Wilderness History

[Dave_Schuldt]

I heard this on KEXP this morning

 

July 21, Guest Kevin Marsh, Assistant Professor of U.S. History and Environmental History, Idaho State University, speaks with Diane Horn about his book "Drawing Lines in the Forest: Creating Wilderness Areas in the Pacific Northwest.

 

Audio should be up soon

http://kexp.org/programming/progpage.asp?showID=7&1413=39284.25-1&96=39284.25-1&20=39284.25-1&256=39284.25-2

 

[Fairweather]

Why would we want to create More wilderness areas? So extremist environmental attorneys can file more lawsuits? So we can be locked out of our favorite trailhead because a washed out road grade can't be moved 20 feet? So more magnificent valley roads like Snoqualmie or Stehekin can be locked up? So former clear cuts can miraculously be called old growth? So mountain bikes can be kicked out of their well established haunts? So 50 year old rustic public use shelters can be torn down or torched by public servants? So limited USFS dollars can be stretched yet thinner?

 

Why would anyone who loves and enjoys our mountains want to create yet more established wilderness areas under the present (fucked up) system of EIS's, ESA, EA's, lawsuits, and environmental extremism?

[Rad]

"What a lucky man to see the earth before it touched his hand"

 

Neil Young.

[cj001f]

Why would anyone who loves and enjoys our mountains want to create yet more established wilderness areas under the present (fucked up) system of EIS's, ESA, EA's, lawsuits, and environmental extremism?

 

Because we don't have the same beliefs as you?

[Drederek]

I'm sure law schools pump out lawyers faster than they are dieing off so we need find "jobs" for them.

[mattp]

I agree with Fairweather and Muff that there is a fairly strong and vocal contingent that wants wilderness areas to be run as preserves, used as little as possible for any recreational purpose no matter how low the impact is, but it is nutty to suggest that all environmentalists, environmental lawyers, or all enforcement of environmental regulations have this as a goal or even that exclusion of recreatioal use is necessarily their net effect.

 

My brother has been a regional officer of the Sierra Club and he has spoken about the debates between those in their membership who view humans as not belonging in natural areas and those who enjoy recreational activities or who feel that a public sense of ownership and access is necessary for any viable politics of stewardship.

 

In Washington, we have a vast tract of formally designated Wilderness stretching nearly uninterrupted from I-90 to the Canadian border. A much larger defacto wilderness around it is getting larger every day, and every time a road washes out conservation groups like the North Cascades Conservation Council and the Alpine Lakes Protection Society cheer for their new "victory" and go to work fighting any efforts to repair it. A few years ago, there was a group in the Mazama area arguing that back country skiing on top of a five foot snowpack placed an unacceptable impact on the land below or interfered with wildlife although even if there is demonstrable impact, the actual level of penetration of such activity into the North Cascades around Mazama is obviously extremely small. We've talked about this before, and perhaps in some locations some of this migiht make sense but not in others. Currently, there is talk of expanding the Alpine Lakes wilderness, and I recently spoke with a representative from the Wilderness Society who was urging the merits of this proposal but I was not convinced of the need for it. I have always supported wilderness area designation and I've never met an environmental law I didn't like, but I asked him: is there really a threat to the land you are seeking to protect, and is Wilderness designation the best way to meet that threat?

 

There are many if not most of the managers in the Forest Service and Park Service and elsewhere who believe that these public lands were set aside for recreational use as much as any strictly preservationist agenda. Some user groups are starting to organize and become more involved in planning processes. There are a lot of environmental lawyers who support access and involvement and a strong basis for them in the very laws that Fairweather decries above - as well as the Wilderness Act itself.

 

[Bug]

Why would we want to create More wilderness areas?

Because the amount of land that is in wilderness already is a very tiny percentage of the forest and it consists mainly of the rocky ridges and high elevations which does not create a cohesive natural eco-system where diverse form of wildlife can thrive.

So extremist environmental attorneys can file more lawsuits?

If they are countering extremist developers who are spending millions of dollars to lobby our law-makers to use our tax dollars to destroy pristine areas that are vital to wildlife, YES.

So we can be locked out of our favorite trailhead because a washed out road grade can't be moved 20 feet? So more magnificent valley roads like Snoqualmie or Stehekin can be locked up?

It costs more to maintain roads than trails and motorized travel has a far greater potential for negatively impacting wildlife.

 

So former clear cuts can miraculously be called old growth?

Example?

So mountain bikes can be kicked out of their well established haunts?

Example?

So 50 year old rustic public use shelters can be torn down or torched by public servants?

Example?

So limited USFS dollars can be stretched yet thinner?

When I worked for the Forest Service, the amount of dollars spent on timber harvesting was greater than the amount of money spent on all recreation combined by a factor of over 100. That was 20 years ago and that factor has radically increased.

Why would anyone who loves and enjoys our mountains want to create yet more established wilderness areas under the present (fucked up) system of EIS's, ESA, EA's, lawsuits, and environmental extremism?

To counter the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually by developmental extremists to destroy wildlife habitat and limit our access to natural areas.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Bug

[mattp]

I bet Fairweather can come up with some of the examples you seek there, Bug. I didn't look at the boundaries carefully but in the Wild Sky area I beleve there were, in fact, areas previously harvested that may not have been "miraculously called old growth," but which will now be considered inappropriate for any trail development as a result of the new Wilderness designation. I'm pretty sure the area includes some places where mountain biking has taken place in the past, as well. There are examples all over the place of former cabins and shelters being burned down - not specifically because of a new Wilderness area designation, perhaps, but certainly such designation has been a factor in these and other similar management decisions.

 

I agree that there is not much low elevation forest or riverland set aside as Wilderness, and I'd support discussion of that issue. However, I am not convinced that Wilderness designation is the only way to protect or properly manage these areas.

[MarkMcJizzy]

 

Areas that have been substantially logged are considered inappropriate for Wilderness designation. There are examples to the contrary, such as areas impacted by mining and activities ancillary to mining. Some spots inside the Glacier Peak Wilderness are examples of these uses. But areas which have undergone northwest style industrial logging do not get included into wilderness areas.

[Bug]

I am sure Fairweather will come up with examples. He usually has some facts to back up what he says even if we interpret them at different extremes. I am curious to see what areas he is talking about.

[cj001f]

Areas that have been substantially logged are considered inappropriate for Wilderness designation. There are examples to the contrary, such as areas impacted by mining and activities ancillary to mining. Some spots inside the Glacier Peak Wilderness are examples of these uses. But areas which have undergone northwest style industrial logging do not get included into wilderness areas.

 

That's not quite true. The Dolly Sods wilderness area in West Virginia was formerly intensively logged. Closer to the PNW a former mine site in Mt. Rainier National Park has been included within Wilderness boundaries. Of course if we apply a strict "untrammeled by man" much of the western forests where the Indians used fire to manage undergrowth (including Yosemite) would not be fit for inclusion.

 

Then the Blue Ribbon Coalition could RV and ATV everywhere! Think of the fun and freedom! I can smell it! Or is that just 2-stroke exhaust?

[Fairweather]

Why would we want to create More wilderness areas?

Because the amount of land that is in wilderness already is a very tiny percentage of the forest and it consists mainly of the rocky ridges and high elevations which does not create a cohesive natural eco-system where diverse form of wildlife can thrive.

So extremist environmental attorneys can file more lawsuits?

If they are countering extremist developers who are spending millions of dollars to lobby our law-makers to use our tax dollars to destroy pristine areas that are vital to wildlife, YES.

So we can be locked out of our favorite trailhead because a washed out road grade can't be moved 20 feet? So more magnificent valley roads like Snoqualmie or Stehekin can be locked up?

It costs more to maintain roads than trails and motorized travel has a far greater potential for negatively impacting wildlife.

 

So former clear cuts can miraculously be called old growth?

Example?

So mountain bikes can be kicked out of their well established haunts?

Example?

So 50 year old rustic public use shelters can be torn down or torched by public servants?

Example?

So limited USFS dollars can be stretched yet thinner?

When I worked for the Forest Service, the amount of dollars spent on timber harvesting was greater than the amount of money spent on all recreation combined by a factor of over 100. That was 20 years ago and that factor has radically increased.

Why would anyone who loves and enjoys our mountains want to create yet more established wilderness areas under the present (fucked up) system of EIS's, ESA, EA's, lawsuits, and environmental extremism?

To counter the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually by developmental extremists to destroy wildlife habitat and limit our access to natural areas.

 

1) Not a "tiny" percentage, but rather substantial. I agree there should be more...but under a new set of rules as yet to be defined. I am a big fan of the "National Recreation Area" concept, but that might be taking things a bit too far.

2) Define "developers". The timber rapists are only a small fraction of their former selves. Maybe mining? I'm not up to date on any recent controversy vs PNW wilderness.

3) Your reply didn't even attempt to address the point.

4) Wild Sky Wilderness.

5) Every single wilderness area created in this state during the past 30 years!

* Boulder River

* The Brothers

* Buckhorn

* Clearwater

* Colonel Bob

* Glacier Peak

* Glacier View

* Goat Rocks

* Henry M. Jackson

* Indian Heaven

* Lake Chelan-Sawtooth

* Mount Adams

* Mount Baker

* Mount Skokomish

* Noisy-Diobsud

* Norse Peak

 

* Pasayten

* Salmo-Priest

* San Juan WA

 

* Mt. Skokomish

* Trapper Creek

* Washington Islands WA

* Wenaha-Tucannon

* William O. Douglas

* Wonder Mountain

 

6) Back in the 1970's and 80's an arson campaign to eradicate all "man made structures" (public/trailside shelters) on The Olympic Penninsula within the boundaries of ONP was undertaken by a new breed of wilderness zealots bent on setting things right with nature under the protection of the WA of 1964. Only with the public outcries of good people like Dick Pargeter (of Pargeter's Maps fame) were these jihadists forced to stop their nonsense.

 

7) Again, you don't address the point in any way. Trails and roads were subsidized by logging back then. Now that that funding has dried up the USFS needs to change its mandate to recreation that is balanced and meets the needs of diverse user groups. I need to believe that my Trail Park Pass is helping to fund my activities and not paying for the newly installed gate and sign that reads Road Closed.

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2007 by Fairweather

[mattp]

Actually, Fairweather, I think that roads were more often built with tax dollas as a subsidy for logging than the other way around.

[billcoe]

Now that that funding has dried up the USFS needs to change its mandate to recreation that is balanced and meets the needs of diverse user groups. I need to believe that my Trail Park Pass is helping to fund my activities and not paying for the newly installed gate and sign that reads Road Closed.

 

 

 

Why?

 

I totally disagree with you. Volenters should be utilized to keep trails open and do maintenance, or they will disappear.

 

I'd be more than fine with that, maybe more people would be involved.

 

Do you really think your forest pass is paying even a small fraction of the overhead of the federal Gov't?

[Fairweather]

I believe it's being used as a USFS jobs program. And no, I don't believe it's a very large percentage of their budget. The "volunteer" groups you talk about have agenda's of their own. WTA supported the closing of the upper Middle Fork Road.

[Bug]

1) Not a "tiny" percentage, but rather substantial. I agree there should be more...but under a new set of rules as yet to be defined. I am a big fan of the "National Recreation Area" concept, but that might be taking things a bit too far.

 

OK I used "forest" inappropriately. I like the scenic rivers byways and would like to see grasslands and deserts preserved as well.

2) Define "developers". The timber rapists are only a small fraction of their former selves. Maybe mining? I'm not up to date on any recent controversy vs PNW wilderness.

 

I am not limiting the debate to PNW. Sorry if I missed that you are. But no, I was not limiting it to timber rapists but they are still a large part of the forest service budget. There are also mining interests as you mentioned, housing developments, and recreational use that is not conducive to wildlife health. Examples would be increased erosion due to mountain biking and or ATVs, Snowmobiles in game wintering ranges (people for that matter), and even horse use in very sensitive areas. I know this is not "popular" but we are on a population boom curve that getting steeper at an alarming rate. If we do not conserve and preserve now, it will probably never happen. The rate of species extinction is higher now than any other time since the dinosaurs died. Granted, most of those are in the tropics but we live here and the effect will broaden its reach.

3) Your reply didn't even attempt to address the point.

Enlighten me. Maybe it's the way you put it. Maybe I'm being dense.

4) Wild Sky Wilderness.

5) Every single wilderness area created in this state during the past 30 years!

