WILD SKY LOCKUP

[sailBOI]

 

CLOSED - KEEP OUT - The message to all you Climbers !

 

The Wild Sky Wilderness is being pushed by some of the same groups that are trying to Keep the Dosewallips Access Rd. closed. Their claim that Wild Sky will ensure continued access is a FABRICATION. As soon as a road washes out, they will be there with a KEEP OUT SIGN !

 

You have until this Thursday to send a letter to the Congress for inclusion in the Public Hearings scheduled.

 

Sample Letter :

 

My Letter to House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo:

 

Opposition to H.R. 822, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003

 

July 16, 2004

 

To: House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo

 

resources.committee@mail.house.gov

 

From: Miss Julie Kay Smithson

 

propertyrights@earthlink.net

 

Subject: Opposition to H.R. 822, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003

 

Chairman Pombo:

 

My concerns are not listed necessarily in order of personal importance;

rather, they are simply what comes to mind when I consider the far-reaching

implications -- one might even call them tentacles -- of H.R. 822. This

bill truly reaches into the pocketbook of every taxpaying American, every

consumer, every tourist, and extracts something, whether tangible or not.

Every concern I have relating to this bill bodes ill for it. It MUST, for

to support any part of it is to disenfranchise myself from all that I

cherish about my country.

 

Your 1996 book, coauthored with Joseph Farah, titled "This Land is Our

Land", details "how to end the war on private property." I'm sure you

cherish the lands that you and your family have owned for many generations

in and near Tracy, California.

 

Wherever there is federal lust for more and more and more land and resources

to remove from the tax rolls, further encumbering the already overburdened

American taxpayer -- and ever more often also seeking removal from the

public access -- you have my attention. These lands are lands that someone

cherishes. Often, these families have lived, like your own family, for

multiple generations on the same lands, working at the same honest work, in

a committed and long-term partnership with the lands and waters. Whether

that relationship -- granted, built upon trial and error, for that is the

way mankind learns how better to steward his Genesis-mandated job over all

the earth -- is based in farming, timber harvest, ranching, mineral

extraction, fishing, or other responsible use, it is something that many

Americans and their families have diligently invested blood, sweat and

tears equity in.

 

Many of these same families now find themselves at the merciless hands of

those professing to be 'environmentalists' or 'conservationists' -- when

the truth is, those using those terms care little about either the

environment or real conservation, which means not wasting.

 

It does not mean NOT USING AT ALL.

 

That is what "wilderness designation" is, Chairman Pombo.

 

It means NOT USING AT ALL: none of the resources.

 

The 'carrot' on the stick that is promised is cursory passive recreational

access, while the stick lies in wait to 'assist' those that have become,

through no fault of their own, inholders. One way or another, they are to

become "willing sellers". This is an ugly, dishonest way to treat American

property rights -- and you wrote a book about it, so few should know this

as well as you and Joseph Farah.

 

As one who has recreated in most of America's contiguous states, from

horseback riding to walking, and from nature photography to snowmobiling, I

have comments on H.R. 822 that reflect an aging baby boomer tourist's

interests. I cherish access to lands that my taxpayer dollars have paid for.

 

As one who has traveled most of America's contiguous states in a

twenty-seven year and 3.1 million mile safe driving career as a truck

driver, I have comments on H.R. 822 that relate to both America's economy

and to access issues. The area targeted by H.R. 822 contains roads --

because it is an area utilized by people. It is not as it was before

Christopher Columbus set his booted foot upon our shores on a day in 1492.

That in itself should raise a raft of Red Flags -- that anyone would pick,

out of thin air, after all the millennia and various 'settlement' by

various 'ethnicities' -- 'pre-European settlement' or 'pre-Columbian

settlement' as the magic date before which time all must be 'restored.'

