Wild Sky: new Washington wilderness area

[Chriznitch]

Senate Committee Approves Wild Sky Wilderness Area

 

February 16 - The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee unanimously approved a bill that would create the Wild Sky Wilderness Area, the first new wilderness area in Washington State in more than 20 years.

 

According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the proposal has "broad support" in both houses of Congress, but attempts to create the wilderness area during the past 2 years have died in the House Resources Committee whose Chair, Richard Pombo (R-CA), is generally opposed to awarding higher protection to federal land. The Senate has passed the bill twice only to see it fail in the House.

 

To prevent that from happening again, Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA) reintroduced a House version of the bill identical to the version he and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) originally introduced in May 2002.

 

"We are restarting the clock on Wild Sky," Larsen said. "We have done the homework and the legwork to create a 'hands on' wilderness proposal that will benefit Washington State families and businesses."

 

Should the legislation pass, 106,000 acres in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest northeast of Seattle would be made off-limits to vehicles (including bicycles and snowmobiles), logging, mining, and other commercial uses. Road construction also would be prohibited, except in emergencies situations, such as to extinguish fire.

 

For more information on the bill, visit Rep. Rick Larsen's website.

 

You can read the text of the bill at the Thomas legislative information website and search using the term "Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2005."

 

from the e-forester

[Fairweather]

.

 

Should the legislation pass, 106,000 acres in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest northeast of Seattle would be made off-limits to vehicles (including bicycles and snowmobiles).....

 

 

Just what we need. More restrictions on those monsterously evil mountain bikes that tear through the old clearcuts included in this so-called wild area.

[catbirdseat]

Even land that has been raped and pillaged, if protected for a sufficient period of time, will return to a wild and natural state. Your assertion is that basically once a piece of land has been logged, it can't be protected and I don't agree.

[Fairweather]

So now you wish to change the language and definitions of wilderness within The Act itself?

 

Until recreational access and 'solitude' provisions of TWA are clearly defined, I will continue to write letters to my representatives and speak out against the creation of any new wilderness areas.

[Chriznitch]

this is a tough one. Our country still keeps "setting aside" land while our consumers and competition (ala China) continue to fill their needs from other areas with considerably less restrictions--aka "raping the land".

tough call to say the least...at least our country will be pretty longer than others, but the voters need to think globally instead of where they go on the weekends or for summer camp

[ScottP]

It is about more than just keeping the land pretty...

It seems to me I read somewhere how ecological and biological diversity play a pretty important role in sustaining life on this planet. Two things that don't tend to happen with human encroachment.

[Chriznitch]

is it better to save x number of species in our own country or x^10 elsewhere?

[ScottP]

I guess I missed your point (?)

I thought we were talking about a wilderness area here in WA.

[k.rose]

Hey Fairweather , perhaps you should hook up with those dirtbike and atv dudes that hang out at that old gravel pit on Reiter road. Your thinking on wilderness issues is more in line with those folks than with most climbers I know. It's too bad those folks on the Brothers didn't hit you with one of those rocks, mighta knocked some sense into ya.

[Fairweather]

Maybe you should examine how you separate political beliefs from personal and climbing relationships. I know dozens of climbers and hikers who believe The Wilderness Act goes too far. Especially as it relates to 'solitude' and non-motorized access.

 

Was that your party trundling rocks down on us on The Brothers Sunday? Was that your lone white Mitsubishi Montero SUV, license plate number xxx xxx (I have the actual number) with the I vote for the environment bumper sticker at the Lena Lake trailhead Sunday night?

 

Mr Rose, maybe you'd like to knock some sense into me all by yourself - without the aid of gravity and a shower of 30 lb rocks? I can tell you're one of those violent enviro's I love so much. What a loser.

[mattp]

Does anybody around here actually know very much about this proposal?

 

How is this area unique or not unique, as compared to the rest of the wildlands stretching from I-90 to the Canadian border and beyond?

 

What kinds of recreational activities take place there now, and would take place in the future with or without Wilderness designation?

 

What is the prospect for significant timber harvest or mining or development or other significant destruction of this area if it is not designated Wilderness?

 

I've virtually ALWAYS been in favor of Wilderness designations, but here I am not so sure.

[lancegranite]

I believe that the wilderness thing will be null and void soon anyway... how can we have wilderness if there is nobody being paid to protect it?

 

Fairweather, I think many of us agree with the principals of goverment leaving us alone and freedom to explore this country as we see fit. We just want to do our thing like everyone else...

 

Sadly, this administration is opening the door to allow his oil, gas, and mining friends to have their way with your forests, water and air.

In the end, I would rather have wilderness that I cannot "use" than have "public land" that gets leased to the highest bidder, who then plows, cuts and kills everything just so I can wipe my ass with a little square of extra soft paper.

