Expansion of North Cascades National Park

We want PNWBrit appointed as public relations officer.

Are you takin' the fkin piss?

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.

thanks Lowell, I agree with you and we seem to be finding more issues that we agree on as this debate continues.
I realize I have taken your quote out of context and that you don't agree they are related but I  respectfully disagree.

My message to JRD, NC3 and American Alps...... and one that has been used against me.

CLEAN UP  YOUR  ACT  ......... BY GETTING THIS SUPERINTENDENT DRUMMED OUT OF THE SYSTEM and maybe people will consider your expansion plans with a more trusting attitude.

If the long term health of the landscape is the central issue then it's hard not to come down on the side of expansion of NCNP if for no other reason than mandates. The USFS multiple use mandate, grazing, timber, minerals,recreation etc. etc. seems to pull it in many different directions at the same time. On the other hand the NPS mandate to preserve the landscape for the enjoyment of all americans in perpetuity ( it's been a while since I've read through all this so if I'm wrong someone jump in here and correct me) is simple and direct and in my opinion leads to a better preservation model. Use patterns in the HWY 20 corridor are changing, will continue to change and I think that in the long run, and given the singular mandate, the NPS is probably better positioned to manage those changes. This doesn't mean that I'm a fan of Park management style. I was once given a ticket halfway through a seven day ski traverse and the law enforcement attitude of the Park seems offensive and absurd to me.

Having said the above I, like probably a lot of people thinking through this issue, am not entirely certain how I'll finally come down on this. For over 30 years I've thoroughly enjoyed unfettered access via the HWY 20 corridor and my dog would be really unhappy to be left at home during the summer months. But if we're talking about the land, the long term health of the landscape, then.......... Matt Firth Twisp

If the long term health of the landscape is the central issue then it's hard not to come down on the side of expansion of NCNP if for no other reason than mandates. The USFS multiple use mandate, grazing, timber, minerals,recreation etc. etc. seems to pull it in many different directions at the same time. On the other hand the NPS mandate to preserve the landscape for the enjoyment of all americans in perpetuity ( it's been a while since I've read through all this so if I'm wrong someone jump in here and correct me) is simple and direct and in my opinion leads to a better preservation model. Use patterns in the HWY 20 corridor are changing, will continue to change and I think that in the long run, and given the singular mandate, the NPS is probably better positioned to manage those changes. This doesn't mean that I'm a fan of Park management style. I was once given a ticket halfway through a seven day ski traverse and the law enforcement attitude of the Park seems offensive and absurd to me.

Having said the above I, like probably a lot of people thinking through this issue, am not entirely certain how I'll finally come down on this. For over 30 years I've thoroughly enjoyed unfettered access via the HWY 20 corridor and my dog would be really unhappy to be left at home during the summer months. But if we're talking about the land, the long term health of the landscape, then..........    Matt Firth  Twisp

Long term health is not the central issue.  The central issue is whether the nearby population centers have enough integrity to stand up and say we buy lumber, use metal, eat beef, want cheap power, and all the rest.  Not that all this will occur and compromise the area in question or that even the area is well suited for resource extraction of one or all, but it's really crazy to think that stuff always has to come from somewhere else.  You can be pretty much assured that the USFS is no longer in the business of routinely growing and selling timber (to the bigtime detriment of the local tax base), as the National Forests are now nearly parks, but since we are such worldly people around here, we should ask ourselves where the lumber should come from - from the worlds' most productive region for quality wood fibre or from someplace we'll never visit, where the productivity of the land is 10% of what it is here.  Similar arguement for all the rest, wherever it is most efficient.  What do you think happens in the developing world where the west goes to slurp up materials on the cheap?  Here we have a well educated (?) population of pseudo environmentalists commanding resource managers, through laws and other behavior, to bring the best science to the table - and this is as it should be.

People should pull their head out and realize we don't, and can't, live in a park.  Protect and manage the special places as best we can but understand that your footprint is visible, even if you don't look for it.

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)?

That's what I'd like to hear about as well.

.... I was once given a ticket halfway through a seven day ski traverse and the law enforcement attitude of the Park seems offensive and absurd to me. ...

What?  .. were you speeding?   BTW, welcome to the Board.

