Wildfire lookout tear down outside of Darrington. Scary precident.

[saylean]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Mountain-lookout-near-Darrington-must-be-removed-145994245.html

After they spent all this money on restoration, now its getting torn down?! This is garbage.

[Hunting Cowboy]

Disturbing! Seems like it could be declared a historical landmark or something. The decision should be appealed.

[Michelle_Nelson]

It's stupid!

[Chase 1]

Disturbing! Seems like it could be declared a historical landmark or something. The decision should be appealed.

It is a landmark. This is just plain ridiculous!

[Bshiftbc]

I was on a fire near Darrington a few years ago and got the opportunity to fly past this lookout in a helicopter while surveying the many lightning strikes in the area. It was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen sitting on top of that peak. This is ridiculous!
I hope Pete does the right thing and appeals!

[washelkhunter]

Was'nt it there before there was a wilderness designation? 

[NWBREW]

Was'nt it there before there was a wilderness designation?

My thought too. Tearing it down is a total waste of OUR money.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Was'nt it there before there was a wilderness designation?

 Very true but choppers in wilderness are as illegal as a snowmobile or quad and the folks used them for the repairs.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120329/NEWS01/703299816/-1/NEWS#Judge-orders-removal-of-historic-lookout-in-wilderness-
 

[ICEMAN]

Ok, so choppers are illegal. Fine them for using the chopper. BFD

Would they use a chopper to haul out an injured liberal *censored* activist  from the backcountry, use a chopper to deliver firefighters and help with firefighting efforts?

[Skyvalhunter]

Its those *censored*es at Wilderness Watch, Philchuck Audabon Society, and Bill Lider that want to go out there hug trees and keep the public out of public land.

[Russ McDonald]

The lookout is a historical landmark.  The lookout is right on the edge of the wilderness.  There is a couple different maps that show it is just outside the wilderness and then some that show that it is right inside the wilderness.

[rasbo]

this has many split and fighting.I think it was a good move to fix it and fly it in..Funny a lot of those against it say We want it left pristine,in the same paragraph the speak of skiing on untouched slopes in the wilderness..Seems to me soon as one enters the area it is no longer pristine,nice wide trails,neon colored hikers,crapping there...Outfitters are on the list to be outed then hunting..its just gonna be a place for the elite hikers..seems to me flying in the pieces and putting it back together would be less strain on any wildlife than a huge number of trips getting the equipment and materials there..The way i understand it was the lookouts were exempt at first,by wilderness boundaries,but over looked in the 80s,when the areas were rewritten..

[Russ McDonald]

this has many split and fighting.I think it was a good move to fix it and fly it in..Funny a lot of those against it say We want it left pristine,in the same paragraph the speak of skiing on untouched slopes in the wilderness..Seems to me soon as one enters the area it is no longer pristine,nice wide trails,neon colored hikers,crapping there...Outfitters are on the list to be outed then hunting..its just gonna be a place for the elite hikers..seems to me flying in the pieces and putting it back together would be less strain on any wildlife than a huge number of trips getting the equipment and materials there..The way i understand it was the lookouts were exempt at first,by wilderness boundaries,but over looked in the 80s,when the areas were rewritten..

yes that is correct there are some lookouts that are in wilderness area's that were grand fathered in when boundaries were written.  Some of these lookouts have communications repeaters in them for the FS and SAR people.  So to maintain them tech's have to be choppered in to do that.

[dreamingbig]

Laws and judicial rulings are not always logical or reasonable.  This wilderness group have their heads in the sand.  We wasted money on the lawsuit and now we will waste money by taking it down.  The judge should have had some grit and made their group pay to take it down if they want it down. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Wilderness Watch is a joke.  Check out their website and look at some of the rediculous projects they're working on.  I sent a brief email letting them know that I dissapprove...not that it will make aany difference.  http://wildernesswatch.org/index.html

[pianoman9701]

Although I agree that wilderness watch may be a joke, wilderness regulations are in place for a reason. It's not their fault that this project was not done using the proper channels. Someone screwed the pooch here and didn't follow protocol.

Had the project manager taken the steps to 1. apply and receive historic register for the landmark, and 2. Applied for an exception to restore a registered historic landmark, this lawsuit would never have happened and he would've received the waiver.

There is definitely a benefit to all of us to have wilderness areas. Whether or not we need more of them is still up for plenty of discussion. But, once an area is designated as such, it is to all of our benefit that the rules are followed for the protection of that wilderness. This not only makes sure people follow the rules, but also ensures that when you take that ten-mile hike into the backcountry to hunt the same spot that you and your dad have hunted for 30 years, you won't find it mowed down or find a new copper mine where a mountain used to be.

