Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 27, 2011, 07:08:06 AM
Please get involved with this- we do not need more land closed to hunting! Send emails and call today!
URGENT ACTION FROM SPORTSMEN NEEDED TO STOP PROPOSAL THAT WOULD BAN HUNTING IN THE NORTH CASCADES!
Fellow Washington Sportsmen,
Please take a few minutes to weigh in on a new misguided environmental initiative that could end hunting throughout another quarter of a million acres of public lands in the North Cascades. The proposal, called the American Alps Legacy Project, sponsored by a coalition of Seattle area organizations, would add 237,702 acres of lands that are currently open to hunting and other multi-use outdoor pursuits, to the existing North Cascades National Park . Unlike National Recreation Areas or Wilderness Areas, which are open to hunting, an expansion of the national park would eliminate hunting forever in traditional hunting grounds up off Hwy 20 in the North Cascades, including nearly all of the Diablo GMU and parts of the Gardner, Sauk, and Nooksack GMUs.
The American Alps proposal claims it wants to protect these lands for their scenic values and for wildlife, yet most of the public lands in the proposal are already being managed wisely for conservation and recreation purposes under existing National Recreation Area and Scenic Corridor designations.
Read an editorial about the proposal on the Northwest Sportsman blog here: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2011/09/26/whoa-up-on-north-cascades-park-expansion-proposal/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2011/09/26/whoa-up-on-north-cascades-park-expansion-proposal/)
Call or e-mail Senator Cantwell today and urge her to hold back her support for the American Alps Legacy proposal. Call 206-220-6400 or e-mail chris_gregorich@cantwell.senate.gov and make these points, and then pass this e-mail on to your sportsmen contacts:
• At first glance, the AALP may sound like it has the best interests of wildlife and recreationists in mind; however, we question the real conservation benefits from adding nearly half a million acres of national forest land that is already being managed well for wildlife.
• We support conservation efforts for this magnificent area, but expanding the National Park would eliminate traditional deer, bear and other hunting opportunities and could create new access challenges for people currently using these public lands.
• Please urge the proponents of the AALP proposal to work with hunting groups to find other strategies for improving the wildlife habitat, access, and outdoor recreation opportunities in the project area, such as an expanded National Recreation Area or new Conservation Area. Less controversial designations could protect wildlife and habitat and maintain traditional access for hunters.
• Many local communities and businesses depend on revenue from hunters travelling to the area for the fall hunting season, and the AALP proposal will stir up hostility and opposition from local businesses and elected officials in rural communities that depend on hunting season revenue to support local businesses and jobs.
P
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 27, 2011, 07:27:38 AM
Looks like wilderness ain't quite good enough for them on this one eh? Good luck with Cantwell and Murray
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 27, 2011, 07:29:04 AM
I wanted another post with a call for action- we need involvement here.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 07:30:48 AM
I need to figure out where the western portions lie, and if they are now formally protected in any way. I would be unhappy with changing the status of the Ross Lake and Highway 20 Corridor.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on September 27, 2011, 07:34:34 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 07:40:14 AM
Dear Senator Cantwell,
Please, please, please vote against this proposal to increase the park size in the North Cascades National Park. As you may or may not know, hunters in this state fund most of the conservation that protects and repairs wildlife habitat through funds from the Pittman Robertson Act and through their license purchases. Local communities benefit from the economy surrounding hunting and fishing.
If this act is passed, 1/4 of a million acres will be taken away from us hunters and the local communities will feel the hurt from it.
I urge you to vote against this as a representative of our state and speak on behalf of the communities who are already reeling from a long recession. Please let me know how you intend to vote and speak on this issue.
Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to your reply.
John Wallace - Chair/Washington for Wildlife Legislative Committee
6304 NE 108th Ct.
Vancouver, WA 98662
360-771-1914
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 27, 2011, 07:46:56 AM
Here's what i just sent- anyone can feel free to use portions or the whole thing.
