Wild Sky Wilderness

[Dave_Schuldt]

Saw a slide show about it last night. Looks realy cool. Much old and old second groth. Remote, large area with no roads or trails. Some good off trail hiking with large alpine medows. Some good bushwhacking as well. Grizl bears too!

[JoshK]

Wait...I thought the Wild Sky wildernes was the new one proposed for a chunck of the skykomish river, right? There are grizzly bears there!?!?

[Dave_Schuldt]

That"s what they said.

[Jake]

I've heard various things about grizzlies in WA. Talked with one guy who knows his bear stuff and he said he's seen them. So it seems that there are some - not very many though. Hadn't ever heard about any on the sky river, but it could be possible I guess.

[lancegranite]

Habeas corpus?

I lived in Skykomish for 6 years... I never heard of grizzlies in the valley.You would think that someone would see or shoot one.

A few people in the right circles have seen Sasquach in the valley, but nobody is including them in the EA.

[MisterMo]

I saw a grizzly up the North Fork Sky around 1987. Haven't seen one since. There are shitloads of black bears in the proposed Wild Sky. That, along with the wild & lonely character of the area will change once the land managers & journalists get their mitts on it.

[2morehours]

This proves nada, BUT, I too have a friend in the know about bears who swears on his mothers grave that he's seen a griz in that area too, albeit years ago....

[Fairweather]

Supporters of this proposal should just stick to the science/facts. When they start using lies to promote their cause, they lose.

 

Grizzly bears; my ASS.

[MisterMo]

Supporters of this proposal should just stick to the science/facts. When they start using lies to promote their cause, they lose.

 

Grizzly bears; my ASS.

Wellll...

I'm pretty certain it was a grizzly bear. Of course it could have been a brown colored, hunchbacked brown bear. The guy with me, coming off of 19 years core drilling in AK with plenty of looks at bears of all flavors, was certain it was a grizzly. But maybe not... We are both reasonably certain it wasn't your ass.

Mine wasn't the only griz comment, but I didn't mean to offer it as support..or...opposition to the Wild Sky proposal. I'm in the latter camp but when I go off on that tirade I tend to start raving and only succeed in convincing people that I'm a twit.

[nolanr]

Griz can cover a lot of ground, right? I think we probably have a few in WA, mostly up near the Canadian border. Maybe one of them got bored and wandered down south for a while.

[Fairweather]

Supporters of this proposal should just stick to the science/facts. When they start using lies to promote their cause, they lose.

 

Grizzly bears; my ASS.

Wellll...

I'm pretty certain it was a grizzly bear. Of course it could have been a brown colored, hunchbacked brown bear. The guy with me, coming off of 19 years core drilling in AK with plenty of looks at bears of all flavors, was certain it was a grizzly. But maybe not... We are both reasonably certain it wasn't your ass.

Mine wasn't the only griz comment, but I didn't mean to offer it as support..or...opposition to the Wild Sky proposal. I'm in the latter camp but when I go off on that tirade I tend to start raving and only succeed in convincing people that I'm a twit.

 

Mister Mo,

 

....actually, if you look at the R-E-P-L-Y it was in response to D-A-V-E S-C-H-U-L-T-Z' original post. Not yours. I don't doubt your Grizzly claim. They are frequently seen in the north eastern corner of the state. I just don't like it when enviro groups and their willing dupes (again,like Dave...not you) push this whole grizzly habitat tripe. It is completely disingenuous. As stated in one of the posts above; why are these groups claiming this when it isn't even present in the EA? If grizzly bear sightings south of hwy 20(much less, hwy2!) are proven by some sort of scientific survey I may reconsider my position. But until then, I wish these Wild Sky snake oil salespeople would just stick with the facts.

[marylou]

So what is the status of the Wilderness?

[Fairweather]

So what is the status of the Wilderness?

 

It was clearcut, strip-mined, and dusted with Cobalt60 just yesterday.

 

....sorry Ali! I just couldn't resist.

[JoshK]

I never saw anything in their press material talking about grizzly bear habitat, but I could have missed it. It may be that they were referring to an overall effort to get grizzlies to return to the WA cascades and it is probably true if it ever happened that the wild sky would be useable habitat for them.

 

Settle down, fairweather, I dont think the "enviro-types" are trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. This area needs to be protected and I'm glad it looks like it will. You and your repub buddies can find plenty more land to build roads through, don't worry...

[MisterMo]

Fairweather,

Oh, yeah, oops...the little "Re:" thing. Point taken; got to pay attention to that.

Now finding myself getting all fired up for a few hundred word rant about the Wild Sky. It probably belongs in the Access section or something. Maybe I'll rehearse a bit & let fly over there.

[2morehours]

So I'm in the dark about the major gripes against designating Wild Sky Wilderness. How is designating another slice of land in a world of clearcutting a decietful, left wing ploy?

[JoshK]

So I'm in the dark about the major gripes against designating Wild Sky Wilderness. How is designating another slice of land in a world of clearcutting a decietful, left wing ploy?

 

It only is if you are a right wing conspiracy theorist. Though, in his defense, I dont think fairweather actually critisized the wilderness itself but the apparent "lies" provided by the enviro-nuts or whatever.

 

The Wild Sky is a great idea, and I am glad to see it coming to light!

[MisterMo]

OK...here we go...