I'm sure that some of my friends will take exception to my comments. Remember, I'm not saying I agree that the lookout should be taken down. I'm saying that someone didn't follow very specific guidelines for their project.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I agree that the wilderness act rules need to be followed.  THe FS screwed up by asking for frogiveness rather than permission.  I think the building should stay and the FS should have some kind of mitigation...trail maintanence, weed control, fencing, illegal campground restoration...whatever.  The building is there now and shoudl probably stay that way, but the FS should suffer some consequences...

[boneaddict]

Just another example of how DUMB our government services are.   We employ them....CAN'T we FIRE them.  Lets start at the top and work our way down..........OBAMA........

[pianoman9701]

Just another example of how DUMB our government services are.   We employ them....CAN'T we FIRE them.  Lets start at the top and work our way down..........OBAMA........

Agreed!

[Knocker of rocks]

The problem with penalizing the USFS, is that we end up paying for the penalty or we lose services in lieu of the penalty.  This isn't like making a litterer do four hours of public service next to highway with a orange vest on (although I would agree that such a penalty would be a great idea for the brainiacs that screwed this all up).

As had been stated before on this thread and others, this is a very contentious subject on hiking boards, and I would say the vast majority of hikers and the like disagree with the courts decision.

Like Pianoman stated, I believe the issue comes down to the removal and shop repair of the unit.  If the lookout had been left on site, as an existing structure it probably could have been repaired ad infinitum.  It was the removal by helicopter which negated all existing structure clauses.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the rules here, if you look around at commercial and residential remodels all over the place, you'll see that many old buildings are completely demolished except for one or two exterior walls, which allow the project to proceed as a (huge) repair rather than replacement.

I wish the USFS had spent more on thinking and less on helicopters, this probably would not have happened.

My prediction is that the USFS will chose another location which previously had a lookout structure but now has none, and is outside Wilderness, and relocate the lookout there.

Or it will sit as an expensive museum like display at the Darrington RS

[pianoman9701]

The penalty should be the firing of the project manager. Good way to trim the fat of that department.

[Knocker of rocks]

The penalty should be the firing of the project manager. Good way to trim the fat of that department.

I agree, but we know it won't happen.

That's the difference between industry and the gov.  In industry you would be fired, or at the least, get yelled at and called stupid daily for a month (as long as you were a white male).  In gov, you get a raise, and if anybody disciplines you, you sue for distress (as long as you are not a white male)

[Russ McDonald]

Hey now not everyone who works for the FS is idiots. I don't do trail work but I do enjoy my job for the FS.

[pianoman9701]

We know you're not an idiot, Russ. Just all of your co-workers! 

[Russ McDonald]

Well I can't answer to that fact. 

[Russ McDonald]

Got to looking and Green Mt. Lookout is on the national register of historic places.

[Chase 1]

Are they going to fly it out, burn it, or pack it out? They should fly it to the boundary, dismantle it, pack it back in and put it back up. Would cost less than an appeal. Any way it goes, it's going to cost us all money! What a joke.

[Knocker of rocks]

They should fly it to the boundary, dismantle it, pack it back in and put it back up. Would cost less than an appeal

I think a major issue is that once the lookout was removed, structures not for administration ( read: bridges) are not allowed.  In short, once it's gone, it's gone.  So your idea would be a non starter

[Special T]

This is just another lawsuit by wackos to fund thier little non profit... The rule of no aircraft is ment too keep outfitters and private people from float plaining into wilderness areas. This is just another example of NO commonsence running rampant! 

[pianoman9701]

This is just another lawsuit by wackos to fund thier little non profit... The rule of no aircraft is ment too keep outfitters and private people from float plaining into wilderness areas. This is just another example of NO commonsence running rampant! 

If that's the case Special T, why didn't the NFS apply for the correct permits? They may or may not be out of control, but when you follow the rules you don't have to worry about the wackos. This rests solely on the forest service.

[Special T]

I agree that the guy that f-ed up should get canned, but we both know thats not gona happen. Who manages that wilderness? I'm guessing its the FS right? So permit or no, what is the benifit to this lawsuit? This isn't some new structure, a hunting camp or something else. Its a piece of history.

If the punishment should fit the crime(which i know the Gov Beurcracy isn't concerned with) It should affect who was incharge of the project and should have filed the piece of paperwork. Pain,$,penalties distributed over the general public do not have any real weight.  If you F-up in the private sector it may mean your job, and the company $$$.

[Elkaholic daWg]

this has many split and fighting.I think it was a good move to fix it and fly it in..Funny a lot of those against it say We want it left pristine,in the same paragraph the speak of skiing on untouched slopes in the wilderness..Seems to me soon as one enters the area it is no longer pristine,nice wide trails,neon colored hikers,crapping there...Outfitters are on the list to be outed then hunting..its just gonna be a place for the elite hikers..seems to me flying in the pieces and putting it back together would be less strain on any wildlife than a huge number of trips getting the equipment and materials there..The way i understand it was the lookouts were exempt at first,by wilderness boundaries,but over looked in the 80s,when the areas were rewritten..

