Montanans trying to destroy our historic lookouits

[stevetimetravlr]

Huts minimize the ecological impact of hikers and climbers camping. No question about that. So if they don't like the huts, its really the people that use them they are offended by.

[Kimmo]

“It's supposed to be free of structures, free of motor vehicle use. The (lookout) is either legal or it's not. For people to say it's OK is the same as saying the wilderness should be open to off-road vehicles,” Nickas said. “Everybody wants it their way. The hikers don't want the loggers or the miners or the off-road vehicle folks. You can't expect your pet use to be OK, when the Wilderness Act is designed for us to step back and let it truly be a wild place. Without it, future generations won't know what wilderness is.”

Edited January 2, 2012 by Kimmo

[caverpilot]

That's why Wilderness Area regulations vary, A LOT, area by area...as they should.

 

Sorry, tvash - you're missing the point and absolutely wrong about this - there is NO variation provision for use of mechanized equipmentin the Wilderness, period!! It's the Wilderness!! (correction: there are specific exemptions to this in specific areas. Generally, however, mechanized use is prohibited.)

 

I'm all for restoring the lookout.... with pack animals and hand-tools. That's how they do it in the 1.5-million acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana, and the FS managed to restore the historic ranger cabin at Green Fork with only pack animals and hand tools.

 

The helicopter is total bullshit. Once, a plane performed a forced landing in the "Bob" at an abandoned airstrip, and the Forest Service required the plane be dismantled and removed by horseback. The cost of two horses they shot is still less than one or two helicopter flights, so the bottom line is the Forest Service broke (not bent) the rules to provide convenience.

 

Lookout Yes

Helicopter and Power tools NO!!

 

Finally, (tvash) don't characterize "Montanans" as leading this - it's only a "Montana-based" national organization. I don't identify with the Unibomber or the Freeman or the white supremacists in the Flathead, yet they're "Montanans". As Leonard Washington said, "better check your tone." (Dave Chappelle during the "Trading Spouses" sketch)

Edited January 5, 2012 by caverpilot

[Fairweather]

Lookout Yes

Helicopter and Power tools NO!!

 

I recall a massive blow down in the Alpine Lakes about 20 years ago that blocked large portions of the Icicle Ridge(?) trail. When the local USFS land manager sent crews up to clear it with chainsaws the following summer, ALPS threatened to file a lawsuit under the "motorized" (actually, mechanized) prohibitions of the Wilderness Act that you mention. Fair enough. The USFS manager, following the letter of the law, instead sent his crews in with hand drills and DYNAMITE. ALPS promptly withdrew their complaint.

[Pete_H]

Great story. Classic example of ideology taken to the absurd.

[j_b]

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.

 

Advocacy for preservation is waning in your head. That's about the extent of it.

[mattp]

I have not noticed any wane in advocacy for preservation. There does seem to have been a recent significant discussion of a recognition that vast preserves that restrict or impair public access may not receive vast public support. The discussion I have noticed has to do with what the Wilderness or other publicly protected lands are for -- not whether we want to preserve landscape in the first place.

[j_b]

I suspect it's also unclear whether similar opposition by industry and various user groups existed for the creation of the park.

 

The federal government began its own study of the North Cascades in 1963, conducted jointly by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. Part of the study involved public hearings in the Northwest, during which the planners received hundreds of comments and letters from constituents. People who lived in or near the North Cascades tended to not want changes in how the land was managed, and people in Seattle tended to want increased protection. [..]

 

The N3C wanted statutory wilderness boundaries established within the park immediately, as well as a few other boundary changes, mostly to enlarge the park's area. Others, such as Governor Dan Evans (b. 1925), supported the park, but wanted to increase recreational areas. On the other side were interest groups opposed to a park of any size, including hunters, recreation enthusiasts, and loggers who made their living off the land. Many advocates for both sides of the debate traveled to Washington, D.C., for a public hearing on April 24 and 25, 1967.

 

Outdoors Unlimited, Inc., representing a membership devoted to such outdoor recreations as fishing, skiing, hunting, camping, and "scenic driving," was a fierce opponent. At the hearing, William F. Lenihan, general counsel of the group, said:

 

"A perusal of the proposed development plans for the National Park and recreation area amply demonstrates to me that the proposed park is not one designed for people ... . The North Cascades has been referred to as the American Alps. If these are the American Alps, then let’s develop them like the European Alps so all the people can enjoy them" (April 1967 Hearings, p. 198).

