primergray
11-28-2002, 09:19 AM
Taken from the Centralia, Washington The Chronicle.
www.chronline.com Opinions Section
Jack
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Wilderness area goes well beyond definition of law
It is just as well a proposed new wilderness area of 106,000 acres in this state didn’t make it out of the just-concluded lame duck session of Congress.
The area includes land that has no business being designated wilderness.
Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., chief House sponsor of the new wilderness area dubbed “Wild Sky,” vows to introduce it in a new bill early next year in the new Congress. Presumably, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who introduced a companion measure to Larsen’s in the Senate earlier this year, will do likewise.
They would be wise to remove tens of thousands of acres that don’t meet the true definition of wilderness. Otherwise, the proposed wilderness area should be rejected by Congress.
The Wild Sky proposal is an example of the extent liberal Democratic members of Congress, such as Larsen, Murray, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell and other members of our state’s congressional delegation are tied to the environmental movement and some of its excesses.
The proposed new wilderness is in Larsen’s congressional district in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Northwest Washington. That forest’s own plan identified just 33,000 acres as suitable for the new wilderness area. Mount Baker-Snoqualmie officials concluded that lands surrounding that acreage shouldn’t be included because, in part, they contained at least two concrete bridges; more than 40 miles of roads, most usable by passenger vehicles; other permanent improvements; and large previously harvested areas.
None of that is consistent with the definition of wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness Act passed by Congress as “federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements ... with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”
If the legislation passed in current form, subverting the wilderness act, the cost to taxpayers for removing bridges and decommissioning roads could exceed $1 million.
In a hearing on the Wild Sky bill in the Senate this summer, the Forest Service testified it had “significant concerns” with 36,000 acres in the measure. But those concerns were ignored and the legislation continued to move forward in Congress, until the lame duck session.
We’re not opposed to creation of additional wilderness areas in this state where it can be shown there is a true need and the land proposed is fully consistent with the federal wilderness designation.
But the current version of Wild Sky goes well beyond that and raises a red flag about the objectives and agenda of its supporters, including Larsen, Murray and Cantwell. The Wilderness Coalition’s web site states, “By mobilizing support now for the Wild Sky Country, we hope it will be a flagship for other wilderness proposals around the state.” In other words, they seek Wild Sky as a precedent for establishing other wilderness areas regardless of improvements on them or their multiple-use status.
Fortunately Republicans have regained control of the U.S. Senate, making it less likely that the Democratic champions in this state of Wild Sky as it now exists can prevail. It will be interesting to see where our 3rd District Congressman Brian Baird stands on this issue.
www.chronline.com Opinions Section
Jack
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Wilderness area goes well beyond definition of law
It is just as well a proposed new wilderness area of 106,000 acres in this state didn’t make it out of the just-concluded lame duck session of Congress.
The area includes land that has no business being designated wilderness.
Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., chief House sponsor of the new wilderness area dubbed “Wild Sky,” vows to introduce it in a new bill early next year in the new Congress. Presumably, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who introduced a companion measure to Larsen’s in the Senate earlier this year, will do likewise.
They would be wise to remove tens of thousands of acres that don’t meet the true definition of wilderness. Otherwise, the proposed wilderness area should be rejected by Congress.
The Wild Sky proposal is an example of the extent liberal Democratic members of Congress, such as Larsen, Murray, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell and other members of our state’s congressional delegation are tied to the environmental movement and some of its excesses.
The proposed new wilderness is in Larsen’s congressional district in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Northwest Washington. That forest’s own plan identified just 33,000 acres as suitable for the new wilderness area. Mount Baker-Snoqualmie officials concluded that lands surrounding that acreage shouldn’t be included because, in part, they contained at least two concrete bridges; more than 40 miles of roads, most usable by passenger vehicles; other permanent improvements; and large previously harvested areas.
None of that is consistent with the definition of wilderness in the 1964 Wilderness Act passed by Congress as “federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements ... with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”
If the legislation passed in current form, subverting the wilderness act, the cost to taxpayers for removing bridges and decommissioning roads could exceed $1 million.
In a hearing on the Wild Sky bill in the Senate this summer, the Forest Service testified it had “significant concerns” with 36,000 acres in the measure. But those concerns were ignored and the legislation continued to move forward in Congress, until the lame duck session.
We’re not opposed to creation of additional wilderness areas in this state where it can be shown there is a true need and the land proposed is fully consistent with the federal wilderness designation.
But the current version of Wild Sky goes well beyond that and raises a red flag about the objectives and agenda of its supporters, including Larsen, Murray and Cantwell. The Wilderness Coalition’s web site states, “By mobilizing support now for the Wild Sky Country, we hope it will be a flagship for other wilderness proposals around the state.” In other words, they seek Wild Sky as a precedent for establishing other wilderness areas regardless of improvements on them or their multiple-use status.
Fortunately Republicans have regained control of the U.S. Senate, making it less likely that the Democratic champions in this state of Wild Sky as it now exists can prevail. It will be interesting to see where our 3rd District Congressman Brian Baird stands on this issue.