Hogwash and balderdash, say I! I cherish and appreciate American grown and

mined products

and those that work so hard within my own country to see that such

renewable bounty is available to me and mine, and I believe with every

fiber of my being that using our own resources responsibly -- not becoming

a 'third world nation' by default, through the hidden horrors of global

'free trade' that is neither fair nor trade, but is in reality the

wholesale and wanton destruction of our Constitutional Republic and our

sovereignty -- is TRUE 'sustainability.' We used to call it being

responsible, being self-sufficient. It made us great. We need to remember

what made us great and stop apologizing for it. Let us use our own

resources, within our own sovereign borders, and that means NO MORE

WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS: not ONE SQUARE INCH MORE, and over time, a LOT of

acres LESS of such areas. I don't tout developing all of America, but our

natural resources are OURS, to be used responsibly and intelligently, but

to be USED. They belong to no one else, despite the hoopla -- other than

whatever deals may have been agreed to without our public knowledge. Thank

God we have Marbury v. Madison (1803): All laws repugnant to the [uS]

Constitution are null and void. This includes all treaties and 'dark of

night', closed-door dirty deals to use our American resources -- including

our American human resources -- as collateral.

 

As a property rights researcher, I have comments on H.R. 822 that relate to

all the facets of responsible resource providing -- i.e., property rights

and freedom. You have just read them.

 

As a rural homeowner, I have comments on H.R. 822 that relate to the

increased and very real threat of wildfires and other emergency services

that are put directly in harm's way by such proposals for increased

"wilderness designations." There is nothing in such "wilderness

designations" that is of any benefit to "future generations" -- whatever

that means. Future generations of what? Of who? Certainly "future

generations" does not mean middle-class, hardworking Americans, who even

now are being charged double -- in both taxes AND in FEES to enter, park at

and use our own federal parks and other areas. This is criminal -- there

was a tea party held in Boston Harbor over such things, many years ago --

but that is a matter for another letter and another time.

 

As a taxpayer, I have comments on H.R. 822 that relate to the

ever-increasing burden -- much of it Constitutionally illegal -- on

American taxpayers, and the added burden inflicted on us with every acre

that is removed from the tax rolls. We need bear no more -- we should and

we MUST bear much less. The obesity mentioned among legislators has nothing

to do with physical poundage. There is a massive cancer of out-of-control

lust for power and money that will never be sated so long as there is

unlimited access to American taxpayers' pocketbooks. Terrible as it may

sound, the deals cut in D.C. have been the main contributors to each and

every one of my comments and concerns.

 

America is beautiful and America is The Beautiful, but what is being done

by using the stalking horse of "wilderness designation", like the hideous

and many-headed Medusa of the Endangered Species Act, which a member of

your committee will chair a meeting about in Klamath Falls, Oregon, in a

few short hours, is neither Constitutional nor American. It is criminal,

and should be handcuffed and incarcerated wherever bad legislation goes

when it is proven harmful to America and to Americans.

 

Thank you, Chairman Pombo. I will be watching this bill and the actions of

the House Resources Committee closely, knowing that you will have intense

lobbying by non-governmental organizations pushing you to run this bill

through.

 

As it is part of a true statesman's character to disallow that which is

wrong, I hope you will look to the Congressman from Colorado, Tom Tancredo,

and the standards he has set regarding sovereignty and borders and Illegal

Aliens, and take all that is good from his shining example, to apply to

these 'pieces of work' like H.R. 822. To have such courage and moral fiber

as he is to be -- like former Congresswoman from Idaho, Helen

Chenoweth-Hage -- a true statesman. We need more like this, Congressman

Pombo, on that I believe we can agree. You have shown promise in this

regard. Perhaps my letter to you will help nourish that spark and fan it

into a flame that the most determined "wilderness proponent" cannot

squelch. I pray so.

 

'Nuff said.

 

Miss Julie Kay Smithson

 

213 Thorn Locust Lane

 

London, Ohio 43140-8844

 

740-857-1239 (voice/no fax)

 

propertyrights@earthlink.net

 

http://www.PropertyRightsResearch.org

 

====================================================

 

Urgent Action Needed on Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal H.R. 822 - Please

Submit YOUR Testimony!