Here is the NPS act/mission statement mattfirth.

"...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

As you can see it is a carefully worded document.
It makes it clear that their primary purpose is to conserve and to only allow enjoyment that will not denude from the primary goal of leaving it unimpaired for the future.
It allows them to regulate to achieve that goal.

Seems pretty clear to me and in line with some of the fears I have as a result. Namely that current activities in the Highway 20 study area could be, and in my opinion WILL be curtailed if it becomes a park and I don't trust one single word of JRD's comment about mountain biking still being allowed and maybe dogs being allowed on certain trails. I foresee problems for ski tourers similar to those that were used at the Crystal/MRNP boundary. Namely, areas defined by the park as pristine wilderness are defined by some many people seeing so many people in a certain time frame ( I can't remember the actual figures). If that is exceeded, like at Rainy Pass and WA pass in the first month after the road opens I can see where you will have to report to the Newhaven Ranger station( or Mazama) to pick up your permit. Now they won't open until 8:00 am so early starts are going to be a thing of the past.

Heli-skiing will be no longer allowed
Mountian Biking will be no longer allowed
Dogs will not be allowed.

There will be huge paved lots at Rainy Pass and WA pass with paved paths leading to overlooks with pseudo-friendly rangers dressed in their quasi military uniforms hovering around to keep the crowds in check and internally bemoaning that they cant be out with the field biologists in the real wilderness and having to deal with this rabble.

There will be mini-visitor centers operated by concessionaires paying minimum wages to disgruntled employees forcing a smile as they sell you the tshirt with Liberty Bell emblazoned on the front. The " Our Alps are bigger than your French Alps" bumper stickers will be the largest seller with the RV crowd.

They will promote their" evening stroll with a ranger" and the exciting history of the park he will tell you as you sit on the faux stone meeting circle.

Meanwhile, climbers wanting to repeat the Thin Red Line on Liberty Bell will be faced with a fixed anchor ban. Ski tourers wanting to do the Birthday tour will be faced with a two day trip to get the permit first and find that the permit is only valid for 6 groups per day and you are number 8 .... sorry.

The NPs will continue their studies and find that an endangered species breed in the avalanche cones deposited at the hairpin. The endangered species act will be invoked that demand the snow has to melt naturally and the road doesn't open until July each year..... like Sunrise.

Meanwhile over at Cascade Pass, the road has fallen into disrepair ( Like West side Road)which suits the hard liner clique within the organisation just fine. Few see the splendors of Johanesberg mountain in the early spring now as access is so difficult... but it is preserved... a museum, untrammeled now but for a few elite athletes who can make the long trek to see her in her winter mantle. Public outcry by the few that know how marvelous it once was are greeted by the constant refrain.... our budgets been cut... we have such high benefits to pay... give us more money and maybe we can repair the road....maybe..anyway we need more funds... we're victims you know. It's congresses fault.  We have to pay for the Rangers to count the skiers on the Birthday tour because we think there are too many of them.

Meanwhile ,on a glacier near Black Peak, a solo skier has just been turned back by a ranger after being told that solo travel on a glacier is not allowed under Park rules. But I've toured here for years....... no matter those are the rules and I can arrest you,  he is told.

Meanwhile at the Rainy Pass Ranger station a skier has been given a $75 dollar ticket because he didn't sign in at the trail head as is required.

I stand with my grandson, Lowell Marcus Willis at WA Pass. I tell him" I used to ski up there son" as we stand in the parking lot." Wow, you got lucky grandpa , how'd you get a permit, there's a 6 year waiting list for the birthday tour in May." I shake my head, tears welling in my eyes. Lowell, I say... that was the Golden Age!

A bit of a reach I admit but you get my point.

A bit of a reach I admit but you get my point.

It's nice to see that you can dish out propaganda as well as you can complain about it.

....their propaganda is scare mongering and full of hyperbole at it's best.

A scenario just as realistic as what Scotsman describes (perhaps more) is that the disputed area remains under Forest Service control and the agency decides that due to increased user impact it is necessary to manage it like the Enchantment Lakes. Backcountry permits are required months ahead of time, a situation that I've never seen in any national park in Washington. We can fantasize all sorts of nightmare scenarios. Let's try to predict realistic ones.

