[MtnGoat]

There are other ways to protect land than applying wilderness designation and locking it up. if you don't want logging, don't log it. this all or nothing wilderness designation is in some ways it's own worst enemy. opponents know what it means, and fight it tooth and nail.

[Quark]

[kleet]

[MtnGoat]

[Allison]

There's almost no road decommissioning in this plan. Likewise, there is no movement afoot to limit non-motorized access. I guess I just don't see what the big beal is? Is it about having places you can go rip up the land with your off-road toy? What am I missing here?

[Quark]

OK MtnGoat, that's makes it more clear.

[Malachai Constant]

Strawman

[MtnGoat]

like hell it is. you wonder why it's taken years to pass this? precisely because of the concerns I stated. The totalitarian nature of the wilderness designation creates it's own opposition precisely because of it's shotgun approach to preservation. as long as these situations wind up in an all or nothing approach, you leave no room for partial opposition and thus get total instead. Is that an improvement to you? and there's an additional under the table operation going on here, in that wild sky proponents can claim the plan calls for few roads to be decommissioned, which is *technically* true if you look at the maps. what is unstated however, is that the USFS has taken to specifically decomissioning roads *near* wilderness areas, which results in a very real penumbra effect on access even if it is outside the boundaries. The effects of the plan itself are discussed in a vacuum as if they effect no other policies and actions, which is false. I bet you anything they use the existence of the Wild Sky to justify further closures *outside* the wilderness. What happened to the hang glider access to Kendall Peak road network *outside* the ALW, hmmmm?

[Allison]

[MtnGoat]

note it also touches on one aspect of what I am discussing, the wilderness act's purity aspect. And of course one rep's positions don't represent all the myriad reasons for opposition from user groups other than hikers. I'm just sayin'. it would be easier to get more protection if there wasn't a constant need to use a legal sledgehammer of an act.

[Allison]

What other groups?

[Slugman]

I read that the original wilderness proposal was trimmed and tweaked until local snowmobile groups and off-road groups would drop their oppostion to it. They aren't endorsing it, but they aren't fighting it, either. At least as far as I know, but I admit I have not followed this story that closely. I don't agree with Joe that this bill would take away a huge portion of the off-road areas in this state. We have vast areas open to off-roaders, and the areas that are now used in the wild sky that would be closed are miniscule. So how does a miniscule reduction in something huge take away such a large percentage of the recreation opportunities? I'm thinking maybe Joe meant to focus on that area alone, not the whole state. I agree with Mtngoat to the extent that a different kind of wilderness designation should exist. One that would allow some mtn biking or motorcycling or snowmobiling (four-strokers only please!) where that would be appropriate, but would prevent large-scale resource extraction that would eliminate the wild nature of the area and render it unsuitable for recreation and wildlife. I have shared a trail with motorcycles more than once, and I didn't hate it. They don't belong everywhere of course, but they should have more nice places to go, with a fee charged, the money used to improve trails and enforce rules (only!).

[Allison]

Yes, there has been talk of this kind of zone in the past. It could be called a "buffer zone" or "Wilderness Buffer Zone" where motors could go but not extractives. Doesn't really exist now. What we do have in our arsenal is National Recreation Areas, which can be kind of like that, but I don't think this area really represents what those areas normally are like. So, given what options we have available, and that the Wilderness has been negotiated with the motorized user groups, I guess I just don't see what the hoopla is about protecting the area.

[Malachai Constant]

It is very clear, in a wilderness are you can hike, fish, ride horses, hunt and climb you cannot run motorized vehicles ( or mtn bikes mine or log. It would be nice to have more classifications but it is not going to happen the forces favoring development like it this way and they are in charge. )0There will never be a provision allowing you to rive up to high points and launch radio controlled glider sand not others because you are taking about a miniscule % of users. In the US we follow the golden rule, than that has the gold makes the rule. The only reason we have any wilderness protection at all is because Nixon was trying to save his skin and went along.

[McPilchuck]

There is NEVER enough wilderness, period! Those that think there is, are only fooling themselves. "In wilderness is the preservation of the world." Thoreau. Lastly, if the Alpine Lakes Wilderness hadn't been created by the dedicated work of individuals, many here on this Net wouldn't be enjoying the land that they do. This also includes the Mt. Baker Wilderness, Henry M. Jackson Wilderness, Boulder River Wilderness, Noise-Diobsod Wilderness, Goat Rocks Wilderness, and so on and so forth. It galls me to hear some complain about wilderness areas, but yet enjoy it so much when it has been designated as such. Blah I say! One can never get enough of it when he or she experiences it first hand by way of foot and backpack. I believe most if not all on this Net know and feel what I mean, having read the posts and seen the excellent photos here, and been a part of this Net since about the year 2000. Having said the above in spouting off so speak, "Wilderness is Good For Mankind" like it or not. We should however never exclude ourselves from what we wish to preserve. I rest my case... In 2002 the following endorsements were made, many a Sportsmen and Outdoorsmen put their name on this, to include many here on this Net, simply because they believed it was and still is a good thing to do. And even though it (The Wild Sky bill) didn't reach the entire Congressional avenue it should have, due to one man primarily, it is still condidered not dead in the eyes and hearts of those who have vision of setting the land aside for what it is, to include simple forms of recreation, excluding the commercial interests and the greed that comes from the timber harvests. http://www.alpinequest.com/wildsky.html McPil