 

Thanking you in advance for taking the time to do this. No matter where you

live or what you do for a living, please take a few minutes and send an

email to

resources.committee@mail.house.gov or fax 202-225-5929 to Chairman Richard

Pombo at the House Resources Committee expressing your personal opposition

to the creation of ANY new wilderness designation, including -- but not

limited to -- the Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal, also known as House Bill

822. A gentleman in Washington State, Ed Husmann, asks that you provide him

with a copy of your letters so that he may hand-carry a hopefully HUGE

stack of them to Washington, D.C. for next Thursday's hearing. You can

email him your letter at edforforests@msn.com or fax it to him at

360-793-7870, but please know that by so doing, you give a great help to

not only him and other Washingtonians, but also to everyone that values the

ability to enjoy more about lands and waters than a CLOSED sign, which is

what H.R. 822 would do.

 

 

 

[Lionel_Hutz]

[philfort]

CLOSED - KEEP OUT - The message to all you Climbers !

 

The Wild Sky Wilderness is being pushed by some of the same groups that are trying to Keep the Dosewallips Access Rd. closed. Their claim that Wild Sky will ensure continued access is a FABRICATION. As soon as a road washes out, they will be there with a KEEP OUT SIGN !

 

There don't seem to be very many roads within the actual proposed wilderness area:

http://www.wildsky.org/fram?url_id=21

 

In what way would the wilderness area negatively affect climbers?

[Crux]

Spray

 

[sailBOI]

CLOSED - KEEP OUT - The message to all you Climbers !

 

The Wild Sky Wilderness is being pushed by some of the same groups that are trying to Keep the Dosewallips Access Rd. closed. Their claim that Wild Sky will ensure continued access is a FABRICATION. As soon as a road washes out, they will be there with a KEEP OUT SIGN !

 

There don't seem to be very many roads within the actual proposed wilderness area:

http://www.wildsky.org/fram?url_id=21

 

In what way would the wilderness area negatively affect climbers?

 

The effect won't be immediate, but in the long run will likely be severe.

 

I am considerably older that many of you and have been hiking in the NW since 1972. At that time and until recently, I was a wilderness advocate and environmentalist, deciding to build a home in Brinnon so that the Olympic National Park was close at hand. I was pleased to have the Dosewallips Valley protected by the presence of the Buckhorn Wilderness to the north, and the Brothers Wilderness to the south. At the head of the Valley lay ONP, and the georgeous Dose Trailheads, Falls and Ranger station. Always an exciting place to visit, people from all over the world could be found there on any given day. Folks from the Seattle side could do Constance on a weekend, and Anderson on a 3 day weekend. Whitewater folks had a class A course marked out on the upper Dose. I never saw any user abusing the Wilderness in my many years of use.

 

In January 02 a raging flood washed out the road about 10 miles in, leaving 5 miles to get to the ONP trail heads. We had friends visiting from Alaska that summer, and we drove up Valley to find the road gone. What a disappointment, but we all said......OK, next summer we will go! The next summer came, and no road ! I started investigation this with the Olympic Natl Forest, as that section of road is on their land.

 

I was astounded to hear that several environmental groups were objecting to the repair of the road. I started reading their newsletters and was stunned to find that they take a literal interpretation of the word "untrammeled", as it appears in the Wilderness Act. Essentially it's claimed to mean.....no people ( or few )! Shelters in the High Country are to be removed, the Dose Campground is to be DOWNgraded to backcountry and the ROAD CLOSED. Folks, last time I checked, this was a NATIONAL PARK, intended for all Americans.

 

They claim that the cars interfere with the migration patterns of the endangered Elk ( they are not endangered ), of course they play the "Spotted Owl" card. Although there are 1.5 million acres of ONP & ONF lands, bearing about 50 million trees......as you would expect the 4 acre area needing to be partially cleared to repair the road bears trees predating Columbus ( but there are stumps from previous logging ). The biggest claim made is that the two wilderness areas that I loved having there are USED AS AN EXCUSE to eliminate the road......the wilderness areas need to be merged and become seamless. Nevermind that Congress and the President left the access corridor there when the wilderness was created, never mind that most of us want the corridor. This is not about democracy, but about control by a small minority. Same thing is happening to the Carbon River access road at Rainier, I understand. But some of these same groups are pushing for Wild Sky, and using guaranteed access as a benefit.........I am saying, look out for these folks, they are more about the Wildlands Project that they are about access.

