Expansion of North Cascades National Park

sukiakiumo, thanks for clearing that up... thank goodness you are a physicist.......I thought your thesis might be" Latin verbosity and its relevance in 21st century blogging."
I can rest easy now. ;D ;D ;D

Ha, yeah. I realized right after I sent that it was exceptionally arrogant and meant to take it out, but i guess its out of the box. Thanks for not beating me with my non level-headedness right there.

I have not jumped to conclusion about responsibility the fire....claiming that I "have concluded it wasn't Ubureuaga's fault" (i haven't, as I have been asking for the info)

???

From what I can tell, it was unfortunate follow through with the ordersfrom what happened and is beyond a single persons 'fault'.

Errrrr, if you haven't found or read the report how can you tell? I think you mean "guess"

Free hint: If I were searching for a Yosemite fire report I'd probably search Yosemite fire report as search terms..... and maybe the seventh hit would be an article Stinging NPS report Says Yosemite Officials Were Overconfident About Ability to Manage Big Meadow Fire which probably would have a link to the report?

Just a suggestion.

Good luck with that phd  :

Ha, yeah. I realized right after I sent that it was exceptionally arrogant and meant to take it out, but i guess its out of the box. Thanks for not beating me with my non level-headedness right there.

Hey man, if we can't laugh at ourselves at times then it's time to quit.
I admire and respect you ability to take a joke as displayed above no matter our differing views.
Peace

With the information you had provided, I was unable to assign blame as you did. But thanks for the added info, and the well wishes.

In that link it said many of the officials were not trained but in particular:
From the report:
"The Acting
Superintendent was actively involved in the planning of the prescribed fire project, engaged directly
with the Burn Boss, and approved the burn plan and Go‐No‐Go Checklist. The Acting
Superintendent actively participated in the project briefing on the day of ignition. The Acting
Superintendent has limited wildland fire and prescribed fire experience and has not attended the
Fire Management Leadership curriculum."
Man, you're right. I can assign blame now, as someone has done it unbiasedly. Now they know what to fix. It sucks big that a big fire had to happen for them to hopefully change. I too am less impressed with this fellow, now that I have read more than hearsay.
Perhaps, we might actually soon get down to civilized back and forth now

Now they know what to fix......for them to hopefully change.

Instead they move him back to superintend at MRNP.

On the basis that Rainier is less flammable perhaps?

Maybe they marked his personnel file - keep away from naked flames. Next to where they'd marked it - keep away from financial involvement with franchise holders

I would argue that this kind of opportunity can have great social value. I share Scotsman's reaction to the "disneyfication" of parks and have the same contempt for park rangers trying to keep people from getting too far into NPS territory. On the other hand, there is clearly a great demand for RV-touring type use of NP's. As pointed out above, the summer tourists are significant (dominant in some areas of WA) user group with large economic and environmental impacts. They should be managed in the same manner as other, more 'serious', users like you and me. I bet lots of folks that visit the NP's in WA have experiences that are very meaningful to them. I don't feel like it is appropriate for me to dismiss their experiences just because I am not content to look at Mt. Ranier from Paradise. I hope their visits awaken a patriotic sense of duty to take care of the wild places we have just as I hope your riding in the cascades motivates you to take a stewardship role in the treatment of our shared treasure. I understand your desire to not lose opportunities to sled along the HWY 20 corridor; I support you and the heli-skiers, OB, and all the other current users. But to assert that visitor centers and the like serve nobody is dismissive.

Indeed, we have been and will be one of those RV'rs taking our young kids to the woods to learn the importance of many things. I think one of the first early lessons was to pick your trash, and any trash you see, up and take it to the proper place. We are very involved in scouting and value the access to the easy areas for the reasons you state. Thanks for reminding me of the small values of the park systems.

With these discussions, I tend to look at the more extreme restrictions being suggested and overlook the simple. thanks for reminding me....

