Yeti GOBOX Collection

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Survey

Irrelevant

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
11,153
Location
Wenatchee
I recently participated (8 hrs pto) in a collaboration to address future management of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area. This issues associated with W.A. can all be traced back to it's accessibility and proximity to the greater Seattle area that lead to overcrowding. I was shocked to hear that increased use and users is being promoted and pushed for by many groups under the guise of "diversity and inclusion". Many, if not most, don't see overcrowding as in issue, or that wilderness character isn't all that important. Wilderness, as in congressionally designated Wilderness (big W) is designed to be exclusive, it was a specific intent to not allow certain users or uses within it's boundaries.

For those not familiar below is an excerpt from the Wilderness Act (1964) that defines what a wilderness is:
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works
dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who
does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,
without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears
to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's
work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres
of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an
unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


However, it was very apparent that the majority of users do not actually want "Wilderness" they want areas for their dues paying members to recreate... They absolutely believe the wilderness should be an adult playground with unfettered use/abuse. ....The industrial recreation complex is alive and well, and in this case, operating as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If you like to help the cause of true wilderness then, please take the public opinion poll below and share what you think wilderness should be. Even if you don't visit or haven't visited this specific one.
 
Done. The last page is demographics. "31-40 year old white male says wilderness should be hard to access" -Paraphrased

5 years ago I argued with a guy on Facebook who wanted all federal lands to be ADA accessible. I asked him if he thought we should put an escalator up Half Dome. His response was "What part of ALL do you not get?!"

Thanks for sharing and taking the time to contribute in person @neffa3
 
Done. The last page is demographics. "31-40 year old white male says wilderness should be hard to access" -Paraphrased

5 years ago I argued with a guy on Facebook who wanted all federal lands to be ADA accessible. I asked him if he thought we should put an escalator up Half Dome. His response was "What part of ALL do you not get?!"

Thanks for sharing and taking the time to contribute in person @neffa3
I refused the provide the demographic info. I won't give them fodder to ignore my comments.

tangent alert, it is simply shocking to me, how far the pendulum swings into absurdity. That I can be called a racist because I think we should limit day use in the wilderness... I may order a Trump 2024 hat for the next meeting...
 
They will hear from a 61 y.o. today. I will keep visiting these places until I don't come back.
Doing a trip in from the west side in a couple of weeks.
 
Thanks for posting this link.
(The "click here" link for a detailed map doesn't work.)
Still have never won the camping lottery but will continue trying.
 
The wording on many (most?) of the selectable items in the survey are wild. Clearly skewed toward a specific demographic. I’m a fairly progressive person (for a middle aged white guy) and I found my eyes rolling throughout the process of answering all those questions.

Between things like this and what’s going on in your wildlife commission, it’s pretty clear to see how far that pendulum has swung in Washington.
 
The wording on many (most?) of the selectable items in the survey are wild. Clearly skewed toward a specific demographic. I’m a fairly progressive person (for a middle aged white guy) and I found my eyes rolling throughout the process of answering all those questions.

Between things like this and what’s going on in your wildlife commission, it’s pretty clear to see how far that pendulum has swung in Washington.
Right?! Like we're not even flirting with reality anymore.

I was pleased to see that I was not the only person in the room that was shocked at what was being said. You can basically bank they all aligned hard left. One of the most vocal advocates in the room for "wild" and wildlife was an anti-hunter, 78 yrs old, when I first approach him and he saw who I was there representing (BHA) he could hardly look me in the eye, but by the end of the day, we traded cell # to keep in touch.
 
The wording on many (most?) of the selectable items in the survey are wild. Clearly skewed toward a specific demographic. I’m a fairly progressive person (for a middle aged white guy) and I found my eyes rolling throughout the process of answering all those questions.

Between things like this and what’s going on in your wildlife commission, it’s pretty clear to see how far that pendulum has swung in Washington.
If this shit comes to CO at this level, I may finally throw my hat in the ring for state congress - despite swearing I'd never run for public office. It's unreal that stuff like this can happen.