A scenario just as realistic as what Scotsman describes (perhaps more) is that the disputed area remains under Forest Service control and the agency decides that due to increased user impact it is necessary to manage it like the Enchantment Lakes. Backcountry permits are required months ahead of time, a situation that I've never seen in any national park in Washington. We can fantasize all sorts of nightmare scenarios. Let's try to predict realistic ones.

Sounds like it may not be as much propaganda as you suggest......

Nice creativity Scotsman...I could see the sunday night movie with the panoramic shot fading out....

It's more important than ever to question any restrictions being impossed on the public. If we don't, then it will all be shut down and eventually rented out to the clients that pay and have the connections with those in charge....maybe it's just my mistrust of gov't in general, but I don't think I can wait around until I'm the endangered species and start getting some consideration on open space use...in PUBLIC land.

I'm going to bring this up again, and hopefully someone in the N3C / AAA / etc crowd can answer -

What is the problem with converting the proposed area to a National Recreation Area?

Similar restrictions on extractive development as a national park, but no new bans on mountain biking, heli-skiing, hunting, snowmobiling, or motorized vehicles.

If people just want protection from further development, this would seem to accomplish that while not affecting the existing uses of the area - assuming that is the actual goal behind the conservation efforts, and not just a new restriction/exclusion of existing users.

It's nice to see that you can dish out propaganda as well as you can complain about it.

Mmmh a lot of the scenarios I have presented in my" nightmare" already exist in other areas or have been experienced by current users of the park.
I have been threatened at ONP with a $75 fine for not signing the out/in book at the visitor center.
Solo travel on Glaciers is not allowed on MRNP without their permission.
The West Side Road is closed.
They are paying for Ranger to count skiers at the Crystal/MRNP boundary.
Have you had a burger at the new Visitor center at MRNP--- I think those employees may be disgruntled.
We have seen the disnification and parking areas and concession areas developed at other Parks.
Sunrise road is purposely opened late to prevent skiers for accessing that area when there is snow.
and so on.

Nice creativity Scotsman...I could see the sunday night movie with the panoramic shot fading out....

Thanks,
I'm thinking George Clooney for my role and my grandson, Lowell Marcus played by Jake Gyllenhall.
It's going to be called  "Paradise Lost... Again".

My screen play has a subplot with Megan Fox playing a young idealistic Park Ranger who falls hopelessly in love with a renegrade snowmobiler/skier played by Brad Pit. Together they discover that a "bad apple Superintendent" at the Park is involved in corruption and it all eventually leads to a big shoot out at Cascade Pass involving helicopters crashing and a band of ski tourers on snowmobiles rushing in to save the day.

I think it could be a blockbuster.

I'm thinking George Clooney for my role

Clooney?

He's only going to f up the accent.

If you're going to do it, do it right.......

My screen play has a subplot with Megan Fox playing a young idealistic Park Ranger

I know the current backcountry/climbing ranger in NCNP and prefer her over Megan Fox.

I'm going to bring this up again, and hopefully someone in the N3C / AAA / etc crowd can answer -

What is the problem with converting the proposed area to a National Recreation Area?

Similar restrictions on extractive development as a national park, but no new bans on mountain biking, heli-skiing, hunting, snowmobiling, or motorized vehicles.

If people just want protection from further development, this would seem to accomplish that while not affecting the existing uses of the area - assuming that is the actual goal behind the conservation efforts, and not just a new restriction/exclusion of existing users.

I would also like to understand this option better. As I understand it the main reason that the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs were created was to accommodate hunting. That was a key political compromise needed to establish the national park. It seems like an NRA along the Highway 20 corridor could prevent undesired development while accommodating a variety of recreational activities. Can anyone comment on potential problems with this approach?

If this path is taken, I foresee a need in a few short years for a "recreation user conflict management czar." That seems like the crux of future management to me.

If this path is taken, I foresee a need in a few short years for a "recreation user conflict management czar." That seems like the crux of future management to me.

Interesting thought there....maybe more of a committee to cover most/all user groups.

I would also like to understand this option better. As I understand it the main reason that the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs were created was to accommodate hunting. That was a key political compromise needed to establish the national park. It seems like an NRA along the Highway 20 corridor could prevent undesired development while accommodating a variety of recreational activities. Can anyone comment on potential problems with this approach?