Dear Senator Cantwell-
I am writing to urge you not to support the expansion of the North Cascades National Park. The portions of the Cascade range that are proposed to be added to the park are already well managed lands for the benefit of wildlife and recreation. Including them into the Park protection will only limit recreational opportunities. Those areas are important to the local economy and are a traditional hunting destination for deer, bear, and other wildlife. Eliminating hunting will hurt local businesses that depend on revenue from hunters traveling to the area. Please urge the American Alps Legacy Project proponents to seek a more reasonable level of protection and to collaborate with hunting and other recreational user groups in managing this valuable piece of the Cascade range.
Thank you,
Bart George
Post by: dirty24d on September 27, 2011, 07:54:40 AM
:tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 07:56:43 AM
How come you're not in the WFW? As active as you are in the politics of hunting, it would seem like a natural thing to do. We'd benefit from your membership and I hope you join us. Thanks,
John
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 27, 2011, 08:08:55 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 08:18:37 AM
I wouldn't mind being involved on the periphery, but I'm already a member of several groups and can't commit a bunch of time to another.
Join for free:
http://www.washingtonforwildlife.org/cgi-bin/oc/register.cgi (http://www.washingtonforwildlife.org/cgi-bin/oc/register.cgi)
You won't be pressured to do anything. I think on certain issues, you'll find yourself getting involved, but that's up to you completely. Thanks a lot!
Post by: fireweed on September 27, 2011, 08:23:05 AM
The same push for National Park is happening at Mount St. Helens, one of the best elk hunting areas in the state. A letter is being sent to Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler RIGH NOW asking for a study of a National Park at Mount St. Helens.
It's interesting to note that North Cascades National Park is one of the 10 least visited National Parks in the USA. Park proponents always tout how much "economic improvement" the word "National Park" brings in, but this never happened in North Cascades because the park bans just about everything. Towns on the west side are dying a slow death (Concrete, Marblemount) and even Winthrop-- with lots to do-- is struggling. The areas main attractions are the National Recreation Areas, with hunting, boating, and a few snowmobiles. These areas need hunters $$ in the fall. National Recreation are well protected, and already micro-managed by the Park Service.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 27, 2011, 08:30:59 AM
"Working to complete the vision for a new park AND wilderness protection in Washington's North Cascades"
More non-motorized family-friendly front-country recreation that will attract today's youth and thus encourage future generations to work for protection of the North Cascades.
WELCOME TO THE AMERICAN ALPS
"Non motorized, protection" and picking on hunters too!
Kinda hard to hide that skunk
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 27, 2011, 08:45:20 AM
Post by: high country on September 27, 2011, 09:06:01 AM
Post by: Rhinoron247 on September 27, 2011, 09:14:25 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 27, 2011, 09:20:09 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 09:20:43 AM
The land in the rec area is already closed to motorized use, the land in the park looks EXACTLY like the land in the rec area, its all about a land grab.
I don't know what input the NPS has had into this process. As far as there being a land grab by the NPS of NRA lands, I don't think that is correct. The NPS is the management agency for National Recreation Areas, and as such don't need to "grab" lands that are already "theirs".
I have looked at a map, and it seems like the borders of NCNP were set to coinside with areas which met the more stringent definition of Wilderness then in use. Some of the areas such as the Cascade River area now in the proposal area are beat from mechanized logging.
It would be nice to see the area north of Highway 20 (Cady creek ) included into some type of protection, but certainly not one which would prohibit hunting. Some of this might be a move towards purchasing private in-holdings such as the Baron, Chancellor and Azurite mining areas. The USFS is reticent to be part of such purchases, while the NPS is always interested.
Post by: matt345 on September 27, 2011, 09:33:12 AM
Post by: fish vacuum on September 27, 2011, 09:59:30 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 12:19:00 PM
John
Post by: whacker1 on September 27, 2011, 12:25:27 PM
article from today in the Seattle times originally taken from the Wenatchee world
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 12:28:05 PM
I called Sen Patty Murray's office and they don't know of this bill. Does anyone have a HB (House Bill) or SB(Senate Bill) number for this? I talked with Andy Walgamott at Northwest Sportsman Mag and he doesn't have the info, either. Please post and/or PM me with this if you have it. Thanks,
John
It is a proposal.