 

Many who opposed the park perceived a class difference between their ranks and those who supported the park. While never proven, the allegation that conservationists were all wealthy city dwellers influenced many of the arguments against creating the park. Marion Newkirk, representing the Washington State Grange, said:

 

"We believe that all real wealth, food, clothing, and shelter comes from the soil in its original form, and that setting aside vast areas for single or very limited use takes away a large percentage of the real wealth of our country.

 

"At first we were amazed at the lack of concern for the welfare of the whole country exhibited by the proponents of the new North Cascades Park, but we are now convinced that they are completely selfish in their desire to set up another vast area as a private club for their own personal enjoyment.

 

"Incidentally, I wonder where these hardy exponents of the wild existence obtained the necessary funds to pursue their hobby. I suspect that most of them inherited it from ancestors who originally wrested it from the soil and which opportunity they now want to deny others.

 

"One of the key phrases of the park proponents is that they want to preserve all of this area for future generations. The one constant thing about nature is constant change. In a very short period of time nature changes the entire completion of the renewable resources and one earth tremor of a few seconds duration can alter the entire landscape more than any operation of man could do in many years. However, by some strange alchemy in the minds of the preservationists, this alteration by nature is a thing of awe-inspiring beauty, while any man-made change is a vile depredation of nature" (April 1967 Hearings, p. 202).

 

At a May 27, 1967, public hearing in Mount Vernon, William O. Pearson, mayor of Sedro Woolley, said:

 

"We resent the implications that we and your foresters are despoilers of nature. We resent the interference of the Sierra Club in its attempts to force us to change our mode of living, in its attempts to curtail our economic and recreational activities. We resent the attitude that we must have a large national park and we will have to learn to live with it. We resent the fact that the wishes of the people of this area are being ground beneath the heels of people who have little personal knowledge of the area, people who help extend the tentacles of mushrooming cities but deny us the pleasure and use of our own hinterland ... we resent the theory that our streams should be allowed to run wild and uncontrolled and flood our lowlands when man’s ingenuity can control the flood level" (May 1967 Hearings, p. 26). etc..

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9789

Edited January 4, 2012 by j_b

[mattp]

I suspect it's also unclear whether similar opposition by industry and various user groups existed for the creation of the park.

 

???

Based on limited discussion thus far I think that there WAS "similar" opposition by industry and user groups when the North Cascades Park was created. The debate evolves as do the issues of concern. The "industry" (logging, mining, and tourism) are different now as their immediate and long-term threat to the area is different. Also, the various factions of the "user groups" have changed (we didn't have mountain bikers, for example, and I think that hikers, climbers, fishers, and hunters - not to mention motorized users - all find themselves in different positions).

[j_b]

right, I was being cautious in my formulation since I didn't have corroboration, which I have added to my post.

 

btw, my quick perusal of the news shows that logging interests are still very much against any extension of the park as they were against its creation.

Edited January 4, 2012 by j_b

[mattp]

Yes, I've seen some of the same statements of position. But I remain unsure of how much the logging industry remains a threat to the proposed North Cascades National Park expansion area and I also am unclear on how the reconstruction of the Green Mountain lookout poses a threat to the integrity of the region as a recreational or biological preserve.

[tvashtarkatena]

That's why Wilderness Area regulations vary, A LOT, area by area...as they should.

 

Sorry, tvash - you're missing the point and absolutely wrong about this - there is NO variation provision for use of motorized vehiclesin the Wilderness, period!! It's the Wilderness!!

 

I'm all for restoring the lookout.... with pack animals and hand-tools. That's how they do it in the 1.5-million acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana, and the FS managed to restore the historic ranger cabin at Green Fork with only pack animals and hand tools.

 

The helicopter is total bullshit. Once, a plane performed a forced landing in the "Bob" at an abandoned airstrip, and the Forest Service required the plane be dismantled and removed by horseback. The cost of two horses they shot is still less than one or two helicopter flights, so the bottom line is the Forest Service broke (not bent) the rules to provide convenience.

 

Lookout Yes

Helicopter and Power tools NO!!

 

Finally, (tvash) don't characterize "Montanans" as leading this - it's only a "Montana-based" national organization. I don't identify with the Unibomber or the Freeman or the white supremacists in the Flathead, yet they're "Montanans". As Leonard Washington said, "better check your tone." (Dave Chappelle during the "Trading Spouses" sketch)

 

Next time you need a rescue from a wilderness area have fun on that pack mule ride.