You remain an idiot I see. Do the reasearch Aaron -sweetie pie, your guess can easily be dispelled or proven by searching some public real estate records or looking at park trasnfer announcements as not many Superintendents get transferred. It's easy.............even a caveman can do it.

Chris, I wasn't doubting the facts as you presented them, I was merely commenting about your behavior in posting. Thanks for reinforcing Lowell's point. You shouldn't let your emotions get the better of you in trying to make a rational argument, take your own advice when it comes to reading comprehension.

Chris, I wasn't doubting the facts as you presented them, I was merely commenting about your behavior in posting. Thanks for reinforcing Lowell's point. You shouldn't let your emotions get the better of you in trying to make a rational argument, take your own advice when it comes to reading comprehension.

Aaron..my little cinnamon bun, I think this may be a case of the" kettle calling the pot black".
But no matter back to the subject.

Aaron, since you think the Superintendent that had the ethics problems and was reprimanded is now in charge of the MRNP, how do you feel about that given the report to Congress that was prepared by the government oversite office on his behaviour and impropriety ????
Some specific questions for you.

Can a man with this on his record be trusted to deal fairly with the park concessionaires and conflicts between them?
Can a man with this on his record be trusted to  hire and select contractors for Park work?
Can a man with this on his record be trusted to balance concession holders rights versus other user rights??

Aaron..my little cinnamon bun, I think this may be a case of the" kettle calling the pot black".
But no matter back to the subject.

Aaron, since you think the Superintendent that had the ethics problems and was reprimanded is now in charge of the MRNP, how do you feel about that given the report to Congress that was prepared by the government oversite office on his behaviour and impropriety ????

I think most bureaucrats are either inept or corrupt, he should have been dismissed. People might take you seriously if you omit sentences like the first part of your quote above. You're obviously passionate about these issues and if you could be more civil maybe people would be more sympathetic to your point of view.

I think most bureaucrats are either inept or corrupt, he should have been dismissed. People might take you seriously if you omit sentences like the first part of your quote above. You're obviously passionate about these issues and if you could be more civil maybe people would be more sympathetic to your point of view.

Thank you Aaron I agree with your asssement on the Superintendent. (Goodness, we just agreed on something)
Another question?
What do you think should be done about it... should be just accept it or what?

Thank you Aaron I agree with your asssement on the Superintendent. (Goodness, we just agreed on something)
Another question?
What do you think should be done about it... should be just accept it or what?

In my experience working for the government(military and a pseudo public hospital) the level of insecurity and willingness to cover for one another in high level managers is staggering and I'm not sure anyone can do anything about it. They are afraid someone might start investigating them if they point fingers at others. Our elected officials are just the same in my opinion, they are most concerned with image and legacy.

Having a biomass plant to burn saw kerf and waste wood in conjunction with a modern high tech wood mill that uses train loads of wood each day and is located near a major population center is economically practical--it simply uses underutilized material.  Having a mill that uses "slash" next to vast private tree farms managed on short rotations (I think Green Diamonds is around 200,000 acres) may be economically practical, but the costs of handling, chipping, and transporting would be high.  However, it seems a number of residents of Shelton are put off by the amount of smoke that might be produced, and as you heard, are demonstrating against it.

Gathering wood from vast public lands not intensively managed to fuel a plant in an area with few people has been shown to be economically infeasible because of the costs of harvesting and moving the wood; there was once hope that could be an answer to some of the forest health/areas needing thinning, but the cost-benefit ratio is poor and the environmental impacts of the wood burning would probably be unacceptable.

+1, and claiming that the use of eastern slope trees for biomass burning would do anything to mitigate global warming (which was mentioned at one point in the thread above) is just wrong.

