Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Olympics Wilderness Act passes House
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 286 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 9:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
I'm not understanding your argument. You are suggesting that if a road that is not in a wilderness washes out, that somehow the fact that there is a wilderness area nearby will prevent the road from being fixed? Wilderness areas are not run or managed by environmental groups. It is a land use designation. Wilderness areas cannot have any roads in them, only trails.

Are you sure you're up to speed on these issues? Man, you are way, way off. One example, it took twenty years fighting lawsuits from NCCC and Pilchuck Audubon to get the Suiattle Road repaired--and it's NOT even in a wilderness area.

altasnob wrote:
Typically, groups who oppose wilderness are resource extraction industries. Mountain bikers sometimes oppose wilderness because they are banned from wilderness. But the State's largest mountain biking group, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance supports this wilderness expansion. I am struggling to understand why so many people who post on a hiking blog oppose wilderness. Do you prefer to hike in clear cuts and gravel pits? Please educate me.


Sorry, this is a simpleton's view. You claim to be an environmental attorney, but your lack of grounding here is giving me doubts.  In any event, I suspect you are not the least bit interested in being educated.

altasnob wrote:
Do you prefer to hike in clear cuts and gravel pits?

I think most of us prefer hiking on trails and not endless miles of abandoned road.
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11143 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 9:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
"Here is a list..."

.... and I would give a rats ass about that .... WHY? I don't give a damn about WHO - I am concerned only with the WHAT.

Brian R wrote:
Are you sure you're up to speed on these issues?

Obviously, from his question, he is not.

Brian R wrote:
Sorry, this is a simpleton's view. You claim to be an environmental attorney, but your lack of grounding here is giving me doubts.

Seemingly no "grounding" at all. Arguing from a belief system as opposed to facts and science.

as nwhikers member restep suggests, perhaps you should look into the history of the Dosewallips Road story.
you claim you wish to be educated - so find the thread and read it in its entirety.
then feel free to come back and tell us all about how wrong we are about these charlatans.

can't wait.

search  "Dosewallips" / search by TITLE only / search "Stewardship" forum only / you'll come up with about a dozen threads... start with the oldest and go from there...

as an aside:

your remarks to Rod are actually pretty funny.
you really need to get some understanding of the history of these projects.
I really kind of doubt anybody here is going to be willing to take the time to re-hash the last 20 years of this fiasco with you.

Hopefully this whole thing will fail miserably in the Senate. One can always hope, right?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 224 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 9:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
reststep wrote:
You could start by looking into the history of what went on with the Dosewallips River Road after the washout.

What went on with the Dosewallips River Road wash out? I read the old threads but they just include grown men flaming and throwing childish insults without providing any cites to any evidence. Did the fact there is wilderness areas nearby prevent the repair of this road? Or was it because repairing the road would be extremely costly and involve reroutes that were not practical? Please provide cites, not opinions.

I still am looking for specific evidence of how having a wilderness area near a road that is not in the wilderness prevents the road from being repaired. Looking at the map of the proposed Wild Olympics Wilderness it appears there is a buffer around all existing access roads. So if the road were to wash out, it could be repaired without a reroute into the wilderness.

It appears people like to blame wilderness areas for the reasons roads are not repaired but in reality, it is a host of other reasons. Again, if you disagree, please provide evidence.
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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 224 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 10:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R wrote:
One example, it took twenty years fighting lawsuits from NCCC and Pilchuck Audubon to get the Suiattle Road repaired--and it's NOT even in a wilderness area.

Yes, the Suiatttle Road is not in a wilderness. So the fact there was wilderness areas nearby had no bearing on whether the road was repaired quickly or not. The lawsuits filed against the repair of the Suiatttle Road had nothing to do with the fact that there was wilderness nearby. In other words, the same claims could be made regardless of whether there is wilderness nearby.

So turning to the Wild Olympics Wilderness, if a road near the new expanded wilderness gets washed out and needs to be repaired, yes, an environmental group could sue claiming the repair was violating some environmental law. But this is true regardless of whether the Wild Olympics Wilderness Act passes or not. Passing the Wild Olympics Wilderness Act would not prompt these lawsuits, just as the fact that not passing the Act would not prevent these law suits.

I am still waiting for evidence that wilderness nearby a road prevents repair of that road? The only situation I can think of is if the road needs to be totally rerouted well off the existing route. In that situation, a reroute could be prevented by the adjacent wilderness. But I don't think this possibility, alone, is a reason to not designate land wilderness. And the solution is to provide enough buffer to not have this problem (like the Wild Olympics Wilderness Act appears to have done; there are setbacks of 200-500 feet to address this specific issue).

