Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness Watch sues Olympic NP
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic

Historic preservation within Wilderness is and should be:
Legal
83%
 83%  [ 59 ]
Illegal
16%
 16%  [ 12 ]
Total Votes : 71

Author Message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Feb 22, 2016 10:16 am 
Highly visited locations like Mt Whitney, Camp Muir, Camp Shurman, etc. Strain some aspects of "Wilderness". An important value enumerated in the Wilderness Act of 1964 is "solitude". Clearly at these locations that value doesn't exist. I don't favor tighter quotas as a way of reducing usage to within the "biocapacity" of the location to compost human poo. I'd favor allowing more flexibility to the NPS and USFS for having infrastructure to support the number of users. Either that or enforce proper blue bag usage using technology like this http://www.pooprintswest.com/ Getting your permit would involve a DNA swab and hefty fines for failing to "pack it all out"

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


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
Member
PostMon Feb 22, 2016 2:13 pm 
backcountry toilets > blue bags I can't imagine that swabbing everyone for DNA would be remotely affordable for the park service. With DNA swabs I suspect that enforcement would be a difficult task indeed. Backcountry toilets are relatively cheap, and you don't have to threaten people to get them to use a toilet.

Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Feb 23, 2016 5:17 am 
Wilderness Watch, in its complaint wrote:
65. On information and belief, the Park Service rebuilt Pelton Creek Shelter, or it intends to rebuild the Pelton Shelter, as part of the Park Service’s ongoing program to rehabilitate and reconstructman-made structures in the Olympic Wilderness. On information and belief, the Park Service completed, or intends to complete, reconstruction of Pelton Creek Shelter in reliance on a legally insufficient MRW, a legally insufficient environmental review under NEPA, and where the reconstruction is not “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose...
^ well, so much for credibility, eh? that's a crock. Rod, Ernie called me on the phone right after he got back after taking a photographer up there - told me the entire area had been burned over and there wasn't a trace of the shelter left. I believe it's a reasonable assumption that Ernie actually knew its location, even though the college boys with their GPS units couldn't manage to find it. (At least not the guy on the fire crew that I was in communication with on an almost daily basis.) I didn't vote in your poll because we both know damn good and well that historic preservation is in fact quite legal within Olympic National Park and within designated wilderness areas, although there still seem to be some malcontents who dispute reality. So I wouldn't say your poll question is "histrionic", but rather "rhetorical", because the preservation of cultural and historic resources was, is, and will continue to be legal under not only the Wilderness Act but all the other statutes that come into play as well, most of which both you and I are quite familiar with. Maybe Wilderness Watch is hurting for money so they figured ONP was an easy target... who knows? The old "low hanging fruit" thing, maybe? And just out of curiosity, how long has Sarah been up there? Seems like some of that stuff they're claiming to have happened pre-dates her stint up there. Shouldn't they be going after the former Superintendent instead? lol.gif Take care, man. You know how to get ahold of me if you want. I'm having fun frying other fish where I don't have to listen to whiners. BK

"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
graywolf
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 808 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
graywolf
Member
PostTue Feb 23, 2016 7:01 am 
Ski wrote:
Wilderness Watch, in its complaint wrote:
65. On information and belief, the Park Service rebuilt Pelton Creek Shelter, or it intends to rebuild the Pelton Shelter, as part of the Park Service’s ongoing program to rehabilitate and reconstructman-made structures in the Olympic Wilderness. On information and belief, the Park Service completed, or intends to complete, reconstruction of Pelton Creek Shelter in reliance on a legally insufficient MRW, a legally insufficient environmental review under NEPA, and where the reconstruction is not “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose...
^ well, so much for credibility, eh? that's a crock. Rod, Ernie called me on the phone right after he got back after taking a photographer up there - told me the entire area had been burned over and there wasn't a trace of the shelter left. I believe it's a reasonable assumption that Ernie actually knew its location, even though the college boys with their GPS units couldn't manage to find it. (At least not the guy on the fire crew that I was in communication with on an almost daily basis.) I didn't vote in your poll because we both know damn good and well that historic preservation is in fact quite legal within Olympic National Park and within designated wilderness areas, although there still seem to be some malcontents who dispute reality. So I wouldn't say your poll question is "histrionic", but rather "rhetorical", because the preservation of cultural and historic resources was, is, and will continue to be legal under not only the Wilderness Act but all the other statutes that come into play as well, most of which both you and I are quite familiar with. Maybe Wilderness Watch is hurting for money so they figured ONP was an easy target... who knows? The old "low hanging fruit" thing, maybe? And just out of curiosity, how long has Sarah been up there? Seems like some of that stuff they're claiming to have happened pre-dates her stint up there. Shouldn't they be going after the former Superintendent instead? lol.gif Take care, man. You know how to get ahold of me if you want. I'm having fun frying other fish where I don't have to listen to whiners. BK
Ski, I've been wondering when you would weigh in on this. Totally in agreement with you. You, Rod and a couple of others are the folks I look to for the real information about the Olympics. graywolf

The only easy day was yesterday...
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Alpendave
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 863 | TRs | Pics
Alpendave
Member
PostSat May 28, 2016 10:31 am 
Slugman wrote:
cefire wrote:
trestle wrote:
Wilderness Watch = shelter haters That laws were broken has yet to be established.
To be fair, wilderness and permanent shelters are incompatible concepts.
On what basis do you make this claim? Most people would give some attempt at justifying that comment. It seems that a blanket statement like that could apply to trails, trail signs, campsites, bear wires, any sign that people have ever gone there. Olympic is a national park, they allow many things that a purist wouldn't like. The purists should go elsewhere, let normal people have a park the way they want it.
I agree with Slugman here. In fact, nothing leaves a trace (legally, that is) of human activity quite like a network of trails and backcountry campsites. Besides, a shelter constructed out of wood will do far less to mess up my wilderness photograph than a bright yellow north face tent.

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


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostTue May 31, 2016 7:42 pm 
cefire, heard enough yet? wink.gif

"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jun 07, 2016 12:51 am 
graywolf wrote:
Ski, I've been wondering when you would weigh in on this. Totally in agreement with you. You, Rod and a couple of others are the folks I look to for the real information about the Olympics. graywolf
Thanks. Sorry about the extended absence, but I no longer have much tolerance for people who choose to just spout before bothering to do any fact-checking, or those who believe their own little interpretation of one section of the Wilderness Act of 1964 is the sole definition of what constitutes "Wilderness" (and how it should be managed) at the exclusion of a plethora of other federal statutes which come into play, each of which carries as much weight as any other; something which Rod mentioned up-thread. The continual lawsuits filed on deals like this result in a tremendous amount of wasted time, effort, energy and money that could otherwise be used constructively to repair bridges and roads, maintain trails, and help to educate the tourist traffic about wilderness values. Inexplicably, for reasons which are not entirely clear to me, groups such as Wilderness Watch persist in their attempts to ramrod through their own interpretation of a section of the Wilderness Act of 1964, completely ignoring the provisions detailed in other federal statutes, and worse using misinformation and outright lies to further their agenda. - joker, I have a great deal of respect for your thoughtful and considerate comments, but you are apparently not well-versed on the history and construction of the structures within Olympic National Park, each of which (as Rod has repeatedly pointed out in this and many other threads) has its own unique characteristics and stands as a living example of a particular place in history. Certainly, as has been suggested, we could simply photograph them and have tourists flip through a photo collection, but for the same reasons historic artifacts are maintained in museums, some of these remaining structures should certainly be preserved, maintained and (in some cases) restored (as has already been done with some, like the Peter Roose homestead.) A photograph in a book or hanging on a wall is not the same thing as the actual thing itself. Yes, most all of them are infested with mice. They've always been that way as long as I can recall (see my notes in another thread concerning the Spruce Bottom Shelter.) - Re-reading this entire thread this evening, it is quite clear that several members commenting here need to take the time to actually read the federal statutes which come into play on this issue before clicking the "submit" button below. I'm sure you all mean well, but some of the comments here really are quite silly and show a complete lack of understanding of what's in play when it comes to the federal laws concerning wilderness management. I would suggest beginning with the Organic Act, and then the Antiquities Act, and then the National Historic Preservation Act. (It's late and I can't remember them all right now off the top of my head. Maybe Rod or Kim can list those I left out.) Thanks. * BTW: although the comment period ended 06/06 on the Mt. Rainier National Park Fisheries Management Plan, Rebecca Lofgren told me they would consider comments submitted after the deadline, but don't wait too long. The issue of non-indigenous fish species might sound insignificant on the surface, but as in every case where non-native species are introduced, problems arise which compromise the integrity of our wild places. Non-native fishes inter-breed with native fishes, and they can be disastrous for indigenous species of amphibians. ... back to my other hobby for now.

