Expansion of North Cascades National Park

Well I am being combative as I think your reply exhibits the "reverse elitism" that us ski tourers and "earn your turners" frequently exhibit when talking about others who choose to do their recreation using motorized means and are therefore somehow diminished in terms of their "right to persue happiness" just because they choose ,in our opinion an inferior mode of travel.
Experts ( and I'm not one but do read their views) on the subject of conservation and preservation recognize that the "stakeholder" process is crucial to galvanize support to protect things. Most agree that getting people close up and into the environment or animal that needs to be protected creates stakeholders that will then support the protection cause.
Getting people on whale watching trips and sighting whales from land were possible has done much to up awareness and create stakeholders to protect whales even if they are tourists in Hawian shirts and not "locals in Patagonia soft shells" who are obviously superior in your world view.

Maybe your comment about" leave them alone" the most revealing when you extend the analogy (that even you said is good) to the current main topic. Perhaps you are really suggesting that we leave the  NC alone and close it down and turn it into a museum that only people you deem worthy by dint of their dress and chosen mode of travel should be allowed to access.

Very interesting thread that has lot's of connection to the wilderness thread I've been visiting. Lot's of the same concerns by the proposal impacting even non-motorized recreation. Like I mentioned in the other conversation, the times of locking the public out of public lands has come to an end without modifications to the idea of restricting development seperate from the various recreation opportunities available. And as mentioned in one comment, I do think a revolution is on the way on many fronts. But that's a whole different topic in itself.

The NC3 project is destined to be a complicated one, and most likely, a divisive one. Unfortunately this is not what these study areas need as opposed to unifying all the entities and individuals that are passionate about the North Cascades in advocating better management through greater funding and intelligent supervision.

Thanks for your time,

Paul Butler
North Cascade Heli
Mazama, Wa

BINGO!!! 

I feel that the only way to effectively address an issue as complex as the management of this unique and inspiring resource is to engage the broad community in an honest dialogue about that limited resource, and the threats and opportunities it brings. 

"Starting" the conversation with the "solution" rarely works to  "unify" in any situation like this, and this "we know the solution" approach will likely stand in the way of any real "progress" until it is off the table and an objective facilitator is supported by the public, the USFS, and the NPS.

J.P.

As part of the American Alps outreach effort, I have spoken to about 100 individuals and groups in the past year.  I have heard many positive comments about the American Alps proposal, but I have also heard concerns about dog walking, mountain biking, backcountry party-size limits, horseback riding, hunting, heli-skiing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobile use.

I think our task in American Alps is to address the broader conservation issues mentioned in my comments Wednesday, to assure that pristine backcountry areas are not damaged by any changes we suggest, to enhance non-motorized recreation access for families (more on that later), and to be flexible on existing recreation uses in the area. 

The American Alps Legacy Proposal will support maintaining many of the existing recreation uses on the proposed new park lands.  This can be accomplished through legislative language.  We would like to see backcountry party-size limits for non-profit groups providing outdoor experiences for youth maintained at their current level.  Mountain biking on the most popular mountain biking trails in the area could be continued.  Dog walking could be allowed in areas where it will not significantly impact wildlife or the outdoor experiences of other visitors. 

Other recreation uses will not be impacted much by the American Alps proposal.  Horseback riding is allowed in national parks and will continue as a recreation activity.  Snowmobile use will still be possible on State Route 20 (land that is regulated by WSDOT and not the Park Service).  The American Alps proposal will support environmentally compatible snowmobile access to the Hart’s Pass area.  The areas around State Route 20 and Hart’s Pass will remain available to backcountry skiers who like to use snowmobiles for access.  Backpacking and hiking will continue under park management, with the minor annoyance (major to some) of obtaining permits for backcountry camping.

Other recreation activities will be impacted by the American Alps proposal, but we have tried to reduce that impact.  Several hunting areas have been excluded from the American Alps proposal.  These include the Sauk Mountain to Baker Lake area, lands south of the Cascade River, and the portion of the National Recreation Area east of Ross Lake.  Other areas, especially along the State Route 20 corridor where family recreation is more prevalent, would be converted to front-country park and would no longer be available for hunting.  We will support continuation of the existing heli-skiing permit for the full term of the permit (nearly a decade I believe?).  At that point, the Park Service would need to evaluate whether this recreation use should continue.

We also believe that family-friendly recreation opportunities should be increased along the State Route 20 corridor.  That means adding new attractions specifically for kids.  The American Alps proposal will include 25 miles of new front-country trails, numerous ecotourism and cultural interpretation sites, and a waterfall tour.  We are proposing new and more accessible park visitor centers in Marblemount and Winthrop.  Other than the party-size limit discussed above, we will not propose any changes in backcountry management of the national park.

An economic study that we released to the media on Thursday has shown that an increase in the size of the North Cascades National Park and the addition of family-friendly recreation amenities will significantly increase visitation to front-country areas of the North Cascades National Park.  The economic study found that if the American Alps proposal is enacted, more than 1,000 new jobs will be created over the next two decades in gateway communities from Twisp to Concrete.

The American Alps Legacy Proposal has been shaped by our focus on the long-run approach to conservation.  We are concerned about who is going to be here in 20, 30, or 50 years to protect the North Cascades from logging, mining, biomass extraction, energy development, and other threats?  We recognize that access should be maintained for future mountain bikers, dog walkers, horseback riders, and skiers (people who will advocate for continued protection of the North Cascades).  We want to increase recreation opportunities for today’s youth, whose support will be essential for long-run conservation of the North Cascades.  We believe that businesses in gateway communities should prosper from tourist spending, so that local leaders will be there in the future to advocate for protecting the North Cascades? 

I think nearly all of these conservation and recreation issues can be worked out.  I personally support a vision of the North Cascades in 2030 and beyond that includes:
- an expanded national park that brings the park down to the road and into the Methow Valley,
- more non-motorized family-friendly front-country recreation that will attract today’s youth and thus encourage future generations to work for protection of the North Cascades,
- continued ecologically sensitive use of the backcountry by hikers, skiers, and horseback riders,
- increased visitation to the park and the local economic benefits that come with it, and
- limits on extractive activities like logging, mining, biomass harvest, and energy development.

The devil is always in the details. Just to pick one example:

Dog walking could be allowed in areas where it will not significantly impact wildlife or the outdoor experiences of other visitors.

can you be more specific? To my ears, this sounds like "forget about taking your dog for a hike on any of the bona fide hiking trails where they're now allowed (PCT, Maple Pass Loop, etc.)," but as with other National Parks, be allowed only in paved areas and car campgrounds and Scotsmans Disney "hiking" loops (which will be the quite short little walks to viewpoints from parking areas).

I agree with the comment above that it would be more helpful to clearly articulate the problems first, then discuss possible alternatives to solving them. I'm sorry, but when I read, for instance, the hand waving about how this is an important mitigation of harm from Global Warming (which, for the record, I believe is a real problem that requires real mitigation and apaptation steps), I end up thinking "someone wants this park expansion for reasons they aren't fully sharing, but they're grasping at hot buttons and straws to garner as wide a range of supporters as possible." And for the record, I'm a big supporter in general of protecting areas such as this from development, but it seems that we've skipped a few steps between there and this proposal..

I'm sorry, but when I read, for instance, the hand waving about how this is an important mitigation of harm from Global Warming (which, for the record, I believe is a real problem that requires real mitigation and apaptation steps), I end up thinking "someone wants this park expansion for reasons they aren't fully sharing, but they're grasping at hot buttons and straws to garner as wide a range of supporters as possible."

Several people have ridiculed the global warming statements in JRD's original post. I think you didn't read his post carefully. What he's saying is that the steps we might take to address global warming could have an impact on the area in question. He refers specifically to small water storage and/or hydropower dams and biomass extraction activities. The N3C position is that we should find other places (besides the North Cascades) to do these things. JRD also mentions that wildlife may be stressed by global warming and that protecting more habitat from development would be a good thing.

These seem like reasonable statements. He's not saying that the American Alps project is going to reduce global warming. He's saying that the project may limit the harm to the North Cascades that could result from global warming and our actions to combat it. Here's the original statement:

Global warming is also a very real threat to the North Cascades.  Water is an increasingly sought after resource in the Methow Valley, as it is in many areas of the North Cascades.  Already, there is a history of conflict between ranchers who need water for irrigation, developers who need water for development, and agencies and conservation groups that would preserve in stream flows for fish and other aquatic resources.  This conflict will only increase as glaciers melt, snow and rainfall patterns change, and streams become drier in the summer.  How long will it be before there are very serious calls for water storage dams in the upper Methow watershed?

