Montanans trying to destroy our historic lookouits

[tvashtarkatena]

Can't you Montanans be content with yer bottle o Jack and a friendly sheep?

 

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110115/NEWS01/701159925

 

Feel free to contact Wilderness Watch and tell them how you feel. I did.

 

http://www.wildernesswatch.org/about/contact.html

 

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[KirkW]

So where would you draw the line Tvash?

 

The Forest Service rules apply to everybody but the FS?

 

What's next? Back Country Welcome centers with toilets and trash removal service at every fire ring scattered across the PNW? That would certainly make it more comfortable for the "hikers" that are so up in arms about the possibility of losing their rest spot. How soon am I going to need to carry mein papiers with me when I go climbing? How much will those cost me and how exactly will the FS waste that money?

 

I realize it's a lot easier to demonize the group that is doing this than it is to look at the facts and make the obvious decisions that needs to be made. The FS broke the law that they themselves have been given the responsibility of upholding. When I break the law and get caught I'm held accountable.

 

If the locals in WA don't want to hold the FS accountable then perhaps you should step aside and let someone who actually gives a shit about our public lands do what they feel compelled to do?

[tvashtarkatena]

You're in Oregon. Not your local mountains, not where you frequent, not your problem. I'm also not interested in hearing about how you deal with your toilette paper, and I doubt anyone else is, either. It's really not at issue here, last time I checked.

 

Plus...you've grossly mischaracterized the legality of the situ and are apparently not aware of what the Wilderness Act, and its provision for historic value, actually is.

 

You're also apparently unaware that Washington's fire lookouts are maintained by volunteers, not state money. Volunteers may apply for grants, but those are certainly not guaranteed funding.

 

BTW, many thanks to those volunteers who do such a great job of maintaining our historic and spectacular lookouts and cabins...the few that are left.

 

How do the rest of you Washingtonians feel about our lookouts? Love em? Hate em?

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Tyson.g]

I personally love lookouts.

When the Winter sets in I tend to spend a lot of my outdoor time hiking to the lookouts and enjoying the shelter, comfort and the history of these places.

 

[KirkW]

Oh, I see. Since I don't live right next to this piece of Federally owned and managed wilderness then I don't get to have a say in how it's used? How close exactly do I need to live before I get to speak my opinion? 10 miles? 100? 217 1/2? Please tell me so that I don't go and embarrass myself again by speaking out of place. I thought the whole point of it being protected by the feds was that it belonged to all of us and wouldn't be left up to the locals to use and abuse as they see fit?

 

You're wrong in stating that I don't understand what the Wilderness Act "actually" is. I understand all too well how it has misinterpreted by user groups across this country so that they can achieve whatever goal or pet project they've decided is important.

 

If it's been set aside as a Wilderness then there is no gray area in the act as to what is allowed. Except of course whatever gray area the bureaucrats in the FS "decide" exists. They are not supposed to be making laws or finding ways to circumvent the ones that all ready exist.

 

I usually agree with your views on things Tvash but in this I think you are absolutely wrong. Attack this group and call them drunk sheep fuckers if you have to but it won't change the fact that if someone doesn't hold the FS accountable for their reprehensible "management" of our public lands then one day there will be no more public lands.

 

Please, now tell me how I'm an ignorant fool. Your name calling rants are usually quite entertaining.

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, we've heard your opinion from several hundred miles south of our border, complete with unrelated toilette paper rant, etc. I'd like to here more local opinions from people who've actually visited Washington's historic lookouts.

 

Wilderness areas allow all kinds of things: horses, cabins,cattle and sheep grazing, hunting...based on historical use. That's why Wilderness Area regulations vary, A LOT, area by area...as they should. It's not the FS 'bending the rules', its an appropriate clause in the Wilderness Act that respects local history and use as well as the environment.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[KirkW]

Tvash, you're missing the point. It's not up to Washingtonians what they can and cannot do on Federally protected land. I get just as much say in it as you do. It doesn't matter if it's a crapper or a fire lookout.

 

Glad you liked my Gorge TR enough to continue referencing it despite the fact that I didn't bring it up!

[tvashtarkatena]

From the Wiki:

 

"The Wilderness Act allows certain uses (e.g.; resource extraction, grazing, etc) which existed before the land became wilderness to be grandfathered in, permitting them to continue to take place although the area that was designated as wilderness typically would not concede such uses. Specifically, mining, grazing, water uses, or any other uses that don’t significantly impact the majority of the area, can remain in some degree."

 

Ie, there is quite a bit of discretion as to how a given Wildnerness area is managed, and locals, given that they are the primary users, historically have had a lot more say in the matter than non-users such as yourself.