[k.rose]

Sorry to disappoint you Fairweather, but I haven't been to the Brothers in years. Having worked in the timber industry for 25 years I've had ample opportunity to observe first hand the alternatives to setting aside a tract of land as wilderness. I think Lance sums it up pretty well with this..."Sadly, this administration is opening the door to allow his oil, gas, and mining friends to have their way with your forests, water and air.

In the end, I would rather have wilderness that I cannot "use" than have "public land" that gets leased to the highest bidder, who then plows, cuts and kills everything just so I can wipe my ass with a little square of extra soft paper. "

[catbirdseat]

What is unique? Show me another place where low elevation valley bottom forests have been set aside in Western Washington. The only think close would be parts of the Boulder River Wilderness. It has a different mix of tree species, however. I was told that the reason that valley was never logged was that it had a lot of less valuable timber such as silver firs and smaller size trees.

Does anybody around here actually know very much about this proposal?

 

How is this area unique or not unique, as compared to the rest of the wildlands stretching from I-90 to the Canadian border and beyond?

 

What kinds of recreational activities take place there now, and would take place in the future with or without Wilderness designation?

 

What is the prospect for significant timber harvest or mining or development or other significant destruction of this area if it is not designated Wilderness?

 

I've virtually ALWAYS been in favor of Wilderness designations, but here I am not so sure.

[marylou]

Pretty much every Wilderness in the state has valley bottoms in it, and many of them have been logged before. If you look at where they have been left out of a Wilderness via a "cherry stem" road, it's historically been due to inholders.

 

There may be good reasons to not designate Wld Sky as a Wilderness, but lowlands is not one of them.

[mattp]

Mary Lou is right. There are lots of lowland valley bottoms set aside already.

 

That part of the North Fork of the Sky and other creeks in the proposed wilderness start at about 1500 feet. Just looking at my handy dandy Washington Gazeteer for about ten minutes, I see that on the West slope of the North Cascades, North of I-90, the following low elevation river and creek bottoms are included in wilderness areas:

 

-Sunday Creek and part of the upper Snoqualmie River headwaters (from approximately 1500 feet on up)

-East Fork of the Foss River (approximately 1700 feet on up)

-Cadet Creek, starting at about 1700 feet or so

-Boulder River (1200 feet on up)

-North Fork Sauk River, starting at about 2,000 feet

-Suiattle River, starting at about 1500 feet

-Downey Creek, starting at about 1500 feet

-Sulphur Creek, starting at about 1500 feet

-Buck Creek, starting at about 1500 feet

-Kindy Creek, starting at about 1500 feet

-South Fork, Cascade River, starting at about 1500 feet

-Various creeks around Mount Baker, starting at about 1500 feet

 

and I think just about every creek draining the Picketts area is in the National Park, and these include:

-the Baker River, starting at about 1000 feet,

-Noisy Creek, starting at about 1500 feet

-Bacon Creek, starting at about 1,000 feet,

-Goodell Creek, starting at about 1,000 feet,

-Stetattle Creek, starting at about 1,000 feet,

-Big and Little Beaver Creeks, starting at about 1,000 feet,

-the Chilliwack River, starting at about 1,000 feet

-Silesia Creek, starting at about 1800 feet,

 

 

...and more.

 

If you look at the website of the Washington Wilderness Coalition, promoting the proposal, they talk about unique lowland forests lying in the proposed new wilderness. I am not so sure about this.

 

Does anybody know what threats the area may face with or without Wilderness designation?

[Peter_Puget]

I oppose the Wild Sky because too much of our National Forests are being converted to Wilderness Areas. At some level it is simply a manifestation of a lack of confidence in the Forest Service. If the FS is not capable of long term mangement of our public land, why doesn’t our legislators tackle the real job of fixing it?

 

Last week I was driving through the Central Valley in Ca and was stuck by how much it has changed. Swampland turned into farmland turned into houses. The transition from farmland to housing is a complex process where a seller must meet up with a developer then the developer a lender and finally a buyer. All along the way cost/benefit ratios are calculated expected future desires considered.

 

In many ways the Wilderness process mirrors the development process. What is missing is a market that implicitly considers a wide range of desires and valuations and actors that assume the risks of their actions. Instead we are left with “carpetbagging” politicians pandering to special interest groups and relying on the continued disinterest of the polity.

[marylou]

Once an area is developed in the way you describe, it can never really return to a natural state. That's why I think it's good to err on the side of caution, and make more Wilderness rather than less.

 

I know that's a somewhat simplistic argument, but so be it.

[JoshK]

Parts of the NCNP have been logged, if that matters, and, as ML says, pretty much parts of every other wilderness area.

 

 

The wilderness act is not perfect I am sure (i know little about it) but I will always default to *more* protection as opposed to less protection. It will never be perfect but I would rather see the policy sway towards decreased access over the possibility of the logging companies getting rich of OUR land.

