tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) And, while mechanical/motorized recreation is not allowed in Wilderness Areas, other uses of mechanical equipment: mining (when grandfathered in), weather stations and other scientific equipment, etc., clearly are. Reading the actual legislation and its applications before commenting is great advice. One should heed it before issuing it, however. Edited January 5, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caverpilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Anyway, back on topic. 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. WRONG!! You can't drop or pick up anything with a "mechanized" device. (unless an exemption is in place for the specific area.)_ Yes, I said LAND, but I also said "drop." This includes picking up things, including people. Read the rule! (you obviously haven't!) I agree that the use of a helicopter is probably less intrusive and more cost-effective than use of hand tools and pack animals. However, this is clearly against the rule of law. If you disagree, then call your congressman and petition to have the law changed. I'm also not saying I agree with the law. I'm just saying it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the use of a helicopter in this case was in clear conflict with the rule. That's it! So please, tvash, leave us out-of-state sheep fuckers out of it! Edited January 5, 2012 by caverpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caverpilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Exemption: "A special exemption to the "no mechanized equipment" rule is made for wilderness areas in Alaska: limited use of motorized vehicles and construction of cabins and aquaculture are permitted. These exemptions were allowed due to the large amount of wilderness in Alaska and the concerns of subsistence users, including Alaska Natives." FWS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caverpilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) And, while mechanical/motorized recreation is not allowed in Wilderness Areas, other uses of mechanical equipment: mining (when grandfathered in), weather stations and other scientific equipment, etc., clearly are. The issue at hand isn't mining, weather station, or science-related. In case you forgot, it is about restoring a historic lookout. NOT provided for. NOT in the "low-fo". Alaska, sure. Edited January 5, 2012 by caverpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Sorry, man. Your oversimplified misunderstanding of the Wilderness Act and its application is apparent in Wilderness Watch Versus Mainella, one of many lawsuits that confirms the allowed use of motorized vehicles for official use in Wilderness Areas under the Wilderness Act (in this case, ground vehicles): Full text of decision here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1296539.html Excerpt: "16 U.S.C. § 1133©. Thus, aside from exceptions not relevant here,4 the statute permits the use of motor vehicles and transport only “as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter.” Id." At issue in this case: The ruling confirmed the gubmint's right to use vehicles as necessary for maintenance, but not to transport tourists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I could come up with more, but it's pretty clear that renovating (not rebuilding from scratch, however) the Green Mountain Lookout using choppers is allowed, given a large body of precedent. Devil's in the details. Edited January 5, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 As always: Less swagger, more facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caverpilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Found it! "Two statutes direct the maintenance of specific trails and associated structures; another allows the maintenance of cabins in specific areas. One directs the conversion of roads to trails. One statute allows operation and maintenance of a lookout tower; another allows motorized access for the removal of a fire tower." Okay, tvash, I stand corrected- Yes, there are a few exceptions that may be covered here: Here's the source: Statutory Provisions and Permitted and Prohibited Uses of Wilderness Areas Also, emergency evacs are provided for - so I'm calling the helo - oh wait, no cell service - I'll set off the PLB instead! So the question really is whether or not the provision for cabin maintenance applies to the Green Mountain Lookout. If not, they broke the law. If so, the lawsuit is frivolous. Admittedly, I don't know where the provided areas are. Apparently, the plaintiff thinks this isn't provided for. 'nuff said. Edited January 5, 2012 by caverpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's also interesting to note that the Wildnerness Act is not the only statute out there. The National Historic Preservation Act requires restoration and renovation of historic structures. These are sometimes in conflict. The Green Mountain Lookout Case will probably fall on whether or not the choppering constituted 'rebuilding' (not required by NHPA, or 'renovation and stabilization' (required and allowed by the Wild. Act). Since the Lookout was rebuild by hand (allowed), and renovated and stabilized by chopper (allowed), I'm guessing the ruling will be in favor of keeping it...but ya never know how it will be decided until its decided. Complicated world out there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 All policy wonkishness and wanking aside, I've never met anyone who has visited one of our Lookouts in 30 years of trapsing about the Cascades and not loved them. I'm sure there probably are some, but they are few and far between. As for what Montanans and Oregonians think of our Lookouts from afar...who gives a rip? That, in my view, is where the real justice lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caverpilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) It's also interesting to note that the Wildnerness Act is not the only statute out there. The National Historic Preservation Act requires restoration and renovation of historic structures. These are sometimes in conflict. ..... Complicated world out there.... Holy fuck no wonder our country is so screwed up - the more I dug for references to this, the more exemptions, exceptions etc came up - no wonder it takes lawyers to decipher the fucking hieroglyphics we call "the law." WOW. I'm more educated (and confused) on this than ever. My experience on Wilderness regulations is admittedly limited to the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex of Montana, where there aren't any waivers that I know of - the historic Green Fork cabin was rebuilt entirely by hand, and I've run across trail crews 37 miles in that had hand tools, and were based out of an abandoned airstrip. No love for them either. Now I just need to lobby my proposed aerial gear drops to Scapegoat, "in the name of science!" Finally, for the record, I fucking LOVE the lookouts! How kick ass! I'm planning a two-week skiing trip out of one in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness this spring! Check it out, here: St. Mary Peak Lookout Edited January 5, 2012 by caverpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 I think both the NHPA and WA work OK. Compare us to other countries and we've got some pretty good Wildernesses here. Contradictory laws are the norm and just part of a functioning democracy. I'd like to see organizations like Wilderness Watch pick some of its battles more carefully, with some sensitivity towards local custom and sentiment and more relevance. They also need to upgrade their ethics. They lie too much. Perhaps they've got more donations than they know what to do with. That could be fixed. Beats shooting each other to decide these things, or not bothering to have any preservation at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 WRONG!! lol, you're super passionate about this, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Spriton Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The whole point of the Wilderness Watch suing, is so they can pay their salaries and continue making the "wilderness" what they want it to be. I really hope the lose. A historical building stays. That would be like yanking all the cabins that are privately owned out of all the wilderness areas that exist because of historic precedent. That is just a nut-so idea. Just plain crazy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 This is a "mechanized form of transportation." How far should Wilderness Watch take their literal (and silly) interpretations of The Wilderness Act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimB Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The National Trust for Historical Preservation, the Washington Trust for Historical Preservation, the Everett Mtneers, and the Darrington Historical Society joined the suit last year by filing this amicus brief.. The judge recently acknowledged the amicus brief and agreed it showed cause. The Wilderness Act of 1984 included the summit of Green Mountain, including the lookout. The restoration of the lookout was funded in 1999 in part by Congressionally approved dollars, "Save America's Treasures," and volunteers did much of the work (fully advertised, and a large sign was placed at the trailhead describing the work; it was not done in secret as the Wilderness Watch suit and website say). The concern isn't only the Green Mtn Lookout, but other lookouts (and structures, as tvashtar points out). If the suit is lost we could lose 3 Fingers and Hidden Lakes, to name just 2. As pointed out by tvashtar, Wilderness Watch will not stop at fire lookouts. Their website featured their NEPA position against the Skyline Bridge replacement over the Suiattle. Wilderness Watch does have a representative in Washington; in Maple Falls, near Glacier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.