Post by: whacker1 on September 27, 2011, 12:28:47 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html)
article from today in the Seattle times originally taken from the Wenatchee world
according to the article it will take an act of congress, but there is no legislation that has been introduced thus far. It did say they were working with Maria Cantwell's office to try and introduce legislation.
The most concerning is that they believe that it could create 1000 jobs...... I would like to see the study that created that load of :bs:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 12:35:42 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html)
article from today in the Seattle times originally taken from the Wenatchee world
according to the article it will take an act of congress, but there is no legislation that has been introduced thus far. It did say they were working with Maria Cantwell's office to try and introduce legislation.
The most concerning is that they believe that it could create 1000 jobs...... I would like to see the study that created that load of :bs:
You can't stop proposals. Any nut with a pen, including me, can make a proposal. They have to get a congressman or senator to sponsor legislation to make it a bill. Then the bill hass to pass committee. Then it must be put before the body of the sponsors and approved by Congress. The President then signs it. It's quite a process.
Getting the word out to our US senators and representatives now can do a lot of good in making them gun shy about sponsoring it in the future when it rears its ugly head. Don't get too worked up about it yet, though. It's still just in the hands of the people smokin' the rope.
Post by: whacker1 on September 27, 2011, 12:39:21 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html)
article from today in the Seattle times originally taken from the Wenatchee world
according to the article it will take an act of congress, but there is no legislation that has been introduced thus far. It did say they were working with Maria Cantwell's office to try and introduce legislation.
The most concerning is that they believe that it could create 1000 jobs...... I would like to see the study that created that load of :bs:
You can't stop proposals. Any nut with a pen, including me, can make a proposal. They have to get a congressman or senator to sponsor legislation to make it a bill. Then the bill hass to pass committee. Then it must be put before the body of the sponsors and approved by Congress. The President then signs it. It's quite a process.
Getting the word out to our US senators and representatives now can do a lot of good in making them gun shy about sponsoring it in the future when it rears its ugly head. Don't get too worked up about it yet, though. It's still just in the hands of the people smokin' the rope.
I understand, but I was clarifying, because others had asked for bill numbers, which there are none at this point.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 12:42:07 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 27, 2011, 12:44:15 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016332443_apwanorthcascadesparkexpansion1stldwritethru.html)
article from today in the Seattle times originally taken from the Wenatchee world
according to the article it will take an act of congress, but there is no legislation that has been introduced thus far. It did say they were working with Maria Cantwell's office to try and introduce legislation.
The most concerning is that they believe that it could create 1000 jobs...... I would like to see the study that created that load of :bs:
Same here. But how many jobs will it destroy or eliminate. I would imagine a fair share of those 1000 jobs are likely to be seasonal rangers (not LEOs) and trail maintenance crews. Not exactly jobs that put a lot back into the area. I live near Olympic NP and don't really see too many jobs that have been created outside the park that are catering to the park.
Post by: KillBilly on September 27, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 12:56:13 PM
But how many jobs will it destroy or eliminate
I would actually imagine that very few jobs would be either gained or lost. Most of the land in question is already in a state on conservership, in fact or reality. You won't see any type of extractive enterprises such as logging parcels being harvested in those areas.
So you won't lose logging jobs. Hunting guides and heli-ski operations will lose out. And the status and opening of the North Cascades Highway could become murkier if the NPS was in charge.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 01:30:46 PM
But how many jobs will it destroy or eliminate
I would actually imagine that very few jobs would be either gained or lost. Most of the land in question is already in a state on conservership, in fact or reality. You won't see any type of extractive enterprises such as logging parcels being harvested in those areas.
So you won't lose logging jobs. Hunting guides and heli-ski operations will lose out. And the status and opening of the North Cascades Highway could become murkier if the NPS was in charge.