And as RodF has pointed out in another thread, wilderness, like any land designation, can be modified by Congress. So if the only reason a road is not repaired is because of adjacent wilderness, and the people of America really, really wanted that road repaired, Congress can move the boundary of the wilderness to allow the repair.
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
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5828 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 10:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Took 11 years to get the Suiattle repaired, not twenty. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a pain in the ass, and most of the extremist views were bullsh##.

I'm happy about the Olympics legislation. I hope it goes. Particularly the Wild & Scenic designation. I think even Ken-fricken-tucky has more WS miles than we do, and that's just embarrassing.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11143 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 10:57 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
"I am still waiting..."

Enjoy your waiting.

There have been a number of questions asked of you which you chose not to address.

If you want the information badly enough, you'll go through those threads I told you how to find, and you'll find it. Simple. It's all there for you, should you take the time to read it.

Obviously from your comment above, you not only didn't bother to read any of the information that's already been posted, you've already made your conclusions about its content without even bothering to look.

There's a word for that: "infantile".

Enjoy your waiting.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2535 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 11:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Anne Elk wrote:
I wonder if there was some "giveaway" in order for these protections to get attached to the NDAA,  like continuing to allow the Whidbey NAS flyboys to continue conducting war games over the park.  huh.gif

Done.

Protecting America's Wilderness Act was amended to include this provision:

Quote:
SEC. 801. Military activities.
Nothing in this Act precludes—
(1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over wilderness areas;
(2) the designation of new units of special airspace over wilderness areas; or
(3) the establishment of military flight training routes over wilderness areas.

Following atlasnob's argument above, if the people of America really, really didn't want military training overflights of wilderness areas, then the House would not have adopted that amendment by an overwealming recorded roll call vote of 419 to 1.  Or perhaps such statements might be a bit shallow... rolleyes.gif  Might this process (and much of this thread, as well) be more political rhetoric than thoughtful land management?

--------------
"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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 286 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 23, 2020 11:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
Yes, the Suiatttle Road is not in a wilderness. So the fact there was wilderness areas nearby had no bearing on whether the road was repaired quickly or not. The lawsuits filed against the repair of the Suiatttle Road had nothing to do with the fact that there was wilderness nearby.

You're not from around here, are you. California?

The lawsuits had everything to do with access to the nearby Glacier Peak Wilderness area.  Alta, please--just stop. Making things up doesn't make them so. Educate yourself on the historical and legal roots of local issues and come back to the topic when you know 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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 224 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 6:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R wrote:
You're not from around here, are you. California?

Ah, it isn't a nwhikers thread without Brian R, or some other yahoo, pulling the nativist card. I am pretty sure my Washington and PNW roots go back farther than you, or just about anyone else who posts on this site. But guess what, that doesn't matter. Some person from CA has just as much right to wilderness in Washington. Some person who just got off the plane from India (or any other country on earth), with green card in hand, has just as much right as me to Washington wilderness. That is what makes America great.
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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 224 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 6:28 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
Anne Elk wrote:
I wonder if there was some "giveaway" in order for these protections to get attached to the NDAA,  like continuing to allow the Whidbey NAS flyboys to continue conducting war games over the park.  huh.gif

Done.

Protecting America's Wilderness Act was amended to include this provision:

Quote:
SEC. 801. Military activities.
Nothing in this Act precludes—
(1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over wilderness areas;
(2) the designation of new units of special airspace over wilderness areas; or
(3) the establishment of military flight training routes over wilderness areas.


Protecting America's Wilderness Act is not the legislation that would authorize the Wild Olympics Wilderness. So I am not sure why you are claiming in order to pass the Wild Olympics Wilderness Act there was a "giveaway" involving low-level military aircraft. The amendment you quoted was proposed by a politician from South Carolina.

And even if this language was in the act authorizing the Wild Olympics Wilderness, I would gladly take the increased wilderness expansion in exchange for making it clear that low-level military flights are not precluded from wilderness areas. The status quo, today, allows this (that is why we have low-level military flights over protected lands today). So this amendment would not change the status quo. The amendment makes it clear that no environmental organization, or other entity, could sue the military claiming the wilderness act precludes such activity.
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
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5828 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 9:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Everyone, stop being such jerks. altasnob is right, and you are also right. It's never black-and-white. How about a decent discussion instead of running the guy into the ground because you don't agree.

altasnob wrote:
Yes, the Suiatttle Road is not in a wilderness. So the fact there was wilderness areas nearby had no bearing on whether the road was repaired quickly or not. The lawsuits filed against the repair of the Suiatttle Road had nothing to do with the fact that there was wilderness nearby.

altasnob, in this case, it was, at least in part, because 2 different groups opposed for different reasons. NC3, who opposed  (very few, but they had money and a lawyer friend) have been interested in expansion of wilderness in that area for decades. They viewed the Suiattle Road washout and the Illabot Road as an opportunity to made good on their eons-ago plan of a "7 Rivers Wilderness Area." The other person and Pilchuck Audubon aren't into wilderness, and may not even know much about wilderness at all; but rather are concerned about the protection of fish.