"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jun 07, 2016 1:25 am 
one further note for your consideration - something I posted in another thread a few years back: "It was noted by those knowledgeable about NPS history that The Leopold Report, one of the most important guidance documents ever written for the NPS, which has heavily influenced the Service's thinking and policy development since 1965, suggests that national parks should be maintained as "vignettes of primitive America." This implies a condition coincident with that which Native Americans would have caused, rather than a condition where no human had affected the landscape." * * "A New Beginning for Equity & Understanding Through National Parks and Traditionally Associated American Indian Tribes" Yurok Indian Reservation, Klamath, California Oct. 7-9, 2003 - ^ now go back and re-read that and replace "Native Americans" with "European Americans". Olympic National Park was established in 1938.

"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
John Morrow
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1526 | TRs | Pics
Location: Roslyn
John Morrow
Member
PostFri Jun 10, 2016 4:21 pm 
I am assuming that all engaged in this discussion are both familiar with and referencing the 1964 Wilderness Act. For anyone reading who is less familiar with the Act itself, here is the complete text: http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/legisact

“Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?”-Mary Oliver “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.” ― MLK Jr.
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
PostFri Jun 10, 2016 6:04 pm 
John Morrow wrote:
I am assuming that all engaged in this discussion are both familiar with and referencing the 1964 Wilderness Act. For anyone reading who is less familiar with the Act itself, here is the complete text: http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/legisact
Quite right! All of it, including: Section(2)(c) "may also contain other features of historical value." Section(3)(c) "Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance of roadless areas within units of the national park system." Section 4(a)(3) "Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with ..." the National Park Organic Act, the Antiquities Act and National Historic Sites Act, which allow the preservation of necessary or historic structures. Section(4) "wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use." Who knows the intent of these provisions of the Wilderness Act? Senator Frank Church was floor sponsor of the 1964 Wilderness Act (and the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts of 1968, and the Eastern Wilderness Areas Act of 1974). In 1977, while co-sponsoring the Endangered American Wilderness Act, the Central Idaho Wilderness Act and the National Historic Trails Act, he wrote the following. "The Purity Issue. "My final comments tonight concern the issue of wilderness purity. Time after time, when we discuss wilderness, questions are raised about how developed an area can be and still qualify as wilderness, or what kinds of activities within a wilderness area are consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act. I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed. "...perhaps most tragic of all, to the burning of historic cabins to eliminate the evidence of earlier human habitation. "Such policies are misguided. If Congress had intended that wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have written the law as we did. ... It was not the intent of Congress that wilderness be administered in so pure a fashion as to needlessly restrict its customary public use and enjoyment. Quite to the contrary, Congress fully intended that wilderness should be managed to allow its use by a wide spectrum of Americans. "In summary, if purity is to be an issue in the management of wilderness, let it focus on preserving the natural integrity of the wilderness environment - and not on needless restriction of the facilities necessary to protect the area while providing for human use and enjoyment." Source: Senator Frank Church, "Wilderness in a Balanced Land Use Framework", Wilderness Resource Distinguished Lecture, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, March 21, 1977, pages 10-11.

