Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Sky Wilderness
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
REJ
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 100 | TRs | Pics
REJ
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 9:28 am 
Senator Patty Murray and Rep Rick Larson have introducted legistation to create the Wild Sky Wilderness. Senator Murray has a nice website with info and maps describing the proposal Wild Sky Wildernes I have a copy of the House bill (HR4844) and it proposes a wilderness of 106,000 acres. The Forest Service is authorized to buy lands within the boundaries and to establish a hiking trail plan to identify priority hiking trails for development.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 11:17 am 
***Beware those of you with dialup, the map file is a whopping 6.3 megs!!!!*** eek.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
-lol-
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 767 | TRs | Pics
-lol-
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 11:48 am 

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


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 12:41 pm 
Looks like the worries about closing access to roaded areas were unfounded, I'm glad to find this is something looking halfway reasonable.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
-lol-
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 767 | TRs | Pics
-lol-
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 1:02 pm 

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


Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 100 | TRs | Pics
REJ
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 3:48 pm 
I think it is a good idea that Barclay Lake is not included in the proposed wilderness. Barclay Lake currently does not meet the impact or solitude standards for wilderness designation. Including Barclay Lake in the wilderness would probably mean bans on camping, considerable restoration work and limiting the number of visitors, etc.

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


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 30, 2002 4:29 pm 
Eagle lake gets enough traffic as it is, the back route's inclusion in this map is probably the kiss of death for the regions around the lake. I'm going to read up on the proposal and see if they are going to "save" any areas by building new trails.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
John R
Guest




John R
Guest
PostThu May 30, 2002 10:03 pm 
More photos of the Wild Sky Wilderness: http://www.wildsky.org/perl/fram.pl?url_id=14

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5085 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostFri May 31, 2002 8:47 am 
John R who are you? tongue.gif

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Mike Collins
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3086 | TRs | Pics
Mike Collins
Member
PostFri May 31, 2002 8:16 pm 
The lines were gerrymandered to accomodate various interest groups. In that way opposition would be minimized. Barclay Lake was excluded as the Boy Scouts and other groups use it frequently for outings. The group size in wilderness designated areas is limited to (I believe) eight. Windy Peak was not included as it is a popular area for snowmobilers. This information was provided in a recent Seattle Times article.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie



Joined: 22 Dec 2001
Posts: 1686 | TRs | Pics
Location: Martinique
Rich Baldwin
Mister Eddie
PostSat Jun 01, 2002 8:33 pm 
I think the Big Sky Wilderness has a pretty good chance, because of the compromises made with groups that might otherwise oppose it.

Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
REJ
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 100 | TRs | Pics
REJ
Member
PostMon Jun 03, 2002 1:13 pm 
Wild Cascades the journal of the North Cascades Conservation Council published a list of proposed "new" trails in the vicinity of the Wild Sky wilderness. They are: Lake Isabel (logging roads to trail) Mineral Butte (in part logging road and new trail) Silver Creek (convert road to trail) Troublesome Ledge Viewpoint (on Troublesome Mtn) Middle North Fork Skykomish (Jack's Pass road to Goblin Creek) Frog Mountain (east of Jack's Pass) Evergreen Mountain, southside (follow route of original trail to Mtn.) Eagle Lake (existing trail would be improved) Beckler Peak/Alpine Baldy (abandoned trail) Kelly Creek (abandoned trail)

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostMon Jun 03, 2002 3:48 pm 
I wonder about the odds of any new Wilderness Area designations getting through the current administration. Despite the very recent reversals in environmental policy, the Bush administration has not demonstrated itself as conservation-minded in the least. With the Senate pretty much split down the middle and the House leaning conservative, I don't see any new Wildernesses getting through Congress, and then it has to get through Presidential veto. Maybe as a rider on a higher-profile bill, as long as it's not too high profile, like the energy bill. Unfortunately, these days "conservative" in Washington doesn't mean "conservation" like it used to (i.e. Teddy Roosevelt).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostThu Jun 06, 2002 11:02 pm 
Personally, I am all for it especially with the compromises that have taken place to ensure some users groups weren't left out of their recreational opportunities. Of course there is room for input as to where and what trails should be built (pro and con) as well there should be. But as far as protecting the existing land from development and or commercial industry, and setting it into wilderness designation, I see no better apparent classification with such vision for our future generations to enjoy than a "Wilderness Areas."

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MC
Guest




MC
Guest
PostFri Jun 07, 2002 9:55 am 
I read in the paper that Jennifer Dunn is cosponsoring it after recieving 400 pro letters and only 3 anti. It should have a good chance of passing. Barkley Lake was lost about 20 years ago. With present budgets I do not expect there to be many changes.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Sky Wilderness
  Happy Birthday noahk!
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