If you look beyond those shouting the loudest, there are a ton of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ individuals who are trying to tell leaders they are doing it wrong. They are not focused on creating a healthier culture or more inclusive spaces, they are just force feeding the under represented peoples into places that are not healthy or actually inclusive. WE - collectively - are going about it wrong.

I have no issues with people trying to create healthier environments for people who are not white males, I have an issue with doing so in such a way that we ignore qualifications, the personal preferences / comfortability of the underrepresented groups, and focus instead on agendas in surveying groups, filling commissions, etc.

It's not inclusive if its forced and its also not diverse if its forced. Then you are just - again - selecting based on race, this time you are just doing it by including. Which is super patronizing at most levels.

I am particularly struck by the transgender question that survey. It was a separate question... aside from the gender issue. WHY? Look to each their own - I don't get it, but I have no issue with someone transitioning if they think it's right for THEM. BUT, why are pandering to a group that represents 0.5% of the total population and in fact, of that 0.5% most are WHITE. (all figures above came from the most liberal sources I could find; so as not to downplay the figures). Transgender people should be free to enjoy the trails without harassment, but focusing on their identity misses the mark.

Rant over.
 
If this shit comes to CO at this level, I may finally throw my hat in the ring for state congress - despite swearing I'd never run for public office. It's unreal that stuff like this can happen.

If you look beyond those shouting the loudest, there are a ton of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ individuals who are trying to tell leaders they are doing it wrong. They are not focused on creating a healthier culture or more inclusive spaces, they are just force feeding the under represented peoples into places that are not healthy or actually inclusive. WE - collectively - are going about it wrong.

I have no issues with people trying to create healthier environments for people who are not white males, I have an issue with doing so in such a way that we ignore qualifications, the personal preferences / comfortability of the underrepresented groups, and focus instead on agendas in surveying groups, filling commissions, etc.

It's not inclusive if its forced and its also not diverse if its forced. Then you are just - again - selecting based on race, this time you are just doing it by including. Which is super patronizing at most levels.

I am particularly struck by the transgender question that survey. It was a separate question... aside from the gender issue. WHY? Look to each their own - I don't get it, but I have no issue with someone transitioning if they think it's right for THEM. BUT, why are pandering to a group that represents 0.5% of the total population and in fact, of that 0.5% most are WHITE. (all figures above came from the most liberal sources I could find; so as not to downplay the figures). Transgender people should be free to enjoy the trails without harassment, but focusing on their identity misses the mark.

Rant over.
Nailed it. What is the survey really about? Because it sure as hell didn’t seem like a survey about Wilderness.
 
Nailed it. What is the survey really about? Because it sure as hell didn’t seem like a survey about Wilderness.

I went to the Alpine Lakes Collaborative website to do some sleuthing and couldn't get beyond the pictures on the first page. That crap always blows me away.

The photo of the mountain goat and the trail head parking are absurd.

 
thanks for sharing. Not familiar with the area, but can think of a few places here in CO that come to mind when reading about whats happening in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. It makes me sad how uninformed people are about nature and their impact on it.
 
I recently participated (8 hrs pto) in a collaboration to address future management of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area. This issues associated with W.A. can all be traced back to it's accessibility and proximity to the greater Seattle area that lead to overcrowding. I was shocked to hear that increased use and users is being promoted and pushed for by many groups under the guise of "diversity and inclusion". Many, if not most, don't see overcrowding as in issue, or that wilderness character isn't all that important. Wilderness, as in congressionally designated Wilderness (big W) is designed to be exclusive, it was a specific intent to not allow certain users or uses within it's boundaries.

For those not familiar below is an excerpt from the Wilderness Act (1964) that defines what a wilderness is:
(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works
dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who
does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,
without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears
to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's
work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres
of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an
unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.


However, it was very apparent that the majority of users do not actually want "Wilderness" they want areas for their dues paying members to recreate... They absolutely believe the wilderness should be an adult playground with unfettered use/abuse. ....The industrial recreation complex is alive and well, and in this case, operating as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If you like to help the cause of true wilderness then, please take the public opinion poll below and share what you think wilderness should be. Even if you don't visit or haven't visited this specific one.
Done. Thanks for your efforts.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,145
Messages
1,948,683
Members
35,049
Latest member
Kgentry
Back
Top