[Fairweather]

Despite the somewhat violent, ill-willed knee-jerk responses to my post from the likes of Mr Rose, I am happy to say that I wholly support the existence of wilderness areas. If anyone would actually take the time to read what I said....and not what they think I must mean...they would understand that I simply have issues with some of the finer details of The Wilderness Act itself, and until these issues are resolved I don't want to see any more areas established.

 

The ignorance regarding designated wilderness here is stunning, especially amongst supposed supporters of new areas. Catbird's post is a case-in-point. How many here realize that it is legal to hunt in a designated wilderness area? Horses and dogs? No problem. Existing mining and grazing claims? They are grandfathered in forever.

 

But mountain bikes? Forget it! Clearing windfalls on trails? Better ask the local wilderness club lawyer first! And let's make sure that the local anti-social types have a strictly regulated place where they can spend days and days without seeing or having to otherwise interact with anyone else.....'solitude'.

[AlpineK]

Hey Mr Knee Jerk(Fairweather) I think a lot of people understand what gets lost with wilderness designation. If you'd bothered to read some of the posts above you'd see that.

 

I agree that the designation cuts out many things that should be allowed. I agree that roads and trails should be maintained. I think you should be able to use power tools to do so as well. I also know that climbing may be restricted by wilderness designation. I still support the wilderness because the alternative is much worse.

 

Both the USFS and the BLM have a history of leasing out our land at ridiculously low rates. Not only does land under the agencies jurisdiction get trashed they also get an extremely low return on the use.

[mattp]

Virtually every post in support of this proposed Wilderness is founded on the sole premise that the area is threatened with some unknown horror of logging, development, or mining in a manner that only Wilderness designation can prevent, or that such a designation is our best hope for preventing such threat.

 

Again, I ask: does anybody here know what real threats may exist? Yes, I know that Bush and his buddies want to rape the earth and they'll probably kill your cat while they are at it. I hate those guys. But I have seen logging decreasing, and little or no mining, road building, or development take place on the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest for a number of years now. Nobody here is addressing what REAL prospects there are that the areas in question may be subject to such threats or specifically what parts of the proposed new Wilderness may be threatened.

 

In addition, we aren't talking about how the Northwest Forest Plan, fish habitat rules, roadless area regulations, or other laws and management programs may serve much of the protective purpose we seek, adn I don't think we really know how the area would be managed for recreational use as opposed to resource extraction with or without wilderness designation.

 

I'm for preservation. I support wilderness area designations. I have not made up my mind on this one but so far nobody has said much that convinces me the Wild Sky Wildereness is a good idea.

[Chriznitch]

well, it's encouraging to see that you guys have an interest in this.

I've spent the last 6 years with the "big green machine" and do realize that with our current policy process setting aside land as wilderness probably saves the taxpayers in the long run. The struggles to manage non-wilderness public lands are now continuous and indirect--so much time and money is spent going through appeals that there is a huge backlog for maintaining healthy forests. Although the national forests were set aside to conserve (not PRESERVE) and provide for long-term timber resources, water, and other uses, we're practically ignoring that intent now.

Pulling a Redford and setting it aside allows nature to clean it up for us with catastrophic wildfires--not as user friendly for weekend warriors but likely easier on the taxpayers in the long run

[Peter_Puget]

Ähnliche =>

 

 

Sadly, this administration is opening the door to allow his oil, gas, and mining friends to have their way with your forests, water and air.

In the end, I would rather have wilderness that I cannot "use" than have "public land" that gets leased to the highest bidder, who then plows, cuts and kills everything just so I can wipe my ass with a little square of extra soft paper.

 

 

Once an area is developed in the way you describe, it can never really return to a natural state. That's why I think it's good to err on the side of caution, and make more Wilderness rather than less.

 

 

The wilderness act is not perfect I am sure (i know little about it) but I will always default to *more* protection as opposed to less protection. It will never be perfect but I would rather see the policy sway towards decreased access over the possibility of the logging companies getting rich of OUR land.

 

 

I agree that the designation cuts out many things that should be allowed. I agree that roads and trails should be maintained. I think you should be able to use power tools to do so as well. I also know that climbing may be restricted by wilderness designation. I still support the wilderness because the alternative is much worse.

 

Both the USFS and the BLM have a history of leasing out our land at ridiculously low rates. Not only does land under the agencies jurisdiction get trashed they also get an extremely low return on the use.

 

 

Matt – I don’t think anyone is saying that there is a imminent threat. In fact many suggest that perhaps the Wild Sky is overkill. Their position seems to be one of a simply atavistic reaction: wilderness is always good. The one consistent refrain is that the FS can’t be trusted.

[Peter_Puget]

Chriznitch

 

You seem to be suggesting that from the Forest Service perspective Wilderness areas are a good tool to deal with budget contraints. I would agree that that might be the case. I have argued something similar in the past. This is perhaps another reason why budgets for land managers seem to get the short shrift. The powerful conservation lobby directly benefits!