Here we go again for the 3rd year in a row! Murray has reintroduced the proposal again. NO Wild Sky Website





Published: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Wild Sky back for a third try
Sen. Patty Murray again introduces a bill to create a new 106,000-acre wilderness area in eastern Snohomish County.

By Jim Haley
Herald Writer


Lawmakers are ready for another wild ride for the Wild Sky Wilderness.

A new bill that would protect 106,000 acres of eastern Snohomish County forests and streams was introduced Tuesday in the U.S. Senate. If approved, it would be the first piece of wilderness legislation in Washington state in two decades.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who secured approval of similar Senate measures in 2002 and 2003, announced that she will resume her efforts to pass it this year.




The bill had to be reintroduced and must be voted on again because the measure didn't get House approval in 2002 or 2003. Murray said she will continue pushing the legislation despite the political obstacles.

"Wild Sky reflects the great tradition of preserving places that make Washington unique," Murray said in a statement. "It took eight years to preserve the Hanford Reach, and it was the right thing to do. I am committed to passing this legislation."

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., co-sponsored the bill.

The proposal is the same one that Murray pushed before. The proposed wilderness area is in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest north of Index and Skykomish.

It's different from existing Washington wilderness areas because the proposal would protect not only high-elevation mountain ridges and lakes, but also some 14,000 acres of rare low-elevation old-growth timber, and some 25 miles of salmon and steelhead spawning streams.

The measure twice has been stymied in the House.

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., also will press for Wild Sky legislation, but it's uncertain when his bill will be introduced.

"We have had our own unique challenges facing us in the House, and we will look forward to making Wild Sky a reality on the House side," Larsen spokeswoman Abbey Blake said.

Before introduction of a House version, Blake said Larsen wants to consult with new political players, particularly new Republican members of Congress Rep. Dave Reichert from King County and Rep. Cathy McMorris from the Spokane area, Blake said.

He also wants to talk with new Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire.

"It's taken a wild ride, but our goal is to protect this area and make Wild Sky a reality," Blake said.

Reichert succeeds Jennifer Dunn, who didn't run for another term and previously was a co-sponsor of the House Wild Sky bill.

McMorris succeeds George Nethercutt, a former Spokane Republican who, after withdrawing support previously, embraced Wild Sky last year in a compromise bill when he was running against Murray.

But Wild Sky stumbled in the House last year anyway when the measure failed to get out of a committee headed by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif.

The wilderness measure was crafted in 2001 following a series of meetings with forest users. Numerous concessions were made, including moving proposed boundaries to accommodate snowmobilers and allowing floatplanes to land in Lake Isabel, a high lake within the proposed boundaries.

Conservationists applauded the new effort, noting that it has received bipartisan support, including commitments from the Republican administration that President Bush would sign the bill.

"The Wild Sky has been characterized by strong bipartisan and local support in the past, and we plan to work to build on that support this year," said Tom Uniack, conservation director for the Washington Wilderness Coalition.

Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com.

 

WOW!! I thought calif. was the only state blessed with environmental wackos. Didnt you guy's just get a dem gov? I'd be worried.

 

That's a federal bill and has nothing to do with the state. It's making a Federal Wilderness area.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

Thanks for the info B&R. Do you know why they picked Wa?

 

It was the 2 Senators from WA that are trying to change the area in question from just being a forest under the USFS to being a Wilderness. As they said, there hasn't been any Wilderness areas added in 20 years. It's not an easy thing to get a couple hundred people to agree to shut an area off to all things except but foot traffic.

In a Wilderness, you can only have non-motorised means of transportation. Even a bicycle could be off limits, but I'm not sure. I know that anything with a motor is forbidden. And pack-animals may not be allowed. I know up in the Sierras above me they added a provision for pack-animals to be able to use them in the Wilderness, Jonhn Muir Wilderness I think.

I don't know anything about the area in question, so I can't say for sure whether or not its appropriate to be designated Wilderness. I do personally feel that some areas should be set aside as Wilderness, just as I feel that some areas should allow motorized recreation.