If this path is taken, I foresee a need in a few short years for a "recreation user conflict management czar." That seems like the crux of future management to me.

I think you must have missed an earlier link I provided in response to your request for info about NRAs :

Mt. Rogers NRA . 

It is a NRA established in the 60s for dispersed backcountry recreation, including wilderness, as opposed to NRAs associated with lakes and reservoirs.  Of particular note in the link is the ongoing public process for determining limits of acceptable change. 

An NRA would not require a Czar at all--not any more that an existing NP or NF.  However, many NFs are much more experienced in mediating among different user groups than most NPs. For example:  Olympic NF In PNW, Adaptive Management Areas were set up with AMA managers who mediated amongst conflicting demands and influences and who operated below the Ranger District level.  The AMA process was actually an exciting and rewarding process for many from quite different interest groups.

No matter what the administrative structure on public lands there will be increasing demands from diverse publics requiring skilled managers to manage, mediate, and arrive at, I hope, some consensus management.  An NRA would, however, put recreation at the top of the priorities, under the constraints of environmental protections that apply to all federal lands, but especially to National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and National Parks (BLM has slightly less mandated protections).

Just as an aside, given some comments about protections:  NF are required by law to provide viable populations of all indigenous and all desired non-native species (for example, introduced trout) of wildlife and to maintain biological diversity under the National Forest Management Act and to abide by the Endangered Species Act (and to cooperate with the Department of Interior in threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management) and the National Environmental Policy Act, etc.  Yes, I am more than intimately familiar with how the USFS has broken the letter and the spirit of the laws, and also with how they were subsequently lambasted publicly and in court because of that.  I think the culture of the agency has changed over the years .   Foresters no longer dominate the line officer positions as they once did.  For example, the Supervisor of the Olympic National Forest, formerly the principal line officer in the Methow area, Dale Hom, got his degree in outdoor recreation (not board feet production). 

An NRA would not require a Czar at all--not any more that an existing NP or NF.  However, many NFs are much more experienced in mediating among different user groups than most NPs.  In PNW, Adaptive Management Areas were set up with AMA managers who mediated amongst conflicting demands and influences and who operated below the Ranger District level.  The AMA process was actually an exciting and rewarding process for many from quite different interest groups.

Thanks. That's interesting and encouraging.

The ALPs project just updated their website with a new map of the study areas.
Some areas were dropped due to competing proposals with other wilderness groups according to their blog.
See this link;
www.americanalps.org/images/AALP_Draft_Proposal_042510.jpg

The highway 20 study area is delineated by white hatching but has blue shading so I interpret this to mean it's still part of the Park expansion plan but they don't call it out with an acreage number like the other areas??????
Why is this slightly ambiguous.... intentional or accidental????

Can somebody clear this up for me?

The ALPs project just updated their website with a new map of the study areas.
Some areas were dropped due to competing proposals with other wilderness groups according to their blog.
See this link;
www.americanalps.org/images/AALP_Draft_Proposal_042510.jpg

The highway 20 study area is delineated by white hatching but has blue shading so I interpret this to mean it's still part of the Park expansion plan but they don't call it out with an acreage number like the other areas??????
Why is this slightly ambiguous.... intentional or accidental????

Can somebody clear this up for me?

In the same vein, why does so much of the Ross Lake NRA need to be redesignated (under the same map) as part of the NCNP?
According to the NPS, most of that is also already part of the Stephen Mather Wilderness:
www.nps.gov/noca/planyourvisit/upload/Map_WTP_0308_Screen-2.pdf

Can someone explain why we need to switch a joint NRA + Wilderness designation to a joint NP + Wilderness designation?

Pardon my late entrance to the conversation... so many thoughts to add to, but I will try. I have probably logged over 50 outings in the AALP proposal boundaries.

Wilderness vs NP vs NRA. 'Wilderness' designation may exist within a NP, an NRA, or within the Forest. For example 'Stephen Mather Wilderness' overlays portions of both the NCNP and the Ross Lake NRA. Perhaps the arguments presented here are not so much centered around what agency manages the land, but whether that land is managed 'wilderness' or not. Wilderness I believe is the most restrictive designation, not only to development, but also to different forms of recreation. For example, no mtn bikes, no new trails, no huts or shelters. Wilderness designation also allows land managers to limit usage in order to enforce a 'feeling of solitude', in addition to limiting counts based on resource damage. Enchantment lakes is restricted because of its wilderness designation.


