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
PostFri Aug 19, 2005 12:36 pm 
Dayhike Mike wrote:
marylou wrote:
Hardly any trails=even better. up.gif
Totally disagree. Hardly any trails == significantly less use by public, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
When you're looking for nice animal habitat and the preservation of places more wild, it's a good thing. Since the Wilderness Act was drafted to preserve our natural legacy, I think it's nice to include places that are largely trailless as part of the whole system.

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


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 63 | TRs | Pics
Oldtimer
Member
PostFri Aug 19, 2005 11:15 pm 
What is a wilderness area?
What is a Wilderness area? (Copy/pasted from SMBNF publication) "According to the Wilderness Act of 1964, wilderness areas are where earth and its community of life remains untrammeled, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. Some mark is left in wilderness each time we visit, but each of us can make sure the mark is a small one. Minimum impact or no-trace camping should be considered common sense behavior in the backcountry." Wanderwild asked what area/s had been logged. Almost all the area along the North Fork of the Skykomish has been logged. When the area on the Index side of the river was logged, a railroad went north alongside the river. In certain places, one can still find segments of it--bridges have collapsed, and bush/trees litter the former track bed, bridges are collapsed. Obviously, loggers logged both sides from the tracks. Across the river from Skymo #3 is a cabin that I theorize was a farm during logging days. In one area I am familiar with, they logged to about 2,000-2,500 feet. Voice of experience (me) says that in some spots, slash is/was so thick (at about 2,500 foot level) I spent three trips (in 1970-71) cleaning a route through it, then discovered an old trapper's cabin (collapsed) down by a creek. Other places are relatively easy to travel through, except for contouring or climbing or descending 40-50 degree (or steeper) slopes. Point of all this? One can find something he/she wants to argue for or against Big Sky wilderness legislation. What bugs me is when one committee chair can deviously prevent submitting a bill for consideration. - Oldtimer

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