Fairweather

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.

I haven't participated in a Hood circumcision, so I can't compare. Your TR looked like a good time for sure.

Trip: Mount Adams Circumnavigation - Date: 9/13,14,15/2014 Trip Report: I've dreamed about doing this trip for well over thirty years, but for some reason never got around to it. My calendar and the weather finally cooperated, so with my friend Greg I set out to do a complete encirclement of Mount Adams--including the off-trail section between Devil's Gardens and Bird Creek Meadows on the mountain's east side. We began our trip on the mountain's northwest side at the Divide Camp Trail, then headed clockwise past Foggy Bottom, Devil's Gardens, and set up camp near two lovely tarns in Avalanche Valley. Next day, we set out cross-country for the snout of the Klickitat, crossed the Big Muddy, crossed dozens of other raging streams, wove our way through herds of goats,and then climbed up onto the Ridge of Wonders well below Mazama Saddle. Gave up 3/4ths of our elevation gain and dropped into the headwaters above Hellroaring Meadows, then climbed back up to Bird Creek Meadows. From here we hiked around the south side and camped near Madcat Meadow. This was a long day, but probably would have been shorter if we had just climbed to Mazama Saddle instead of taking the "low traverse." Hiked out the last 13 miles of trail through equal amounts recently burned and untouched forest interrupted by beautiful green meadows with waterfalls and flowers still in bloom. Total trip the way we did it looks something like this: 41 miles--about eight of it off-trail--and 9011 feet of elevation gain/loss. Here are some pictures (in order) of this beautiful area: Gear Notes: Ski Poles--and crampons if you choose the Mazama Saddle version. GPS helpful. Crossing the Big Muddy near the snout of the Klickitat Glacier is terrifying--even in September. Easy to get cliffed-out while trying to find your way off Ridge of Wonders.

One correction here: Wilderness Watch wants us all to follow the parts of the Wilderness Act they believe in--and ignore the rest. The Green Mountain Lookout Debacle is a good example of this. This is no longer the choice. WW & NCCC would like you to believe it is, but they continue to parse verses in The Act like holy scripture long after the battle they won is over. You were correct with your "religious fervor" analogy--unfortunately the new wilderness cult has become far too rigid and doctrinaire. The irony is that these orgs are probably doing more harm to wilderness's long-term prospects than good. Evidence for this is found right here in this thread--and in the NWHikers link provided by Water. Never would have seen these kinds of responses twenty years ago. Support for the Wilderness Act is slipping badly; not because climbers and hikers don't support wilderness, rather, because they clearly don't support fringe interpretations. Still, Eric, you're absolutely right about the research station mess. Shame on these scientists. Maybe a well-written story accompanied by some good pictures would be of interest to one of the mainstream outdoor publishers? I am almost certain that a UW publication like PNQ would pick up the story about the Snow Dome situation.

So why create more barriers to access? So that the .000000000000000001 per cent of the population that will bushwack 5,000 vf are the only people that get to appreciate the splendors of the area? For a country that has a fat problem we definitely never seem to do much that will encourage people to be active and enjoy the outdoors. One of the biggest reasons why there's an overuse issue at cascade pass is that it's one of the few alpine spots in the N Cascades that does have reasonable access. Clearly if more areas were accessible use would be much more spread out and wouldn't be a big problem. Furthermore, lack of permanent shelters (such as low impact huts, ubiquitous in B.C.) would actually reduce impact as it consolidates and makes use easier to manage. Good post. (For once. )

I can almost guarantee you they wouldn't. In any event, how did we ever get to the place where we need a radical advocacy group's authorization to "make an exception" to the exceptions already present in the Act itself for Administration, Historic & Cultural, etc.? No, wasn't me. I believe my contribution to that discussion had more to do with the locals stating a belief that Castle Rock management decisions were theirs alone. Well, that's the most openly elitist rhetoric I've read in a while. What about workers who don't have two disposable weeks? This was also one of Leopold's premises. In fact, wilderness is a great escape valve from capitalism--not a playground for a bureaucrat class that is already well-insulated from it. Stehekin Road is a glaring example of my "locked-out" premise. You can't even bike the road anymore as it's been "enclosed" in the surrounding Stephen Mather Wilderness. Unbelievable. It most certainly is.