It'll certainly hurt local economies that surround the area. Stopping hunting in an area hurts grocery stores, gas stations, sporting goods, hotels, restaurants, and campgrounds. Whereas the area is already being enjoyed by campers and hikers, hunters would stop going there. I believe it would lead to a net loss in the local economy.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 01:34:05 PM
Post by: high country on September 27, 2011, 07:13:03 PM
But how many jobs will it destroy or eliminate
I would actually imagine that very few jobs would be either gained or lost. Most of the land in question is already in a state on conservership, in fact or reality. You won't see any type of extractive enterprises such as logging parcels being harvested in those areas.
So you won't lose logging jobs. Hunting guides and heli-ski operations will lose out. And the status and opening of the North Cascades Highway could become murkier if the NPS was in charge.
It would put the courtney family in a jam. They make a lot of their income from hunters. I don't know about stock use in the park, but I know the park clowns are the nemisis of every resident of stehekin.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 27, 2011, 07:51:57 PM
It would put the courtney family in a jam. They make a lot of their income from hunters. I don't know about stock use in the park, but I know the park clowns are the nemisis of every resident of stehekin.
The status of both the Lake Chelan NRA and the Lake Chelan Sawtooth Wilderness would remain unchanged. The nearest area to Stehekin that would undergo a change of management status is the Highway 20 corridor to Washington Pass. The Courtney family could now certainly supply hunters north of Highway 20, if they travelled about 25 miles from Stehekin up the Stehekin River and Bridge Creek.
It would seem that these proposed additions to NCNP are quite a distance from Stehekin
Post by: huntrights on September 27, 2011, 10:25:26 PM
http://www.americanalps.org/American%20Alps%20Legacy%20Proposal.pdf (http://www.americanalps.org/American%20Alps%20Legacy%20Proposal.pdf)
Their web site:
http://www.americanalps.org/ (http://www.americanalps.org/)
Since this is a proposal to expand the North Cascades National Park, it may become a Congressional and National Park Service issue, but I haven’t been able to find any information on a final proposal to Congress or the National Park Service. Much of what I have found indicates they are soliciting support from many powerful organizations, county councils and commissioners, the media, and the general public. If anyone has additional details, please share them.
I think a good question to ask the American Alps people is why do they exclude hunting from the recreational use of these areas? Hunting has been part of mankind’s legacy since the beginning of mankind and it should be a natural component of all conservancy efforts.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 28, 2011, 08:24:42 AM
A few years back when we were fighting to stop Wild Lie, I had the opportunity to piss off Peter Jackson regarding daddies views on the "purity" issue of legal designate wilderness and how he felt. ( in a letter to the same newspaper) What I learned is if Scoop really felt as his son stated that he was NOT the man I thought he was. He described the ,Murray, Cantwell, Gagwhore, type with Scoop thinking just like them. After reading his 1/2 truths about only loosing bear area,I see a definate pattern.
Post by: turbo on September 28, 2011, 08:28:24 AM
It's called an agenda from the left wing extremists and we need to fight hard. This is our land and we are giving up our liberties daily through movements like this. I know this is just a proposal but this crap rolls down hill fast and we need to fight these groups!!
Where's our proposal? Who's looking out for us, certainly not the RMEF!!
I will be calling and writing letters and passing this info along to my circle of friends. Thank you for posting WCH. And thank you EHD....
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 28, 2011, 08:29:20 AM
A few years back when we were fighting to stop Wild Lie, I had the opportunity to piss off Peter Jackson regarding daddies views on the "purity" issue of legal designate wilderness and how he felt. ( in a letter to the same newspaper) What I learned is if Scoop really felt as his son stated that he was NOT the man I thought he was. He described the ,Murray, Cantwell, Gagwhore, type with Scoop thinking just like them. After reading his 1/2 truths about only loosing bear area,I see a definate pattern.
Could you explain that further
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 28, 2011, 08:35:02 AM
Keep your eyes on the news and in Northwest Sports Magazine. If and when it becomes sponsored by someone in Congress, then we'll have a stationary target. Right now, there's nothing to aim at.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 28, 2011, 08:49:15 AM
There's a rumor that Cantwell favors double the amount of added park land - close to 1/2 million acres, but that's just a rumor
To do that, I believe you would have to annex parts of the Paysayten and Glacier Peak Wildernesses.
