Forum Index > Trail Talk > Historic Value of Wilderness
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 8:01 pm 
Do you love Enchanted Valley Chalet? Do you cherish one of the few surviving historic lookouts, trail shelters, homesteads or ranger stations within Wilderness?
Enchanted Valley Chalet, 2004
Enchanted Valley Chalet, 2004
Green Mountain Lookout, 2010
Green Mountain Lookout, 2010
Alas, not all do. Just read this.
released with author's permission
released with author's permission
Please do not write the Park Service. They are fully aware that the writer is incorrect, mechanical hand tools such as winches (and more) are legal within Wilderness per NEPA process. And that the National Historic Preservation Act mandates they consider all possible alternatives to preserve sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as do NPS policy and regulations. The Superintendent, Regional Director and State Historic Preservation Officer are busy, grappling with the complex hydrologic, topographic, logistic, and most significant, legal constraints. Please do write Congress. For this is clearly not what Congress intended when they wrote the Wilderness Act section 4(a)(3) which defers to historic preservation laws. It is clearly not the intent of the legislation designating both Olympic Wilderness and Glacier Peak Wilderness; in Senate Committee testimony, their sponsors assured other senators that Wilderness designation will not interfere with the preservation of historic structures. Write your representative in support of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act (H.R. 908 / S. 404). The Wilderness Society endorses it. Washington Trust for Historic Preservation endorses it. As do a long list of local groups. Both our Senators Cantwell and Murray and Representatives DelBene and Larsen have co-sponsored it. It has passed out of Committee in both the House and Senate. Ask your member of Congress to move it to a vote now. It saves Green Mountain Lookout. Much more important, it rebuilds public consensus in support of Wilderness by reasserting Congress' intent in passing these Wilderness designations. So it will help save Enchanted Valley Chalet, too. And who knows what's next. ------------ "The court's decision has the potential to adversely impact how federal agencies will manage historic resources on public lands in the future." - Washington Trust for Historic Preservation "It will be an all-hands-on-deck effort to save this historic landmark and we'll need all the help we can get." - The Wilderness Society

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
bobbi
stillaGUAMish



Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 8012 | TRs | Pics
Location: olympics!
bobbi
stillaGUAMish
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 8:51 pm 
thanks Rod... Enchanted Valley is beautiful but one reason i wanted to go there was to see the Chalet. i would be sad if it goes downriver. frown.gif i think the Chalet was built before the place became a national park (is this correct?) the historical value of the Chalet is definitely worth saving... up.gif

bobbi ૐ "Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting. So…get on your way!" - Oh, the Places You’ll Go! By Dr. Seuss
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 10:22 pm 
I will definitely write in support of preserving these structures. I'm curious though - what was the intent of creating wilderness areas within the National Parks? The land was already preserved as National Park, so what was the thought process behind this extra layer of "protection?"

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 10:34 pm 
Donna Osseward, President of OPA wrote:
"...or other artificial contstraints on the river's hydrology. These actions would be detrimental to aquatic habitats, natural geologic process, and ecological processes the park is charged with preserving."
gee... sounds like Donna never heard of Naiman/Abbe or man-made log structures.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dane
Other



Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Dane
Other
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 10:51 pm 
Wilderness: Finally, a place where human priorities trump natural processes. tongue.gif

Without judgement what would we do? We would be forced to look at ourselves... -Death
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
yorknl
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2008
Posts: 136 | TRs | Pics
yorknl
Member
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 11:04 pm 
Chainsaw_Willie wrote:
I'm curious though - what was the intent of creating wilderness areas within the National Parks? The land was already preserved as National Park, so what was the thought process behind this extra layer of "protection?"
I don't know the exact wording, but park status doesn't really imply anything about preserving land in a wholly natural state; for many decades the interpretation was something along the lines of "national parks should be preserved in something resembling a natural state for the recreational enjoyment of the citizens." A better illustration of how park status by itself is not synonymous with wilderness status can be given by examples: golfing at Paradise in MRNP, snowmobiling inside Yellowstone (not to mention the stores and gas stations of Grant Village, Old Faithful, Mammoth Hot Springs and elsewhere); the traffic jams at Yosemite Valley; a snack bar in the depths of Carlsbad Cavern. Wilderness designation of areas within the parks is intended to prevent the spread of development beyond where it's already occurred.

