[Don]

Here! Here! When you have the opportunity to protect wilderness for future generations, is there really a choice? I have read several posts voicing the implications such a decision might have on neighboring land, etc. Whether correct or not, these posts are incredibly short sighted. The implications they might create are far exceeded by the accomplishiment of the long term goal, IMO. We only get one crack at it. I would like to see one example of where conservatives thinking of future generations were incorrect in doing so (I know of many where they lost and the subsequent consequences were regretful). Anybody? Don

[Backpacker Joe]

I love it. Protect. Protect for WHOM? What an elitist boob. What about future generations of OTHER than hikers? As if there arent as many ORV/alternate outdoor enthusiast future generations out there as there are hikers. But no, that wouldn't be politically correct now would it? Sure buddy. You dont CARE about other interests because they dont FIT your PC view of the world! TB

[Tom]

[Allison]

Once it is gone, it's gone.

[Tom]

You mean like the MFK road past Dignford, right?

[Allison]

No, I mean once an area is logged or developed, it's not what it once was.

[kayak77]

First off, the majority of these areas will probably not change or become logged. That said, nature is always changing. It never is what it once was, even if untouched by man it changes itself. Forest fires are caused by natural sources and that changes the forests. Maybe we should all be mad at Mt. St Helens for what it did to the area. Mt Rainier's landscape has changed naturally as well and will mostly go through a drastic change at some point in the future through because of its volcanic nature. Ice ages, shifting of the plates, earthquakes and other geological and weather related events are continuously changing the face of the earth. And on another point, even areas that man has left strong marks in are interesting today. Cougar mountain was mined and logged but has made a comeback. Blackbird Island (I think its called) in the Wenatchee river in Leavenworth is an interesting little study. Its an island that was made by a mill in the river (forget why) about 75 years ago and is turning into woods on its own. These are areas where man changed the landscape but they currently have their own forms of beauty because nature is always ready to step back in. My point is, with or without man, the woods will change. They will grow, trees will fall over during the windstorms, etc. It never stays the same and nature is pretty resilient.

[Don]

BPJ, Where did I mention hikers in my post? I didn't. I don't think you can focus on one interest group when determining what is best for the future. That would be short-sighted.

[Lagerman]

[Don]

[Malachai Constant]

MFS is totally irrelevant to this discussion. It is not in a wilderness area or a roadless area by definition. Roadless areas do not have roads so you cannot be closing roads in them. They are if anything what the conservatives have requested here a designation intermediate between wilderness areas under the wilderness act and wide open National Forest land where anything goes. They are completely open for hiking, hunting, and fishing, you can usually ride horses and mountain bikes and probably motorcycles, you just cannot build new roads there which effectively prevents mining and logging. The recent ruling opens these areas dependant upon the whim of the governor.

[Don]

I agree. I was responding to Tom's remark above.

[Tom]

I'm not sure I understand what is necessarily wrong about opening it up to state control? If the goal is preservation, the goal should be to make these areas wilderness, not tie them up via fragile loophole. My main objection to Don's post was that it seemed overly alarmist. It is not "short sighted" to things through. We only get "one crack at it"? I disagree. These areas will not disappear in a heartbeat. IMO there is time to debate, think through all the consequences, and do it right. It would be short sighted not to.

[wildernessed]

What is a roadless area and roadless information. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=what+is+a+roadless+area+%3F&btnG=Google+Search http://roadless.fs.fed.us/states/wa/state3.shtml wildernessed

[Don]

Tom, I agree. My "short-sighted" comment was directed to opposing posts citing specific interest groups, such as ORV usage, etc. I also agree that we need to thoroughly think things out because we do only get one crack at it, IMO. Once a decision is finalized, rarely if ever is it reversed. I'm just not certain I am recognizing the options you are suggesting, and I am always going to error on the side of land preservation. That's just me.