: Gifford Pinchot) which has carried over .. Now it is called 'easy access' for day hikers. I volunteer to help re-build the old trail. Where do I sign up?

[Eric]

[WTM]

I was once told by a ranger who had previously worked in mining, that the only reason that there was not a copper mine in the vicinity of Image Lake was because the international price of copper was too low. Well, times have changed. Nowadays, people are stripping fixtures out of every unguarded piece of hardware they can find to get at it. If, due to loss of traffic up the Suiattle, we lose advocacy, we won't have to worry about Public funding for the road. The copper companies will have one built. But not for OUR use.

[Quark]

All roads in National Forests lead to logging. The fire lookouts didn't need roads. They used the trails, if any - walked from the Sauk ranger station at Sauk, along the Suiattle Trail before the road was built in 1930/31, then huffed up the mountain. The trail was shortened when the road was built for logging. These roads were built using old technology, if any; with no regard for preservation of the environment. I don't know how the Green Mtn road is affecting the watershed; I'm waiting to hear from someone at Darrington about that before I participate in the public comment session.

[silence]

i just read that buck creek is in the GP Wilderness .. but i can't find a definitive map anywhere online .. just curious .. does anyone know??

[wamtngal]

Yes, Buck Creek is in Glacier Peak Wilderness. Re: the mine at Image Lake...I thought the reason, largely, that the mine wasn't put in at Image Lake was due to the successful uproar of hikers/horse users/backpackers? I've read about it in some old North Cascade Conservation Council newsletters. Re: the Green Mtn rd affecting the aquatic life/watershed...would seem to me that maintaining the road as high-clearance would have more of a detrimental affect, much more so than maintaining the road for passenger vehicles, which would take more upkeep. Typically, roads affect watersheds/aquatic life by the dirt (and with that pollution that is shed from car tires/exhaust) that is sloughed off with rainfall. Roads can also fall into creeks (the road crosses two creeks and is an uphill road) and the sediment can muddy up the water, which isn't great for productive aquatic life...those are just two examples. I agree with Tom's sentiment/letter that it appears the FS is trying to cover the lack of funding by pulling out the watersheds conservancy card. No doubt that the watershed is affected by vehicle traffic (of course), but funding is most likely the #1 cause.

[Snowbrushy]

[WTM]

[wamtngal]

[Quark]

amen to the backcountry horsemen. as evidenced on just this one thread, hikers have very little cohesion. taking something from hikers is like taking candy from a baby. we get all stirred up like hornets after the fact (case in point - the multiple Mtn Loop highway threads - after the public comment period was over). it's difficult to base an opinion on a watershed study that we haven't seen. It's easy to surmise the whole thing really is about budget, but difficult to base a decision on budget without proof that it is about budget. If it were about budget, there would be more outcry. But the watershed - if you disagree, you're against the watershed....? Is it a game? Dunno. The Suiattle drainage at Green Mtn. is very wide and flat. It seems to me, a layperson, that unlike creeks that dump into the river fairly quickly after exiting the slope above it, Captain Creek and the others that come off Green Mtn, go through a large natural filtering process and deposit their load before hitting the Suiattle, which, by the way, at that point is already chock-full of bedload from upriver. At any rate, let's hope for the best; the folks who don't care about the road are alright with it being re-classified, the folks who care about the road will still have a road. For the record, I still haven't made up my mind about it.