Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Sky
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostTue Aug 16, 2005 10:59 pm 
With the entire Washington congressional delegation and the (Republican) President behind this, it seems the opponents are Richard Pombo (R, California) and the people at NWHikers.net. shakehead.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mike
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics
Location: SJIsl
mike
Member
PostWed Aug 17, 2005 9:47 am 
Quote:
Someone asked me today what people could do to show their support for the WSW.....
ML, You can't beat a real letter to the powers. Email and form letters don't carry the same weight. Write to your representative and senators and also to Pombo. Can't hurt. Pombo is facing strong opposition in the upcoming election and he may be looking to soften his image a bit to appeal to a broader base. A few acres in WA might be just the ticket given the broad support both D and R. And he wouldn't even have to actually vote for the bill, just let it pass to the floor for a vote.

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


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 333 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
wanderwild
Member
PostWed Aug 17, 2005 6:06 pm 
what portion of the proposed wild sky area has been logged/mined?? it seems to me that it is probably a small portion, and the proposed wilderness boundaries can be revised to exclude those areas. obviously i'm not the first to think of this. why hasn't this been proposed?

"Whatever your mountain, climb on."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Aug 17, 2005 6:37 pm 
Why start making that exclusion now? Never been an issue in the past.... crazy.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dayhike Mike
Bad MFKer



Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Posts: 10958 | TRs | Pics
Location: Going to Tukwila
Dayhike Mike
Bad MFKer
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 10:28 am 
marylou wrote:
it seems the opponents are....the people at NWHikers.net. shakehead.gif
What?
mike wrote:
ML, You can't beat a real letter to the powers. Email and form letters don't carry the same weight.
So true. Can't remember where I heard it but I seem to recall that within legislative circles a real letter is considered the equivalent of 1000 e-mailed responses, just because it's so quick and painless to fire off an e-mail or form letter.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke "Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment." -Solomon Short
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 12:22 pm 
Dayhike Mike wrote:
marylou wrote:
it seems the opponents are....the people at NWHikers.net. shakehead.gif
What?
I've heard more opposition to the WSW here than anywhere else. What can I say? confused.gif
Quote:
mike wrote:
ML, You can't beat a real letter to the powers. Email and form letters don't carry the same weight.
So true. Can't remember where I heard it but I seem to recall that within legislative circles a real letter is considered the equivalent of 1000 e-mailed responses, just because it's so quick and painless to fire off an e-mail or form letter.
I was looking for something a little more pinpointed. Since it's past the Senate, is it now back in Committee? Are they in recess right now? Anyone else on that committee opposing it? What's the timeline on the bill being in Committee?

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DayveeB
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 36 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
DayveeB
Member
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 1:18 pm 
ML - it would make more sense to me to join the group who is largely responsible for pushing the Wild Sky issue rather than trying to tackle this issue on NWHikers.net. Just my take... I think it's always more productive to become a part of an organized campaign, rather to reinvent the wheel - or just make noise about an issue most people here on NWHikers are aware of. Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal Washington Wilderness Coalition

"We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us." - Charles Bukowski
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
oosik
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 76 | TRs | Pics
oosik
Member
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 1:57 pm 
According to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.00152: "Latest Major Action: 8/1/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health." Jay Insley is on that committee, and he seems to be a good supporter of wilderness and recreation, including being against the Fee Demo program. Unfortunately, Pombo has been the Chairman of that committee, and has a history of intimidating committee members and general throwing his weight around to direct what comes out of that committee. Pombo also strongly promotes development in ANWR and to show how mature he is, this is what he puts on his statement for the benefit of those that oppose his view on the official government website:
I guess if you wanted to make your opinion known at this late date, probably contact the members of the committee.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 2:16 pm 
It is interesting that Pombo opposes the Wild Sky on a technicality buried in the wilderness act, not much different than the technicalities wilderness purists would use to promote their agenda, such as the elimination of fish stocking, etc. Guess it cuts both ways.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 6:50 pm 
DayveeB wrote:
ML - it would make more sense to me to join the group who is largely responsible for pushing the Wild Sky issue rather than trying to tackle this issue on NWHikers.net. Just my take...
To each his or her own, but it's been my experience that a well thought out argument from a private citizen has a lot more sway in the grand scheme of things. I'm not saying this to discourage individuals from joining clubs (I myself belong to one) but more to stress that individuals absolutely can make a difference.
Quote:
rather to reinvent the wheel - or just make noise about an issue most people here on NWHikers are aware of.
My discussions with various posters on this site have led me to believe that people are not all that familiar with the issue. I certainly don't know a lot about it myself compared to others, but have seen something different than you express. It's my opinion that the WSW is a little less popular with hikers than perhaps other places because this proposed Wilderness has almost zero trails. making it a less interesting piece of Wilderness than something that's a little easier to get around in. I certainly sang a different tune after seeing some slides of the place and going on one little trip into a tiny corner of the area. up.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
touron
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 10293 | TRs | Pics
Location: Plymouth Rock
touron
Member
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 10:42 pm 
Here is an interesting article from the PI on WS and Pombo

Touron is a nougat of Arabic origin made with almonds and honey or sugar, without which it would just not be Christmas in Spain.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Aug 18, 2005 11:11 pm 
I thought these were interesting snippets:
Quote:
Pombo killed a proposed Wild Sky bill last year. He did, however, support a compromise plan that would have protected nearly 93,000 acres as wilderness, while designating 13,300 acres for backcountry management, a less restrictive federal designation allowing off-road vehicles.
Quote:
Pombo sympathized with people's desire to protect the area, but said many fail to realize that a wilderness designation "basically locks it up and the only way you can get in is on foot."
So to those who feel wilderness designation is the only answer, what was wrong with Pombo's compromise? Or did it not protect the old growth? Or do you just hate ORVs? hmmm.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostFri Aug 19, 2005 12:20 am 
It is probably because they already compromised 14,000 acres out of the proposed wilderness area in order to satisfy ORV and other groups and they don't want to further compromise to satisfy Pombo.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostFri Aug 19, 2005 12:29 am 
Perhaps the notion of "preserving the natural legacy" (quote from the Act) is all it takes to want to save such a place. Hardly any trails=even better. up.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostFri Aug 19, 2005 12:51 am 
OK, but I thought it was about saving the old growth. If not, what does it need to be saved from? ORVs? 93,000 acres isn't enough wilderness?

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 > Wild Sky
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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