Lawmakers debate protecting Wild Sky

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington bureau

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Related stories Archive: Wild Sky bill hits House roadblock

During a hearing yesterday before a House Resources subcommittee, supporters and opponents of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness area sparred over benefits of setting aside 106,000 acres under the federal government's most stringent protection.

But a disagreement about whether the land is truly wild lies at the heart of the debate.

Supporters of Wild Sky say 16,000 acres of previously logged lowland forests are suitable for wilderness designation.

Created under the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness designations generally prohibit roads or permanent structures as well as mining, logging and most vehicle traffic.

But a California lawmaker, House Resources Chairman Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Stockton, said the 16,000 acres are not appropriate for wilderness status.

He displayed a blown-up photograph of a concrete bridge within the proposed Wild Sky area.

"How can this be considered 'untrammeled by man'?" he asked, referring to language contained in the Wilderness Act.

Pombo later indicated he would be willing to support a compromise that would classify the 16,000 acres as something other than wilderness.

"In the areas that, in my mind, don't qualify as wilderness, I can see the value of protecting those," Pombo told Washington Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, Wild Sky sponsor.

"You and the other members of the Washington delegation have made it perfectly clear that you want that area protected. If we could come up with a designation that protects and maintains it in its current state, but does not classify it as wilderness, would that not satisfy your desire to have that area protected for future generations?"
 
Larsen responded that he wanted to see his bill passed, and carefully evaded Pombo's question by asking for more time to consider all legislative options.

But Rep. Jay Inslee of Bainbridge Island, who is the highest-ranking Democrat on the Forests and Forest Health subcommittee, flatly rejected the notion that lawmakers should carve up the proposal into different designations.

"If you cut up the 16,000 acres, you would have little slivers," Inslee said. "Protecting these low-level forests is the highest priority. We can't part out this bill like a used car."

Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Spokane, took a compromise position.

"I do believe this is a beautiful area that should be preserved," he said. "I think we have to be open to ideas about how we can reach the common objective."

Nethercutt, who is challenging Democratic Sen. Patty Murray in November, had requested the hearing for Wild Sky after pledging that he would be able to get a Wild Sky bill passed this year.

In an effort to move Wild Sky forward, Murray stalled a bill in the U.S. Senate that was authored by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon. And Walden said he was not pleased about it.

"You ever think about coming over here and talking?" Walden asked Murray rhetorically.

A spokesman for Murray confirmed she held up Walden's legislation, and said the maneuver confirmed her commitment to getting Wild Sky passed.

Larsen said his staff will consider what to do when Congress reconvenes Sept. 7.

So far, though, Larsen remains committed to a plan that protects the 16,000 acres as wilderness.

Alex Fryer: 206-464-8124 or afryer@seattletimes.com