Fairweather

Yeah too bad they couldn't stay as backwater former logging towns with an out of control meth problem. But if that's what you prefer, at least you've still got Aberdeen and Darrington, among others. Well, thank God those backwater hicks now have you & your fellow interlopers there to save them! How soon until LMA finishes work on that new meth clinic?

As a life, liberty, and property kind of guy I don't really have a problem with the guy's right to put up the shack on his own little slice of New Seattle. And it sounds like this so-called artist followed the letter of the law. Still, it is an ugly shit hole, IMO. Sounds like the locals think so too. Entertainment value is off the charts.

Ok, that is one ugly f-ing hut. Even without the cement legos laying about. And that smarmy young fembot deciple lecturing the locals about accepting change leads me to believe that wire-guided shoulder fired anti-hut weapons should be issued to all of the poor locals who reside on the valley floor. ...or a rusty old GMC Jimmy pointed downhill with a strong cable attached would probably do the trick too.

Cle Elum. Leavenworth. Mazama. Seattle's newest burbs. Guess the locals gotta expect a few squabbles with the locals who aren't really locals. Still, as long as the locals aren't allowed anywhere near the amenities at the new owner's lodge I suspect this will all work itself out.

Up until 1973 the east side of Adams was administered by the USFS. But after the Yakama Tribe successfully litigated their right to Mount Adams' east side--based on the unambiguous language of the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty--there was quite a bit of bitterness among the wilderness/hiking community who were not immune to the deep, local anti-Indian sentiments of the day. What's more, a lot of misconceptions about permits persist because of Harvey Manning's rant in his 101 Hikes about the supposed complicated nature of obtaining a permit. I think this rant has since been edited out, but a lot of old copies remain in glove boxes. It is also possible that ole Harvey wrote this bogus warning to discourage travel into Avalanche Valley--a place he clearly loved and described as being "where good little hikers go when they finally hang up their boots for the last time"--or something close to this. In any event, the Yakama Nation has done a very good job of managing their side of the mountain and allowing access that is, in my opinion, no more restrictive than the USFS--and certainly less restrictive than the NPS. Kudos to them.

If I knew with 100% certainty that one million Iraqi children were going to be taken from their opiate-addicted fathers by their meth-addicted mothers--despite the ruling of a local sharia judge--I would immediately submerge my Nokia 925 in a five-gallon bucket of water--and mix in some copper-filings just to make sure.

Huh?

Except that is not the permit fee - we do not know except that is maximum amount proposed. It could be $15 … The money is not the issue.

No issues. A five-dollar permit (per person, per day) can be purchased from the Yakama Nation ranger/attendant on patrol in the Bird Creek area during the summer. Bring cash. You can also call the Tribal Center in Toppenish and get one that way. I don't think non-members are allowed on tribal land during fall, winter, or spring.

I am aware of resistance to additional federal wilderness designations--and given the litigious nature of many green orgs, I agree with the resistance. I'm not up to speed on the "return to the states" movements you cite--but if the courts have consistently sided with the federal position, what are you worried about? And won't idiotic proposals like this one by the USFS only lead to additional erosion of support for wilderness? Sounds like a dumb idea on so many levels.

It's a slippery slope; today censorship and a $1500 permit, tomorrow the guillotine. Oops, wrong thread.

Good points, Ivan. Radio, TV, and those freeway digi-signs are all good methods of getting the word out. Getting into my personal cell phone and telling me YOU WILL PAY ATTENTION is just annoying. MHO.

Are you saying the "constitution angle" is not a legitimate concern? More and more, the pro-government left seems to see it as an obstacle, so I'm wondering if this is where you are coming from. As for permits, I think you are (deliberately?) conflating extractive uses with benign. Woodcutting should require a permit. Taking your Cub Scouts out for a hike should not. Nor should taking pictures for any purpose. You wouldn't tolerate being asked by a government employee to produce papers while walking down a city sidewalk; why should we tolerate it while walking along a trial?

Hmm, you might want to start working for the timber, mining, grazing, and other extractive industries. Because their view point is very similar. While they do get a permit and do have impact they also pay far less than what they would pay if on state or private land. Now lets take your argument one step further. A climbing guide takes clients into the wilderness, their activities have no impact, if they earn enough income they pay an income tax. Yet they pay for a permit. So why should not a commercial photographer? Your point about guide services is good, and I too have some issues with this arrangement. But comparisons to extractive uses are absolutely ridiculous. And to try to pigeonhole pcg is this way is very poor form.

Anti-bolt ranting? Gene, I think you have me confused with someone else. As for the Amber Alerts, I guess I wouldn't mind them if they were being used for their original purpose--which, I believe, was to notify the public to be on the lookout for a stranger-abducted child. I have yet to receive an alert based on this type of urgency. They have been, without exception, sent out based on parental custody. It's becoming like a car alarm in a parking lot--nobody pays attention any more.

Same same?

Remember, Ansel would be required to pay for his permit only after a government censor approved his images and captions. So there's that...

Coldfinger, I didn't see a FoxNews post in the bunch here, but if it fits your sensibilities, HuffPost is reporting on this as well. And Seattle Times isn't exactly an anti-government rag last time I checked. In any event, you should know that, at the end of the day, all American news/journalism is "for profit." And this proposed rule would leave the USFS in the position of deciding who is and is not a journalist based on their storyline and its adherence to the official narrative. Bad mojo. Anyhow, aren't you the guy who once ranted about the NPS searching his tent?

This one? Or this one?

Yes, but this is the first time I can recall them trying to control dissemination of the message through coercion. Truly terrifying. Here are some reminders about our freedom--and rights that we don't forfeit just because we enter a designated wilderness: From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers" From the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" On Prior Restraint and its Chilling Effect on free speech:"Prior restraint can be effected in a number of ways. For example, the exhibition of works of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority (sometimes referred to a classification board or censorship board) before it can be published, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship as is the revoking of a license. It can also take the form of a legal injunction or government order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, a government or other party becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it: to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are considered prior restraint because potential future publications are stopped in advance."

I love my smart phone, but if old phones don't get these obnoxious alerts, I may switch back.

Three days in a row. Overrides my silent mode. Can't be blocked by the carrier (AT&T). Rarely if ever a stranger abduction. Usually one of the parents. I don't want my phone blaring at me at 4am, or during a client meeting, or while I'm driving next to a semi, or while I'm relaxing on the patio with a good beer. Because of someone's custody dispute. I just don't care anymore. Am I being an ass again?

Hmmm, I just reread again and I think Jason understood your original post pretty well. "Wilderness values" would need to be defined for each permittee--and this is clearly a USFS move to codify a government interpretation of a definition of wilderness that is still being hotly debated. In other words, the most galling part of this proposal is not the fee itself, rather, it is the blatant government grab for control of the wilderness narrative.

Unchecked executive-branch rule-making like this is sure to make the forest police even more popular with the folks. This bizarre rule will never stand, but it's still frightening to think that our federal agencies have grown arrogant enough to dare propose this sort of nonsense. I wonder what could have made them so bold?

No bugs at all.