I don't believe the Wild Sky proposal is left-wing or deceitful; I just think there are some holes in the wilderness proposals in general:

 

One such hole concerns natural resources: timber, and in the case of the Wild Sky, minerals, principally copper. Much of the region was logged in the past century, long enough ago that stands of second growth are reaching harvestable size.The Sunset Mine was in operation until approximately the mid 1900's. If the Wilderness becomes a fact both logging and mineral extraction will both cease to become possibilities. Fair enough; that's what wilderness proponents seek...but.... If you take increasing amounts of land out of natural resource extraction then you have to, at some point, either reduce consumption of natural resources or shift an added burden of production to some other chunk of land somewhere. ...I haven't seen anything in the wilderness proposal that makes any effort to balance this equation. That's not necessarily dishonest, but I think it's really shortsighted and a bit selfish...e.g. it's ok to log the shit out of Canada and mine the shit out of the third world (where it's also so nice & cheep) while we, as members of the most consumptive culture ever anywhere slurp up the fruits of all that, all the while feeling PC because it's taking place somewhere else where we don't see it. Oh, Yeah...the Wild Sky is just a drop in the bucket, but there are many such drops and they all add up.

 

Additionally, I take issue with the current concept of wilderness. Much of the Wild Sky proposal would currently qualify as such. There isn't much easy access; there aren't many people; there's a lot of rarely visited summits & drainages. Yet when I view the proposals and talk with supporters I cannot believe that this is what they have in mind. I believe the proposal is one more for some sort of city park for the huff & puff set. The Seattle Times will rave about it; trails will be built; visits will increase; managers will leap to the fore, agonizing about the number of concurrent users in Sector Q...fretting about overcrowding, banning camping here, setting up a permit system. There will be no nasty loggers or miners, no bubbas on ORV's, probably no smelly horses...just a steady stream of.....polypro & trekking poles. It won't be a wilderness unless your vision of wilderness includes being up the West Fork of the Foss on a Saturday in August. Don't believe me? Washington is just chuck full of cool places ruined by the dual scourges of protection & publicity.

 

Do I have a better idea? I don't know about better but I do have a thought or two:

Thought one is Leave It Alone

Thought two is if there is sentiment for a wilderness then let's pick a patch of ground & do just that, make it as Webster says, "a wild and uncultivated region, uninhabited or inhabited only by wild animals". Fence it off or sow mines or something. No hikers, climbers hunters, or fishermen. No cars, boats, bikes, horses, motorcycles, etc.. No wildlife biologists, no back country rangers, no owl counters. No people, at all, ever. Let's have a wilderness for all that is non-human. Let it thrive, burn down, or wash away as nature may intend. Just leave it the hell alone. That would be a wilderness. If people want something else, that's OK but I think they'd also do well to call it something different

[Winter]

MisterMo your points are good ones and are more aking to the thiking of Deep Ecology.

 

FYI the current system we have simply doesn't envision having wilderness off limits to people. The explicit purpose is to have wilderness "for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness."

 

Your arguments on resource extraction are also good ones, and Congress thought about this when writing the Wilderness Act. Existing minderal claims were protected and new claims were limited after 1983 in existing wilderness. As for timber, 95% of our original forest have been cut and the remaining 5% contribute only 4% of the world market. If you look at the issue on a systematic basis, the economics and supply/demand arguments weigh heavily in favor of conservation vs. extraction on our public lands.

[JoshK]

Frankly I would rather leave mature 2nd growth alone at this point. Tree farms are plenty effective and we can leave the logging where it belongs...next to roads in existing areas of logging. The fact is there is no shortage of trees. Nowhere close...It is simply a lot easier to rip down mature forest than have to cultivate and preserve existing logging areas. Seeing Wherheuser's (sp?) profits cut into troubles me very little. They've gotten a free ride for well over a century anyway.

[Dave_Schuldt]

The wilderness plan has much local support.

And yes it's good to see you back in true form

BUSH SUCKS!!!!!

[mattp]

I agree with some of what Mr. Mo said here: wilderness regulations are indeed "out of whack" and it seems to me that many people want to set aside wilderness for selfish or perhaps self-indulgent reasons. On balance, that is not necessarily a bad thing in that in the case of a place like Wild Sky it will lead to the preservation of wild land, and the politics are screwy, but I'm glad there are people fighting to save the mountains from mining, logging and ORV's, just as I'm glad there are people trying to undeveloped areas and open space in the Puget Sound basin.

 

I agree, too, with some of Fairweather's sentiment. I was sorry to see the road up to Mt. Stickney destroyed in the interest of "rehabilitation" (the peak lies in what will become Wild Sky). I never got up there, but there was a road leading high up in the mountains, not far from Seattle, that offered a rare opportunity for a relatively short hike to the summit of a real mountain. I can't think of many other such places that close to Seattle. I realize that some people believe those that DO exist are often overused and become a mess, but I think it is a good thing to have these opportunities as long as they are few and far between.

 

On one point, I disagree with Mo. I don't think they will be building trails in Wild Sky. They don't have the money. Additionally, the "Grizzly Bear" habitat rules will not allow it – unless they remove other trails in the nearby area.

[JoshK]

Matt, what do you mean "destroyed" the road? Did they simply let it overgrow or did they actually do something to it?

[mattp]

They ripped out culverts, installed burms to block access, and I believe they refilled the grade in at least some areas.

[JoshK]

Wow! I haven't heard of them ever doing anything like that. Seems like a waste of resources, but I suppose if they just gated it and let it overgrow, it would probably be used illegally by ORV jackasses.