Wildfire lookout tear down outside of Darrington. Scary precident.

[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.