I would think that management costs per unit area are higher to much higher for a National Park than the equivalent area managed as Wilderness by the USFS (or by the BLM in other states).
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 28, 2011, 09:05:26 AM
A few years back when we were fighting to stop Wild Lie, I had the opportunity to piss off Peter Jackson regarding daddies views on the "purity" issue of legal designate wilderness and how he felt. ( in a letter to the same newspaper) What I learned is if Scoop really felt as his son stated that he was NOT the man I thought he was. He described the ,Murray, Cantwell, Gagwhore, type with Scoop thinking just like them. After reading his 1/2 truths about only loosing bear area,I see a definate pattern.
Could you explain that further
I WAS and was switching windows back and forth getting verifications and hit the "back" button while in the reply window and lost it all. I'll get to it later. Sorry
Post by: fireweed on September 28, 2011, 09:37:09 AM
Post by: Jingles on September 28, 2011, 11:40:21 PM
Post by: Miles on September 28, 2011, 11:50:20 PM
Maybe I'm skeptical about anything the government is doing or call me crazy but it does seem strange to me that where the Northwest Ecosystems Alliance now Northwest Conservation didn't get their North Cascades International Peace park through 15 - 20 years ago the government and Conservancy groups have been purchasing land left and right especially in the area designated for the peace park and now they are proposing to increase the Areas where recreational use will be restricted if not eliminated That we are being back doored to get it through one way or another.
That was hard to read.
Your sentence is like the Energizer bunny, it keeps going, and going, and going... :chuckle:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 29, 2011, 05:56:12 AM
Post by: hunter360 on September 29, 2011, 02:07:58 PM
Post by: asl20bball on September 29, 2011, 02:19:39 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 29, 2011, 08:27:21 PM
I sent a letter too, except I also added that she should consider opening more roads for ATV access. That should make some of you happy :tup:
DID me!!!!!!
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 29, 2011, 08:51:05 PM
A few years back when we were fighting to stop Wild Lie, I had the opportunity to piss off Peter Jackson regarding daddies views on the "purity" issue of legal designate wilderness and how he felt. ( in a letter to the same newspaper) What I learned is if Scoop really felt as his son stated that he was NOT the man I thought he was. He described the ,Murray, Cantwell, Gagwhore, type with Scoop thinking just like them. After reading his 1/2 truths about only loosing bear area,I see a definate pattern.
Could you explain that further
Where do I start....
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/uploads/Wild%20Sky%20Wilderness%20Action%20Alert.htm (http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/uploads/Wild%20Sky%20Wilderness%20Action%20Alert.htm)
My letter
Why not propose compromise plan?
On July 29 The Herald published an editorial headlined "Wild Sky - let's try a constructive approach." About two thirds the way through it, the writer states: "Many, including the late Sen. Henry M. Jackson, who helped write the original Wilderness Act, have repudiated this 'purity argument.' "
My question is this: Can you back up this statement by providing the time, date, and place of this "repudiation?" I will be extremely surprised if you can.
The U.S. Wilderness act of 1964 is a legal document with a legal description of what constitutes wilderness and the U.S. Forest service itself states only 33,000 of the 106,000 acres qualify as wilderness under the law. Many could live with the proposal had only 16,000 acres of the proposal been excluded (the ones with 35 miles of roads, bridges and culverts).
Now I would guess that to be constructive would be to compromise. If that is the case, then exactly who is not being constructive here? Three proposals - the same every time?
I have lived in Snohomish County most all of my life and I have driven most of the 35 miles of roads that you want to close to the public.Why? My nephew just returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq (thank God), and I cannot understand where our boys and girls should be fighting and dying for freedom in Iraq and Afganistan daily, while the likes of Rick Larsen, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Dave Reichert and people like yourselves want to deny freedoms for all to enjoy this section of the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest.
Rep. Richard Pombo and Ed Husmann, thank you for your efforts and I will be there at your rally on Thursday in Sultan!