I attempt to be responsible when I'm on my quad. I slow down and go as slow as possible (read be quiet) when I'm passing or near any animals. Up in the Forest where I ride fromo time to time there are dear active at Miami Motorcycle Trails and you see people riding horses around Little Shuteye. Sometimes it's just nice to shut down and watch the dear walking around, especially when you have kids with you.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] Wilderness=useless was a bit extreme,as I also see the need for wild areas, BUT there is an act of congress called the US Wilderness act of 1964 which legally defines wilderness as far as wilderness designation is concerned, and at least 1/3 of the area in question does not! There are miles of roads, (which many of us have had access to ALL our lives) there are bridges, (Go to website and you will see a pic of a pickup on a bridge within the area) there are hundreds of culverts ( some of which just recently have been relaced with HUGE pipe for salmon recovery!) that WILL need to be tore out this area at your expense!! (and mine!)
As for no Wilderness designations in the last 20 years........How many has god created in the last 20 years??

Now for more specifics;
Sponsors of this bill have made "exceptions" to get support from those who would not normally be okay with it
like allowing float planes to land on lake Isabelle,
leaving existing buildings in the area, .
Before I go any farther as per the act of 1964 these are NOT legal exceptions and any judge could throw them all out!
Oh yes... Bicycles are not allowed, since they are a machine. I believe wheelchairs are allowed, but how many trails are wheelchair friendly?? The only legal machines I know of is a pistol or rifle.
It is good to see response to this thread, but disheartening to see it all coming from California! Seems most Washington riders don't pay attention 'till they see the sign on the gate!!

 

It's just most of us CA riders are tired of being bashed over the head with "All those liberals in CA." And we chuckle when we see stuff like this in other states, at least I do. I know that when John Muir was layed out, they cut out for the Dusey Irshim Trail. I think the width at some points isn't much wider than the trail.

It seems like more states are having a large general problem whereas in CA they are targeting specific areas (i.e. Oceano Dunes SVRA "Pismo" and Glamis areas.) And most of the areas are usually attacked using the ESA, rather than using erosion issues. I wonder if this has to do with CA's existing laws on OHV use?

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] I see your points B&RW. I have been posting info on this and many other USFS access issues Here, Huntingnet, Snowest, and Pirate 4X4 for quite some time now. Being that we all need all the help we can get.
I own snowmobiles, but no ATVs (yet), and have been blasted on huntingnet defending ATV riders rights to access by hunters in the east and Midwest. If you draw a line At the Mississippi you get totally different reactions from either side most of the time. Like they don't think they're a MINORITY when it comes to public opinion of thier chosen form of recreation. A line at the Rockies is even more pronounced!
Pirate 4x has good info on it usually. I would say they and Snowest are the most active on these issues.
Go to this site to Seattle/Puget Sound (where to ride) and see how many seem to care about Wild Sky on that thread.......883 pages and maybe 10 posts, 4 are mine. Posted W/S info there Wednesday and by this morning I had over 100 email notices of posts on that thread- of which it seemed only 2 members posted maybe 5 posts in response to that the rest had better things to think about.
All we can do is keep trying! Take Care. Cals not the only state with idiots!!

One more thing.... We must do ALL we can to keep Richard Pombo in office!! Pombo Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It would be interesting to know just how much $ the environmental lobby has put into their campaigns... I imagine there has been more than just a hundred bucks here or there.... No wonder they keep trying...

 

elkaholic- I do pay attention, even though i don't post a ton on it. thanks for keeping us informed on it. before i started racing more i was more of a trail rider. i ride near the area in question occasionally and wonder if i actually ride in it sometimes... rieter trails, a local riding area, is one of the better riding areas in the state and i can see it being shut down as a buffer region for the wild sky area.... and tons of people ride there every day.
the representatives of this state really keep pushing the same crap again & again... i really hope they fail again. i know it's useless to write them, they're sponsoring it!