1. Thanks for the contact info - I'll make my views known too!

Posted by: BA on April 14, 2008 08:55 PM

2.
I live in a one-bedroom apartment in Kent East Hill.

Am I supposed to care?

Go buy your own Green Belts like the The Nature Conservancy.

Posted by: John Bailo on April 14, 2008 09:48 PM

3. John, I think you should care. The Nature Conservancy and the extremist enviro-nuts over at Futurewise want to lock you out of any recreational areas. The NC buys it and puts up a fence. In this case the remaining PUBLICALLY OWNED PROPERTY that can and should be used for recreation is about to be LOCKED UP, FOREVER! This is not a green belt, it is your opportunity to enjoy the outdoors as a citizen. It is about to be taken away.

Posted by: LeCerveau on April 16, 2008 06:27 AM

4. LeCerveau, I must assume that you have not looked at the mapping regarding this wilderness area designation. If you did, you'd find that the existing road system accessing this area is excluded from being designated wilderness.

Your ability to get into these lands in the future will be as it is today.

Wilderness designation doesn't preclude access or recreation. What are you talking about?

As for the Nature Conservancy, a private organization, buying land which then "puts up a fence", why are you opposed to a private landowner's rights? Damn Liberal.

Posted by: BA on April 16, 2008 08:05 AM

5. Wild Sky Wilderness Act
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act would designate approximately 106,000 acres in Northwest Washington State as a wilderness area.
The original and amended legislation can be read here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.391:

Sample Letter (Download MSWord format)
To the President of the United States:

I am writing regarding the proposed "Wild Sky" Wilderness Act. I oppose the "Wild Sky" Wilderness Act and am asking you to vote against it.
Washington State has 9 million acres of public land and 2.2 million acres of those lands are "Wilderness." More wilderness is not needed.

The wilderness site is in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest north of U.S. 2 and the towns of Index and Skykomish. It features high mountain areas as well as lowland forests where salmon spawn.

Created under the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness designations are the most stringent protection for federal lands. They generally prohibit roads or permanent structures as well as mining, logging and most vehicular traffic. The proposed wilderness area includes 27 miles of existing roads. To remove the roads and culverts would cost $6 million.

The Bush administration supports much of the bill but questions the inclusion of 16,000 acres formerly used for logging and other commercial purposes. Recommend those (16,000 acres) be designated for backcountry recreation instead of wilderness.

Snohomish County, which is already hurt by restricting logging and mining, would get another blow to their economy by this proposal. The bill would make the area unreachable to the average Snohomish family and make fighting fires more difficult, if bridges and roads are closed.

Thank you for considering my input, please contact me if you have questions.

Posted by: LeCerveau on April 16, 2008 08:42 AM

6. So, you've not looked at a map have you.

Posted by: BA on April 16, 2008 01:13 PM

7. Let's let everyone see the map: http://www.wildsky.org/fram?url_id=21
Perhaps you can explain to us how anyone can have any access to Wild Sky under the wilderness designation, when all motor vehicles are prohibited and that includes real live horses. The distances mean that most of the area is locked up so virtually NO ONE may access the vast majority of the area.
Be detaile in your explanation.
Oh, have you ever been anywhere near Wild Sky?

Posted by: LaCerveau on April 16, 2008 03:19 PM

8. Let's see, the existing roads that access these lands are in the valleys that are excluded from wilderness designation. Those are the roads that lead deep into the center of these lands providing excellent access. The roads to be retired, and no longer maintained, help a Forest Service that can't afford to maintain all the roads they have.

Horses excluded, really? Or are you just making this up? I frequently encounter horses and other pack animals on the trails in Wilderness areas. It's these folks that pack in the tools to do the trail repairs. The restrictions involved typically involve party size, and number of animals - to avoid trammeling the landscape.

I've read about the special provision to allow helicopter access to a utility within the lands, where have you read that horses are excluded?

Have I been anywhere near these lands - yes, here and in adjacent lands, and perhaps for longer than you since I'm a native Washingtonian.

Wilderness designation is a Forest Service way of keeping their lands from becoming National Parks - more of a turf issue between agencies than anything else.

Have you ever spent time OUTSIDE your vehicle in the mountains? Great for your waistline.

Posted by: BA on April 16, 2008 07:43 PM

9. "Let's see, the existing roads that access these lands are in the valleys that are excluded .......deep into the center of these lands providing (excellent access?)."
Well, obviously you HAVE NEVER tried to hike into any of the Wild Sky areas. Even a 600 meter trek into the area from any road could involve you being: up to your waste in mud and bog, trying to pick your way through blackberry bush complexes, and getting lost even with a GPS device. The obvious problem: Wilderness restrictions will dictate where ANYONE MAY HIKE, PERIOD, if the President signs this bill.
"Horses excluded, really? Or are you just making this up? I frequently encounter horses and other pack animals on the trails in Wilderness areas."
It depends on the area but in many cases is PROHIBITED by either the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of damage to native plants and/or streams. All four of these Federal agencies, complete with their own home grown bureau-nazi's, regulate Wilderness Areas. Horses may only be used in Wilderness areas where designated and under restricted circumstances. You may be confusing Wilderness areas with National Park areas, a common misconception.
"I've read about the special provision to allow helicopter access to a utility within the lands."
This helicopter access will be for Federal and State law enforcement plus fire fighting and evaluation. You may be reading too much "Stranger" who ran a piece that lied about this. No sea planes on any lakes, except by the DEA and etc. Guides may NOT use these facilities.
"Have I been anywhere near these lands - yes, here and in adjacent lands, and perhaps for longer than you since I'm a native Washingtonian."
Sounds like you have driven by on occaisions. Good for you and as for your comment "Great for your waistline", the correct usage is "one's". Sounds like you have a weight problem. A word of advice, some of us own land 'adjacent' to Wild Sky and make sure if you come out this way that you stay off our ranches or you might be arrested for 'criminal trespass' . We will attempt to use the minimum amount of force necessary to affect a "citizen's apprehension".
"Wilderness designation is a Forest Service way of keeping their lands from becoming National Parks - more of a turf issue between agencies than anything else."
I don't know what planet you are living on, but maybe you should do a reality check. You clearly are discussing things that are beyond your knowledge and experience. This comment doesn't pass the laugh test!

Posted by: LeCerveau on April 17, 2008 07:52 AM

10. So let's see here:

"Even a 600 meter trek into the area from any road could involve you being: up to your waste in mud and bog, trying to pick your way through blackberry bush complexes, and getting lost even with a GPS device."

So, can't hike in this area now you say - so what's being lost?

"The obvious problem: Wilderness restrictions will dictate where ANYONE MAY HIKE, PERIOD, if the President signs this bill."

Really? Where did you read/experience this?

Horses are excluded?

"It depends on the area..." So, you don't know.

Helicopter access?

"This helicopter access will be for Federal and State law enforcement plus fire fighting and evaluation." So, you don't know about this either.

I'm quite comfortable not trespassing on your land, and expect from you likewise. Why this is relevant to the discussion for you to mention it is a bit mysterious.

As for the history of Forest Service Wilderness lands - you might find it interesting to delve into this - though from your other posts I understand that factual information is an irritant to your opinions.

Posted by: BA on April 17, 2008 01:14 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?