WILD SKY LOCKUP

[Fairweather]

From the KING 5 News website:

 

Wash. lawmakers unite behind Cascades wilderness plan

 

09:47 PM PDT on Tuesday, July 20, 2004

 

From KING Staff and Wire Reports

 

 

EVERETT, Wash. - A majority of Washington’s congressional delegation united Monday behind a proposed new wilderness area in the Cascades.

 

The state’s two U.S. senators and seven of its nine representatives urged the leader of the House Resources Committee to take action on the bill. The only members of the delegation who did not sign the letter were Republican Representatives George Nethercutt, who is running for the U.S. Senate, and Doc Hastings.

 

Nethercutt has said, however, that he supports protecting the Wild Sky acreage, while Hastings says he is neutral.

 

But the chairman of the U.S. House Resources Committee said Tuesday he won't allow a vote on a bipartisan proposal for a new Washington state wilderness area as it is currently written.

 

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., wrote to Rep. Nethercutt that the latest proposal for a Wild Sky wilderness is flawed because about 16,000 of the approximately 105,000 acres contain roads, bridges or have previously been harvested for timber.

 

The Wild Sky proposal is set for a Thursday hearing in Washington, D.C., before a House Resources subcommittee on forests and forest health.

 

The proposal faces a ticking clock. After Thursday's hearing, Congress has only 19 more work days until its scheduled Oct. 1 adjournment, factoring in the August recess and political conventions.

 

[JoshK]

Fairweather, what is so bad about designating a new wilderness area? If you like the outdoors, why not protect it from getting logged, etc...?

[Fairweather]

Because radical fringe enviro-lawyers and organizations twist intrpretations of The Wilderness Act (and Roadless Rules) to lock us out too!! Until they can bargain in good faith, I say....Fuck 'em.

[JoshK]

Where do we get locked out? I hardly considering restricting road access the same as being locked out. It's great that there are areas that are hard to get to. The tradoff of not having the area used for development or logging is well worth it, IMHO.

[Fairweather]

Frankly, a large portion of the area doesn't meet the standard set forth in The Wilderness Act 1964 pertaining to establishment thereof. Are we now declaring clearcuts and second growth forest "wild and untrammelled by man"?

 

As for the logging, it will only recommence in earnest if the number of recreationalists declines. This will only happen if a succession of generations find they have been "locked out".

[johndavidjr]

A NH fed wilderness area has bridges & at one time, a logging railroad. Place famous as virtual logging desert at turn of Century. Now non-controversial as "wilderness" & mobbed with hikers.

 

Wash locals' opposition in early 1960s, to establishment of North Cascades National Park was nearly total. Similar opposition to ONP.

 

Similarities to this discussion?

______

[cj001f]

John-

You needn't look so far afield to find wilderness area's that once bore the imprint of man. Glacier Basin, in Mt Rainier National Park, once held a copper mine (the trail follows the old mine road). In Olympic National Park, the Enchanted Valley Chalet, built as a resort now finds itself inside a Wilderness Area.

 

Reclamation of area's for wilderness is not new, and hasn't been objected to in National Parks, so why is National Forest Land different?

[Fairweather]

 

Wash locals' opposition in early 1960s, to establishment of North Cascades National Park was nearly total. Similar opposition to ONP.

 

 

______

 

John,

 

You've made this claim before, and it simply isn't true.

[johndavidjr]

Brian: One must realize (& perhaps you do) how vastly different Washington was in the mid-1960s, in terms of economics, politics and demographics. As one small example, environmentalists, as the term is currently understood, hardly existed. My assertion shouldn't be that hard to swallow.

 

But I'm sorry I can't recite chapter and verse, and thus can't effectively refute your assertion. But I believe (and I could be wrong) most of the Washington Congressional delegation was opposed to the park at the time. This shouldn't be a surprise, as business interests were uniformly opposed.

 

There may have been an exception in Henry Jackson, but I'm actually not sure if he was a member of the delegation at the time.

 

If you have any more solid information on this history, then do tell, as obviously I'm interested.

 

_______________

 

 

 

___

Edited July 27, 2004 by johndavidjr

[cj001f]

John-

Read the administrative history:

http://www.nps.gov/noca/adhi-1b.htm

 

"Lined up in opposition were the traditional park opponents -- the state's timber and mining industries, hunters, outdoor recreation groups, such as ski area developers, and local area residents and industry-oriented chambers of commerce, all of whom favored continued Forest Service management. Similarly, Seattle City Light, with some 700,000 customers in the Seattle area, continued to lobby for protection of its interests under the proposed Park Service management."

 

While this isn't unanimous opposition, it is quite stiff opposition that Jackson faced.

 

Oh, Fairweather, there was mining and logging activity in numerous drainages that are now wilderness in NCNP.

