Fairweather

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.

They already have the idea. In fact, it's what lies at the core of their support for NOCA expansion to include Ross Lake NRA, WA Pass area, and a huge chuck of Glacier Peak Wilderness. North Cascades is the least visited national park in the lower 48. This makes sense--since they've gone to great lengths to lock everyone out. No reason, IMO, to let them start claiming Hwy 20 as their own.

Good post. Maybe the hypocrisy of this vested welfare crowd is part of what makes their interpretations suspect? Does the Wilderness Act itself have something to do with the trash? IOW, have the NCCC and WW blocked efforts to heli out the garbage? (Serious question, I don't know the answer.) I read a post recently asking for help cleaning up the research station on Olympus Snow Dome. Same story? As for Wilderness Watch, well, I couldn't disagree with you more. Non-motorized access equals wilderness advocacy. I understand Leopold, Yard, Marshall very well, but locking out responsible users and supporters in the 21st Century is a bad idea--and still it remains at the core of what drives WW, NCCC, Audubon. Their missions are no longer conducive to reasonable access to outdoor recreation--climbing included. Sierra Club, however, seems to be coming around.

And for all the other privileged kids who don't spell good: it's you're.

Hmm, not sure about old, but whatever floats it for ya. Weird? maybe. In any event, kind of disappointing to see privileged kids like you OK with this kind of police nonsense. Sad really.

Police State: . . . "the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, says law enforcement met a broad public outcry over the Aug. 9 killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown with "militaristic displays of force and weaponry," (and) engaged U.S. citizens "as if they were war combatants." Now, I understand that Pete and his LMA Seattle-area transplants would love to see this level of police protection for the Icicle Creek area--you know, to keep those "damned outsiders from telling us how to manage our local crags" n' all. But, unfortunately for Pete & Co., there are still constitutional limits in place that govern what can and cannot be done to good citizens who reside in this country of ours.

Since you're advocating violence against the police, I suggest you take your own advice, lead by example, and see how that works out for ya. Fuck off, spoiled little boy. I did no such thing.

If this is true--and apparently it is--then the already growing animosity toward police will just continue to harden. Not just in places like Furguson--and not just from the so-called underclass--but from ordinary law-and-order folks who are really getting tired of this shit. That picture I posted says it all; these soldier-wannabees need to have their toys taken away and submit to a new training mindset.

Police certainly are obligated to shoot only their intended target. Anything less means they are putting their own lives over the lives of the citizens they are supposedly sworn to protect. In other words, this particular cop cared more about emptying his gun to stop a perceived threat to his own safety than he did the safety of an innocent man. I suppose I understand the instinct, but aren't cops supposed to have the wherewithal and training to resist this scorched-earth type of response? So, I'm not sure I agree with you this time, Ben--but I'm glad we're an armed citizenry nowadays, for sure. And by the looks of things lately we might eventually be needing more than muskets and single-action revolvers.

They could race bicycles. Or compete in synchronized swimming events.

whatchagonna do?

I don't understand the big picture when it comes to Grizzly Bear eradication efforts of the 19th and 20th centuries, but I do know that wolf eradication during the same period had (and continues to have) a disastrous effect on ecosystems. If grizzlies were always rare here, then it's probably not something worth getting too excited about as any transplants will probably migrate to more favorable ranges in short order--or not propagate too rapidly. Other than my beloved Wild Country Quasar tent that was destroyed by a griz in Wrangell-St Elias in 1999, my encounters with grizzly bears have been nil. (I was not in the tent at the time, and there was no food in the tent. Just a pissed-off, bad day bear I guess.)

Whatcomboy nails it, IMO. I don't think Griz will be leaving us entirely any time soon, but I think Leopold summed up species extinction perfectly in one my favorite passages: "Some day, perhaps in the very process of our benefactions, perhaps in the fullness of geological time, the last crane will trumpet his farewell and spiral skyward from the great marsh. High out of the clouds will fall the sound of hunting horns, the baying of the phantom pack, the tinkle of little bells, and then a silence never to be broken, unless perchance in some far pasture of the Milky Way."