New Wilderness in the Whites killed in Washington

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=99c2439a-a023-442a-a497-88db5850ee67

The wilderness billed died in the House after it flew through the Senate... we can all thank (sarcastically or seriously) an unnamed congress person from an unnamed state that may or may not be west of New Hampshire.

My politically correct version.

If I understand the politics of this correctly (and I may not - I read an article about it in the morning paper while chasing kids around the house and making four different breakfasts for four people) Bernie killed it because he wanted more protection, not less. He wanted the bill to include more wilderness in VT, and in this he was in opposition to our VT governor, Jim Douglas. its kind of funny when you think about it, thinking about the 2 states usual reputation on political issues.

Remember: No Politics on this site... (and there are 2 threads on this right now)

As has been said already, it's fine to talk about this topic, but leave politics out of it.

-dave-

I'm sure we all agree this is sad news. I'd love to say more but will leave my comments at that.

WhiteMTHike said:

I'm sure we all agree this is sad news.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that there's a contingent here (and elsewhere) that prefers NOT to have more parts of the Whites designated as Wilderness. It could result in the removal of shelters/campsites and bridges, and change the management policy for the trails.

I'm not completely in agreement with that line of thought, but I understand and appreciate the concerns.

-dave-

David Metsky said:

I think you'll find that there's a contingent here (and elsewhere) that prefers NOT to have more parts of the Whites designated as Wilderness. It could result in the removal of shelters/campsites and bridges, and change the management policy for the trails.
-dave-

Click to expand...

Interesting. If Wild River is not designated a wilderness area, I wonder whether WMNF will go ahead and remove the three shelters (Spruce Brook, Blue Brook, Perkins Notch) anyway? They list their possible removal in this SOPA with an expected decision date of 8/2006 and an expected implementation date of 6/2007. The new trail signs in the area don't list the shelters. The rationale is that these shelters would be non-conforming in a wilderness area mainly because they all sit right on or near the trail and thus interfere with "solitude" opportunities. The recommendation was to remove them now, not wait until they required maintenance and then demolish (although Perkins Notch looks like it does need some maintenance now), as is the case with other shelters that find themselves within recently designated wilderness areas. The recent removal of Spider Brook camp looked like the preliminary step in this sequence, but I suppose it is on hold for now until it all gets worked out in Washington.

I just wish the fine-grained aspects of protection were more representative in addressing the opinions/concerns noted & consequences perceived, both by the general public and those who use the forest.

The Wilderness / no Wilderness (the latter implying logging can and will occur) "choice" has been poorly framed & this process has made me incredibly cynical of how policy works at the federal level. In my mind, it makes our local towns' planning board decisions look quite Solomonic in comparison.

edit: (if the above sounds like politics, let me know & I'll remove it. nonpolitical point follows)
re: the shelter removal project -- My understanding in talking with Rebecca Oreskes at WMNF last year was that the new Forest Plan presented a change in the way nonconforming structures were addressed. The "old way" was they get removed when maintenance is required. The "new way" was that they will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I was under the impression that it gave WMNF more flexibility to maintain shelters if they were deemed historic & did not pose a significant detraction from Wilderness values. It looks like it also gave WMNF more flexibility to remove them more quickly.

Shelter removals on hold

I called the WMNF Androscoggin district just now and was told the plan to remove shelters has been on hold for some time pending the outcome of this bill and that policy will remain in effect as they watch to see whether the bill comes up next year and what parts of it get passed that might affect shelters.
I asked if a group could volunteer to bring the shelters up to their best possible condition so that if the bill passes again and the "benign neglect" policy is again followed, the shelters might last longer.
I was told the "benign neglect" policy is no longer favored and shelters will be fixed or removed on a case-by-case basis.

David Metsky said:

I think you'll find that there's a contingent here (and elsewhere) that prefers NOT to have more parts of the Whites designated as Wilderness. It could result in the removal of shelters/campsites and bridges, and change the management policy for the trails.

I'm not completely in agreement with that line of thought, but I understand and appreciate the concerns.

-dave-

Click to expand...

oh i didn't know this would affect the shelters and what not. maybe this is a good thing afterall?

bintrepidhiker said:

oh i didn't know this would affect the shelters and what not. maybe this is a good thing afterall?

Click to expand...

I think this comment reflects the reality of the conundrum behind the big W Wilderness: Does the public really understand what it's getting in such a bill?

I also think it's ironic (and a little humorous) to implore against political discussion given a topic that is inherently political. Perhaps we should simply avoid railing against the perceived evils of one party or another. Bukowski said it was like choosing between warm and cold [poop] (censorship mine, sadly).

Anyway, I'm glad that there is a national discussion on what form our "wild" areas should take, and I'd leave it at that for now.

--M.

jjmcgo said:

pending the outcome of this bill and that policy will remain in effect as they watch to see whether the bill comes up next year

Click to expand...

can someone familiar with the sausage-making process, excuse me I mean the Congressional bill process, confirm/explain whether a bill comes up again this year or whether the next opportunity is in 2007?