 

WILDLANDS - need to be understood

 

SO, the Dose Trailhead is now only lightly used, and users are obligated to hike a 10 mile round trip on a relatively level road. This rules out all the uses mentioned above. If this sort of thing continues, folks from the Seattle area will have fewer, more crowded options for hiking!

 

Thanks for listening.....

 

www.brinnonprosperity.org

 

ps: the decision to rebuild the Dosewallips Rd has been withdrawn by the ONF, as a result of 2 Appeals filed by these groups....we will now be at least 4 years total without reasonable access to the Dose facility. Be careful which groups you support or donate to !!

[Mark_L]

You could dispense with that 5 miles of flat road quite quickly on a mountain bike and avoid the crowds too.

[willstrickland]

Here is what I consider a legitimate question:

 

What portion of the proposed Wild Sky wilderness area is currently public land, and what portion (percentage wise) is privately held?

 

Similarly, what is the total tax revenue from that privately held land?

 

This nutjob hyperbolist "Miss Julie Kay Smithson", who's letter you hold up as an example, cites removing land from the tax rolls on several occasions as a reason for her opposition. To my knowledge, areas designated wilderness are typically public lands with perhaps a few small privately held parcels. They aren't exactly generating any appreciable amount of tax income from property taxes.

 

Now I'm sure Miss Smithson would rather those lands be developed, mined, drilled, cut, and sold to home developers to lower her tax bill; but I'm not sure we would all agree. Particularly when the current pattern of development is unmitigated urban sprawl (see Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Atlanta for prime examples).

 

I sympathize with the Dosewallips Rd issue, and I actually did write a letter in support of repairing the road. I also routinely deal with disingenous, fringe, extremist, environmentalist crusaders who use frivolous lawsuits as a delaying and harrassement tactic when they don't agree with an issue. Nevertheless, if you are going to blindly oppose every issue on the slippery slope argument, you are no better than they are.

 

Why would you even quote such a Limbaugh-wannabe jackass like " Miss Mary Kay Truckdriver" if you are trying to win people to your side?

[sailBOI]

Here is what I consider a legitimate question:

 

What portion of the proposed Wild Sky wilderness area is currently public land, and what portion (percentage wise) is privately held?

 

Similarly, what is the total tax revenue from that privately held land?

 

This nutjob hyperbolist "Miss Julie Kay Smithson", who's letter you hold up as an example, cites removing land from the tax rolls on several occasions as a reason for her opposition. To my knowledge, areas designated wilderness are typically public lands with perhaps a few small privately held parcels. They aren't exactly generating any appreciable amount of tax income from property taxes.

 

Now I'm sure Miss Smithson would rather those lands be developed, mined, drilled, cut, and sold to home developers to lower her tax bill; but I'm not sure we would all agree. Particularly when the current pattern of development is unmitigated urban sprawl (see Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Atlanta for prime examples).

 

I sympathize with the Dosewallips Rd issue, and I actually did write a letter in support of repairing the road. I also routinely deal with disingenous, fringe, extremist, environmentalist crusaders who use frivolous lawsuits as a delaying and harrassement tactic when they don't agree with an issue. Nevertheless, if you are going to blindly oppose every issue on the slippery slope argument, you are no better than they are.

 

Why would you even quote such a Limbaugh-wannabe jackass like " Miss Mary Kay Truckdriver" if you are trying to win people to your side?

 

Don't be so hasty, her site has 9000 pages of material, a goodly amount of which should interest a Libertarian such as yourself......such as :

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ShatteredDreams.pdf

 

Please take the time to examine :

 

http://www.PropertyRightsResearch.org

 

you will find quotes such as :

 

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau

 

 

 

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." - George Washington

 

 

 

"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body of forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." - William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, 1932

 

 

Please remember the US Govt already owns 40% + in the West, and defacto Wilderness has expanded greatly with curtailment of NFS logging. We just need access....

