Not everyone thinks it’s so great

Not everyone is in support of the Wild Sky Wilderness area. With there already being three wilderness areas in the vicinity of Wild Sky, why is Wild Sky needed? When Wild Sky doesn’t fit the true definition of a wilderness area where a true wilderness area is stated as a place that is untrammeled by man.

But to state that the local economy will benefit when studies show less people visit a wilderness area than a national forest, is pulling the wool over the public’s eyes. Not to diminish that less Forest Service personnel will be needed to oversee the area. I can foresee roads and trails being closed or maintained, thus reducing access for even the elderly or handicapped. Not to lessen the effects a forest fire, which would not be allowed to be controlled, would have.

Areas in the Evergreen fire of 1968 that lie within Wild Sky are still recovering due to the fire’s intensity and effects of the mountainous terrain. It’s a sad day when the citizens living near the Wild Sky were not consulted only to have environmentally backed politicians force their beliefs or agendas upon us.

Keith Peter

Skykomish