Global warming also directly impacts wildlife.  As our forests continue to burn and our riparian areas continue to dry out, wildlife must find suitable habitat to survive.  Biologists do not fully understand how wildlife will be able to move and/or adapt to global warming.  Renewed logging and mining, small hydropower development, and biomass extraction will all place further stresses on wildlife.  It just makes sense to protect as much wildlife habitat in the North Cascades as possible, as we learn more about how global warming will impact wildlife. 

Well there you have it.

Backcountry permits for camping.
Restrictions on party size for backcountry users.
Mountain biking on only "popular trails" whatever that means.
Maybe dogs on special trails..... I bet they'll be exciting trails.
Heli-skiing allowed until their current permit expires then re-evaluation by the park= bye-bye heli- skiing
Disneyfication- more paved trails, visitor centers... for the KIDS so say they. The reason they do this is to give the illusion of permitting more access. They want visitors ..... on the paved areas and in the visitor center while they further restrict access to the untrammeled wilderness.

Lowell, you do a good job as an apologist for them but their propaganda is scare mongering and full of hyperbole at it's best. It is written to carefully extract the most emotional response. Even the reference to all the trails and improving access for "KIDS" is made to deflect criticism. I mean who can be against stuff for the KIDS?

As I've said in my previous posts, there are certain areas that make perfect sense to become part of an extended park. The highway 20 corridor is not one of them. The more I read JRD and N3C's statements the more worried I get. As others have noted, THEY have decided what's the best solution . The arrogance of this group I find mind-blowing and it comes out in their literature. We know what's best...  this is what we are going to do.. and this is what we are going to allow you do in the future..... It's for your own good.

They say that as part of their study the are going to do "ground truthing" but JRD's response only exposes this this for what it is...... study to support decisions they have already made and pre-determined as to whats best... for our own good...others such as the USFS can't be trusted!. A better work for it might be " ground lying and exaggeration done to support our conclusion."

This land around Highway 20 belongs to everybody and the solution lies in everybody getting a chance to determine it's future status not just the Park Service and their supporting groups like this one.

PS
Paul Butler, the last heli-flight at the end of your permit... can I book it now?

Yeah, that's about enough of that. Carry on without the personal attacks please. Thanks.

This land around Highway 20 belongs to everybody and the solution lies in everybody getting a chance to determine it's future status not just the Park Service and their supporting groups like this one.

Chris, you write as though N3C is some sinister conspiratorial group that has special power over the Park Service. Everybody will have a chance to determine the future of the North Cascades, including you.

N3C's American Alps project is expressly intended to expand the North Cascades National Park. They are very clear about this. Expanding the park requires an act of Congress. All of us have the opportunity to make our views known to our congressional representatives. As a 501(c)(3) organization, N3C cannot lobby Congress. They can only make their position known to the public. Other people will have to do the lobbying. So, in this sense, you and I have more influence over the final decision than N3C.

Regarding N3C's "propaganda," "hyperbole," and "scare mongering," it is certainly no worse than what you have included in your posts. Everybody is entitled to make the best case they can. That's the nature of public debate.

Despite what you may think, I haven't made up my mind about these issues. My comments are intended not to defend the N3C position but to  correct what seem to be misunderstandings or distortions.

An economic study that we released to the media on Thursday has shown that an increase in the size of the North Cascades National Park and the addition of family-friendly recreation amenities will significantly increase visitation to front-country areas of the North Cascades National Park.  The economic study found that if the American Alps proposal is enacted, more than 1,000 new jobs will be created over the next two decades in gateway communities from Twisp to Concrete.

From the press release issued with the Economic Study associated with the American Alps project at americanalps.blogspot.com/ : 

“The North Cascades National Park is one of the least visited national parks in the lower 48 states. This wild and nearly inaccessible park receives fewer visitors than Isle Royale National Park in the middle of Lake Superior. Combined visitation to the North Cascades National Park and the adjacent Ross Lake National Recreation Area is still only 1/10 that of Olympic National Park. Low visitation translates directly into low economic benefits for gateway communities.