 

The Gubmint uses motorized vehicles in wilderness areas for rescue, maintenance of historic structures, and other purposes as it sees fit. It uses a great deal of discretion in this. Let's be real: it's not much of a problem.

 

You might give the fly boys at Widbey a call if you're terribly worried about overflights of wilderness areas. I'm sure they'll comply immediately, once they're aware of your concern.

 

The structure was painstakingly repaired/rebuilt by hand just after 2000 but was severely damaged by natural forces shortly thereafter. The FS wisely decided to airlift the structure out and rebuild it offsite to save it (and all the work that had gone into it), primarily because it was about ready to slide down the mountain, an event which would have created a really attractive debris field for all you NO MOTORS! folks to enjoy for generations to come. Thankfully, cooler, less ideologically rigid heads prevailed, heads that considered the WHOLE problem and available solutions, the structure was saved, and a mess was avoided.

 

Finally, it's well known that all Montanans fuck sheep. Duh.

Edited January 4, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[NoahT]

It sounds like the FS did this particular repair job with the utmost care and respect.

 

In the broader context, though, I'm glad someone who disagrees has the right to challenge. Maybe this particular case is flimsy, unwarranted, or initiated with ulterior motives, but I'll trust the courts to deal with it appropriately.

 

If they broke the law, and stepped outside their bounds, then maybe the law needs to be re-written. But that's a different discussion. We all have to operate within the current confines of the law, so let's hope the FS did.

 

N

[Fairweather]

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.

 

Advocacy for preservation is waning in your head. That's about the extent of it.

 

Might I suggest you keep your spray in Spray?

[Fairweather]

I have not noticed any wane in advocacy for preservation. There does seem to have been a recent significant discussion of a recognition that vast preserves that restrict or impair public access may not receive vast public support. The discussion I have noticed has to do with what the Wilderness or other publicly protected lands are for -- not whether we want to preserve landscape in the first place.

 

The Wild Sky debate comes to mind. Ditto the Mount Hood Wilderness additions. Wild Olympics is meeting organized resistance from former allies as well. Recent op-eds by former reliables back your premise as well. My point is that if traditional and non-extractive access equals advocacy--which I believe to be true--then the strategy of deep ecologists is short sighted.

 

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Greens-want-bigger-national-park-Fine-let-2197242.php#ixzz1chOVB3sb

 

 

[j_b]

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.

 

Advocacy for preservation is waning in your head. That's about the extent of it.

 

Might I suggest you keep your spray in Spray?

 

In other words, you have no evidence to substantiate your self-serving drivel (No, Connelly's opinion is not evidence of anything)

Edited January 4, 2012 by j_b

[Fairweather]

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.

 

Advocacy for preservation is waning in your head. That's about the extent of it.

 

Might I suggest you keep your spray in Spray?

 

In other words, you have no evidence to substantiate your self-serving drivel.

 

I posted some above. Again, I'm going to respectfully ask you to keep Spray in Spray.

[j_b]

Some user groups, especially local pops, have always been opposed to extension of national parks. Nothing new. You haven't shown squat.

 

 

[Fairweather]

In other words, you have no evidence to substantiate your self-serving drivel (No, Connelly's opinion is not evidence of anything)

 

Yes, it's evidence that deep green-dogmatists are losing former supporters.

[j_b]

Says who? You? laughable.

 

I have extensively cited testimony against park creation from various interest groups a few posts above. Little is different today, including the rhetoric.

[tvashtarkatena]

It sounds like the FS did this particular repair job with the utmost care and respect.

 

In the broader context, though, I'm glad someone who disagrees has the right to challenge. Maybe this particular case is flimsy, unwarranted, or initiated with ulterior motives, but I'll trust the courts to deal with it appropriately.

 

If they broke the law, and stepped outside their bounds, then maybe the law needs to be re-written. But that's a different discussion. We all have to operate within the current confines of the law, so let's hope the FS did.

 

N

 

Good laws, like the Wilderness Act, are broadly enough written to be adaptive to local sentiment and custom. The law becomes reality - lookouts, grazing, hunting, or none of the above, on a case by case basis through use, argument, and LOCAL adaption. Because of this process, locals should and DO get more say in the policies regarding their nearby Wilderness Areas, even if that law is federal. Locals SHOULD resent and fight a one size fits all mentality regarding the Wilderness Act: such an approach is the very antithesis of the letter and spirit of the law. Rather, it was wisely crafted to respect regional custom, sentiment, and history.

