WILD SKY LOCKUP

[cj001f]

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.

When I worked at a goverment lab all of the equipment suppliers started wetting their pants come August - because they knew everyone had to spend their alloted money. All the reps knew how to write a quote (splitting lines, multiple quotes for seperate parts) to get it in your budget.

 

Then their are congressional line item projects (aka pork) - a whole nother fiscal fandango.

[mattp]

I don't agree with all of the anti-government or anti-environmentalist tirades of Fairweather or Billcoe, but I think there are some valid questions about whether recreational access is really a part of the plan for the Wild Sky. It's not just about power drills and climbing. I think there are real concerns for fishermen, hunters, and hikers as well.

 

There ARE some environmentalists who believe wilderness areas should be run as nature preserves, where even the least intrusive human visitation is to be restricted or discouraged. These folks will not be shy about promoting that agenda in the Wild Sky. I also think there are severe budgetary pressures on the Forest Service, and management costs are less in little-used and inaccessible areas where recreational use is at a minimum; all other things being equal, they are going to decommission roads or cut back on trail programs near or in Wilderness areas first. The promotional arguments of plan backers aside, in the Wild Sky I think a Wilderness designation will almost certainly result in less access and, in the long run, fewer trails.

 

Is it worth it? Perhaps. I wouldn't want to see the area logged or mined, that's for sure. I also wouldn't want it to be subjected to unregulated or uncontrolled recreational use that was so intrusive as to completely alter the character of the area. However, I believe that the recreational opportunities found in a relatively accessible "semi-wilderness" like the Wild Sky are extremely valuable and especially so because they are so close to an urban area like the City of Seattle.

 

The Wilderness designation MAY be a good way to assure that the area is protected but I think there are legitimate questions about whether a Wilderness status is the best way to balance recreational values with preservation.

[Fairweather]

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.

 

One of the things that I find amusing here is the complete shock and surprise expressed by new(er) cc.com members who come to discover that not all climbers sign on wholly to the current environmental litany.

 

Until the ambiguous solitude provisions of The Wilderness Act are repealed or clarified, and certain access issues resolved, I will not support the establishment of any new wilderness areas. Additionally, I will continue to write our government representatives to express my opposition as such. If doing so makes me a "right-wing zealot", then so be it.

[mattp]

You earned your status as a "right wing zealot" on other grounds, Mr. Fairweather.

[Fairweather]

You earned your status as a "right wing zealot" on other grounds, Mr. Fairweather.

 

...and you, left-wing kook, comrade Perkins.

[cj001f]

One of the things that I find amusing here is the complete shock and surprise expressed by new(er) cc.com members who come to discover that not all climbers sign on wholly to the current environmental litany.

You will be assimilated!

[Jopa]

this bill died in congress today. they will probably propose a new version, though.

[marylou]

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.

 

This is wholly incorrect. NPs can (and do) have Wilderness in them. Also DNR land can have this designation. I'm *pretty* sure NRAs can too, though that's an unlikely place to have Wilderness.

[cj001f]

I'm *pretty* sure NRAs can too, though that's an unlikely place to have Wilderness.

Sawtooth National Recreation Area contains the Sawtooth Wilderness.

[rat]

this bill died in congress today. they will probably propose a new version, though.

 

oh boy, dolomite tower safe for roto-hammers for another year.

 

drink, spew, fight.

[Szyjakowski]

lets go now!