[willstrickland]

But Sailboi, I am not looking for more hyperbolic quotes and certainly not 9000 pages of them, I am looking for a straightforward answer to the question(s) I posed.

 

I do, however, find it slightly ironic that the "Shattered Dreams" document you link was produced by the John P. McGovern MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs...which advocates "free market solutions to today's environmental challenges". I assume you also found this document at Miss Smithson's site? Funny how someone like Miss Smithson supports free markets when it suits her agenda, but opposes free trade in her rant-letter from your original post.

 

I say again: What percent of the proposed Wild Sky wilderness is privately held, and how much tax revenue does it generate?

 

Certainly a better plan would be to log the shit out of it, so that we can continue to subsidize the logging industry...that will certainly lower our tax burden God forbid the timber industry be subjected to some downsizing and have to compete on the "free market".

[catbirdseat]

Under the Wilderness Act, private in-holdings surrounded by the proposal would retain the same access and rights that they currently have. Those in holdings are primarily mining claims. They don't pay any appreciable taxes. They are no doubt concerned that without logging, the roads will no longer be maintained.

[mattp]

I believe that the land in question is already National Forest.

 

I think the value of the Wild Sky Wilderness has to do with what we think about wilderness management practices and whether we think we need or will benefit from having more formally designated wilderness close to Seattle. Key questions include the following:

 

Is there a shortage of designated "wilderness" land near Seattle?

 

Is this area particularly unique?

 

The Forest Service will not build new trails in a wilderness area. Do we think there should never be new trails in THIS area?

 

This wilderness area, unlike most, is going to go right down to the roadside in the North Fork of the Skykomish River. Depending on future wilderness management policies, this could effectively bar even traditional rock climbing on a roadside crag -- remember the "fixed anchor ban" that included even rappel slings?

 

To me, the conservation issue lies in what kind of extra protection the area is going to receive by virtue of its' being designated wilderness. In this case, I'm not sure what the prospect for logging and mining and other things that I don't like might be. Hasn't most of the viable timber in this area already been cut at least once, and hasn't it been prospected for over a hundred years?

[willstrickland]

Thanks Matt. I believe those are actually relevant reasons to question the establishment of this area as designated wilderness...as opposed to the deranged musings above.

 

Sailboi, don't misunderestimate me , I'm neither for ,nor against, this proposal. I want answers to the revelant questions such as Matt posed. I believe there is reason to oppose this, but not those you cite. Adopting the rightwing extremist tripe that you cite as the reasons for your opposition, only hurts your (i.e. anyone who jumps on this landgrab/taxrolls/evils of the ESA bandwagon) credibility among moderates.

[philfort]

The Forest Service will not build new trails in a wilderness area. Do we think there should never be new trails in THIS area?

 

Do you mean just the Forest Service won't build trails, or new trails are not allowed at all? The brand new Mason Lake trail is partly in the Alpine Lakes wilderness, suggesting it is allowed.

[catbirdseat]

I attended a presentation in which it was suggested that new trails would be built in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness. It was said that the new trails would, in general, follow the ridges and high places and avoid the valleys, which provide the best wildlife habitat.

[mattp]

I have been told by one of the trail planning type rangers that they have a fairly strong commitment NOT to build new trails in any wildreness area in the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest.

 

However, inside and outside of Wilderness, I don't think they've added very many new trails anywhere for a very long time -- and I believe the Mason Lake trail came about because there were some poorly laid out fishermen-trails following more than one route and they decided the best solution was to formalize it. I believe they may do the same for Mailbox Peak.

 

Any possible limit on trail builidng associated with the Wilderness designation may not matter, though, for a couple of reasons. Farst, the Grizzly Bear management rules will severely restrict their ability to build new trails in the Wild Sky or anywhere else between I-90 and Canada. Second, they have no money to build trails, even using the WTA. I believe that whoever "It was said that" they were going to build new trails along the ridgetops in the Wild Sky was probably wrong.

 

 

---

 

Another potential limit on access that could be associated with the Wilderness designation might be a quota system.

