Two articles on the Wild Sky Wilderness Bill

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Here's another out of state lawmaker trying to tell Washington state residents what's good for them. In spite of nearly unanimous support by this state's congressional delegation and twice passing the Senate, Richard Pombo R-CA, stated some 48 hours before his committee that he will oppose the Wild Sky Wilderness bill.

Wild Sky bill hits House roadblock

By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON — A powerful California lawmaker yesterday said he opposed a proposal to permanently protect a swath of Snohomish County, 48 hours before his committee was to hear testimony on the measure.

In a letter to Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Spokane, released last night, House Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Stockton, thanked Nethercutt for getting involved in the Wild Sky Wilderness Bill, which would protect 106,000 acres near Index. Pombo indicated he might consider other forms of federal protection, short of wilderness designation, for the land.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001984549_wildsky21m.html

In The Northwest: Lawmaker running roughshod over Wild Sky bill

By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

When the pew oceans Commission released a study that America's coastlines were in trouble, House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo sneered that the report was a $5.5 million "coffee-table picture book."

The Republican congressman from California, tapped to head a committee that oversees our public lands, loves to decry "radical environmentalists" and their "frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits."

Pombo is the real radical, and a beautiful corner of our state is hung up because of his intransigence.

The House Resources Committee holds a hearing tomorrow on a bill that would create a 106,000-acre Wild Sky Wilderness Area amid sharp peaks, forested valleys and salmon streams of eastern Snohomish County. It has twice passed the U.S. Senate on unanimous votes.

Pombo has said, however, that the legislation is dead on arrival at his committee.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/182917_joel21.html

[fortyfeetunder]

1. Californicating developers have their eyes on Wild Sky?

When I read this...wonder if there are some CA developers who want a piece of Wild Sky for development.

Though this makes me wonder...if Nethercutt can't influence one of his own Pugs, he should not even think of running for Senate.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Could US 2 handle the additional traffic?

It's pretty jammed as it is. Further development that area would make it worse.

Ironically traffic supposedly generated by people headed to the proposed wilderness area is the reason Snohomish County Councilman Jeff Sax claims to oppose the Wild Sky bill.

See the following letter to the editor in today's Everett Herald.

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/07/22/let_20040722003.cfm

[fortyfeetunder]

3. US 2 handling extra traffic? Don't think so

not even a lane expansion will do it justice.