Wild Sky Wilderness Action Alert
Here is a link to an article I wrote last year on Wild Sky that appeared in the Blue Ribbon Coalition Magazine. It also has some facts that you may find useful.
http://www.sharetrails.org/index.cfm?page=42&story=263
This is likely to be our last chance to stop the Wild Sky Wilderness. Letters are urgently needed. I have included some information at the bottom of this email with the most recent facts from the forest service regarding the non-wilderness qualifying acres within the wilderness proposal. Please follow the instructions below. If we let this one slide through because we don't have much riding to lose, the I-90 Wilderness proposal and the Kettle River Range Wilderness proposal will already have the grease applied to let them slide right on through too.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact me. I am working up a new letter on this issue as we speak.
The House Resources Committee will be holding a hearing on
the Murray/Larsen Wild Sky Wilderness Bill (H.R. 822) this coming
Thursday, July 22nd, at
Chairman Richard Pombo
Committee on Resources
1324
(202)225-2761
(202)225-5929 FAX
resources.committee@mail.house.gov
The politics of Wild Sky have caused House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo to schedule this hearing at the request of George Nethercutt. In May, Chairman Pombo wrote Rick Larsen and described the criteria by which his committee would consider the Wild Sky legislation (see http://www.forestsforpeople.com/pombotolarsenletter.htm for a copy of this letter). Not surprisingly, Rick Larsen responded to Chairman Pombo in late May saying there were only 6 individuals, 3 organizations, and 1 business that were formally opposed to Wild Sky (see attached Index prepared by Larsen's office). Thus, we need to do our part to clearly and unequivocally show Chairman Pombo there is serious and broad-based opposition to Wild Sky (Note: at last count almost 1,900 individuals alone have signed a petition opposing this legislation). For your reference, a copy of the Wild Sky Legislation is attached. If we all can clearly show the House Resources Committee that Wild Sky has both serious problems and serious opposition, it is very likely that Chairman Pombo will not allow this legislation to move out of his committee.
I would further urge you to visit the Forests For People website at http://www.forestsforpeople.com which contains all of the most current information and analysis on this very important issue that would set a dangerous precedent for future wilderness proposals throughout the West.
Thanking you in advance for taking the time to do this.
_______________________________________________________________________
Here are some facts you can use from some of the letters I have written on this subject. Be sure to modify the wording some so that they do not recognize the exact same phrase from my previous letters.
The Wild Sky bill will lock up another 106,000 acres of MBSNF as Wilderness.
This is Senator Murray’s little pet project and I would love to see this go
down in defeat, along with Senator Murray herself. I have sent a letter to
Richard Pombo requesting that he never allow this bill out of his House
Resource Committee. Recreation use on the MBSNF for calendar year 2001 was
5,379,362 site visits. Included in the site visit estimate are 700,814 (13%)
Wilderness visits. 13% Wilderness use! This information is not spin; it is
fact from the MBSNF National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) study. The Purpose
of the NVUM was to "assist Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program
managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public and protect
valuable natural resources by providing science based, reliable information
about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public
lands". This forest is currently 42% Wilderness. So if 13% of
Wilderness users in MBSNF get to use 42% of the land, the other 87% of MBSNF
users are squeezed onto 58% of the land. Does this seem logical? The more land
that is designated as Wilderness, the more it will squeeze most forms of
national forest recreation into smaller and smaller areas. This will increase
the concentration of non-Wilderness recreation into smaller areas. I think we
could both agree this would not be desired.
Mr. Pombo, I know that you do not personally support new wilderness
designations in this country, as I do not.
I recently read your (Mr. Pombo's) book “This Land Is Our Land” for the second
time. It is a very good book. Please take another look at Chapter 6 –
Undisturbed by Man, and reread your concerns about the Wildlands
Project. You state, “
I believe that 106 million acres of Wilderness in the
Per the most recent information from Gary Paull,
Wilderness and Trails Coordinator for the
23.45 miles of inventoried roads within the current boundaries of the proposed
wilderness. None of these roads are closed to snowmobiles.
Some of the man made structures, other than roads, inside the proposed
wilderness include:
FS cabin at
FS fire lookout on the top of
Old dam (not functioning) at the outlet of Lake Isabel
Breached concrete and rock dam at
A few cabins and a variety of mining equipment on private property in the upper
Silver Creek area.
A concrete foundation for an ore processor in West Cady Creek
There are also still approximately 6,600 acres that are logged within the
boundaries of the proposed wilderness.