[Allison]

[MCaver]

Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), Chairman of the House Resources Committee. Here's a PI article from before the election: Wild Sky measure is killed in House

[Allison]

Ah, yeah, thanks for finding that. I stand corrected, Pombo's big issue is that if the land has ever been touched, it is not pristine enough to be Wilderness, which pretty much rules most stuff out--including huge parts of the ALW.

[qm1pooh]

I was amazed (following it from afar) that the Wild Sky Wilderness didn't pass. I mean, from what I read, you had politicians from Jim McDermott to Jennifer Dunn all on the same side of that issue.Plus the the US Senate. Then, Richard Pombo just said "ixnay" on the whole deal. After all that noise during the elections, I came upon this article. Go figure.

[jimmymac]

Pombo had made it clear that the Wild Sky legislation would not move forward as proposed. He and others believed that part of the area being considered does not legally conform to specific provisions in the Wilderness Act. Whether his interpretation is correct or not, is a matter for the courts. So, a compromise was crafted to exclude those areas that Pombo felt would not withstand a court challenge. And Pombo would have a chance to look somewhat green for a change. However, lots of people balked at the compromise and demanded the whole enchilada. The exclusion of the non-qualifying areas was seen as "gutting" the proposal by many. Neathercutt -- who had worked to broker the deal-- was made out to be the villain (rather than the Wilderness Act's limitations.) The very vocal protests of the compromise made it clear that Pombo stood to win no friends in the wilderness camp. Thus, there'd be no offsetting the enemies that he'd be making in the motorized camp. The compromise quickly began to look like a lose-lose proposition for everyone. The protests gave Pombo the perfect cover for letting the thing dry up and go away. The proposal's failure was also a good outcome for the motorized crowd who were against it, and for the wilderness crowd who look to another day when a different interpretation may allow the entire original area to be dedicated wilderness.

[MtnGoat]

the instant roaded and cut areas are allowed to become wilderness, the push will begin to close even the remaining areas many say we should accept as alternatives to closing the MFK. the reach of those who refuse to accept other recreational desires as legitimate knows few bounds, in my experience.

[Backpacker Joe]

[Brian Curtis]

Way too late you guys. I've done some hiking in wilderness areas in the mid-west. They are completely (as in 100%) cut over and cris-crossed with old RR grades. The instant that roaded and cut areas were allowed to become wilderness areas was passed many, many years ago.

[Malachai Constant]

There is no such thing as real untouched wilderness. Someone has been most every where, as Chief Sealth said, " When you think you alone you are not, my people walk beside you". If you listen carefully you can hear them. Most everywhere there were miners or prospectors in the 1800's. Foresters loggers and cruisers in the 1900's and natives long before.

[Jamin Smitchger]

When I climbed Hubbart Peak above Silver creek near Galena, I had to walk through brushy old logging slashes which extended up the slopes on both sides of the creek. If areas like these are "wilderness", we can include most of the Weyerhauser property in the state. I think that Pombo is just trying to protect us from tree huggers who believe trees are worth as much as humans.

[jimmymac]

Pombo's trying to protect Pombo. I'm no scholar of the Wilderness Act. A portion of the people who do claim to be experts give credit to Pombo's stance for two reasons: 1) it protects financial resources from being transferred (pissed away) to those who profit from litigation, and 2) if the wilderness character of the initial Wild Sky territory is easily defensible, the potential for an unfavorable court definition of "wilderness" is avoided. Marginal areas can continue to be slid in, when there's consensus.

[MtnGoat]

why can't we not cut forest without making it foot access only? since when is "protecting" forests a binary function where where we either cut or lock it up? can't we not cut and still allow multiple recreational uses?

[Allison]

No, that could be done, but it would require some additional legislation or rules in order to protect areas of that type from extractive use.

[Dante]

What's the closure date again? I must be looking at the wrong pages of this thread, because I'm not finding it.

[Tom]