Not happy with the King County Democrats recent proposition to make rural land owners in the county refugees on their own property by making it so that they can only use 35% of their own land, Senator Patty Murray (D-Dimwit) has once again proposed taking part of a National Forest and making it a �Wilderness Area�.
She has tried this at least two times before, and has even named the area �Wild Sky�. But both times, she was turned down because her proposed land grab included areas that contained pre-existing roads. She has gotten approval in the Senate for this, but she doubts she�ll be able to get it through the house.
Former Washington State Representative, George Nethercutt (R), who lost his bid to replace Murray in the last election, proposed a nearly identical idea last year in the house, minus the areas with pre-existing roads, but was slapped down by two other Washington Representatives Jay Inslee (D-Numbnuts) and Rick Larsen (D-Asshat).
Personally, I can�t remember the differences between a National Forest and a �Wilderness Area�. I think that roads are able to be built in a National Forest, but not in a Wilderness Area and there may also be some extra logging contraints. Maybe someone out there can remind me.
Either way, I sense ulterior motives here, possibly along the lines of wanting to be making the enviro-wackos happy.
Because they believe that land is better served when it is in the hands of the government, than in the hands of private citizens.
A “Wilderness Area” is essentially locked up. No roads can be built, no trees logged, any existing roads will be allowed to deterioriate. Forest fires will generally not be fought and will be allowed to burn. No ATV’s/snowmobiles may be ridden. Hiking is the only way to get around in a Wilderness Area, and the number of hikers in it at one time can be limited, so hunting can be controlled in there.
Creating a “Wilderness Area” is the final manifestation of the lock-it-up envirowhacko fringe.
This happened in Oregon a few years back, out in the NE mountains. When hunters objected that they would no longer be able to drive in there and get their game that they shot (elk), the Forest Service said “too bad”, then suggested that maybe they shouldn’t hunt in there if they couldn’t get their game out.
Unless and until Bush can completely root out all the envirowhackos AT ALL LEVELS, NOT JUST THE HEAD HONCHO, in the Forest Service, all these attempts to add more wilderness must be opposed.
There is good science to oppose them with. Many have second-growth forests growing on them after previous logging. If these forests aren’t maintained with adequate protective practices (thinning, pest control, disease control), they don’t stand much chance to grow up healthy, which, after all is supposed to be the reason the Wilderness is created in the first place, isn’t it?
So, you have a ready-made weapon to use on your Senator in Tennis Shoes (stay away from that gun safe!). Accuse her of not wanting healthy forests and watch her reaction.
Thank you for the info George. My hypothesis was correct.