On the other hand, these people oppose all road repair, so could be that even if wilderness wasn't nearby, they may still have opposed it.

Recent examples of road repair adjacent to wilderness is the Road 63 to the N Fk Skykomish trail head, which is surrounded by wilderness; you can see the wilderness sign at the last parking spot - that's the border. This road has been repaired multiple times.

Also the N Fk Sauk Road, which wilderness is within a few minutes walk from the parking lot; multiple repairs.

Ongoing repairs of the Mid Fk Snoqualmie Road; the wilderness boundary is immediately  across the Gateway Bridge.

Often, a trunk road is carved out of wilderness in order to gain support for that wilderness. And people don't forget, either!

But that's not to say you aren't correct! As evidenced by the Battle over the Suiattle - some environmentalists do threaten to sue, or they do sue. But I don't know that any win is or is not because of wilderness specifically; it's most always "some damn fish." * Or bird.

I think (but not sure) that here and there, the end of some roads have been shortened due to real or perceived encroachment of motorized use into wilderness.




*Congressman Volkmer, as called out to the Jack Ward Thomas and his study committees on the old growth/spotted owl "controversy," 1991-ish

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 9761 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 10:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
Everyone, stop being such jerks. altasnob is right, and you are also right. It's never black-and-white. How about a decent discussion instead of running the guy into the ground because you don't agree.

This is a guy who called folks (me and others) right wing nut jobs for a thread about how much environmental lawsuits cost.  What's good for the goose...

Now back on the topic...

All is not good with wilderness designation.  Trails will take longer to open as folks must use cross cut saws to log out trails.  That has also been discussed in other threads.

Smoke. What with climate change, there is a possibility of more fires in the area.  Wilderness designation often causes management to put in teams of firefighters to monitor the fire.  That's fine until, like has happened on the Okanogan/Wenatchee, the fire blows up.  Unlike when that happens here, there is a greater likelihood of smoking up the Puget Sound area--which might be a good thing  depending upon your thought process.  Once again, unless given the go ahead by someone at the right authority level, crews would be limited to using hand tools. 

And yeah, there's the fires are good frame of mind.  I'd amend that to fires are good until you have to breathe the thick smoke for weeks on end, or watch it burn out of the wilderness and down the valley to where your home is, or burns so hot that mudslides become a hazard afterwards, or it kills so much of the wildlife that some species become endangered...and so on.

I believe part of the roads not getting repaired is the Buffer theory.  A wilderness is formed, lines are drawn, and then the boundary must be buffered because folks are offended by seeing non wilderness activities on their drive to the trailhead.  Later, the buffer must be buffered, and so on, because "there can never be enough wilderness". 

Just something else to consider.  Fire came to mind because a large mushroom cloud could be seen from my yard yesterday.   A fire blew up and Nespelem was being evacuated because of it.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11143 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 11:05 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
"This is a guy who called folks (me and others) right wing nut jobs..."

... which is actually even more hilarious than the "sock puppet" epithet from a few years ago - even more ridiculous and (astonishingly) ill informed.

... but I digress.....

start with ad hominems, then demand that somebody produce "evidence" which has been posted here over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and then come back and say it's not there....

...what do you expect?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11143 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 11:08 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
I believe part of the roads not getting repaired is the Buffer theory.  A wilderness is formed, lines are drawn, and then the boundary must be buffered because folks are offended by seeing non wilderness activities on their drive to the trailhead.  Later, the buffer must be buffered, and so on, because "there can never be enough wilderness".

^ In part, this is exactly what happened with the Dosewallips. Rather difficult to pin down to one single event/document/statement, but it's all in one of those Dosewallips threads.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
MyFootHurts
Huge Member



Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 879 | TRs
Location: Kekistan
MyFootHurts
  Top

Huge Member
PostFri Jul 24, 2020 8:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
You are suggesting that if a road that is not in a wilderness washes out, that somehow the fact that there is a wilderness area nearby will prevent the road from being fixed?

The roads are just barely outside the wilderness boundary. If a road gets damaged from a landslide and the only way to repair it is to reroute it slightly toward the river, you're by blocked their sacred wilderness.
No road for you.
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 > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Olympics Wilderness Act passes House
  Happy Birthday One Day Wonder, Middle E, mbtigger!
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