[MCaver]

I was digging around on the Internet on local advocacy groups and discovered this link which sounds cool in itself, but it mentions a proposed Dark Divide National Monument in the GPNF. Another page I found mentions a Columbia Mountains National Monument in Washington as well. I've never heard of these proposed monuments and the information available online about them is pretty scarce. Does anyone have any info on this? The proposals seem to be from 2000, when Clinton was in office. I can't imagine the current administration creating any new monuments, so I'd imagine these proposals are dead now.

[MCaver]

I found the following info here: Columbia Mountains National Monument: Proposes to protect 377,000 acres on Washington State’s Colville National Forest and adjacent BLM lands which contain significant old growth stands and diverse flora and fauna. Dark Divide National Monument: Proposes to protect 80,000 acres of Washington State’s Gifford Pinchot National Forest which includes threatened old growth forests and the Dark Divide roadless area. The area is being heavily impacted by uncontrolled off road vehicle use.

[Sore Feet]

I've heard of the Dark Divide area being thrown around, but nothing as to anything in the Colville NF. I think the Dark Divide area is a good candidate for some kind of preservation, so long as roads which serve a purpose (for hiking, boating, etc) don't get closed off. In case some of you haven't seen this site... http://www.ims.issaquah.wednet.edu/wielandforest/darkdivide.html On a related subject matter, there was Cascade - Siskiyou National Monument (BLM) which was created at the end of the Clinton Administration, stuffed down on the Oregon / California border southeast of Ashland. Looks like I-5 runs right through it. http://www.or.blm.gov/csnm/ http://www.or.blm.gov/csnm/images/maps/mon_publicaccess_map.jpg

[Ice Girl]

i am not sure if it is a National Park, but when i was in the rangers station the other day. (Sky). The ranger said something about there being a new area (around Beckler River) set aside for something, Maybe state park? i don't remember, but it was also said they would be making some new trails, back into that area. Maybe is should have listened better.. Ice Girl

[Sore Feet]

They were probably talking about the proposed Ragged Ridge Wilderness area. Last I heard, chances are it will be formed. When is the question.

[MtnGoat]

Yup, take an area with no trails, and protect it by increasing impacts and adding trails. Sounds like a govt project to me.

[MCaver]

Are you talking about increased impact for a National Monument or a Wilderness Area. I can see how a National Monument would increase it, but not a Wilderness Area.

[MtnGoat]

Add trails, you increase impacts where those trails go. In places where there are no trails and very little usage, "saving" them by adding hundreds if not thousands of visits, instead of occasional backcountry bushwacking visitation, is ludicrous. I guess we'll have to see where the proposed trails are....If they include any of the lakes on Ragged Ridge, my criticism is entirely valid. No new clearcuts in old growth, no new trails, that should do just fine for real protection. IMO there is no need to create new Monument or Wilderness areas ( in clear cuts especially) that just siphon off cash for signage, visitors centers, permits, managment, etc. If you don't want trees cut, pass a bill so they won't be cut. Spend that money saved on avoiding all the monument/wilderness area foofooage on maintaining existing trails and getting rid of the trail fees.

[Zagi]

Trails on Ragged Ridge? That would suck. I know a bit about the proposed wilderness area, but haven't seen any proposals for trails. That area is surrounded by some pretty decent relief which makes it all the more rewarding once on top. Put just one formal trail to the top and the place will be way-trail heaven.

[Scrooge]

MtnGoat. You know what your problem is? You keep proposing simple, sensible, economical solutions. Nobody in government is interested in any of those things. The government is your/our enemy. They prove it over and over again. Demolish roads and then build motorcycle trails; tax you to build forest roads and then charge you to park there. ..... You know the litany. Grrrr. :angry:

[MtnGoat]

I can't figure out why "protection" has to mean so many complicated, contradictory, expensive things. If you don't want to cut old growth, just pass a bill. It's like there is some kind of emotional investment in being associated with a "wilderness" bill or something.

[MCaver]

I wasn't aware that declaring a Wilderness Area meant you had to build trails. I thought it was a means to protect an area from logging and other commercial interests and to keep it in as close to "natural" as possible. Silly me.

[MtnGoat]

The trail building is a breadcrumb to bait people. Without new trails, wilderness designation is so obviously a cut in access that they include new trails to try and make up the difference IMO and make it more palatable. I'm dying to see the proposed outline for ridding some parts of the Beckler of users and increasing usage in other parts, especially if they intend to close access to existing roads and call clearcuts wilderness. Why aren't there any maps out yet? Even the forest service releases proposals and details in embryonic form to let people know what's going on, you could see the areas proposed for changes in the Md Fork Snoq long before they actually detailed the exact options. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I suspect they are keeping the area to be proposed under wraps a bit so as not to allow any opposition to make headway. It's probably smart on their part, because if "wilderness" includes roaded areas I'll be on their case immediately.

[#19]

Are there statistics to prove this?

[MtnGoat]

Nope, no stats. This "wilderness" area as I understand it's rough boundaries, is unique in that there are very few trails extant now. This means any closures to vehicles shuts off the access that exists now for bushwhacking. The only actual trails I can think of where the proposed area is ( I have no freakin' map, only secondhand info from an article) Barclay lake trail. One source said the area was ragged ridge up to where it hits the HMJ wilderness. Another said the entire Beckler and N FK and Ragged, and all the area in between, including clearcuts *and* closures of perfectly stable roadbeds. The entire area is fairly little used by hikers and a joy for that reason, because by bushwacking around there in the defacto wilderness you can have nearly any destination all to yourself, and there are few social trails. Light to no impact visible anywhere offroad, except for the Eagle/Barclay area. I'd love to have something more concrete about this issue but until real maps arrive, we're stuck with armwaving, including me! Still, in the articles I read (PI?), they did mention new trail construction, and since in this area there are practically none anyway, this doesn't mean new trail to already visited and heavily used place to replace old crappy trail and lots of foot wear, this means *new* increased impact in places that have never seen it. If the trail building is true and the area is correct, (two big "if's" i'll grant you!) perhaps you can see why I say that in this case, increasing impacts to 'save" an area already near pristine (where no cuts are) is stupid as it gets. Lake x gets 4 people a year, we'll save it by increasing that to 400 or 1000 or whatever. (and then in a decade limit entry because of damage caused by a trail that wasn't there until the area was "protected"). Sure, I'm kinda hot on this, because here we have the chance to take what we've learned from the closures and "improvements" made elsewhere and make sure the same circus doesn't occur all over again. Improve, crowd, implement closure, complain about crowding in the remaining areas. where people go because the closed areas are closed. Sometimes, to really preserve something, you need to leave it the heck the way it is IMO. I'm kinda frustrated at the lack of info other than "it's in the works". We should have access at the very *beginning* of "it's in the works", not be presented with something drafted by a tiny clique of folks, who I'll tell you right now (as a guess) are bent on locking out users they don't like.