"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Jun 13, 2016 11:13 am 
John Morrow wrote:
I am assuming that all engaged in this discussion are both familiar with and referencing the 1964 Wilderness Act. For anyone reading who is less familiar with the Act itself, here is the complete text:
For anyone reading who is less familiar with some of the other Federal Statutes which come into play, none of which is subordinate to the Wilderness Act of 1964 (or any other Federal Statute) here are the links: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 https://www.nps.gov/grba/learn/management/organic-act-of-1916.htm American Antiquities Act of 1906 https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm National Historic Sites Act https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_HistSites.pdf National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 http://www.achp.gov/nhpa.html
RodF wrote:
'...which allow the preservation of..."
(emphasis added) It should be noted that the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (URL posted just above) Congressionally mandates that the Director of the National Park Service cooperate with the State Historic Preservation Officer and is required by law to protect, preserve, maintain, and/or restore (as per provisions within the statute) structures and other artifacts that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It's all fine and well to have the Wilderness Act of 1964 memorized chapter and verse, but without an understanding of the other statutes that come into play (again, all of which have equal weight under the law) only an uninformed opinion can be formulated. ( something tells me I may have left one or two off the list above ) (* edit: per phone call, the above four acts pretty much cover things - the NHPA being "the biggie", but one should also take a look at the founding documents for Olympic National Park of 1938 * pers. comm. DC/ONP/061316 *)

"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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostWed Jun 15, 2016 1:51 pm 
Preservation Groups Unite to Support Historic Structures in Olympic National Park Washington (June 15, 2016) — National, state and local preservation groups have recently joined together to support the preservation of historic structures in Olympic National Park, a vast wilderness comprised of glacier-capped mountains, rain forests, and over 70 miles of Pacific coastline. Recently, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in favor of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation and the Friends of Olympic National Park joining litigation in support of the National Park Service's authority to maintain the historic structures of Olympic National Park. Following are statements from the preservation groups: Brian Turner, senior field officer and attorney, National Trust for Historic Preservation: "The precious few cabins, trail shelters and other rustic structures that remain within the Olympic Wilderness provide an unobtrusive complement to the park's natural beauty. They enrich visitors' experience and provide a safe spot for backpackers of all ages to seek shelter during a storm, or to gaze upon the park's stunning beauty. These structures also serve as a tangible link to the early history of the park, and the distinctive craftsmanship of that era. "In joining this lawsuit, we are asking the court to affirm the National Park Service's authority to maintain and manage Olympic's historic structures in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Wilderness Act. These two laws are in the public interest and can and should be used in concert to guide the stewardship of all wilderness areas in the public domain, to ensure that future generations are able to experience the wealth of America's natural and structural historic treasures." Chris Moore, executive director, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation: "Olympic National Park is one of the most dramatic landscapes in Washington State. Amid its towering peaks and glacial fields are the last remnants of the places that led to the creation of the Park itself. The historic resources remaining in the backcountry remind Washingtonians of the legacy of the pioneering conservationists who made this cherished park a reality." Rod Farlee, vice-president, Friends of Olympic National Park: "The shelters and cabin at the heart of this lawsuit embody the history of Olympic National Park's trail system. They were built to support the original construction and maintenance of the trails, which led to widespread appreciation of the beauty and natural resources of the Olympics. We are joining this lawsuit to send a strong message of support to Park staff for their ongoing efforts to preserve this important part of the region's legacy." About the Historic Structures of Olympic National Park These shelters, including those built by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, are closely intertwined with the history of Olympic National Park itself. Originally constructed to support the creation and maintenance of trails in the early 20th century and to detect and fight forest fires, they enhanced recreational use and opened up the park to the public in a way never before possible. Published accounts of visitors who stayed in these shelters led to widespread appreciation of the beauty of the Olympics, and ultimately to its preservation by U.S. Congress in 1938 as a national park and in 1988 as a wilderness. Only 18 of the original 90 shelters in Olympic Wilderness remain today. They are all eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service should be encouraged to continue the ongoing maintenance of those remaining to ensure that the Park's historic shelter system remains intact for all future visitors. About the Lawsuit Montana-based Wilderness Watch has sued the National Park Service, seeking the court-ordered removal of four trail shelters and a cabin from the park's wilderness areas. But the preservation groups supporting NPS believe these rustic log shelters are in keeping with the primitive beauty of the park's backcountry, visited by 40,000 annually. The preservation groups are represented pro bono by Elaine L. Spencer and David O. Bechtold of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP. About the Specific Structures at Risk
Canyon Creek Shelter
Canyon Creek Shelter
Elk Lake Shelter
Elk Lake Shelter
Botten Cabin
Botten Cabin
Canyon Creek Shelter constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1939 overlooking Sol Duc Falls. This is a T-shaped, one-story log building with a wood-shaked, cross-gabled roof set on a concrete foundation. This shelter is the only CCC-built shelter remaining in the Park of three built. It was listed on the National Register in April 2007 for its architectural significance and association with the CCC. Elk Lake Shelter, 15 trail miles up the Hoh River, is a three-sided 14' x 14' log shelter with open front. Shelters at Elk Lake have offered refuge to climbers approaching Mt. Olympus since 1927. This shelter, a replacement built in 1963, represents the last variation of shelter design in the Park. Wilder Shelter, 21 trail miles up the Elwha River, is a 12' x 12' three-sided solid log structure built in 1951 to accommodate backcountry visitors. It was listed on the National Register in 2008. Botten Cabin, near Wilder, is an 11' x 17' log cabin with gabled roof built in 1928 featuring fine,hand-crafted, dovetail-notched corners. The cabin is actively used as an emergency shelter. It was listed on the National Register in April of 2007 for its architectural significance and association with recreational history in the park. Bear Camp Shelter is a three-sided solid log structure 12'x16' deep built in 1952. It is 16 trail miles up the Dosewallips River. About the National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a privately funded nonprofit organization, works to save America's historic places. SavingPlaces.org | @savingplaces About the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation Established in 1976, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation preserves Washington's historic places through advocacy, education,collaboration, and stewardship. PreserveWA.org | @preservewa About Friends of Olympic National Park Formed in 2001 with the mission of supporting Olympic National Park in preserving the Park's natural, cultural and recreational resources for the benefit of present and future generations. FriendsONP.org