Jim Zielasko
Jackson's response
Published: Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Jackson did, in fact, reject 'purity test'
In his Aug. 17 letter, Jim Zielasko expressed disbelief that the late Sen. Henry M. Jackson, one of the authors of the National Wilderness Act of 1964, had rejected the "purity test" argument for denying new wilderness areas. Per his request, here's just one citation from the Jan. 11, 1973 Congressional Record that should (but, alas, probably won't) calm the "not-pure-enough" chorus of Wild Sky opponents:
"A serious and fundamental misinterpretation of the Wilderness Act has recently gained some credence, thus creating a real danger to the objective of securing a truly national wilderness preservation system," Jackson said. "It is my hope to correct this false so-called "purity theory" which threatens the strength and broad application of the Wilderness Act."
Zielasko, however, raises a fundamental question: Does creation of a Wild Sky Wilderness somehow undercut the premium we place on individual freedoms? The farsighted answer is "no." Preserving Wild Sky, including the disputed 16,000 acres of low-elevation forest, guarantees future generations of Zielaskos and Jacksons the freedom to hike, hunt, camp and enjoy this extraordinary land for decades to come.
PETER H. JACKSON
Everett
Does anyone see a link to verify this quote? I looked and looked and LOOKED and couldn't find it. IF YOU can PLEASE send it to me! I could post anything and IF you don't KNOW what the specific question was.....I COULD dupe you!!!
A little more on our efforts.....
http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Puget-Sound-Journal-Wilderness-plan-finds-foes-1119970.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Puget-Sound-Journal-Wilderness-plan-finds-foes-1119970.php)
And those were the Pics....
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20050819/NEWS01/508190721 (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20050819/NEWS01/508190721)
and EVERY time I find Peter Jacksons ideas and opinions he is trying to take away someones rights or heritage.
ANY Questions?????
I'm hoping this is the pic I was looking for out of the Everett herald story of the Sunday after the Index protest
Yep' DaWg Doo and Swampy, who also showed up at "Tunnel Days" in Skykomish with Ed,Roxanne and others to do what we could.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 29, 2011, 09:02:57 PM
Presumably quoted from Peter Jackson's letter to the Everett Herald (2005)
Quote
"A serious and fundamental misinterpretation of the Wilderness Act has recently gained some credence, thus creating a real danger to the objective of securing a truly national wilderness preservation system,"(Senator) Jackson said. "It is my hope to correct this false so-called "purity theory" which threatens the strength and broad application of the Wilderness Act."
The younger Jackson sure gives us a short quote which is without real context. We don't know at this point what and how the late Senator elaborated on this point.
So I don't think your castigation of the late Senator is fully on the mark, Elk Dawg.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 29, 2011, 09:09:30 PM
By the way,here is what WIKI says about the "Author" of the wilderness act of 1964
The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-577) was written by Howard Zahniser of The Wilderness Society. It created the legal definition of wilderness in the United States, and protected some 9 million acres (36,000 km˛) of federal land. The result of a long effort to protect federal wilderness, the Wilderness Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 3, 1964.
The Wilderness Act is well known for its succinct and poetic definition of wilderness:
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
Post by: fish vacuum on September 30, 2011, 01:30:30 AM
PETER H. JACKSON"
Strange how we have areas that already provide us with those freedoms, and now Jackson's group is trying to take some of them away by turning them into national park.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on September 30, 2011, 09:52:58 AM
Post by: turbo on September 30, 2011, 10:59:58 AM
There is a blatant example of what Turbo and I have been saying about super greenies using hunters until they don't need them anymore to further THEIR OWN agenda.
Amen brother!!
Do your homework boys and don't be fooled by the phonies on this site and in our hunting community. We have been infiltrated by extremists acting like our friends and this is no joke. They are years ahead of us with their agenda and this is a glimpse in to our future with wilderness. The strategic plan is to set an example in one of the most liberal places in America for future wilderness restrictions. They figure this is a lay-up. We can win these battles if we unite and work together as a team and get educated on these issues and agendas. Peace..
