Post by: saylean on April 03, 2012, 09:17:25 PM
After they spent all this money on restoration, now its getting torn down?! This is garbage.
Post by: Hunting Cowboy on April 03, 2012, 09:27:48 PM
Post by: Michelle_Nelson on April 03, 2012, 09:41:26 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 03, 2012, 09:47:53 PM
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!
Post by: Bshiftbc on April 03, 2012, 09:51:18 PM
I hope Pete does the right thing and appeals!
Post by: washelkhunter on April 04, 2012, 01:10:59 AM
Post by: NWBREW on April 04, 2012, 01:24:31 AM
Was'nt it there before there was a wilderness designation?
My thought too. Tearing it down is a total waste of OUR money.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 04, 2012, 03:58:38 AM
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-
Post by: ICEMAN on April 04, 2012, 05:15:36 AM
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?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 04, 2012, 05:40:27 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on April 04, 2012, 06:20:45 AM
Post by: rasbo on April 04, 2012, 06:23:26 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on April 04, 2012, 06:28:31 AM
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.. :dunno: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.
Post by: dreamingbig on April 04, 2012, 06:46:21 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 04, 2012, 07:18:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2012, 07:40:59 AM
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.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 04, 2012, 07:58:43 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 04, 2012, 08:02:42 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2012, 08:03:33 AM
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!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 04, 2012, 08:18:41 AM
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
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2012, 08:21:16 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 04, 2012, 08:30:49 AM
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)
Post by: Russ McDonald on April 04, 2012, 08:47:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2012, 08:49:28 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on April 04, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on April 04, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 04, 2012, 09:12:39 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 04, 2012, 09:30:04 AM
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
Post by: Special T on April 04, 2012, 11:02:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 04, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
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! :bash:
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.
Post by: Special T on April 04, 2012, 11:19:06 AM
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. :twocents: If you F-up in the private sector it may mean your job, and the company $$$.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 04, 2012, 07:42:13 PM
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.. :dunno:
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.
Post by: Russ McDonald on April 05, 2012, 06:26:22 AM
Just to let you know they are not shutting down Illabot Road http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbs/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5361686 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbs/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5361686).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.. :dunno:
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.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 05, 2012, 06:33:17 AM
Was good to hear the results of Illabot after sending out a few e-mails contesting the closure.
Post by: TheHunt on April 05, 2012, 06:34:57 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 05, 2012, 07:21:26 AM
Post by: fireweed on April 05, 2012, 08:25:23 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 05, 2012, 07:36:26 PM
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.