 

We Washingtonians overwhelmingly LOVE our historic lookouts - and the Green Mountain Lookout, built in 1933, should be treated no differently Desolation, Hidden Lake Peak, Three Fingers, or any of the other lookouts that are unquestionably allowed by the Wilderness Act and that, simply put, belong here.

 

Why, then, has a 'me, too' advocacy group like Wilderness Watch fabricated such a ludicrous narrative regarding the Green Mountain Lookout to garner out of state support (anyone who actually knows anything about our lookouts would immediately recognize their propaganda as laughable) for its patently frivolous law suit?

 

I suspect its because their staff needs a paycheck. Pick a battle absolutely no (locals) want to fight, one that will promises to last a good long time, fabricate a bullshit conspiratorial narrative about secret gubmint skulduggery that panders to your ideologically extreme, kooky base, hire a out of state attorneys, and you're off to the races. Right out of the GOP playbook, actually.

 

Real environmental advocacy organizations have better things to do with their donors hard earned money.

 

Anyone wanna bet how Wilderness Watch ranks in terms of administrative overhead costs versus effectiveness?

Edited January 4, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[caverpilot]

 

Next time you need a rescue from a wilderness area have fun on that pack mule ride.

 

The Gubmint uses motorized vehicles in wilderness areas for rescue, maintenance of historic structures, and other purposes as it sees fit. It uses a great deal of discretion in this. Let's be real: it's not much of a problem.

 

You might give the fly boys at Widbey a call if you're terribly worried about overflights of wilderness areas. I'm sure they'll comply immediately, once they're aware of your concern.

 

Finally, it's well known that all Montanans fuck sheep. Duh.

 

Clearly tvash you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

 

#1, NO "Gubmint" entity LEGALLY uses "mechanized" equipment in the Wilderness without a waiver, signed by a congressman. I'm not saying they don't do it, I'm saying they don't do it LEGALLY. There isn't a provision for "discretion." (read the fucking law before you make this bullshit up- it's not ambiguous)

 

#2, There is NO regulation preventing wilderness overflights - I'm a pilot, and I fly over the wilderness all the time (looking for ski routes and caving areas). This is totally legit. So, there's NO concern there. You just can't LAND, and you can't (again LEGALLY) drop anything. Believe me, we've tried to get a waiver for air drops into our caving base camp at Scapegoat. Point of order: there are a limited number of designated wilderness airstrips, such as Moose Creek, ID and Schafer Meadows, MT that were grandfathered in before the area was designated.

 

#3, If you can't self-rescue, too fucking bad - you can't get cell phone coverage in most Montana wilderness areas, so you're on you're own anyway. Only time will tell what happens when folks set off their PLBs out there. This is a risk we all take - where's the adventure if you can dial up a helicopter? Fuck that, stay close to town if you can't hack the wild woods.

 

#4, Keep on point - I'm saying that "Montanans" aren't suing - this has nothing to do with 'daaaaaaaaaaadies' - obviously we all fuck sheep, just like Washingtonians all fuck goats - that has nothing to do with this - btw, do you know where I can get some new velcro gloves?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Yet another out of stater pontificating about a place they know nothing about. We don't fuck goats here. We just give them golden showers.

[tvashtarkatena]

Anyway, back on topic.

 

As a radio controlled chopper pilot (good thing you can pick those things up for 19.95 now) and paraglider pilot with 10 minutes of flight time under my belt, I can say with some authority that helicopters don't typically land when picking up loads off of mountain tops. Such cargo flights do not, therefore, violate the Wilderness Act.

 

Off topic again...RE: Self Rescue Machismo: most experienced climbers are well versed in both the philosophy and techniques of self-rescue...but few wave off a hovering rescue chopper when lying on a ledge with a broken femur.

Edited January 5, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[caverpilot]

Yet another out of stater pontificating about a place they know nothing about. We don't fuck goats here. We just give them golden showers.

 

Um, you don't know me, or know anything about me, and I sure as hell know as much about "your" area as you do, and would bet I've spent more time in "your" backyard than you have. Besides, Wilderness areas are designated nationally, so "out of stater" has nothing to do with it - Clearly, I know the rules regarding designated Wilderness areas and you don't, or you're simply ignoring the facts. Either way, you're still a pisser. Now come home to daaaaaaaaaaaaaaady! Where's my knee-high boots?