Post by: fish vacuum on October 26, 2011, 07:49:25 PM
"Thank you for contacting me about the proposed American Alps Legacy Project in the North Cascades National Park System. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter and sincerely regret the delayed response.
In Washington State, we are blessed to live near, work by, and play in some of America's most iconic national parks, forests, and wilderness areas. Access to diverse recreational opportunities on federal public lands is vital to our natural heritage and quality of life.
Working with a coalition of constituents, former U.S. Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson [D-WA] led Congressional efforts to designate the iconic lands in the North Cascades as a National Park on October 2, 1968. While the original North Cascades National Park designation provided incredible wildlife, recreation, and conservation benefits, certain compromises were made to achieve this designation. As a result some citizens and conservation groups suggested additional areas to be included in the park in the future. On September 23, 2011, the American Alps Legacy Project released a proposal to add approximately 238,000 acres to the park. It would expand the original North Cascades National Park to include the untouched areas in the original conservation vision for the North Cascades. The proposal is designed to provide protections for fish and wildlife species, to create family friendly recreation opportunities, to enhance economic benefits in communities adjacent to the Park, and to include iconic and scenic places in the North Cascades. To be enacted, this proposal would have to first be introduced and then be approved by Congress.
Since being elected to the Senate, I have committed myself to protecting our nation's environment and natural resources while ensuring Americans continue to have access to the outdoor recreational opportunities that they love. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect our rugged natural beauty and pristine, historic lands for the collective benefit of current and future generations.
Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this proposal and will keep your thoughts in mind. Also, please be assured that I will continue to support adequate funding of the National Park Service to allow them to keep entrance fees as affordable as possible, hire sufficient staff, and process the backlog of maintenance requests.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to these updates, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov (http://cantwell.senate.gov). Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance."
:bdid:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 27, 2011, 07:16:20 AM
There is a blatant example of what Turbo and I have been saying about super greenies using hunters until they don't need them anymore to further THEIR OWN agenda.
Amen brother!!
Do your homework boys and don't be fooled by the phonies on this site and in our hunting community. We have been infiltrated by extremists acting like our friends and this is no joke. They are years ahead of us with their agenda and this is a glimpse in to our future with wilderness. The strategic plan is to set an example in one of the most liberal places in America for future wilderness restrictions. They figure this is a lay-up. We can win these battles if we unite and work together as a team and get educated on these issues and agendas. Peace..
I hope you're not talking about me? >:(
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 27, 2011, 08:38:07 AM
"RE: the American Alps Legacy Project
Dear Senator Cantwell,
I am a conservationist and hunter, and am deeply concerned about this proposal to add up to another 1/4 million acres of our public national forest to the North Cascades National Park. This land currently provides protections for fish and wildlife species, creates family friendly recreation opportunities, supports economic benefits in communities adjacent to the Park, and includes iconic and scenic places in the North Cascades. You won't change that by turning this land into the national park. What you will change is the support you currently enjoy from hunters across the state.
Hunting and the economic community which supports and benefits from it are very important to the communities and businesses which thrive in that area. Hunting IS family-friendly. It is statistically much safer than playing high school football. As you may well know, through the Pittman Robertson Act of 1937 and its revision in 1971, 11% of hunters' license and firearm/ammunition purchases go to enhancing wildlife habitat and conservation projects. We have paid over $20 billion dollars through just this act. In addition, most of us belong to groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Ducks Unlimited, which also pay for conservation and habitat restoration projects. Hunters in the state volunteer tens of thousands of hours annually to conservation projects through the WDFW and these organizations. No other group can accurately make this claim and no other group is as large.
This proposal would eliminate recreational opportunities, not add them. Non-hunters are already enjoying the area and with no problems related to hunting or hunters reported. The USDA and Forest Service are dependable stewards of this land and are held accountable by those of us who use it. Not only that, but the USDA does it cheaper than the Parks Service can. This is an important fact during a time when government expenditures are being closely watched by your constituents. Further protections of fish and wildlife are unnecessary due to the protections they already receive under the ESA, the Clean Water Act, and many others protecting out environment. Adding this land to the existing national park will do nothing for wildlife or increased access. It will only hurt business and increase the costs for the federal handling of the area through the National Park system.