At least you are asking questions which is good.
Thanks

If I'm reading this correctly, I think it presents a thought that is useful for ALL forum participants to keep in mind while in conentious discussions such as this thread: when you've drafted a statement that starts to read between the lines of what another poster has written, consider rephrasing that statement as a question, as your reading may be wrong, and besides, you might find that this leads to a more intellectually interesting dialog (though perhaps at the expense of a little momentary catharsis at the expense of another). To that, I'll add a question: does making negative observations about the character of other posters and otherwise negatively commenting on the other members instead of debating the content of their posts tend to add to or detract from the value of the conversation?

I think most bureaucrats are either inept or corrupt, he should have been dismissed. People might take you seriously if you omit sentences like the first part of your quote above. You're obviously passionate about these issues and if you could be more civil maybe people would be more sympathetic to your point of view.

I assume you know you are talking about the vast majority of the white-collar population because "bureaucrats" does not apply solely to gov't employees.  I, however (never having been a bureaucrat), kind of agree with the inept (has an objective observer measured your competence in your job?) but not the corrupt; in fact, I have known many excruciatingly honest, very knowledgeable, highly efficient bureaucrats in local, state, and federal governments and in companies and corporations.  You must like very broad statements.  I don't necessarily agree the person in question should have been dismissed because I don't know the details and what administrative punishments were instituted, for example suspension without pay as well as reassignment for more than a year.  I can not, however, agree that reinstatement was appropriate.

To that, I'll add a question: does making negative observations about the character of other posters and otherwise negatively commenting on the other members instead of debating the content of their posts tend to add to or detract from the value of the conversation?

To the extent (from my perspective) that it will lead to the thread being shut down and discussion curtailed entirely, I'd say it definitely does. Great post Jim and I want to thank folks for trying to work out their differences here.

Here's some comments an questions that lead from them specifically for JRD of NC3.

JRD
As you can see some of us have a deep distrust of the NPS even though we love and cherish the land they administer. Perhaps you can see why some us might  feel that way and greet your group's attempt to further increase their mandate and funding with such skepticism, cynicism and outright fear and resist any attempt that may result in lose of access or present use.
Perhaps your group's aims would be better received by some of us with those views if your group expended the considerable good will, money, time and effort to ensure that the land that your advocacy group has won for perpetual protection is administered correctly with transparency and an attempt at efficiency.
To just say ( I hope you won't ) that that's not your groups aim and  it is for others to deal with would be a real cope out.
How can you advocate for something and then hand over your prize and not take some inherent responsibility for how it is then managed???

As a skier in this beautiful sate and a chronic user of both the MRNP and the NCP there are several issues that concern me greatly and cause my ire and attempts to defeat your group's aims.
1) How can the Park Service allow a Superintendent ( wherever he is now based) with the Report to Congress record remain in a supervisory capacity administering concessionaires when his involvement in the affair and obstruction in declaring it has been found unethical by the government. Do you see how that diminishes your argument for better care of the land by the NPS rather than the USFS?

2)  Why at MRNP is the Sunrise Area purposely opened late when there is no snow to prevent backcountry skiing.?

3) Why at MRNP is a paid park employee posted at the ski are to harass skiers legally entering the park under the direction of a Superintendent who is on the record as saying the he " feels" skiing harms the park?

4) Why has the Superintendent at MRNP actively perused the closure of the Crystal/Park boundary for skiers but actively allowed an increase in guided concessionaires?( where the hell are good old fashioned investigative journalists when you need them)

5) Why is the White river road selectively plowed by the MRNP Superintendent to discourage and effectively destroy legal snowmobile access along that part of the parks's road system.

6) Why has the NPS become one of the least regarded of all the Government Agencies in terms of employee satisfaction .

7) Why has the NPS become one of the least regarded in terms of the use of their budget and have become synonymous with waste, nepotism, cronyism and bureaucracy.?

I have more, but it's a start. As I say, please explain why I should support your groups aims to sign land over in perpetuity to an organisation that exhibits the above problems as it specifically relates to skiers. After all this a skiing website.