 

About ten or fifteen years ago, they proposed to require permits and maintain strict trail quotas throughout the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. I remember one ranger at a public meeting said that they had determined that the Wilderness Act's reference to maintaining "opportunities for solitude" meant that they should restrict access so you wouldn't see more than four parties a day on any trail in the back country.

 

[johndavidjr]

The real "access" issues in climbing forums would typically arise from the assertion of so-called property rights. Wilderness mountaineering is a legitimate climbing value, & that means approaching alpine areas with lots of sweat and trouble. I don't think Sailboy is a climber. He seems to be interested more in politics of the RV crowd. Further, I doubt he'd approve of the alternative, European climbers' model, which includes government subsidies for cable cars & huts,& a relatively progressive and restrictive view of property rights.

_______

[Mal_Con]

He also has started spamming the Hiker site http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6055&start=0

[Touray]

so whats wrong with allowing the mtns to degrade back to their original state of wilderness? Why do you need a new road?

[Crux]

The Forest Service will not build new trails in a wilderness area. Do we think there should never be new trails in THIS area?

 

Wilderness designation does not impose a moratorium on trail building. The Forest Service can build new trails in designated wilderness areas, and has done so when resources were available and construction served the mission of wilderness designation. New trails constructed in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area provide good examples.

 

mC

[sailBOI]

He also has started spamming the Hiker site http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6055&start=0

 

If you follow that thread you will see that the moderator apologized for calling it spam, and the thread is getting good debate both there and here.

The time has come to discuss the presence of a segment of "environmentalist" movement, who are dogmatically opposed to reasonable public access. These folks are ascending in the ranks, and will try to utilize the Wilderness designation to curtail access in future. I am saying beware, it is already happening in some areas now, and is likely to impact Wild Sky, this in spite of their present claims that the designation will enhance access.

 

"It would also help maintain access to trailheads, campgrounds, and 470 miles of existing roads in immediately adjacent areas."

Access guaranteed ?

 

Guaranteed now......BUT , taken away as soon as the roads wash out, and these same groups oppose repairs !!!!!!!

 

[johndavidjr]

Post deleted by mattp

[catbirdseat]

I for one, am willing to accept some restrictions on use of wilderness areas because I believe that there is so little wilderness left that some of it should be preserved for future generations as nature made it. Why do we need to have UNLIMITED access to every valley and every mountain? Can't we set aside even a small portion of our generous forest endowment for minimum impact use? Up to this point, the areas of this state designated wilderness have been those areas without commercial value. Alpine Lakes doesn't have any valuable timber except in a few portions of the Middlefork. It is generally too high. Boulder river wilderness likewise has undesireable tree species like silver fir that timber companies are not interested in. Wild sky is an opportunity to set aside a low elevation Douglas fir environment that has not been protected before. It is different than the protected areas of the Olympic Park and from Rainier. I think that we should try to protect a representative of each environment.

[JoshK]

sailBOI, wtf, man. One is an issue about fixing a road into an existing wilderness and the other is about making a new wilderness area. Personally I'd much rather have a protected wilderness area with difficult access than a future george bush logging project with great access. wilderness areas are good. you are not.

 

While you are on your stupid ass little projects, could you pleae get better access into the pickets? I find it ridiculous lame how far you have to walk to get into the northern pickets. THere should be a road up to whatcom pass, and probably one up access creek. It saddened me to see so little people tramping around up there and not taking advantage of this great wilderness. If we put up a road (maybe a visitor center or snack shack too?) more people can enjoy this lovely place. As it is, I find the lack of people makes the area seem, I dunno, kind of remote. Who wants to feel isolated when they are out in the wilderness!??

Edited July 23, 2004 by JoshK

[johndavidjr]

Kudos to JoshK's point

 

Since my previous point was deleted, then maybe I can put it this way: perhaps actual climbers are better able to understand the value of wilderness mountaineering than so-called property rights advocates. Speaking of deletions, I don't understand relevance to this particular forum of addressing objections to federally designated wilderness.

 

___________

[Fairweather]

I've heard that the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal has been blocked in committee and for this year, at least, it is probably dead. Details to follow....