[I split this topic off from the Alvord topic -Zane]

Q,

Is there a reg about minimum altitudes over designated wilderness?

Are you a Powered Parachute(PPC) pilot? Or just friends with some?

There used to be an annual ultralight fly-in over in the Alvord around Sept, but I haven't been in years.

ZJ

Zane,

Yes we need to maintain a minimum clearance of 2000 feet over wilderness areas. The last sectional I looked at for the area was from about a year and a half ago and didn't yet show the new wilderness areas, but I'll bet the current one does.

Yes again, I'm a PPC pilot for the last 7+ years and close to 1100 hours. June 26th thru July 4th will be our 6th annual camp out/fly-in, the Oregon Outback. Somewhere between 15 and 35 PPCs and up to 50 people get together to camp, fly, and have fun for 9 days. Last year and this year we're holding it at the Alvord. Everyone is welcome to join us, PPC or not. A real good group of people.

The Idaho ultralight club used to hold a fly-in at the Alvord every September but last year they switched it to Baker City. I don't know what they have planned for this year. The Alvord is much more fun than Baker City.

Q

It's on the sectionals, usually underneath the MOA listings. It's titled "Regulations regarding flights over charted National Park Service areas, US Fish and Wildlife areas, and US Forest Service Areas"

Q

I've never flown any farther south than Owyhee, but looking at my sectional, I guess Q meant to say Coyote lake is in between the Alvord & ROME State. I don't see Fields, but I do see a private strip named Whitehorse in approx the right spot. Denio is shown, but no airstrip indicated.
This altitude restriction stuff is a buncha bullshit. It used to be "suggested" that a minimum of 2,000' AGL be maintained over parks, etc. Now I guess it's required? There's a huge "Olympic Marine Sanctuary" (which was rammed down our throats a few years ago) along the NW Washington coast pretty much from Copalis north to the Makah Rez at Cape Flattery. From what I understand you must maintain 2000 AGL. But as far as I know, there's little or no restriction on boat activity. Even assuming there's a need for a "sanctuary", that's about ass-backward, isn't it?

Eric

I just checked my Klamath Falls sectional, which is the 67th edition dated Oct 2002, and the Saddle B MOA extends over the very north part of the Steens, but no mention of designated wilderness. I'll have to pick up the new K-Falls sectional I guess.

Z

I always get Rome State mixed up with Alkali Lake State.

The wilderness on Steens Mtn. is only a couple years old so it will probably be shown on only the newest sectional.

While I don't really like being required to maintain 2000' over wilderness areas, national parks and monuments, I do understand the reason. Who wants to be backpacking along a remote mountain ridge in a wilderness and have a noisey flying machine fly by right next to them.

Evidently one can obtain permission from a national park supervisor, or wilderness forest supervisor for a low flight over a particular area. I've asked permission for low flight over John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Painted Hills unit in Oregon, and Death Valley National Park in CA but was turned down both times.

The ranger in Death Valley, who is also the official national park photographer said they won't even let him fly under 2000' in the park's own 182. Later that day I saw a couple airfoce jets flying under 500' over the park.

Q

There are no regulations that require you to be 2000' above national parks, wilderness areas, etc. The only mention of this is in the AIM which says that pilots SHOULD stay 2000' above the ground, but it is not required.

Was reading a magazine in Barnes and Noble yesterday, I think it might have been Pilot Journal... Anyway there was a short article about this guy named Tim Martin who flew his Cessna RG through one of the arches in Arches National Park back in the '70s. He wanted to do it again, and this time he asked the FAA first beforing doing it. Their answer was...go ahead. I guess just maintaining 500 feet from people is the only reg that applies.



Here is a different article about him in SW Aviator:

http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueSO02/Arch91002.html

As for clearance above wilderness: the FAA does not require 2000 ft but many wild life preserves and probably wilderness areas may have 2000ft written into seperate law. I know this to be true of the Olympic Wildlife reserve and that it is addressed in CFR Title 15, section 922.152.

As for flying under arches, there is a guy who did that for years back in the 70's. Strangly, my girlfriend, who is very safety couscious, gave me the video "Arch Rival".

Tom

Tom, when you say Olympic Wildlife reserve, are you talking about the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary? There was an article in today's Peninsula Daily News (Port Angeles,Washington) stating that "a draft comprehensive conservation plan & environmental assessment for the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuges is ready for public comment".
The article included a statement that the proposed actions include (among other things) establishing a 200-yard boat-free zone and 2,000 foot minimum aircraft altitude around the islands. By islands I'm assuming they are referring to the numerous rock formations just offshore along the northwest coast. There are 3 of these Island wildlife refuges (Flattery Rocks,Quillayute Needles, and Copalis), all within the Olympic Marine Sanctuary, and covering the entire NW coast from Copalis Beach (near Ocean Shores) north to Cape Flattery.
This is an immense amount of real estate to have such restrictions on. I enjoy & am in favor of "wilderness" as much as the next guy, but this is just one step closer to making the entire Olympic Peninsula a "wilderness treasure" which will be effectively off-limits to the majority of people. Take a look at a map, you'll see that at least 60-70% of the Peninsula is already National Park, National Forest,wildlife refuge/sanctuary,DNR,or state park. All with their own rules & regs which restrict our activities.
A website is listed www.pacific.fws.gov/planning or it sez comments can be emailed to [email protected] using "WA Islands Refuges" in the subject line.

Eric

Yes, I mean the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. You can read the reg at:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title15/part922.html#922.150

It already establishes a 2000ft minimum altitude for aircraft. Other sanctuarys have beetween no limit, 1000ft, and 2000ft.

Your link to the planning didn't work for me. I was able to find a page listing current planning process but that page's links to documents were broken.

Anyway, the 2000' airplan limitation would not be new, just the boat limitation. I have to say that it does not make much sense to me to restrict airplane but not boats. Maybe there is good science that shows boats don't bother the wildlife. Adding boat restrictions would complete protection.

What's enough wilderness? Well, if you belive that wilderness is to protect wild animals and plants then I think there is demonstrably not enough wilderness.

Tom

What was wrong with the previous management plan? Why are they changing it to restrict access to even more people?

I'm concerned that this is just another stepping stone to the ultimate objective of banning people from these areas completely. The dogma of the eco extremists is that people are not part of nature and should be kept out.

I also have a hard time believing that animals & plants will be wiped out or hurt unless people access is reduced. Look at Alaska. Planes fly all over the backcountry and can land in most places. This hasn't hurt the animals or plants one bit.

I also live in NW New Jersey right now..... and there are black bears, coyotes, deer, turkeys, and all sort of other critters running right across my backyard, and no "designated wilderness" probably within 1500 miles! The only thing that's being destroyed here is the forest ground plants, by the overpopulation of wildlife because there aren't enough hunters.

Urban sprawl reduces animal and plant habitat, not people access to wilderness areas!

Christina, You nailed every major point in this debate. Glad to have you aboard. Been wondering where you were.

Too bad that nail keeps raising it's flat head up.

Very well said, Christina. I was gonna post a similar comment last night, except I couldn't seem to verbalize my thoughts without making it seem like a flame-out. There's wilderness and then there's wilderness-- wildlife doesn't seem to always need the kind that's labelled with a sign that sez "wilderness- no people allowed". I live in rural western Washington, and we have coyotes deer blacK bear & smaller critters in the woods right around the house. If I want to see elk, however, the easiest way is to drive to the city of Sequim 20 miles northwest & look for
their famous (or infamous) herd of 40-70 "urban elk".
Kinda like the old debate for/against logging. I admit that I am pro-logging. The regulations in place now mandate doing it in a responsible,sustained-yield manner. I feel that logging actually increases wildlife habitat, by creating diverse habitats re: type & age of tree stands
and other foliage. I've heard people scoff at re-planted logging units ("re-prod"), referring to them as tree farms. Well, I've spent time prowling around in tree farms hunting deer & grouse & challenge the average person to point out the difference between a "tree farm" & a "natural forest".
I enjoy the Washington Coast, and how I best enjoy it is in my airplane flying along the beach at FAA-legal altitudes. I just don't want some other government agency to try & restrict me further- the FAA regulations are enough. I emailed that comment to the email address listed in my last post.