Thank you

I assume you know you are talking about the vast majority of the white-collar population because "bureaucrats" does not apply solely to gov't employees.  I, however (never having been a bureaucrat), kind of agree with the inept (has an objective observer measured your competence in your job?) but not the corrupt; in fact, I have known many excruciatingly honest, very knowledgeable, highly efficient bureaucrats in local, state, and federal governments and in companies and corporations.  You must like very broad statements.  I don't necessarily agree the person in question should have been dismissed because I don't know the details and what administrative punishments were instituted, for example suspension without pay as well as reassignment for more than a year.  I can not, however, agree that reinstatement was appropriate.

I totally agree, I deal with government agencies and private companies across the spectrum on a daily basis. There are some highly ethical and effective leaders in some government agencies I deal with and some private businesses. There are also some unethical and useless leaders in the government agencies and private businesses I also get to interact with.  The latter thankfully is a small minority and gives one hope. It also makes the NPS's retainment and reinstatement of this individual so egregious and unfathomable.

Despite what Scotsman may think, I have not made up my mind on whether the Highway 20 corridor should be added to North Cascades National Park.

Scotsman has tried to turn this discussion into an indictment of the Park Service. Some serious accusations have been raised, and I agree that cronyism and corruption should be rooted out of the Park Service as much as possible.

But I don't agree with wholesale bashing of the Park Service or the argument that we should cut support for the agency more than we already have. It seems to me that the Park Service has been a victim for the last two or three decades of the "starve the beast" approach to government. Remember James Watt, Reagan's Interior Secretary? He thought stewardship of public lands was less important than preparing for the Second Coming. Since the Reagan years, the Forest Service and Park Service have been repeated targets of budget cutting by politicians eager to "starve the beast." They don't want to make the parks more efficient, they want to strangle and/or privatize them. I suspect that some of the poor leadership in these agencies is the result of this malign neglect.

Most of my contacts with Park Service people over the years have been with career-level rangers, people like Bill Lester and Kelly Bush (North Cascades), Mike Gauthier and Stefan Lofgren (Rainier), and Jack Hughes (Olympic). My impression is that all of these people are absolutely first-rate, and they're all dedicated to the National Parks. And, from what I hear, they've all coped with tremendously tight budgets and barebones staff and resources. I want these people to get more support, not less.

Let's elect national leaders who'll put good people in charge of these agencies and provide adequate funding. Let's quit pretending that we can "starve the beast" of the Park Service and still protect the National Parks we love.

I haven't decided about expanding the National Park in the North Cascades, but I'm absolutely sure that I want the existing park to be well managed and well funded.

Well thanks Lowell I always enjoy reading your lofty rhetoric and am glad your mind is still open.
As to my Park bashing... I can't understand why you see a distinction between the two issues.
I have talked at length about both and at the present time it's evolved into a discussion about the Park Service, I'm sure it will devolve again into other aspects.

The NC3 group is advocating for bigger Park budgets to fund expansion of the Park and that areas not presently under Park jurisdiction be made so at the expense of some present user groups. At the same time, the NPS has problems with leadership, realigning it's mission for the 21st century and has severe employee satisfaction  problems and pockets of rampart corruption, cronyism and mismanagement. There are, I'm sure tremendous individuals within the organization but the problem is systemic in the organisation. How can we hand over areas in perpetuity to an organisation with these problems? I just can't for the life of me understand why you don't acknowledge that they are a related concern. Believe me I am as frustrated with you  as you are with me and can't understand why you don't see the connection and are constantly defending the indefensible . I fear our views of the world are so far apart that we will never agree on anything of substance... other than we love the mountains and skiing. Maybe that's enough.

It is not an accusation that a Park Superintendent was involved in a real estate deal with a park concessionaire that had sufficient ethical problems to demand an internal investigation and then tried to hide the facts and obstruct the investigation, it is a fact of record.
It is not an accusation that the case was referred for criminal prosecution but declined , it is a fact of record. It is not an accusation that the said person was reprimanded and transferred, it is a fact of record. It is not an accusation that the said superintendent is currently in a supervisory position with the Park Service , it is a fact of record.

