Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Olympic Park Advocates
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author     Message
AA+
reststep
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4529 | TRs | Pics
reststep
Member
PostThu Jul 08, 2021 3:19 pm 
JVesquire wrote:
Good lord, who supports "air lifting shelters" into wilderness. Have you actually read the Wilderness Act?

I do and I also support reopening the Dosewallips River Road. I am glad you asked.

--------------
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostSat Jul 10, 2021 10:12 am 
The Wilderness Act isn't the problem, it's only about six pages. The problem is context and parse interpretations that began, as mandated, in 1973. The Act put far too much rule-making in the hands of unelected land managers. Not sure where the "airlifting shelters" thing came into this thread--but such action might help facilitate replacement of all the shelters that were DELIBERATELY BURNED by ONP at the behest of OPA in the mid to late 70s.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 5111 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSat Jul 10, 2021 1:10 pm 
JVesquire wrote:
Good lord, who supports "air lifting shelters" into wilderness. Have you actually read the Wilderness Act?

All that aside, some of the venerable wilderness orgs have kept the same values over the years while the community of people who hike has grown. If the question is who do I align myself with more, OPA or Washington Hikers and Climbers and the rest of the Instragram hordes who want convenience above all else, well, you can probably guess the decision.

It would be better hiking if we put Starbucks every mile or two along the trail.

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 13, 2021 12:52 pm 
JVesquire wrote:
"If the question is who do I align myself with more, OPA or Washington Hikers and Climbers and the rest of the Instragram hordes..."

There are, if one bothers to look, other alternatives. It is not the binary choice you have cited above.

--------------
"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
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6193 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Jul 14, 2021 9:32 am 
Brian R wrote:
the shelters that were DELIBERATELY BURNED by ONP at the behest of OPA in the mid to late 70s.

That's not just OPA at work. Land managers, themselves, across the US were confused by the Wilderness Act, even in the mid-to-late 1970's, because there wasn't a lot of lawsuits yet to create a precedence. So a lot of structures, including fire lookouts, were burned. Some land managers later regretted it, though yes, some wilderness zealots in management used the Wilderness Act to get rid of structures. On top of that, structures were continually damaged by asssholes, and the cost of and time to repair them was getting ridiculous. I read old reports where an old shelter was repaired after two seasons of public abuse, and the week after it opened, it was partially burned by hikers who wanted a campfire. So to eliminate the headache and cost, the structures were eliminated.

From what I can tell by a conversation I had with NPS rep in headquarters in Seattle, local NPS managers aren't fans of structures in wilderness, and the manager I talked to probably doesn't even know who OPA is.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
JVesquire
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pasco, WA
JVesquire
Member
PostWed Jul 14, 2021 1:51 pm 
Ski, I see your point. If folks want to horse pack in their tools and maintain a shelter, by all means, go for it. But, I don't see people really saying that. They have no problem with using helicopters, plowing unnecessary roads, etc. Add a day to your trip, or shorten the mileage. Convenience is an overriding concern, not wilderness stewardship.

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Jul 14, 2021 3:15 pm 
^ Respectfully, your post tells me that you possibly don't understand Section 4 of the Wilderness Act, which allows the use of "motorized equipment" "necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area."

It is important to read and understand the entire text of any piece of federal legislation, as opposed to cherry-picking only those parts of it one wishes to use for purposes of argument.

In project planning, the use of a helicopter is all penciled out: number of flight hours; duration of flights; frequency of flights; number of flights; man hours required; gallons of fuel used; etc.

Those numbers are weighed against all factors involved in doing the same project with non-motorized equipment.

I'm sure that Rod probably has at hand all the numbers for both on the move of the Enchanted Valley Chalet, which is why they used a helicopter to move in some of the equipment: it cost less and had less impact.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

In many cases, particularly at ONP, the use of a helicopter is far less intrusive and results in far less impact than would other options available.

More importantly: the noise from helicopters (which is the biggest argument against their use) is only of short duration.
I would much prefer the helicopter flights over the Queets than the fighter jets from Whidbey Island any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

So why isn't OPA focusing their "Save the Planet" efforts on something which will actually be of benefit to all Park visitors, as opposed to their relentless campaign to make access into the Park more difficult for users, and which will unquestionably result in more pressure and crowding problems in other areas?

--------------
"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: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Jul 14, 2021 3:16 pm 
JVEsquire wrote:
"...plowing unnecessary roads..."

where?

--------------
"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: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Jul 14, 2021 3:36 pm 
JVesquire wrote:
"...horse pack in their tools..."

Olympic National Park (as of 07/14/21) has 22 pack mules and 4 packers.

Average weight that a pack mule can haul: approx. 120-150 pounds (varies by size of animal and conditioning.)

There are some items where it is simply not possible to use pack animals, like the steel rails that were used for the move of the Enchanted Valley Chalet, or the full pallets of cedar shakes that were dropped near the Pelton Creek Shelter (prior to its collapse and subsequent destruction during the Paradise Fire in 2015.)

There are other items not related to shelters that need to be moved as well, like the "Sno-tel" stations that were dropped in several years ago. (About which, as far as I know, OPA has voiced no objections, notwithstanding the large galvanized, steel-framed structures are arguably far more "an intrusion on the natural landscape" than would be an old wood-framed building designed to fit into its surroundings.) (Oh, but maybe they benefit from the use of the Sno-tel stations, which is why we don't hear about those on the OPA website.)

--------------
"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
coldrain108
Thundering Herd



Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1764 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
coldrain108
Thundering Herd
PostWed Jul 14, 2021 3:52 pm 
Ski wrote:
There are other items not related to shelters that need to be moved as well

Like these:


Bags of rocks heading down to less rocky areas.  Redistribution of wealth?

--------------
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing"  - Albert Einstein
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2019 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostThu Jul 15, 2021 12:45 pm 
JVesquire wrote:
Add a day to your trip, or shorten the mileage. Convenience is an overriding concern, not wilderness stewardship.

rolleyes.gif

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
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 > Olympic Park Advocates
  Happy Birthday Steven, Grizzy, lovetowonder, Lakes&Summits!
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
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy