Wild Sky Wilderness Area

[KaskadskyjKozak]

now law

[Fromage]

Lots of thanks to the Cascade Land Conservancy for the persistent work going into making this happen.

 

article on passage of Wild Sky

[merganzer]

This is awesome, and worth the wait although you would hope that it would not take so long.

[Fairweather]

Damn shame The Wilderness Act is being diluted like this.

[Hendershot]

Yeah it took long enough, 8 years. Thanks to a senator in Oklahoma, who lost his seat in the last election.

[ericb]

Yeah it took long enough, 8 years. Thanks to a senator in Oklahoma, who lost his seat in the last election.

 

of course it had nothing to do with Patty Murray

[marylou]

Great news.

[Fairweather]

Yeah it took long enough, 8 years. Thanks to a senator in Oklahoma, who lost his seat in the last election.

 

You missed my point. "Wild Sky" does not meet the criteria set forth in The Wilderness Act. This bill should not have become law. Neither should the ridiculous proposal to expand the Mount Hood Wilderness down in Oregon. We're breaking our own rules and it stinks.

 

BTW; Senator Coburn, Republican, Oklahoma, is still in office.

[dberdinka]

Damn shame The Wilderness Act is being diluted like this.

 

Please explain?

[Fairweather]

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct&error=404

 

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

 

© 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. 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.

 

Portions of Wild Sky are second growth and do not meet the criteria set forth in the original document.

[mattp]

Parts of the Wild Sky Wilderness are right next to the road or otherwise have areas that most of us would not think of as wilderness. It has a very popular float plane destination and float planes will still be allowed to land at Lake Isabel. The easy to reach and overcamped Barclay Lake was specifically excluded so that large groups such as Boy Scout troops could go there. In other ares, the new Wilderness includes second growth. In the current Mt. Hood expansion, I looked at the map and concluded that there is at least one road and campground in the area included. The map posted here a few weeks ago suggested the area also includes many small parcels that are not part of a larger whole - almost like pocket parks.

 

I'm not an expert on Wilderness areas but I think these kinds of things were not included in wilderness areas, or not commonly so, in the past.

 

I suppose that you could argue that such "compromises" are appropriate in public lands management, but you might conversely argue that they water down the essential concept of wilderness and that other rules and management approaches should govern some of these areas. I am interested in seeing if we might strengthen the roadless area designation as an alternative to formal wilderness. This might allow more clear delineation between "core" wilderness like the Glacier Peak region or the Alpine Lakes, and surrounding areas we'd like to keep generally wild while providing for some higher level of recreational access. It makes more sense to me than to carve out tons of "Lake Isabel exceptions" for areas or uses not allowed under the Wilderness Act or general wilderness area management policies.

 

Many of the conservation people believe that Wilderness area designation is essential to protect wild lands and this drives a push to get as much wilderness as possible, whether or not the target areas are really what we think of as wilderness. In the Wild Sky and Mt Hood cases, politics and pragmatism led to compromises. An ongoing effort to provide Wilderness status to areas that don't meet the originally set forth criteria for wilderness and really don't look or feel like wilderness may serve to weaken the long term protection of wilderness while also complicating or perhaps unreasonably restricting management options in the fringe areas or places of high recreational value that are easy to get to.

Edited May 11, 2008 by mattp

[triggerhappy]

So has anyone spent much time up in this area? Favorite trails, climbs? I wonder if this means they'll get around to actually fixing the Index-Galena road since it seems like it will be one of the major access points for the wilderness.

[mattp]

The Wild Sky Wilderness is relatively little visited even though it is so close to Seattle. There is a short trail to Barclay Lake which sits right below the N. Face of Mt. Baring, but this is a heavily used destination that was actually excluded from the Wilderness. A trail heads up the hill to Eagle Lake, above. I’ve skied up there at this time of year and Townsend Mtn. is not a bad destination. Later in the Summer, Scorpion is a fairly scenic hike.

 

For climbing, the most famous target in the new wilderness area is Mt. Baring, though this gets few ascents by the north side which has the giant wall that is what makes it famous. Nearby Gunn Peak and Merchant draw some traffic, and there are a couple of rock routes there which are said to be pretty good.

[eatsleepclimb]

better than heartlessly logging it to death!! Or would you rather have it take another 8 years?

[Fairweather]

Yes. And more.

[mattp]

Was there any concrete threat that the area that has been incorporated into the Wild Sky Wilderness was going to be logged? Were there any actual proposals or preparations for a timber sale any time soon?

[archenemy]

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct&error=404

 

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

 

© 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. 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.

 

Portions of Wild Sky are second growth and do not meet the criteria set forth in the original document.

So only old-growth forests would be considered for Wilderness? I don't see that a second growth forest in any way limits the pleasure of walking through the woods for the majority of folks.

[mattp]

Second growth generally doesn't sound to me like "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man" and I for one enjoy seeing the big trees that you find in old growth forest. It is a whole different setting than a Douglas Fir plantation with weed species like Hemlock starting up or Slide Maple or Alders taking over in areas where the fir doesn't dominate.

 

I think, however, the question of "human pleasure" is not the defining factor for many people who advocate on wilderness issues.

[Peter_Puget]

So only old-growth forests would be considered for Wilderness? I don't see that a second growth forest in any way limits the pleasure of walking through the woods for the majority of folks.

 

I think walking thru old growth is much more enjoyable. The fact you can walk thru old growth forests is one of their defining features.......

[mattp]

Yup. In the period, say, 10 - 25 years following replanting, most regrowth areas are darn near impenetrable and, if left unplanted, it is not much better.

 

Given time it tends to develop more diverse forest and look more like the real thing. For example" back east, where the logging took place over 100 years ago, places like the Pemigewasset Wilderness actually "feel" like wild and pristine landscape. I suppose if there were any "real" forest left I might not say that, but still I think the second growth around here will also look more like a natural forest in 100 years.

 

(This, of course, might be an argument in favor of imposing long term protection for areas where wilderness area designation is not now appropriate or desirable for recreation management or other reasons.)

[marylou]

Was there any concrete threat that the area that has been incorporated into the Wild Sky Wilderness was going to be logged? Were there any actual proposals or preparations for a timber sale any time soon?

 

The only concrete threat was that this is about the last unprotected OG that's on public land in WA. Also, the mature second growth is quite large. $$$$$$

 

I do know the DNR has been logging in some areas either just inside or outside of the new boundaries (sorry do not know which, but have seen it) and I do know that it was simply a matter of time before the OG and mature SG would be logged. Whether there was a hard date or not, it was imminent. That's why Pombo and some other out of state congressmen were so against it--the timber lobby has people like Pombo looking out for their interests. Anyone familiar with the history of the creation of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness knows there was active logging going on up the Mountaineers Creek drainage in the Icicle while that legislation was working its way through the process--that's why we have that road up there actually.

 

The arguments about previous logging or human activity don't fly, as the large majority of federally designated Wildernesses have at least some sign of human activity in them, be it from loging, mining, or homesteading. The Act has been interpreted by Congress in this way since its creation.

[mattp]

The only concrete threat was that this is about the last unprotected OG that's on public land in WA. Also, the mature second growth is quite large. $$$$$$

 

Isn't that kind of like what they are saying about the Pratt River area, proposed for an expansion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness? Aren't you really just saying it is either A)wilderness designation or B)logging? You note no actual proposal except that "it is inevitable."

 

For sure, logging industry representatives will pursue their interests wherever they can and I don't disagree with you overall. I DO think we should be protecting public and for that matter private lands -- especially old growth -- but I also think we should be looking at recreational interests and broader management priorities.

 

---

 

In areas close to urban centers, should we be saying there will be no mountain bike riding? Should hiking even on established trails close to the road be restricted to a set number of parties to protect "solitude?" (Think about places like the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest near Snoqualmie Pass or the Mt. Hood National Forest.) Should we disallow the use of chain saws for trail maintenance or (for rock climbers) power drills for even the replacement of existing and rusting rock climbing anchors that have been there in some cases for decades - or for that matter should we ban all pitons and slings on trees as was the rule just a few years ago? Meanwhile, should we say that Federally protected "Wilderness Areas" are subject to case-by-case exceptions for float planes, boy scouts, and campgrounds? Should they normally include old clearcuts?

 

In general, I think Wilderness Area designation should be reserved for large areas of wilderness that can be and should be surrounded by more recreation oriented areas that are managed for preservation of habitat and scenery. Wilderness is the core, not the fringe.

 

---

 

Let's strengthen the roadless area rule through a Congressional mandate so that Conservation people don't have to rely upon Wilderness designation - even if it involves compromise of the core value of Wilderness - as their only hope.

[marylou]

Isn't that kind of like what they are saying about the Pratt River area, proposed for an expansion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

 

I don't know. I looked over the Pratt proposal and was underwhelmed.

 

Aren't you really just saying it is either A)wilderness designation or B)logging? You note no actual proposal except that "it is inevitable."

 

History will back up the inevitability of quality stands that are not protected getting cut down. I think it IS inevitable w/o protection.

 

In areas close to urban centers, should we be saying there will be no mountain bike riding?

 

Everyone who spoke up got exceptions and boundary adjustments. Did the MTB people speak up for a certain area and get shot down? That would surprise me.

 

Should hiking even on established trails close to the road be restricted to a set number of parties to protect "solitude?" (Think about places like the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest near Snoqualmie Pass or the Mt. Hood National Forest.)

 

I think that is done by local land managers when they feel the need arises. I personally have no problem with limiting access to allow areas to rehab or not get beat to crap.

 

Meanwhile, should we say that Federally protected "Wilderness Areas" are subject to case-by-case exceptions for float planes, boy scouts, and campgrounds?

 

Yeah, that gets done all the time. Think of the many examples already extant in WA.

 

Should they normally include old clearcuts?

 

I'm not sure if they "normally" do, but places previously logged are drawn into Wilderness areas, yes, sure it happens.

 

Let's strengthen the roadless area rule through a Congressional mandate so that Conservation people don't have to rely upon Wilderness designation - even if it involves compromise of the core value of Wilderness - as their only hope.

 

That's a whole 'nother discussion. The bill was to create the WSW, and it was passed overwhelmingly by House and Senate, and signed into law by a president who's not too famous for being a tree-hugger.