With your love of history and fact finding I would have thought you the prefect person to use your considerable talent to confirm this for yourself and even discover who the individual is for yourself. It's very easily done. Then you will satisfy yourself that it is not an accusation but a fact and therefore a valuable chapter in the history of the park service and maybe even a footnote in your Aplenglow project. Try to forget that it's me that gave you the initial information as I think your distaste for me is clouding your judgement of this issue.

I don't think I have called for" the starving the beast "approach in this discussion ( although I have in the past in all honesty) but if my comments have been ambiguous on that matter let me restate them now.

I do not want any legislator to authorize additional funding for the specific aims of increasing the North Cascades Park unless it specifically excludes the highway 20 study area. Normal funding levels for the park service should try to be maintained but also reflect the current economic position and general belt tightening by "main street". If a legislator supports funding for this park expansion initiative and any study thereof..... do not vote for them. Is that clearer?

Edited for bad sentence construction and additional comment

... I don't agree with wholesale bashing of the Park Service or the argument that we should cut support for the agency more than we already have. It seems to me that the Park Service has been a victim for the last two or three decades of the "starve the beast" approach to government. Remember James Watt, Reagan's Interior Secretary? He thought stewardship of public lands was less important than preparing for the Second Coming. Since the Reagan years, the Forest Service and Park Service have been repeated targets of budget cutting by politicians eager to "starve the beast." They don't want to make the parks more efficient, they want to strangle and/or privatize them. I suspect that some of the poor leadership in these agencies is the result of this malign neglect.

Most of my contacts with Park Service people over the years have been with career-level rangers, people like Bill Lester and Kelly Bush (North Cascades), Mike Gauthier and Stefan Lofgren (Rainier), and Jack Hughes (Olympic). My impression is that all of these people are absolutely first-rate, and they're all dedicated to the National Parks. And, from what I hear, they've all coped with tremendously tight budgets and barebones staff and resources. I want these people to get more support, not less.

Let's elect national leaders who'll put good people in charge of these agencies and provide adequate funding. Let's quit pretending that we can "starve the beast" of the Park Service and still protect the National Parks we love.

... but I'm absolutely sure that I want the existing park to be well managed and well funded.

I agree wholeheartedly and would add that Congress (and the Executive Branch) sets both legal direction and management emphasis in all the federal land management and regulatory agencies. Executive and congressional direction created conflicting goals and regulations and budgets belied mission statements. Many good federal employees left the gov't because of that direction and emphasis in both the Reagan years and, especially, the Bush years. It became very difficult for dedicated professionals to work for the USFS, EPA, OSHA, USF&WS, etc.

mmmmh acarey!

That seems to me to be party true but not entirely true. The current poor status of federal agencies and the Park Service in particular can certainly be attributed partly to Congress and past Executive Branches and their direction but not entirely. The Park Service leadership itself must accept some responsibility for its current sorry state of affairs and its culture. To do so otherwise would seems to me a complete deflection. It's not us...... it's all their fault.
Let me remind you of a statement you made in a previous post.

The NPS all too often (in my considerable direct experience) has been guided by inept, ineffectual, poorly educated (in ecology), and counter-productive technical and administrative leadership ascribing to quasi-religious concepts of the "awesome power of nature" and "preserve [by human exclusion]"

Where you meaning that the inept, ineffectual...... technical and administrative leadership was solely confined to Congress and the Executive Branch because that's not the meaning I inferred when you originally posted the above.

Well thanks Lowell I always enjoy reading your lofty rhetoric and am glad your mind is still open.
As to my Park bashing... I can't understand why you see a distinction between the two issues.
I have talked at length about both and at the present time it's evolved into a discussion about the Park Service, I'm sure it will devolve again into other aspects.

I don't agree with the tactic of holding Park Service improvements (in both management and funding) hostage to any specific geographic issue. We need an effective Park Service, period. We can agree to disagree on this.

