More Alpine Lakes Wilderness on the way?

[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.

[Ray]

I can respect that. We can agree to disagree   

[280ackley]

I'm a little lost about what you are refering to about "Wild Sky".  Can someone explain what or where "Wild Sky" is.
Thanks

[Ray]

Google it

http://murray.senate.gov/wilderness/wild-area.cfm

http://murray.senate.gov/wilderness/wildsky-map2007.pdf

http://www.wawild.org/campaigns/wild_sky.htm

Lots of good roads to access incredibly rich hiking and hunting areas will be closed. Access roads which currently have little to zero impact on the current eco-systems. The negative impact on the eco-systems in this area has historically been largely mismanaged by your Deforest Service by allowing logging operations. Nothing more. Those industries are the real enemy of the environment when compared to the miniscule impacts hunters and hikers have. The whole thing is a waste of time and money. It will certainly eliminate access to some areas I like to hunt and hike in.

With continued legislation like this we will all be forced to hike through jungle growth because all of the roads have been forced to dry up by a bunch of overzealous environmentally obsessive folks. What a shame.

More legislative garbage from Patty Murray who probably has not even seen the roads she proposes to close and half of the areas which she is planning to legislate regulations over.

[Machias]

This is from one of the sites you listed.  Is this just propaganda?  I'm clueless on this so bear with me while I get up to speed.  Thanks for the information and the heads up.

"- Recreational opportunities - The North Fork Skykomish valley is the closest accessible mountain valley to residents of southern Snohomish and northern King counties. The Wild Sky Wilderness proposal protects several areas with popular trails, such as Barclay Lake, Blanca Lake, West Cady Ridge, and Scorpion Mountain. Angling, hiking, rafting, kayaking, mountain climbing, backcountry camping, horsepacking, wildlife watching, and cross-country skiing are popular activities in this special wild country"

[Ray]

I was up in the proposed extended wilderness today and yesterday. I made some incorrect assumptions in regards to what areas will be affected. Specifically the roads. It looks like all the roads I use except for Alpine Baldy area will remain. Still... I don't see the need to designate it a wilderness area. Nobody logs in there. The whole thing is a lot of politics either way. From my point of view it is pretty damn wild and just fine up there today without the wilderness designation. If they want to block logging they don't need to make everywhere in the US a wilderness area. They can just say no to logging operations.

[sisu]

All this crap about closing road is BS. The logging companies with the help of federal gov't money put those roads in and NOW some blow hard wants them closed. Why?
Just like that wind generation project that I drive by on I-90 on the way to Seattle getting closed down because it was environmently unpleasing to the eye. GIVE me a break! Wind generation is FREE electricity ain't harming the air molecules, ain't using fossil fuels, ain't putting a dam on a river...
Where did common sense go?

[Ray]

Well like I said it looks like most of the roads will remain intact. Take a look at the map for yourself. It's inside one of the links above.