Wilderness Act 50th

[Eric T]

How did the glacier station on the South Cascade, Wildness Watch and the USGS even get into this conversation? And why couldn't a helicopter be used to access and clean up the area? That station has been in use since the '50's, predating the modern Glacier Peak Wilderness.

 

I think you're making some awfully big assumptions here. I doubt that permission is needed from WW. But once you ask them, you put yourself into the hole of forever needing their permission.

 

I brought The South Cascade Glacier into the discussion as an example of a Federal Government Agency willfully ignoring Federal law in our back yard. The agency ignoring the law is (in this case) the USGS as they have an ongoing study on the glacier and are have made a mess.

 

I brought Wilderness Watch into the discussion because as I researched the South Cascade Glacier they seem to be the only ones saying anything about the mess.

 

Now I do hear Fairweather on them being a bit radical and some of my Friends think the same thing.

As far as I can tell WW wants to follow the Wilderness Act word for word in an almost religious fervor.

 

But for me, I love the Wilderness Act and if I have to choose between, mining or forest corps, gov agency's, blm, forest, National Park or Wilderness then I choose Wilderness every time. Because none of the other choices are protection for the land, they're compromises.

 

And if WW is actually concerned and actively pursuing the SCG issue with letters and thought and the threat of lawsuits then I have to get behind them radical or not. If for no other reason than they actually stood up.

 

So to clarify, Fairweather was making a legitimate point as to why I'm seeking any guidance from WW or there permission for air lift which strictly violates the wilderness act. And my answer to that is because at present they're the only one's saying anything. And if they have a road map to a solution that respects the Wilderness act then so be it.

 

I myself was complaining in a trip report last year about helicopters over the Wilderness Area.

 

But I'm open to suggestions as long as we get the mess cleaned up.

 

And I'm serious when I say if we don't do something, no one will. (besides WW)

 

Only climbers go to the South Cascade Glacier.

 

That's us.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2014 by Eric T

[Fairweather]

Now I do hear Fairweather on them being a bit radical and some of my Friends think the same thing.

As far as I can tell WW wants to follow the Wilderness Act word for word in an almost religious fervor.

One correction here: Wilderness Watch wants us all to follow the parts of the Wilderness Act they believe in--and ignore the rest. The Green Mountain Lookout Debacle is a good example of this.

 

But for me, I love the Wilderness Act and if I have to choose between, mining or forest corps, gov agency's, blm, forest, National Park or Wilderness then I choose Wilderness every time.

This is no longer the choice. WW & NCCC would like you to believe it is, but they continue to parse verses in The Act like holy scripture long after the battle they won is over. You were correct with your "religious fervor" analogy--unfortunately the new wilderness cult has become far too rigid and doctrinaire.

 

The irony is that these orgs are probably doing more harm to wilderness's long-term prospects than good. Evidence for this is found right here in this thread--and in the NWHikers link provided by Water. Never would have seen these kinds of responses twenty years ago. Support for the Wilderness Act is slipping badly; not because climbers and hikers don't support wilderness, rather, because they clearly don't support fringe interpretations.

 

Still, Eric, you're absolutely right about the research station mess. Shame on these scientists. Maybe a well-written story accompanied by some good pictures would be of interest to one of the mainstream outdoor publishers? I am almost certain that a UW publication like PNQ would pick up the story about the Snow Dome situation.