Senator Cantwell, there are an estimated 450,000 hunters in our state, republican and democrat alike, and all of us will be watching our senators and how they vote on this proposal. Please consider that this almost half-million residents will be negatively affected, as will the communities surrounding the area. I urge you to deny your support of this very costly proposal.
Thank you for considering my views.
John Wallace
Vancouver, WA"
Post by: high country on October 27, 2011, 11:11:16 AM
I got this reply from Senator Cantwell today:
"Thank you for contacting me about the proposed American Alps Legacy Project in the North Cascades National Park System. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter and sincerely regret the delayed response.
In Washington State, we are blessed to live near, work by, and play in some of America's most iconic national parks, forests, and wilderness areas. Access to diverse recreational opportunities on federal public lands is vital to our natural heritage and quality of life.
Working with a coalition of constituents, former U.S. Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson [D-WA] led Congressional efforts to designate the iconic lands in the North Cascades as a National Park on October 2, 1968. While the original North Cascades National Park designation provided incredible wildlife, recreation, and conservation benefits, certain compromises were made to achieve this designation. As a result some citizens and conservation groups suggested additional areas to be included in the park in the future. On September 23, 2011, the American Alps Legacy Project released a proposal to add approximately 238,000 acres to the park. It would expand the original North Cascades National Park to include the untouched areas in the original conservation vision for the North Cascades. The proposal is designed to provide protections for fish and wildlife species, to create family friendly recreation opportunities, to enhance economic benefits in communities adjacent to the Park, and to include iconic and scenic places in the North Cascades. To be enacted, this proposal would have to first be introduced and then be approved by Congress.
Since being elected to the Senate, I have committed myself to protecting our nation's environment and natural resources while ensuring Americans continue to have access to the outdoor recreational opportunities that they love. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect our rugged natural beauty and pristine, historic lands for the collective benefit of current and future generations.
Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this proposal and will keep your thoughts in mind. Also, please be assured that I will continue to support adequate funding of the National Park Service to allow them to keep entrance fees as affordable as possible, hire sufficient staff, and process the backlog of maintenance requests.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to these updates, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov (http://cantwell.senate.gov/). Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance."
:bdid:
boooo on her
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 27, 2011, 11:47:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 27, 2011, 11:56:22 AM
I did send an e-mail to Cantwell and Murray. I recently got a reply back from Cantwell stating they were monitoring this proposal. But as you knoe the huggers have them in their back pocket
I used her verbiage in my own letter to strike a chord. As many of you who want to, copy my email and resend it, or do your own. Just do something. If our senators back this for WA, the other US Senators will fall in behind. Let's get it stopped here at home.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 01, 2011, 05:31:40 AM
I did send an e-mail to Cantwell and Murray. I recently got a reply back from Cantwell stating they were monitoring this proposal. But as you knoe the huggers have them in their back pocket
I used her verbiage in my own letter to strike a chord. As many of you who want to, copy my email and resend it, or do your own. Just do something. If our senators back this for WA, the other US Senators will fall in behind. Let's get it stopped here at home.
Not with those two in office
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 01, 2011, 06:01:55 AM
I did send an e-mail to Cantwell and Murray. I recently got a reply back from Cantwell stating they were monitoring this proposal. But as you knoe the huggers have them in their back pocket
I used her verbiage in my own letter to strike a chord. As many of you who want to, copy my email and resend it, or do your own. Just do something. If our senators back this for WA, the other US Senators will fall in behind. Let's get it stopped here at home.
Not with those two in office
Elkaholic, they certainly won't shy away from it if they don't hear from us and lots of us. Send an email with your feelings on the subject. It doesn't take much time to do.
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/ (http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 01, 2011, 08:07:11 AM
Post by: doyourtime89 on November 01, 2011, 12:08:57 PM