 Thats right rasbo.
 If you look at my signature you will see 3 groups that have been fighting these types for a LONG time. RE the wild sky wilderness was 117,000 acres (if I remember it right) larger than the area of it that actually FIT wilderness designation. Now the USFS and many of these folks who thought the repair was legal  (of the lookout) would not compromise about the miles of roads and bridges that were included in the area and were required to be torn out, and I have driven most of them in the past. It was not wilderness,but they took it anyway.
 You may want to check out some issues in the Frank Church wilderness involving  numerous lodges that were supposedly "grandfathered" into the bill, but when it came time to repair them  the extremists insisted they be taken out . I'm not sure, but I believe they won . All they need is a greenie judge,and then the judge writes the law. Why do you think malloy was chosen to hear the wolf case?
 I find it ironic when wanna be greenies get sued by the extremes when they don't see eye to eye. Are these folks WE want to align ourselves with??

 DON"T FORGET Illabot Road, and what they want to do with the Suattle Road next.....  for them it's ALL ABOUT ME and everyone must comply....Resistance is futile.
 Yes all that were involved in the decision making should be fired so they can go to work for those that sued them, or maybe conservation northwest,since they are cut from the same cloth.
 They got what they deserved.

[Russ McDonald]

this has many split and fighting.I think it was a good move to fix it and fly it in..Funny a lot of those against it say We want it left pristine,in the same paragraph the speak of skiing on untouched slopes in the wilderness..Seems to me soon as one enters the area it is no longer pristine,nice wide trails,neon colored hikers,crapping there...Outfitters are on the list to be outed then hunting..its just gonna be a place for the elite hikers..seems to me flying in the pieces and putting it back together would be less strain on any wildlife than a huge number of trips getting the equipment and materials there..The way i understand it was the lookouts were exempt at first,by wilderness boundaries,but over looked in the 80s,when the areas were rewritten..

 Thats right rasbo.
 If you look at my signature you will see 3 groups that have been fighting these types for a LONG time. RE the wild sky wilderness was 117,000 acres (if I remember it right) larger than the area of it that actually FIT wilderness designation. Now the USFS and many of these folks who thought the repair was legal  (of the lookout) would not compromise about the miles of roads and bridges that were included in the area and were required to be torn out, and I have driven most of them in the past. It was not wilderness,but they took it anyway.
 You may want to check out some issues in the Frank Church wilderness involving  numerous lodges that were supposedly "grandfathered" into the bill, but when it came time to repair them  the extremists insisted they be taken out . I'm not sure, but I believe they won . All they need is a greenie judge,and then the judge writes the law. Why do you think malloy was chosen to hear the wolf case?
 I find it ironic when wanna be greenies get sued by the extremes when they don't see eye to eye. Are these folks WE want to align ourselves with??

 DON"T FORGET Illabot Road, and what they want to do with the Suattle Road next.....  for them it's ALL ABOUT ME and everyone must comply....Resistance is futile.
 Yes all that were involved in the decision making should be fired so they can go to work for those that sued them, or maybe conservation northwest,since they are cut from the same cloth.
 They got what they deserved.

Just to let you know they are not shutting down Illabot Road http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbs/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5361686.

[Skyvalhunter]

Most of Wild Sky does not fit true wilderness designation. But that was shoved down out throat by Cantwell and Murray because the tree huggers groups were padding their pockets. Wild Sky is a touchy subject in our area.
Was good to hear the results of Illabot after sending out a few e-mails contesting the closure. 

[TheHunt]

They sould just make that 20 foot by 20 foot footing under the structure NOT wilderness. 

[boneaddict]

Perfect solution.  Sell it to a heritage site....   Like you said, that little area.   SOrt of like a gold claim way back in the woods

[fireweed]

The gov. used to torch these lookouts all the time in the name of "preventing" vandalism, returning 100% "nature", reducing costs but mostly it was park/forest rangers that thought like this group: anything manmade is BAAAADD.  Then, they changed, and started to see the value of history.  I was on fire lookouts and have hiked to Green Mtn.  I believe every existing LO must be preserved. But for simple wooden structures that the CCC's teenagers put up in the 30's over a summer using only hand tools and horses,  now cost millions to restore?  Probably have to meet all the modern permits, building standards, ADA requirements, fire sprinklers, septic systems, Insulation. You know, to make them last.  Oh, haven't those simple structures managed to sit in the world's harshest places for 80 years--maybe they were built right in the first place.  Appeal this ruling!

[Elkaholic daWg]

Most of Wild Sky does not fit true wilderness designation. But that was shoved down out throat by Cantwell and Murray because the tree huggers groups were padding their pockets. Wild Sky is a touchy subject in our area.
Was good to hear the results of Illabot after sending out a few e-mails contesting the closure.

 Could not agree more.