I watched Schoolhouse Rock ("I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill...") but no matter how much I find out about it, I still don't understand how it works.

bintrepidhiker said:

oh i didn't know this would affect the shelters and what not. maybe this is a good thing afterall?

Click to expand...

--M. said:

Anyway, I'm glad that there is a national discussion on what form our "wild" areas should take, and I'd leave it at that for now.

Click to expand...

I continue to feel rather cynical that an effective discussion will occur... I am glad, however, about threads like these -- even if a good discussion doesn't happen nationally, we can have our own one here.

I have an urgent plea for those of you who have an opinion on the Wilderness issue one way or the other.

If you care how this issue ends up, please express your concerns and questions about Wilderness and what you like and don't like about it: Call/write your Congressperson or the WMNF. Try to learn more; the facts of land protection can be confusing as there are a whole bunch of options, Wilderness being only one of them, and each type has a different set of restrictions/implications. (for instance, look up Research Natural Area, of which The Bowl in the Sandwich Range and the Alpine Garden on Mt Washington are examples) If you're a member of one of the organizations that is working with Congress on this bill (e.g. SPNHF or the Wilderness Society or AMC, each of which has different approaches & has chosen to emphasize different aspects of Wilderness), let them know your opinion.

I read the Union Leader article. It was interesting to note that Bernie Sanders said in his letter that the proposed Wilderness bill would not actually add any protection to the WMNF. Does anyone have more details on why he believes that? It would be interesting to know what the current protections are for the areas in question, to be able to form an opinion on whether the proposed change would be a good thing.

(I'm just curious. As an Adirondacker, we have very little Federal involvement in our Wild lands policy.)

TCD

"I also think it's ironic (and a little humorous) to implore against political discussion given a topic that is inherently political."

Of course a discussion like this would involve politics, and if everyone could act like adults instead of trying to count coup, we could watch and maybe even participate in the broad spectrum of the ensuing discussion.

The issue is that its impossible to have a reasoned, 'theoretical', hiking/wilderness discussion. Even face-to-face, it would degenerate. With the anonimity of the internet, and political divisiveness, the name calling and insults would start that much sooner.
Given the experience of hundreds of failed threads, PMs, and messages about politics over the years, the ban is absolute for that reason.

The issue is that its impossible to have a reasoned, 'theoretical', hiking/wilderness discussion. Even face-to-face, it would degenerate. With the anonimity of the internet, and political divisiveness, the name calling and insults would start that much sooner.
Given the experience of hundreds of failed threads, PMs, and messages about politics over the years, the ban is absolute for that reason.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. It is not only possible but essential. Otherwise we are stepford hikers. The reasoned remedy is to ban the over-the-top/violators - not prohibit everyone from any discussion.

We're not interested in judging who is over-the-top and who isn't. Or how far over-the-top is. Playing that game throughout last year and the one before almost led the board to be closed. I like to wrangle politics, but I do it with friends and people I know, not here on the internet or on this board. I bite my tongue when I have to do this, but it is a necessity born of past failures.
Darren said no politics and thats the rule of this sandbox. As been said many time before, there are plenty of other places for you to go where you can write whatever you want.

So, regretfully, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I always err on giving people the benefit of the doubt, not presuming they'll behave badly. I understand your point though, about it being too much police work. I guess I just find it very hard to believe that the vast majority of folks here are not polite adults. We can agree to disagree on that point. Thanks for red square! LOL

From Peakbagr: I was going to send a red square and caught myself that it was inappropriate for a disagreement. Inadvertently hit the send button and apologized in a PM to Gris.

David Metsky said:

I think you'll find that there's a contingent here (and elsewhere) that prefers NOT to have more parts of the Whites designated as Wilderness. It could result in the removal of shelters/campsites and bridges, and change the management policy for the trails.

I'm not completely in agreement with that line of thought, but I understand and appreciate the concerns.

-dave-

Click to expand...

This highlights some of the misunderstanding or lack of education surrounding this issue. Can someone please provide a brief outline of the main results of passage of big W legislation? ie...

Effects on logging
Effects on other uses (snomobiles, bikes, skis, hunting)
Effects on hiking trails
Effects on existing structures (including cairns?)
What else?

A few years ago, I had thought I'd be all for greater 'protection.' But I'm always wary of anyone who claims "We're from the government and we're here to help!" and now I'm not so sure.

Could someone provide a basic primer?

Thanks,

--M.

Compromise on Wilderness Bill?

In today's Burlington Free Press there was an article mentioning that a compromise on the bill had been reached in which the new Wilderness acreage in VT had been decreased. There is some question now as to whether or not the bill can be passed before the end of the congressional session.

We can all agree

to be thankful for the work that Arghman has done in making accessible to the rest of us the nuts and bolts of this process.
He has shown us the places to go to get the actual wording of the legislation, the impact of Wilderness legislation and who to contact if you wish to have an impact.
There was a previous discussion on this thread:
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3958&page=1&pp=15
and MtnMgc posted very helpful info, also.
Thanks to everyone who helped further our understanding.