Wild Sky: new Washington wilderness area

[marylou]

Where many proponents of designated wilderness cross the line involves the social arena. And this is where I jump ship. Once an area has been protected from the chainsaw, the shovel, and the drill, why do so many self-proclaimed purists insist on imposing their religion upon the newly saved acerage? Solitude. Mechanization prohibition. And the famous let nature take over lawsuits to prevent trail and road (read: access) repair.

 

Actually, that's all written down in the Act. I think the horse may be out of the barn on that issue.

[Fairweather]

Fairweather, your views are not crazy, and your arguements interesting.

Don't mistake my stance, I just tend to believe that green policys do not pull much weight around Washington DC right now.

 

I hear you. But some might call that backlash. ??

 

Marylou, the solitude provisions in The Act are very ambiguous. Words like "should" and "must".

 

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that in 1964 the distinction between motorized and mechanized was part of the debate. I badly want to see the original document - not a suspect web version. I can't believe that mechanized was the original language 20 years before the advent of the mountain bike, and I can think of no other reason that specific word would be used as it relates to wilderness usage back then. ...but I could be wrong on this one.

[marylou]

They had bicycles AND wheelbarrows in 1964.

 

If you can prove to me that the Act has been amended, then please do so, otherwise, I'm not conceding the point.

 

I don't think Harvey Manning is writing books anymore either, nor do I know of any group currently pushing for Wilderness designation in the DD or closure of the Cascade River Road.

 

P.S. The word "solitude" occurs only once in the Act, and it's in the definition of Wilderness:

 

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

 

If you are going to argue this with facts, please use actual ones rather than ones you made up.

Edited March 11, 2005 by marylou

[Fairweather]

Marylou, if you have the third (most recent, copyright 2000) edition of 100 Hikes in Washington's North Cascades Region, turn to page 141 and read Harvey's rant. It is three pages long, so I won't post it here, but his proposal is promoted by The North Cascades Conservation Council.

 

Harvey sums up his Cascade River Road closure proposal with this: "Make no mistake, it will be achieved, one way or another."

 

As for 'bicycles', as you well know, they weren't in any way present on trails back then. Hell, they were barely stable enough for pavement.

[Fairweather]

They had bicycles AND wheelbarrows in 1964.

 

If you can prove to me that the Act has been amended, then please do so, otherwise, I'm not conceding the point.

 

I don't think Harvey Manning is writing books anymore either, nor do I know of any group currently pushing for Wilderness designation in the DD or closure of the Cascade River Road.

 

P.S. The word "solitude" occurs only once in the Act, and it's in the definition of Wilderness:

 

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

 

If you are going to argue this with facts, please use actual ones rather than ones you made up.

 

Calm down there, little miss. I believe I clearly stated, "I could be wrong". Since neither of us are lawyers, I would point out that the 'solitude' value you cite relates to the qualifications for an area to be considered for wilderness status. I would also point out that "oppurtunity for solitude" is, again, rather ambiguous.

[marylou]

The NCCC's website makes no mention of supporting such an idea. Nor have I ever heard of any land manager pushing for it.

 

NCCC policy

 

I don't have that old guidebook but you could very well be right. I'm just not at all convinced that he's active anymore.

[marylou]

Don't you little miss me, you asshat. I looked up the Act before I spoke about it. You didn't.

 

Nothing I could find indicated that mechanized was added later. I do not believe the Act has ever been amended.

[Fairweather]

I thought after a four year hiatus, you were capable of civil debate, but your "If you are going to argue this with facts, please use actual ones rather than ones you made up" snipe indicates you're just not ready.

[marylou]

And I would think that if you are going to debate the facts, that you would use actual facts.

 

It's totally fine to argue it on a philosophical level where facts are a little less important, but it was your idea to get into the realm of the factual.

[JayB]

Great thread.

 

For me, a decision to support or oppose legislation that governs land use usually amounts to favoring the least of many evils, and an attempt to reconcile many conflicting perogatives, and often find myself holding positions that are not entirely consistent. For example:

 

- I want to maximize habitat preservation and low-impact recreation.

 

- I love wild landscapes but I also think that accessibility is an important component of preservation, e.g. people generally tend to value things that they have direct experience with and connections to.

 

- I generally look at fatasses on motorized devices in wildlands with unmitigated contempt, and feel a justified superiority to them when I am in a place that I have reached under my own power, in a fashion that would likely induce cardiac arrest in them but - I recognize that they are, in their own way, an important constituency that generally do far more to preserve public lands than they do to destroy them. In this sense, they bear some resemblance to the weird symbiosis between hunters and the game animals that they kill. One example - Ducks Unlimited has arguably done more to preserve wetlands than any other lobby in the country. Another reason to avoid alienating the hook, bullett, and motor crowd too badly is that they are the kinds of people that Republican legislators will actually listen to and take seriously, whereas a dread-locked, patchouli-laden Earth First(er) will have a rather more difficult time impressing the importance of his concerns upon them.

 

These are just a few. In the end, though, a wilderness designation seems to be the least of many evils.

 

And - a final aside - I wonder if anyone has ever proposes land-swaps whereby one takes land that in which there's currently a modicum of restraint on motorized vehicles, that has low habitat value, and is only of minor interest to other recreationalists and removes all restrictions on motorized use in exchange for taking two or three times as much land with high habitat and recreational potential completely off the table for motorized users - e.g. take away three times as much land that they can barely use in exchange for giving them some crappy wasteland that they can absolutely trash the shit out of with ATV's, etc.

[Chriznitch]

would you really want to visit if it wasn't a wilderness area?