 

Gorge TR? Not aware of it, nor is is relevant here.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Tom_Sjolseth]

The original lookout was there before the wilderness rules were enacted. The structure is used in wilderness management. The "new" structure (which was constructed using many of the original structure's building materials) looks remarkably similar to the original structure. The original structure was "restored" - it's not like they built a hotel up there with a chopper pad and jacuzzi. The people who want this restored structure removed are the same people who would object to having any structure anywhere in the first place. Wilderness zealots - a lot like religious zealots who try to oppress everyone else's views but their own. I have a hard time believing the courts won't see it this way.

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's the Wilderness Watch take on the situ, from their website. They are fighting a number of fire lookout maintenance projects: they are clearly against all structures in Wilderness Areas, regardless of their history. Apparently, they're working from their own definition of the Wilderness Act, not the actual law and its large body of precedence.

 

"Building New History in Wilderness (Washington): UPDATED 11/10 [Posted 7/10]

Wilderness Watch recently alerted its members to the U.S. Forest Service’s (FS) newly constructed Green Mountain “Lookout” in the Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington’s North Cascades (and also mentioned a number of other outlaw projects we’re dealing with). It was built with freight helicopters and power tools along with a healthy dose of arrogance. It’s actually not intended to serve as a lookout: the last time a person manned a lookout in the area was the early 1970s. No, this was built to be a visitor center of sorts, complete with its resident ranger leading nature hikes, (???) and directly contrary to the legal mandate that there be no structures or installations in Wilderness.

 

The agency would have gotten away with this egregious breach of wilderness ethics and law had not a Wilderness Watch member and former wilderness ranger discovered the project on his own. You see, FS officials plotted it in private, avoiding public process or participation, thinking they might sneak their unlawful activities under the radar. (Actually, local volunteers conceived of, obtained a grant for, and executed the project PMG) What is it about the law’s mandate that there be “no structure or installation” built in Wilderness that the Forest Service doesn’t understand?

• Click here to read the rest on our blog

 

[uPDATE, 11/10]: Wilderness Watch has filed a Complaint in federal district court in Washington State. In our complaint we asked the court to rule this structure illegal and order the Forest Service to remove it. We'll keep you posted. WW is represented by Pete Frost of Western Environmental Law Center.

Back to top

 

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

WW's attorney is Pete Frost out of...Eugene, OR! (of course). Feel free to contact him:

 

 

http://www.westernlaw.org/contact-us

[tvashtarkatena]

Relevant Excerpt from the Wilderness Act of 1964:

 

"to promote, perpetuate, and preserve the wilderness character of the lands, protect watersheds and wildlife habitat, preserve scenic and historic resources, and promote scientific research, primitive recreation, solitude, physical and mental challenge and inspiration for the benefit of all the American people to a greater extent than is possible in the absence of wilderness designation.”

 

From the USFS website re: Green Mountain Lookout:

 

"In this spirit of preserving historic structures, since 1984 the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has engaged in cooperative efforts to maintain its wilderness lookouts: Winchester Mountain, Park Butte, Three Fingers, Miners Ridge, Evergreen Mountain, Granite Mountain and Green Mountain. While each lookout has required considerable work to repair windows, roofs and foundations, the Green Mountain Lookout was in the most dire condition. The Forest Service began to rehabilitate the lookout in 1998 to rehabilitate the lookout. The project received wide public support, Washington State historic preservation concurrence, and grant funding. Work began in 1999.

The first repair effort in 2000 failed due to inadequate design for snow loading. At risk of losing the structure, the lookout had to be disassembled and removed from the mountaintop. Each piece was numbered and then removed by helicopter for repairs in Darrington, Wash., so the pieces could be returned and re-assembled to re-create the previous lookout atop Green Mountain.

In 2003 and 2006, major winter storms washed out roads and creek crossings, making access to the trailhead a 12-mile hiking venture on undriveable roads. Access finally improved enough that the lookout foundation could be repaired in 2009. The lookout pieces were then flown back by helicopter and re-assembled on the mountaintop. Today, some interior finishing work and other details remain to complete the lookout rehabilitation."

 

The characterization of by Wilderness Watch of this being a 'secret project' is as complete a fabrication as it's assertion that this will become a staffed 'visitor center' (anyone who's familiar with the location of our lookouts will have a quiet chuckle over this).

 

In short, Wilderness Watch has engaged in an out of state campaign involving lying and misreading of statute to tear town a historic structure, built in 1933, that is, in fact, still used by volunteers to spot fires (again, in direct contradiction of WW's assertions to the opposite), and about which its members know little to nothing about.

 

Principled advocacy organizations do not engage in this sort of out and out fabrication. If you've given money to Wilderness Watch in the past, you might look for another organization that will be a better steward of both the truth and your hard earned money.

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[curtveld]

I personally love lookouts.

 

Same here.

 

And I agree that allowing the maintenance of pre-Wilderness lookouts is a reasonable use of the flexibility in the Act. As far as environmental impacts, a lookout on a rocky peak is way down the list, unless you want to consider the impact of the added vehicle and hiking traffic they attract.