Eric

I remember flying over Washington and Oregon with my father when I was a kid in the early seventies on our trips to Canada to visit my aunt. I marveled at the patch work quilt of clear cuts in the forest and the giant log rafts in the rivers.

My wife and I flew over those clear cuts a couple of years ago, and they are now covered with maturing trees; the change is striking. There are still open areas of recently logged groves, but the patch work has completely changed.
The log rafts are now gone, replaced by barges and ships. The increased shipping traffic has made the dead heads too big a risk.

I think many environmentalists are stuck way too much in the moment. The environment is changing, developing, adapting, and sustaining it itself all around us and many of them don't even see it. Can we do things to preserve it and live harmoniously with it? You bet, but don't expect it to stay the way we found it despite all our manipulating and best intentions or by locking man out of it. The earth never was a set piece, but many enviromentalists see it as a static system despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I am originally from Los Angeles, moved here to Washington 13 years ago. A few years back, my brother & his family came to visit. We took a drive to Hurricane Ridge in the Olympic Nat'l Park. My sister-in-law was amazed at how many trees there were! She had been led to believe by environmentalist propaganda that they'd all been cut down. Coming home that evening, we had a good view of Skidder Hill behind my house which is several sections of timberland, and I informed her that it was in the process of yielding it's third crop of timber. It was originally logged with oxen way back when (1890's?), then railroad logged back in the 30's, now being logged again using modern equipment and log trucks. She had no idea that timber was a "renewable resource".
A few years ago, a pilot from Wisconsin I had met here was gonna rent an airplane to take some aerial photo's of clear-cuts. I asked him why, and he said they were for (as I remember) the Audobon Society magazine, to illustate how terrible & destructive logging was. I asked him if he was also gonna photograph some old clear-cuts in various stages of re-prod, so that their readers would get a clearer picture of today's logging practices. Strangely enough, that wasn't part of the program.....

Eric

I can't wait to meet some of you guys! I am a native washintonian. I have seen the change in practices from clear cut and slash burn to cut and stack the slash. I have the opportuntiy (!) to have enviromentalists, naturalists and conservitives in the family. My wife and I are in the midst of getting ready to move North (AK) in the next few months, primarily due to the I-5 politics. That being said, Nature is adaptive, ask Darwin. Most liberals will sympathize with that comparison. Eagles are a great example. A few years ago, we were told that eagles had to have exclusion and quite to survive. The other day, my wife and I came home from breakfast from Port Townsend to Silverdale (27 miles) and counted 13 eagles. Building has not quit, logging is continuing and at low tide, they are everywhere. I live three miles out of town and have a black bear that comes in for the dog food. Noise, its relative. As humans, we look for solitude and if a noise bothers us, we make some statement that it is bothersome to all, animals included. We project what we wish to percive. Its unfortuate but true and we normally do this with emotion. Nature has no known emotion. It's eat, sleep, breed and for the more sensitive, they expel too without outhouses!
The rule we live by is don't leave a mess, pack in and out and be considerate. Comes 'round, goes 'round. There is a huge disparity between reality and regulation.

Christina Young wrote:I'm concerned that this is just another stepping stone to the ultimate objective of banning people from these areas completely. The dogma of the eco extremists is that people are not part of nature and should be kept out.

I also have a hard time believing that animals & plants will be wiped out or hurt unless people access is reduced.

