| Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access |
| More Alpine Lakes Wilderness on the way? |
| (1/3) > >> |
| saylean:
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/9034512.html SEATTLE (AP) - Congressman Dave Reichert is proposing an expansion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness to include the Pratt Valley. A spokeswoman, Abigail Shilling, says the proposal includes adding the Pratt River to Wild and Scenic River protection. The Pratt is a tributary of the middle fork of the Snoqualmie River in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Reichert and other officials are announcing the proposal at a news conference at the Middle Fork campground near North Bend. |
| Ray:
Wonder why they have a movement for change. I can't see any problems with it since they closed down the road just past there and there is not a lot of interest from my point of view in that specific area. |
| pacyew:
Gee wizz, no. We don't have a need for another so-called "wilderness area" Not there. Just one more layer of government for an area that's access is already addressed with a single road closure. A functionally useless gesture with possible furture negative access effects. I'll have to say Congressman Dave is just throwing a bone to the liberals in his district, who will never vote for him! Say it ain't so, Dave. I'll vote for you anyway (And you know it. That's part of the problem). Here's a liberal-rich link to the story on another kind of forum: http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7961456 |
| Ray:
That area is pretty well useless to me. I could care less. As is stands today it is really nothing more than a bunch of gated logging roads which see little use from the public. 1) There is no open road which I am aware of that runs up along the Pratt River. 2) I don't imagine it is a valuable horse or dirt bike destination. Therefore I don't see an access sacrifice. What were you thinking that was being sacrificed? From my point of view the big battle is over on the Wild Sky - which I am against. |
| pacyew:
I see the inclusion of the Pratt as nothing more than a case of designating it a "wilderness" just because it can be done and I simply feel that when we lock or limit another piece of land we all loose something in the process. The Pratt is a bad idea, Wild Sky a worse idea with far greater impact in lost usage. My big fear is that someday, when our poor Forest Service is perhaps melded into the Park Service as has been proposed, many current Wilderness Areas could be further launched on the skids towards becoming National Parks or some other more restrictive designation. I feel that for many wilderness designation activists, this is the ultimate goal. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |