Free: Contests & Raffles.
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..
Quote from: rasbo on April 04, 2012, 06:23:26 AMthis 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.
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.