[johndavidjr]

Thanks for link CJ. Quite informative & I stand partly corrected, Brian. But I'm still unclear how entire WA delegation voted. After all, even Gov. Evans, of a long-gone breed of moderate Republicans, essentially opposed the thing until he got adequate cover. I guess he knew on which side his bread was buttered.

 

Also, though it's surprising to see such a pro-environmentalist history published by the Feds, I think it's slightly bias in favor of the victors (ultimately the park bureauacracy) & doesn't adequately discuss the extent of opposition. The impetus for the park, it would seem, was mostly out-of-state.

 

 

_____

[Fairweather]

cj,

 

You don't seem to have a grasp on the Wilderness concept. Areas within NCNP, ONP, and MRNP - such as the parts of Glacier Basin you mention - are excluded from Wilderness designation for the very reasons you state. You seem to be under the impression that simply because land is within a national park boundary, it falls under protection of Wilderness designation.

 

Regardless of what is, the Wilderness Act is fairly clear on what qualifies for wilderness consideration...and clearly large portions of "Wild Sky" don't.

[cj001f]

cj,

 

You don't seem to have a grasp on the Wilderness concept. Areas within NCNP, ONP, and MRNP - such as the parts of Glacier Basin you mention - are excluded from Wilderness designation for the very reasons you state. You seem to be under the impression that simply because land is within a national park boundary, it falls under protection of Wilderness designation.

 

Regardless of what is, the Wilderness Act is fairly clear on what qualifies for wilderness consideration...and clearly large portions of "Wild Sky" don't.

 

Fairweather,

Do I need to buy you a map to go with your condscension? All of the areas I mentioned are within Wilderness Areas, which was my point.

 

 

No orange exception in above map of Oly wilderness for Enchanted Valley

 

Or, further afield, the Ansel Adams Wilderness, which includes the Ostrander Ski Hut (that you need a Wilderness Permit to Sleep At!), which was part of the original 1964 Wilderness Areas. Revisionist Thinking?

[johndavidjr]

Fairweather: Clearly there are no "federal Wilderness" areas outside of national forests. I assume the act to which you refer covers only national forest lands. The park service, presumably has a different set of designations with regard to wilderness preservation.

[cj001f]

Fairweather: I assume the act to which you refer covers only national forest lands. The park service, presumably has a different set of designations.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 covers National Forests, National Parks, etc. It defines wilderness, by, among other characteristics "(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;"

 

Fairweather likes to quote the feel good part and not the meat.

[Fairweather]

Wow! A Park Service Brochure. Now that's some real research, Cj. The Glacier Basin historic mining area you described as Wilderness is, as of 1998, still owned by private inholders. It is not designated wilderness. Inholdings are spread throughout NCNP too. I'm not sure about Olympic, but the SolDuc area comes to mind....and that park pamphlet they hand out at Hoh does not a wilderness document make. Gimme a break.

[cj001f]

Wow! A Park Service Brochure. Now that's some real research, Cj. The Glacier Basin historic mining area you described as Wilderness is, as of 1998, still owned by private inholders. It is not designated wilderness. Inholdings are spread throughout NCNP too. I'm not sure about Olympic, but the SolDuc area comes to mind....and that park pamphlet they hand out at Hoh does not a wilderness document make. Gimme a break.

Once again Fairweather, do your research:

" and detract from the park's integrity until the claims were finally acquired by the government in 1984. [67] "

http://www.nps.gov/mora/adhi/adhi7a.htm

[Fairweather]

Now your talkin'. Touche'.

 

I wasn't up to speed on this aquisition. Still living in the 80's I guess, and I thought I had read the inholders were still holding out for $$$ after all these years. Regardless, stump farms shouldn't be designated as Wilderness ...as I stated above. This is not the intent of the Act.

[cj001f]

Now your talkin'. Touche'.

 

I wasn't up to speed on this aquisition. Still living in the 80's I guess, and I thought I had read the inholders were still holding out for $$$ after all these years. Regardless, stump farms shouldn't be designated as Wilderness ...as I stated above. This is not the intent of the Act.

The act itself is a bit murky, but I'm not a lawyer. The feel good first part of the definition:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. "

Seems at odds with the meatier part:

"An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

[johndavidjr]

Hmm-- yes it the act does indeed apply to NP as well as NF lands. Guess I'm "stumped by the stars" again, though there appear to be significant differences in how the two agencies apply the designation, & you won't find a "wilderness area" in a national park, though I had been aware there are NP areas designated as wilderness-- a fine and meaningless distinction.

 

Regarding actual applications, I again mention the place in NH where the major feature, as far as hikers are concerned, is a 15-mile trail that is a former logging railroad bed. A NF "wilderness area" very popular with Boston hikers.