Key, I think to the acceptance of the AALP is where the wilderness boundaries will overlay the map, as this is what will determine what kinds of activites may take place in each region. For example, could we accept the Park proposal if the HWY 20 corridor were excluded from any 'wilderness' designation?

I grew up here in the 80's and have seen the rampant roading and cutting of the forests. A trip up through Alaska's Tongass only further created a distrust of Forest Service management. One also only has to look north of the border into the Chilliwack/Slesse region of the North Cascades to see what this area might have looked like without today's protection. It would be easy then to argue stronger protections for these areas we love.

However, I have also been unjustly 'ticketed' for camping in the wilderness -- so I dont trust 'recreation (mis)management' either.

It is right - I think - that the HWY 20 corridor is currently in a Golden Age - lots of folks enjoy it currently and are getting along just fine. Perhaps even more telling - this area has an established stewardship base. We all love it dearly, and should anyone propose to threaten it, we will rise up to defend it. I do not think that it needs any more top-down protection, because it has protection from the roots - thats us. There are considerably more people invested in keeping the area in recreation than there are to gain from resource extraction. As we are still a maturing culture, there may yet be subtle shifts of management given the mood of the times. However, for the most part, I believe this area is in a nice balance -- such shifts will not be so dire, and might even offer other benefits.

Wilderness/Park designation is a great tool for protecting areas which do not have the established stewardship base - this is why the Bacon Creek is an interesting component of the AALP proposal -- that area does not have the stewardship base that the rest does.

In conclusion, I think that our resources are best spent on the areas that are most in danger of real development threats. Wilderness/Park designation is useful, but blunt tool for land protection. I would agree with most here that an NRA is probably the most 'balanced' approach to managing the HWY 20 corridor, if a change needed to happen.

However, much more precision tools do exist for conservation. For example -- consider supporting your local land trust! I am probably more concerned with how the rural character of our gateway valleys change over time, than with potential threats to what is already in the public lands base. The Methow Valley Conservancy, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the Skagit Land Trust, etc... -- these people will be able to utilize funds much more efficiently than any government agency!

- Kevin

"However, much more precision tools do exist for conservation. For example -- consider supporting your local land trust! I am probably more concerned with how the rural character of our gateway valleys change over time, than with potential threats to what is already in the public lands base. The Methow Valley Conservancy, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the Skagit Land Trust, etc... -- these people will be able to utilize funds much more efficiently than any government agency!

- Kevin"

Kevin you are very well spoken and I agree bottom up protection is in place and very valuable. Furthermore, local stewardship in the eastern portion has been proven with the denial of the construction of a ski area on Sandy Butte.

Does the Golden Horn national park area conflict with NC Heli's boundaries?

I, too, am a supporter of various land trusts, including the Nisqually Land Trust which is trying to protect the character of the gateway to Mt. Rainier. I also have worked with and supported various non-profit conservation groups. Whether these groups and other 501 3 cs or whatever use funds more efficiently than any gov't agency, however, is not a given (I know, politically incorrect sentiment in a Tea Party Era, but NGOs answer to no one; they have no particular rules on nepotism, cronyism, etc.; nor do they have caps on executive salaries, advertising, etc.) so it is wise to scrutinize those you support financially or politically and determine if they meet your standards of conduct. In my experience, front-line public agencies are very constrained by laws and regulations in how they do business; not so much the politicians (legislators and agency heads that give them orders). NGOs have wide latitude to do almost anything they want.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" There seems to be general agreement that current user groups are getting along very well in the proposed AALP areas compared to the controversy surrounding most new wilderness area proposals in the past. Overall, I think the Forest Service has done a more balanced job than the Park Service in managing wilderness, and with less heavy handed (and expensive) methods. The argument that the FS is biased toward logging is 20 years out of date, congress forced that on them. Transferring this land from one agency to another would result in the loss of a lot of existing knowledge about the land and unnecessary additional management expense. It seems the NPS spends a lot more money per square mile of wilderness than the FS, we don't need to make the federal deficit even worse. Designated wilderness expansion could be a good idea in several of the proposed areas, but keep it under FS control, not NPS.