I accept that what you've posted about the bad-apple superintendent is true. It seems to me that he should have been drummed out of the system. But I see this as a separate issue from management of the North Cascades.

I really do believe that we get the government we deserve. The deterioration of the Park Service and the bad-apples who have infested it at high levels, is in my opinion a direct result of political forces that have been acting on the Interior Department for the last few decades. Change the climate in Washington, D.C. and in a few more decades we can turn the Park Service around. It took years for the rot to set in, it will take years to root it out.

mmmmh acarey!

That seems to me to be party true but not entirely true. The current poor status of federal agencies and the Park Service in particular can certainly be attributed partly to Congress and past Executive Branches and their direction but not entirely. The Park Service leadership itself must accept some responsibility for its current sorry state of affairs and its culture. To do so otherwise would seems to me a complete deflection. It's not us...... it's all their fault.
Let me remind you of a statement you made in a previous post.

The NPS all too often (in my considerable direct experience) has been guided by inept, ineffectual, poorly educated (in ecology), and counter-productive technical and administrative leadership ascribing to quasi-religious concepts of the "awesome power of nature" and "preserve [by human exclusion]"


Where you meaning that the inept, ineffectual...... technical and administrative leadership was solely confined to Congress and the Executive Branch because that's not the meaning I inferred when you originally posted the above.

Obiviously, I agree it is just partly true for both the NPS and USFS. I made both posts. But like many things in nature, human systems are a result of multiple causation and interaction among causes. Organized citizen groups and industry groups are also very influential. So you have profound Executive Branch influence (Presidential appointments set a philosophical tone, the President's budget is the very 1st cut on what will be done), Congressional Influence (and funding and direction accompanying funding is maximally influential), organized group influences, and internal agency cultural influences. I am more familiar with the USFS, which developed a polarized culture of timber beasts vs. enviros, with the balance shifting as Congress passed more legislation (NFMA, ESA, NEPA, RPA, etc.) and every year passes budgets with earmarks. They aggressively engaged in one-upmanship and lobbying thru their respective support groups. But Congress (and the exec thru Congress) decided or overruled many outcomes with funding timber and roads (things such as the healthy forests act that promptly undermined the trust being built among the public and the agency) but not so much recreation or wildlife. I think congressional direction was more influential on the USFS than the NPS. Clinton tried to achieve some balance with the NW Forest Plan, Bush pushed that back. The NPS, in my rather remote observations of their internal workings, seemed to drift philosophically all by themselves in a closed atmosphere of group think. And because active management (other than road and facility maintenance) was not a primary activity I think it became unclear of what was desirable in the leadership positions. I think the Exec and Congress put less direction on the NPS because resource extraction is limited in parks; the main direction comes with funding for edifices, although where organized groups exist, they exert influence over the head of the NPS--for example, snowmobiles in Yellowstone, hunting bears and buffalos on the boundaries of Y-stone. Many Parks (for example, MRNP) were created solely as a result of citizen action rather than as Presidential (i.e., Monuments) or Congressional initiative. Still the Parks have organic legislation that sets their directions and the Exec appoints the agency heads (I think usually the Sec'y Interior chooses the NPS director, probably in conjunction with advice from NPCA and other orgs interested in Parks). But I think the Parks receive far less oversight than the forests by all groups, Exec, Congr,, industry, and public. Everything the forests do is under scrutiny from adversarial disciplines within the agency, and in the PNW, the Province Advisory Committees made up of stakeholders, environmental groups (who are really adept as using ESA and NEPA), industry groups who purchase influence, and communities who depend on receipts from timber sales (or the substitute payments from the NWFP).

