It's a difficult decision, and a double edged sword. A lot of the Clacky has been forgotten, neglected since it's "glory days", and only thru the hands of a couple very dedicated volunteers have some spectacular trails been restored from the temperate jungle. It takes a lot of work and love to not only find these trails, but bring them back to useful condition. Due to lack of manpower, most of this work wouldn't be possible without machinery - i.e. chainsaws.
So, we have a newly expanded wilderness, something in shorter supply these days due to overpopulation and exploitation of our wild places. But, humans want to go there. Unless funding is restored to the Forest Service's trail maintenance department (highly unlikely in view of our current administration), this access work must be done by volunteers. A handful with chainsaws can barely do the necessary seasonal clearing and repair work. A handful with crosscut saws can not.
Personally speaking, I am in favor of wilderness designation. Politics from great distances can be troubling for our forests, as viewed by our past logging practices. Parts of the Clackamas District are heartbreaking. However, gigantic areas are primitive, untouched, and spectacular. I understand both sides of the debate: some are fearful, some are trusting. But polarization helps no one, compromise is the greatest product of a democracy. There must be a satisfactory way for the work to get done in our wilderness areas; at the very least, more volunteers will be needed in the near future to pick up the slack. What actually occurs will truly be society's barometer wheter the $$ has been placed firmly in mouth, or has found it's way to some other, less tasteful location.
I hope your right. Right now, it doesn't seem like the funding is equally distributed. All the current Forest Pass revenue seems to go to 1 or 2 expensive high profile projects, while many other areas are neglected. Also, it seems like recreation in the Clackamas District is at a lower profile than the Gorge or areas around Mt. Hood. In some ways, that's great, becuase I just don't enjoy the lack of wildness in some of those areas, leave them to the touristas, keep the Clackamas in a more primitive state.
I also tend to agree with Donovan regarding the proposed wilderness boundary. It should be further North, and not all the way down to 224. Mixed use makes sense down below, with wilderness up on top. I was recently out of district at the east end of Badger Creek, where more proposed wilderness is supposed to occur. While the area is indeed wild, there were a gazillion hunters driving around the "wilderness" area, and I'd be willing to bet they're local. Also, they'd be pretty pissed if they weren't allowed to go to a place they've been going for many years. We need to respect what is already happening in these areas before something is decided in an office somewhere, far away from reality.
However, I DON'T support the past willy-nilly logging practices. We need to be more aware and substainable in many aspects of American life, especially considering the tremendous population growth occuring globally.
Thank you, I'm Bill Moyers signing off.
On a positive note, some of the lesser used lower elevation trails could now be used as access points to the higher country. It's sort of like taking a few steps back in time. Perhaps pack mules would again become vogue?? Waxed handlebar mustaches?
Once the smoke clears, it will be interesting to see what actually transpires. The Portland area is run on volunteer labor. With all this publicity surrounding the wilderness expansion, it may provide the perfect vehicle to get the word out: more volunteer labor is needed. I for one had no idea that most trail maintenance in the district is volunteer, and I'm sure I'm not alone.