Here's a latest snippet from my" buddies" over at the Alps Project.

Mice weren’t the only ones not cleaning up. Every ski party (about half-dozen) that has come through since Winter has defecated right outside the lookout on the snowfield. It was a mine field of disgusting. Sacrilege! Finding clean drinking water would take me out on the huge summit cornice—very dangerous, but there was no other choice. I felt so let down, by myself and my fellow human. I would NEVER be so selfish, or so unconcerned with others—common courtesy alone would dictate these people take some responsibility…
And so it is with the profusion of high tech ski gear that the back country is not as protected as it used to be, even 10 years ago. I see there is a new usage challenge to consider as we work to protect and enhance our North Cascades.

Seemingly people have been pooping outiside who use the Winchester Mountain Lookout.
Although I agree with him that the popers need to carry their poop out , I'm also concerned about his statement that "And so it is with the profusion of high tech ski gear that the back country is not as protected as it used to be, even 10 years ago. I see there is a new usage challenge to consider as we work to protect and enhance our North Cascades.

So high tech ski gear is now a challenge to the wilderness and needs to be addressed in their expansion plans.
My fear exactly.
Maybe it was climbers not skiers... the poopers that is?

Edited to correct location

Very interesting...

A few weeks ago I was contacted by a writer for Powder magazine who is working on a story about using Cascade fire lookouts as ski shelters. He and some friends had recently stayed at Hidden Lake Peak, Winchester, and Park Butte to spend time, take pictures, and work up the story. He asked me if I would talk to him about lookouts in the Cascades and their potential use by skiers.

I told him that I thought promoting winter use of fire lookouts was a bad idea because they are such a scarce resource, they have no sanitary facilities, they are in vulnerable alpine locations, and the voluntary organizations who maintain them are not set up to manage winter use. In short, they are not like Canadian huts and their use in winter cannot "scale up." I told him that I would not help him with his story.

Good decision Lowell. And when reading Scotsmans post above, I wonder if people know there is an epic toilet just down from the lookout on the ridge. I think it is exposed most of the year due to location. I can't remember seeing a note for it in the lookout, just happened across it when skiing.

.....

I told him that I thought promoting winter use of fire lookouts was a bad idea because they are such a scarce resource, they have no sanitary facilities, they are in vulnerable alpine locations, and the voluntary organizations who maintain them are not set up to manage use. In short, they are not like Canadian huts and winter use of them cannot "scale up." I told him that I would not help him with his story.
...

Lowell, I respectfully disagree with you.  While I appreciate your point re sanitation, I don't see how that is different than any other overnight outing.  Many , if not most, fire lookouts are/were USFS, and while they may not currently be 'budgetly' set up for winter use, I can't help but think that such a public resource should be put to fair use.  I think the greater issue would be accessibility ~ they don't tend to be within just a couple of hours of available winter parking.  Still, I think fire lookouts should be explored/incorporated into the network of refuges for the winter traveler.  

At one time, there was nearly 1000 fire lookouts in Idaho ~ now there are about 200.  Letty and I regularily tour to a couple of them in spring.  How nice would it be to spend the night and comfortably extend the tour?  And, why not?  I'd agree, though, that unlike Euro touring, we'd be unlikely, in the near term, to expect a resident chef ~ but it will eventually happen.  So.., who want's the concession..?




http://picasaweb.google.com/117750425208092389612/SturgillSki2009#5442944358007401602

I think he (LS) just doesn't want winter use of lookouts promoted in a national mag (which I guess I kinda agree with.).  I'm sure people use them a lot already...

ps that guy's post on the Alps Project blog is a little off-putting.  He seems to have a distaste for mice as well as his fellow man.  His sanctimonious attitude is pretty disgusting.  Jeez, loosen up the gaitors.  His attitude (the barely-veiled contempt for everyone but himself) is why lots of independent-minded outdoor enthusiast find the Mountaineers a joke.  I'm sure some folks in the ever-present LARGE and slow Mountaineer parties have, over the past 100 years, crapped where they weren't supposed to at one point or another .