* Boulder River

* The Brothers

* Buckhorn

* Clearwater

* Colonel Bob

* Glacier Peak

* Glacier View

* Goat Rocks

* Henry M. Jackson

* Indian Heaven

* Lake Chelan-Sawtooth

* Mount Adams

* Mount Baker

* Mount Skokomish

* Noisy-Diobsud

* Norse Peak

 

* Pasayten

* Salmo-Priest

* San Juan WA

 

* Mt. Skokomish

* Trapper Creek

* Washington Islands WA

* Wenaha-Tucannon

* William O. Douglas

* Wonder Mountain

OK so are you saying that anything designated as wilderness cannot have any second growth in it? SPirit of the law vs letter of the law. Again I argue for habitat.

6) Back in the 1970's and 80's an arson campaign to eradicate all "man made structures" (public/trailside shelters) on The Olympic Penninsula within the boundaries of ONP was undertaken by a new breed of wilderness zealots bent on setting things right with nature under the protection of the WA of 1964. Only with the public outcries of good people like Dick Pargeter (of Pargeter's Maps fame) were these jihadists forced to stop their nonsense.

I'm from Montana. Vigilante justice was used effectively to curb a rash of robberies in the late 1800's. It was one extreme case that not many people support as a long standing solution to crime. I think this would apply to the Olympic Penninsula example you cite.

7) Again, you don't address the point in any way. Trails and roads were subsidized by logging back then. Now that that funding has dried up the USFS needs to change its mandate to recreation that is balanced and meets the needs of diverse user groups. I need to believe that my Trail Park Pass is helping to fund my activities and not paying for the newly installed gate and sign that reads Road Closed.

Well I may be out of touch with FS budgets these days. But I would bet good money that any agency in today's executive branch doesn't give a rip about recreation for you and me.

[mattp]

I think if you talked to the people at the National Forests and Parks around Washington, Bug, you would find that most or many of them DO care more than a "rip" about recreation for you and me. As I've indicated, I think Fairweather has overstated his case about how environmental legislation or environmental groups have the death grip on recreational use, but I think you too have mis-stated the situation. I may have a selective sample, but my experience has been that as a general rule land managers are friendlier to climbing now than they were when I first started many years ago.

 

However, I fully agree with you about the population growth curve, and I think that increased recreational pressure IS going to lead to more regulation of climbing and other related activities on public lands.

[Bug]

I'm talking about agency policy Matt. I could go on and on about my father's carreer in the Forest Service as Region 1 Director of Recreation or my own 4 years as a wilderness ranger after he retired. But what we wanted or believed was contrary to what the Forset Service did during the Reagan years which is when we were both ex-communicated.

The people who forced us out were the ones who took over. Actually, before I left, I rammed a 5 year delay of a Forest Plan that called for oil and Gas drilling in the Badger Two Medicine down the Regional Forester's gullet. 2 weeks later he had to present me with the highest award in inter-Agency Recreation, (the Primitive Skills award), for an unrelated project. We talked amicably but my job was not funded the next year. He became Chief of the FS that year. OK I'm bragging. But I am also making a point. I know of what I speak and it does not indict all who work for the FS. But the FS is an agency under the direct control of the executive branch, George.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Bug

[mattp]

Now that I agree with, Bug. I don't know the personal values of everyone at higher levels in the Forest Service, but clearly the agency is under the control of the Executive branch and subject to the whims of Congress, and during the timber boom times there was lots of support for the agency as a timber harvest subsidy pipeline. Now that they've largely run out of old growth and environmental laws have reduced their ongoing harvest even of second growth, there is much less support for the agency as a whole and even money for recreational management and the roads and trails that are part of it, which should be a growing focus in light of population trends, is drying up. They used to build and maintain roads with tax dollars for the exclusive or primary use by loggers. Now, policies of privatization and starve the beast have replaced those of direct and indirect support for business.

 

To some extent, I think, some of the hard core conservationists are taking advantage of this situation. They can lobby their representatives to win green points by voting for a new wilderness area in a location that was not going to be logged or mined anyway, and the Forest Service can then plan on spending almost nothing to maintain this area - they will allow no new trails, and they'll cut back on existing access in the name of preseving the integrity of the Wilderness, and fewer people will go there. It is a win win, no?

[Bug]

Win, win, loose. Fairweather probably does not like the scenario you are describing. Am I right?

Anyway, thanks for the information Matt.