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


Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 722 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellingham
Jaberwock
Member
PostFri Jan 24, 2014 11:37 pm 
I wouldn't mind seeing these structures disappear within wilderness areas.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostSat Jan 25, 2014 11:05 am 
Dane wrote:
Wilderness: Finally, a place where human priorities trump natural processes. tongue.gif
well played, sir

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


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSun Jan 26, 2014 4:17 pm 
Are historic stuctures appropriate in park Wilderness? 85% Always or Usually 1% Never
Olympic NP visitor study 2000
Olympic NP visitor study 2000
OPA represents that 1%. To the 85% - write your Congressional representative. You can save Green Mountain Lookout, and perhaps Enchanted Valley Chalet.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostSun Jan 26, 2014 5:11 pm 
Chainsaw_Willie wrote:
I will definitely write in support of preserving these structures. I'm curious though - what was the intent of creating wilderness areas within the National Parks? The land was already preserved as National Park, so what was the thought process behind this extra layer of "protection?"
National Parks tend to have acres-big parking lots and paved roads, visitor centers and the like. Wilderness designation won't allow that; it's protection from National Park development.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
HitTheTrail
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 5462 | TRs | Pics
Location: 509
HitTheTrail
Member
PostSun Jan 26, 2014 5:57 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
National Parks tend to have acres-big parking lots and paved roads, visitor centers and the like.
And often even those parking lots are not nearly big enough. This fall when my wife and I were down in Moab at Canyonlands/Arches we circled the parking lot for almost half an hour waiting for somebody to pull out so we could park and hike out to Delicate Arch. That same day we just happened to be early enough to get a spot at the Landscape Arch lot. By the time we hiked back out traffic around the parking area was chaos.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
cairn builder
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Aug 2013
Posts: 854 | TRs | Pics
cairn builder
Member
PostSun Jan 26, 2014 9:54 pm 
I've noticed you people throw a party every time you kick bikes off another trail. There's nothing you hate more than rocks being moved a few inches to create a pile. But these structures you personally use? To hell with the rules and regulations, save my precious! Let the river take the building. I'm writing NPS and my representatives to say as much. Have you ever thought maybe Starbucks should be allowed to build a franchise every mile our so on the trail? Maybe someone should put in some conveyor belts, like at the airport, for when you don't feel like walking. The wilderness needs certain improvements, doesn't it?

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


Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 993 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pasco, WA
JVesquire
Member
PostSun Jan 26, 2014 10:10 pm 
Quote:
Wilderness designation won't allow that; it's protection from National Park development.
I think this is exactly right. There was a book a few years ago about this issue, whether NPs are parks or preserves. It discussed NPS's resistance to wilderness designation because it infringed on their ability to develop their parks to encourage motorized travel and such.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Jan 27, 2014 2:38 am 
cairn builder, take a deep breath. you might want to consider switching to decaf.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7752 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostMon Jan 27, 2014 9:40 am 
I'd love to go visit the chalet if it's still there in the summer. I didn't know about this place until recently, and I'd hate to miss the opportunity. But I feel like Dane is right.
JVesquire wrote:
I think this is exactly right. There was a book a few years ago about this issue, whether NPs are parks or preserves. It discussed NPS's resistance to wilderness designation because it infringed on their ability to develop their parks to encourage motorized travel and such.
Do they have a mandate to be financially self-sufficient? Having to bring in the money means having things most people want.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Historic Value of Wilderness
  Happy Birthday theCougAbides!
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