"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Jun 15, 2016 5:21 pm 
thanks Rod. you know... I have to wonder.... if this "Wilderness Watch" outfit is so concerned about protecting "wilderness values" and that elusive "wilderness experience", why don't they focus their energies and attention on something which really puts a damper on my "wilderness experience" and do something about the US Navy fighter jets flying over ONP all afternoon?

"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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Jun 17, 2016 5:21 am 
"Preservation groups fight lawsuit to axe historic Olympic National Park shelters" - Seattle PI "The Montana-based Wilderness Watch, thwarted in its bid to remove a lookout in the North Cascades, is going to court seeking to axe four historic trail shelters and a cabin from the backcountry of Olympic National Park." "Group's lawsuit threatens Wilderness Act it seeks to protect" - Everett Herald "Battles over rustic shelters only divert time and resources that instead could be used to lobby for passage of the Wild Olympics bill. More importantly, such rigid demands risk the loss of public support for the protections offered by the Wilderness Act." "Lawsuit underway this week targets aging Olympic National Park buildings" - Peninsula Daily News, Tri-City Herald, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Washington Times, Lewiston Tribune, Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce "Shelters can save lives in our parks" - Kitsap Sun "Shelters are certain to save a few more, if park officials are allowed to restore and maintain them." "Preservation Groups Unite to Support Historic Structures in Olympic National Park" - KBKW, Washington Dept. Archaeology & Historic Preservation, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation "Exceptions ruin the entire idea" - Everett Herald letter "Wilderness structures part of our history" - Everett Herald op-ed and letter "Like Green Mountain Lookout, these trail shelters are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Wanton destruction of history, the temples in Palmyra by ISIS or the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban, is denounced across the civilized world. We cannot stand by while ideologues destroy our few surviving wilderness historic sites here in Northwest."

"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
cefire
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
cefire
Member
PostMon Jun 20, 2016 8:51 pm 
trestle wrote:
cefire, heard enough yet? wink.gif
Haha, I say "UNCLE"!!! My opinion certainly is in the minority, but I'm still having a difficult time understanding why we need to preserve these "historic" buildings. lol.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness Watch sues Olympic NP
  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