I have some different oppinions. I am probably what you would consider an eco-extremist, though I don't feel extreme. I think that people are part of the system and our actions affect the system. For sure, there are plenty of examples of people's actions wiping out entire species.

Christina Young wrote:Urban sprawl reduces animal and plant habitat, not people access to wilderness areas!

I mainly agree with you, but it is not specifically urban sprawl that is the problem, it is habitat destruction. Logging is not urban sprawl, but it does destroy the forest habitat. As an example of how human access to wild life refuges affect animals I know that seals are very wary of boat traffic. It is very difficult to kayak with 1/4 mile of hauled out seals with out spooking them into the water. I know, I've tried. If enough people are boating in an area then seals' result is constantly disturbed and their habitat, isolated rocks, have been altered.

But that's just an anticdote. Possibly airplanes disturb the wild life in the reserve, I don't know. I hope that the refuge managers are using real data to make these decisions. I'm not one to believe in a super eco extremest plot to regulate human off planit earth. Rather, I'm willing to believe that the reserve managers are seeking regulation that does protect the wild life in the reserve. If anyone knows of studies that show low flying airplane don't affect wildlife we could use this to argue our case.

Tom

pokekey wrote:For sure, there are plenty of examples of people's actions wiping out entire species.

.... As an example of how human access to wild life refuges affect animals I know that seals are very wary of boat traffic. It is very difficult to kayak with 1/4 mile of hauled out seals with out spooking them into the water. I know, I've tried. If enough people are boating in an area then seals' result is constantly disturbed and their habitat, isolated rocks, have been altered.
....
But that's just an anticdote. Possibly airplanes disturb the wild life in the reserve, I don't know. I hope that the refuge managers are using real data to make these decisions. I'm not one to believe in a super eco extremest plot to regulate human off planit earth. Rather, I'm willing to believe that the reserve managers are seeking regulation that does protect the wild life in the reserve. If anyone knows of studies that show low flying airplane don't affect wildlife we could use this to argue our case.

Tom

Tom, your anecdote shows nothing about how people access to these areas adversely impact wildlife population. In fact, it makes the argument that there should be more boats going up to the seals.... it would get them used to people!! Isn't that how those seals that hang out on the wharves and beaches around various west coast cities like San Francisco lost their fear of humans!!??

We have grey seals here off New Jersey, and they have come right up to me while scuba diving - certainly no adverse impact from me! On the other hand, a fear of a species that might eat you can be healthy, such as our fear of bears or mountain lions. Fear can induce respect.

I'm sorry though, recently there have been many new "management" plans introduced by various govt agencies like the USPS, USFS, etc, and the one common thread is that they all want to reduce human use of public lands. In a "one size fits all" manner, not as a result of any scientific study. How about if we require those agencies to PROVE that aircraft or boats are adversely impacting the wildlife population (therefore showing the need for a new management plan), instead of the other way around? Unfortunately, they don't do that - there is no scientific basis - just a RELIGION that people must be restricted!

Here's another one, just out today:

Upper Mississippi Plan Stirs Anger
Limits Would Curb Use of Wildlife Refuge

By Robert Gutsche Jr.
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, June 13, 2005; Page A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01331.html

Christina Young wrote:
Tom, your anecdote shows nothing about how people access to these areas adversely impact wildlife population. In fact, it makes the argument that there should be more boats going up to the seals.... it would get them used to people!! Isn't that how those seals that hang out on the wharves and beaches around various west coast cities like San Francisco lost their fear of humans!!??

Christina, you are right. My assumption is that human activity disturbs their rest and adds stress. You give some counter examples In the end anecdotes are just individual stores and not something on which to base policy decisions, in either direction.

But I think that the general decline in wild life population is well supported. Because of this I favor caution on the side of conservation, not access. Better to learn we were wrong and we could have been flying our planes at 500ft along the beaches than that we were wrong and there are now no more puffins on the Washington coast. And that is just a plain old oppinion.

Tom