But I think the Parks receive far less oversight than the forests by all groups, Exec, Congr,, industry, and public.  Everything the forests do is under scrutiny from adversarial disciplines within the agency, and in the PNW, the Province Advisory Committees made up of stakeholders, environmental groups (who are really adept as using ESA and NEPA), industry groups who purchase influence, and communities who depend on receipts

That's exactly the reason I don't want to see this land grab take place. Once the park service owns it we continue to recreate there at their whim, subject to their gut feeling or perception of higher value enjoyment.

At the moment the FS provides us somewhat more control, greater involvement and a far greater degree of professionalism in the management of our public lands.

At the risk of being accused of being senatorial  , I wanted to note that I'm finding it interesting that you all seem to agree to a surprising extent. I don't see Scotsman saying "hold NPS funding hostage to this one geographic issue" so I'm not sure he's agreed to disagree there (in fact he said he's NOT saying "starve the beast").

The most recent posters seems to agree that there are problems in NPS management, and that it goes beyond the one bad actor and his conflict-of-interest-actions - it goes to the core of whether many of us trust the NPS to make calls we'd agree with on how to manage the area in question. Lowell - I agree with you that we get the government we deserve. I'd go further - we ARE the government in this country. I also agree with you that it appears that even with a positive shift in how NPS is funded and treated (the pendulum swinging far away from James Watt's influence), it will take decades to see many of the real and important changes occur. In the meantime, I'm frankly not eager to see this area fall into a management style that currently seems rather tone-deaf and which precedent shows would be quite likely to take this area off my yearly "must do" list and put it onto the "wish I could do" list.

To be clear, I'm a big fan of general notion of the park system, and would not suggest starting to remove any land from the system - I'm just not eager to add this hwy 20 corridor area to the portfolio at this point. Let's help the service do a better job of managing what they've got first...

I have yet to see JRD or his organiation make a crisp statement of prioritized problems to be solved in the area in question, instead of putting out a grand proposal (that concerns many of us) along with an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink list of supposed benefits, many of which come off as pure pandering. So how about it, anyone, what ARE the key problems or threats in this area, in stack ranked order (aside from the risk that this proposal goes through)?

...
At the moment the FS provides us somewhat more control, greater involvement ...

spot on..

The American Alps Legacy Proposal legislation can be written to specifically allow larger party sizes in backcountry areas for non-profit organizations providing outdoor experiences for youth.  That is what we fully intend to put into the American Alps Legacy Proposal legislation.  It will overrule the NPS standard party-size limits for the area specified (i.e., the new additions to the North Cascades National Park).

Although I appreciate the sentiment, having worked at length with our parks, and having reviewed park legislation, that specific exemption language is not an appropriate part of any park-forming legislation. There are two primary reasons: 1. Language that creates exemptions for permit holders sets a precedent for other parks; 2. If you read any of the park-forming legislation, it is much broader and more vague (as it should be). Basically, while it's a nice thought, it is not feasible to create individual exemptions (for group size, dogs, bikes, etc.) withing the legislation. The park bureaucracy can make exemptions in their management plans, but it is completely within the park management's discretion (and can change depending on who the park administrator is).

Joshua Cole
Program Director, Outward Bound Washington

At the risk of being accused of being senatorial 

So Jim if you decide to run as an independent this is what we can offer.
If you agree to put a moratorium on WMC proposal and guarantee no Park expansion in Highway 20, Yammadog and I will get the sledders to vote for you.
We want PNWBrit appointed as public relations officer.
acarey put in charge of state land affairs.
RonJ put in charge of the longmire gate and road clearing operations at MRNP.
Lowell appointed as cultural ambassador and poet laureate.
Aaron appointed as human resources manger for all state agencies.
Sukiakiumo put in charge of Hanford Nuclear power plant.
Marcus appointed to the State Supreme Court

Me , all I ask is that we get the MRNP  super changed to a person without the anti-skier bias.

Do we have a deal?

I'd like to get a gravy job also....

maybe coordinating state parties or something. You know you need a token smokey motor person so show your bipartisan side....;>)

I was thinking presidential, but as I said before, I'm stumping for Robie..