 

It is curious that WW has decided to raise the red flag as we have plenty of local groups dedicated to wilderness preservation. The locals probably understand how unpopular this would be with their constituents.

[tvashtarkatena]

In violation of the Wilderness Act's allowance for scientific research, Wilderness Watch is also fighting the installation of remote, unmanned weather stations in Alaska.

 

Yeah...great organization to give money to. Really relevant.

 

Fortunately, they don't write the laws, although it would appear that they think they can re-write them.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[sdizzle25]

+1 for the simple fact that out of state opinions on the use of federal land are just as relevant as local opinions, hence the whole federal thing. If it wasnt for wealthy k street NGOs and DC bureaucrats, all of Idaho would be 4x4 accesible and open for hunting from the drivers seat, instead of the home to the largest and most continuous pristine wilderness in the lower 48. 2 sides to every story, all Im saying.

[DPS]

 

If it's been set aside as a Wilderness then there is no gray area in the act as to what is allowed.

Well that would be the first completely unambigous, no gray area piece of federal legisation ever enacted.

[tvashtarkatena]

I didn't realize 4x4 ing was really big before 1964 when the Wilderness Act was passed.

 

Hint: It wasn't.

 

In addition, fishermen, and to a lesser extend hunters, constitute the largest habitat preservation advocacy group in the country, not hikers and climbers. I'd say Idahoans probably deserve more credit for their Wilderness Areas than is being given.

 

 

[Pete_H]

Wilderness has its place but so does multi-use areas. It seems to me the expansion of Wilderness Areas are a tool to limit access. By transferring land from the Forest Service to Wilderness Area the FS doesn't have to maintain roads or regulate multi-use, just a few foot trails here and there. All justified by a false ethos of conservation.

 

In Washington, access is already so shitty, it would be a net benefit for all outdoor enthusiasts if we could have more huts / permanent structures (built using mechanical tools) on Forest Service, National Parks, and Wilderness Areas.

[JasonG]

I sure love lookouts, and really wish we had more of them. Unfortunately, there were quite a number of them burned down from the 1960's onward.

[sdizzle25]

You are all certainly entitled to your opinions but i do have to say this is kinda coming out of left field to me. In my humble opinion access in Washington is wayyyy to good, as access demands in areas like the Alpine Lakes truly negate the sense of solitude and commitment, and this is AFTER the permit system was in place. Dont permanent structures like those at camp Muir ruin the climbing experience for you? Doesnt the approach bushwhack (on the few climbs that require it in Washington) add to the richness of the experience? It would break my heart if the North Cascades became as big a circus as the Alps.

[Pete_H]

Snow camping mid-winter in the Cascades does not add to the richness of my wilderness experience. Well ... I take that back because sometimes it does. I guess it depends on the experience you're after.

 

I enjoy the reward and solitude of a fully self-sufficient alpine endevor and have done many. However, a B.C.-esque hut system in the Cascades would add options for other types of experiences that are just as rich. The Cascades is indeed large enough for a hut system that wouldn't corrupt the flavor and nature of the range.

 

Furthermore, how much different would a hut be, say for example in Boston Basin, than 20 tents spread out all over the glacier? One isn't exactly going to find solitude there the way it is.

 

The hut on Muir has not ruined any experience for me. I've actually never even stayed in it. I've never even climbed the DC route. I've climbed other routes that are less trafficked just as someone could do in the Cascades if they wanted to avoid the area where huts where in place.

 

The environment and solitude of B.C. hasn't been ruined by having a very extensive hut system. In fact, I'd argue that the opposite has occurred as huts and better access spread the use out over multiple areas.

[Fairweather]

Finally, something TTK and I agree on. The dogmatism and intransigence of deep-ecology movement orgs like Wilderness Watch, ALPS, and the NCCC is why advocacy for preservation is waning. For example, just look at the chilly reception that the proposed expansion of NCNP is getting from once-reliable supporters.

[Pete_H]

Maybe because its a bad idea.

[Fairweather]

I agree. There's that too.

[Fairweather]

Dont permanent structures like those at camp Muir ruin the climbing experience for you? Doesnt the approach bushwhack (on the few climbs that require it in Washington) add to the richness of the experience? It would break my heart if the North Cascades became as big a circus as the Alps.

 

The Muir hut (and the entire summit climbing corridor) was intentionally drawn out of wilderness designation because of its popularity. No, the Muir hut doesn't detract from the experience at all--because nobody goes there expecting a "wilderness" experience and, in any event, the legal definition does not apply. What's more, there are plenty of other routes on Rainier that will lend themselves to someone seeking the vague "opportunities for solitude" the WA 1964 alludes to.

 

I don't think anyone would seriously consider doing the hut thing in NCNP or adjacent Wilderness areas. But TTK is 100% correct; the existing structures with historic value should stay.