[maryk]

It still shocks me that there seems to be climbers out there that are as opposed to wilderness as extreme right-wingers and industry zealots. I won't even lump loggers in here b/c many loggers (traditional ones) are strong advocates for sustainable use. Anywho, where do you think you are going to climb if not in wild, protected areas? The only thing *some* climbers should be really be worried about is their "right" to drill new holes in rocks - not something I advocate, but an issue for some I know (unless you are willing to do it the old fashion way). Access is never fully closed off. Unused, crappy, overgrown roads that nobody uses are sometimes "closed" - mostly meaning they aren't maintained. But if a current road is used it will be "cherry-stemmed" into the wilderness boundary, especially in today's politics, specifically in order to provide access...for hikers, climbers, hunters, fishermen (fisherpeople? ), snowmobileres, off-road bikers (don't get me started on that one!), horseback riders...you name it.

 

The *only* times I've seen access trails closed was to prevent people, dogs and noise from disturbing threatened or endangered species, esp. if they are nesting/mating.

 

Regardless, as someone pointed out, this bill is not likely to go anywhere this year because Nethercutt isn't pushing his buddy Pombo (House Resources Cmte Chair) to hold a cmte vote (a hearing was finally allowed), and Pombo is a wacko wingnut who's been trying to hold any and all wilderness bills hostage (except horribly damaging bills that have "wilderness" in the title to make them look good), even when entire delegations (dems and repubs) support the bill. The bill has passed the Senate a number of times - it's being held up in the House.

 

If climbers care about having wild places to explore they should be writing Pombo and Nethercutt in support of the Wild Sky bill, not against it. Anything less is completely illogical.

 

If anyone really wants more info on the bill, what's in it, where it is now, etc. PM me and I'll put you in touch with a very knowledgeable colleague. Or, search the Seattle P-I/Times website and you'll find loads of pieces that are at least mostly accurate and well done, in my opinion.

[billcoe]

I used to agree with you MaryK,

 

Now I agree with Fairweather. I'm tired of paying outrageous amounts of money to the government to shit on people.

 

Let them get real jobs and lean what being productive is. It isn't filling out paperwork and making requests on real peoples time. It is in producing something of value. Which they do not know about and never will.

[willstrickland]

I'm tired of paying outrageous amounts of money to the government to shit on people. Let them get real jobs and lean what being productive is. It isn't filling out paperwork and making requests on real peoples time. It is in producing something of value. Which they do not know about and never will.

 

Funny...I always thought clean water was valuable. Do you enjoy the taste of mercury and arsenic? Or maybe you prefer all the anadramous streams to be silted beyond tolerance levels. Yeah, I guess all the civil works projects we undertake...like flood control structures, locks, jetties, harbor and channel dregding, as well as the mil-con projects like the Clear Early Warning station, Bassett Army Hospital, Blair Lakes bombing range, military housing, etc, etc, etc....yeah those are USELESS! USELESS I SAY!! Those design engineers and project managers aren't producing shit! Let's fire them all!

 

On behalf of all the hard working govt employees (admittedly a small minority) I say unto thee:

 

Take up your beef with the legislators and policy makers who expand govt and spend our tax dollars.

[billcoe]

Will: I stand corrected.

[willstrickland]

No worries, Bill I'm just posturing for the most part. There are plenty of hard workers, but the cliche' of the lazy and/or inept govt worker rings true in my 10yrs of govt experience. I am all for downsizing govt.

 

There is an unfortunate "use it or lose it" aspect to funding in govt. For example, if we are budgeted a certain amount and are savy about conserving funds...which is in our personal interests as taxpayers, we will be "penalized". The bugetary forces will say "oh, they didn't even spend what they had, so we will target our cuts there". So maybe we have training allocations that we don't need to make use of this fiscal year, maybe the courses we need aren't being offered or are full...we will use those funds for some other dubious training purposes rather than risk losing them the following year when we might need them. Once it's cut, you probably won't get it back. It's a horrible attitude, but understandable given the reality.

 

That puts us in odd situations from time to time, like our current vehicle situation. During the late spring to early fall, we do alot of field work. Last year, due to extra high turnover in our office, we had an 8 person office staffed by 3 and a part time student trainee. They rarely could get away from the office to do any field work because of the load. Consequently they put very few miles on our vehicle durnig that field season. So now we are fully staffed with one vehicle for 6 people trying to do their field work, yet because there were not enough miles put on the existing vehicle last year, they will not give us another....even though there are at least 25 unused vehicles on Ft Wainwright at any one time that they could assign/loan/transfer to us for the field season.

 

The real problem lies in the fact that EVERYTHING is a "process". There is all this bureacracy and no freedom or authority to make decisions or make things happen at a level that makes sense. Why does a band-aid cost the govt $4? Because the request to purchase them has passed through 4 people's hands twice by the time it is approved and processed. Time is money.

 

It's a mess, and as a taxpayer you should be very pissed off.