RIP Green mountain lookout

[petsfed]

See, now that's a well reasoned argument.

 

I've watched my home get torn apart by the mineral industry, to the point that the most popular trail head into the Wind River wildernesses has worse air quality than Los Angeles every December. I'm told, by the folks who make such decisions that since that industry creates jobs in Wyoming, helping it to fight the EPA regulations is "common sense".

 

I've listened as Wyoming snowmobile enthusiasts (and more than a few from nowhere near Wyoming, but who come to recreate) urge the total repeal of the Wilderness Act because they're not allowed to take their machines into the few powder stashes I can ski to in a single day. They say that since they pay taxes, its "common sense" that they should have access to it as well.

 

As I said, I've come to expect the phrase "common sense" from somebody who knows that they can't actually justify their position. Given that I sympathize with both sides of the issue, I really didn't want to hear "Its just common sense". As a non-local to the Washington scene (I haven't lived in Washington since 1996), I wanted to actually understand your position, but I also wanted you to understand that your phrasing was harming your position.

Edited March 11, 2013 by petsfed

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't use the term "common sense" to support my viewpoints, as I consider my self neither common nor particularly sense-making, but then I don't get too wrapped around the axle when someone else does, either. While we're on the topic of effective communication: picking apart another's rhetorical micro-choices, or lack thereof, doth not a winning debate make.

 

Bottom line is this: Washingtonians overwhelmingly love our last remaining 14 lookouts, and support their preservation. The WA Act does not require Green Mt to be torn down as a sanction. Appropriately narrow legislation can (and should, IMO) save the Green Mt. Lookout. And finally, WW has a habit of bullshitting its supporters. As a board member of a non-profit advocacy group, I take particular exception to this method of duping the public out of its hard earned donation dollars, and I question WW's overall impact on habitat and wildlife - which I'd estimate has been not much over the years, given its focus on letter of the law trivia (at the great expense of historical preservation), rather than substantive action.

 

I'd say WW appears to be little more than a jobs program for a handful of folks who care little for regional values, honesty or substantive action. For anyone actually interested in preserving nature, it seems there many other organizations that would put donations to better use.

Edited March 11, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

And speaking of irony - its perfectly legal to air drop mining supplies on Miner's Ridge, right smack in the middle of the Glacier Peak Wilderness (although on a private parcel), but illegal to airdrop construction materials for preservation of an historical lookout.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[petsfed]

And speaking of irony - its perfectly legal to air drop mining supplies on Miner's Ridge, right smack in the middle of the Glacier Peak Wilderness (although on a private parcel), but illegal to airdrop construction materials for preservation of an historical lookout.

 

Fun fact about that: an oversight in the writing of the Wilderness Act requires a road be built to any legitimate mining claims made in a wilderness area. Not just ones that predate the act, but all of them.

[tvashtarkatena]

Fortunatley, no road was ever built to the Plummer Mt. Mine I refer to. I was surprised to come upon a helo dropped 'superbag' of new plastic piping up there in 2006. Since then, Washington Trails Association, a local advocacy group, worked to ensure a wilderness future for this island of private land within the GPW:

 

WTA saves GPW from future copper mining

 

Here's a stewardship organization that seems to be a bit more deserving of an environmentalist's donations.

 

BTW, the Chelan PUD still maintains the right to land a chopper at the Lyman Lake Snotel site (in the heart of the GPW) 4 times a year. Given this and many other reasonable exceptions to motorized vehicle ban in wilderness areas, WW's suite looks even more like a complete waste of public time, money, and energy.

 

If only WW would content themselves in aggressively wafting sage smoke at passing A6s from Whidbey.

Edited March 11, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[JasonG]

I would like there to be a few weeks each year where STIHLs qualify as a "reasonable exception" for trail maintenance. Thankfully, those crazy Canucks who maintain the Depot Creek route take this approach. But, I digress.

[tvashtarkatena]

Chain saw fairies have been known to fly in to certain neglected trails on occasion I hear.

[max]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/05/08/u-s-judge-awards-70804-to-anti-lookout-lawyers/

 

Salt on the wound, for some.

[tvashtarkatena]

Looks like the Judge issued a couple of FUs to WW' lawyers - denying them fees for an unnecessary motion to remove the lookout immediately (thus buying time for a less ridiculous outcome), and reducing their hours, but you can only do so much within the law.

 

Still, the Eugene lawyer billed at Seattle rates. Um...WTF?

 

WW is a make-work business that knows who has the deep pockets. It's attorneys, inarguably, are in that business for profit. Do they substantively make the world a better place?

 

Not so much.

 

Ironically, one proposal is to helo the lookout to a non wilderness location (Circle Peak) that has previously had a lookout. FU again! Legislation proposed by Murray/Cantwell et al may provide the ultimate FU, however by enabling the FS to keep the lookout where it is.

 

Stay tuned.

 

BTW, there's a really good thread on this topic involving very knowledgeable FS folks on NWHikers.

Edited May 9, 2013 by tvashtarkatena