Rep. Rick Larsen won and wilderness lost. Everett Herald Larsen, Congressman in the second district, killed the "Wild Sky" wilderness bill because it didn't include areas that are obviously not wild. The intent of the 1964 wilderness act is to preserve areas that have never been developed. For a long time - 20 years? - some people have been trying to create a new wilderness area in the Skykomish River area - near Highway 2 east of Sultan. But they proposed to include thousands of acres that have been developed or logged. The bill has passed the Senate twice, but not the House. Rep. George Nethercutt decided to push a version that would place the previously logged areas in a lower classification he devised called "backcountry management area." Nethercutt's version was scheduled for committee hearing. But Larsen strenuously objected: "It's in my district!" The committee chair pulled the plug because our state's delegation was fighting over it.
I think we should stick to the intention of the 1964 act that created wilderness areas and have our wilderness area in the Sky valley be all wilderness - not to include 13,000 acres that have been clear cut or otherwise developed. It will be a gain of 93,000 acres of wilderness.
Posted by Ron Hebron at September 23, 2004 11:36 PM | Email ThisThe 13,000 acres of lowland might not be pristine, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important to protect, or that they won't return to their natural state. Specifically, it's necessary to protect that land for the sake of both salmon habitat and the water supply of the fairly large city of Everett. When the headwaters of a river are exposed to too much sun, they can get too warm for fish. When the streambanks are left unprotected, silt can accumulate that degrades water quality and potentially increases the risk of flooding.
Finally, salmon fishing is a major industry in this state, and it can't have a rosy outlook unless the fish have somewhere suitable to spawn. This is less and less the case as streams in area watersheds are polluted by runoff from pavement and overfertilized lawns, filled up wih construction debris, and overheated.
Protecting areas like this isn't intended solely as an exercise in feeling good about how much we like trees. It's about preserving the health of communities and local industries that depend on having functional ecosystems. Further, it was put together as a product of intense negotiation among local municipalities, industry, state government, and conservationists, not a pie-in-the-sky wishlist. Reflexive opposition to land reclamation doesn't change any of that.
Posted by: natasha on September 24, 2004 06:07 AM