Conservation and outdoor recreation advocates seek to add more than 300,000 acres to the park, nearly a 50% increase. The new proposal will add low elevation, front-country lands to the park to make it more accessible to visitors. It will also support development of new park visitor centers in gateway communities, 25 miles of new family-friendly trails, new ecotourism sites, expanded campgrounds, and other amenities that will attract more families to the North Cascades.”


Open Question to Those Who Know that they Do Support This Proposal: 

Could the fact that NCNP is “one of the least visited National Parks” have something to do with the fact that this eco-system is the only one in Washington supporting a naturally occurring Gray Wolf population, wolverines, lynx, and more than likely a small population of Grizzly Bears?

As someone who is all for taking thoughtful action using ALL of the tools in our tool-box to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to know that these creatures still exist in our state, I struggle to see how NC3’s economic development and access-centric focus outlined above does anything to further the conservation goals supposedly at the core of NC3’s mission.  If anything it furthers the highway corridor as a hurdle for migration.

Asked today which I fear more, a dam on Cedar Creek, the brief distraction of a helicopter overhead two and a half months each year, or the prospect of more parking lots, paved trails, RV pull-offs, visitor centers, waterfall loops, and commercial gateway development on private lands just outside the “Park”  – I can tell you which I’ll choose.

Just because we’ve ruined most of our national treasures with “National Park” Villages catering to the obese and photo-happy busloads eager to get to the next photo platform, doesn’t mean that we’re stuck with this model for North Cascades.

I’d like to see the NPS and USFS come together to commission an honest and independent assessment of the likely development “risks” for the lands at the heart of the NC3 proposal, together with a clear identification of the various management tools and designations that could be utilized to manage these areas.  That information should drive the future alternatives for these lands.

We will accomplish more with careful management than by resorting to the commercialization of this unique and special natural resource.

I suspect that many living in the communities facing today’s “low economic benefits” feel the same way.  It isn’t always about the money, and I don’t think that this attempt to “buy” local  support with visions of prosperity and employment will fly. 

I’d like to see the NPS and USFS come together to commission an honest and independent assessment of the likely development “risks” for the lands at the heart of the NC3 proposal, together with a clear identification of the various management tools and designations that could be utilized to manage these areas.  That information should drive the future alternatives for these lands.

Excellent points, Jason. Thanks.

I share your concerns.

As much as I admire what N3C has accomplished in the past, I'm concerned that their approach on this project may be applying a "blunt instrument" (a term I used before) where more refined tools are needed. I'm still not sold on the N3C approach.

Several people have ridiculed the global warming statements in JRD's original post. I think you didn't read his post carefully. What he's saying is that the steps we might take to address global warming could have an impact on the area in question. He refers specifically to small water storage and/or hydropower dams and biomass extraction activities. The N3C position is that we should find other places (besides the North Cascades) to do these things. JRD also mentions that wildlife may be stressed by global warming and that protecting more habitat from development would be a good thing.

I believe I've reasonably reacted to the notion that this proposal will do anything substantive about the stress on wildlife, as I have noted in a few posts above (with no real explanation coming back in reply). I don't think I'm mis-reading JRD's comments, or statements like this from their web site:

Global warming is disrupting natural wildlife habitats and travel corridors, threatening the movement and survival of some species in the North Cascades.

Again, I would need to see more than hand-waving to believe that this proposal will provide any meaningful mitigation of the impact of GW on wildlife. There may be other great reasons to enact this specfiic proposal, but the shotgun blast of sketchy rationales such as this, paired with "backing from the solution to the problems" raises alarm bells for me...

The dams and biomass thing is another can of worms, but not what I was reacting to.

The American Alps proposal would place new visitor centers in gateway communities, not within park boundaries or just outside park gateways.  This will help focus the economic benefits of park designation within gateway communities and not within or adjacent to the park itself.  The American Alps proposal will not include any commercial development on or adjacent to North Cascades National Park lands.

Conservation is compatible with the separate, but important effort to bring youth back to nature (see: “Last Child in the Woods” by Richard Louv).  When we talk about front-country family-friendly amenities, we are not talking about RV parking, paved trails, or waterfall loops.  The intent is just the opposite.  We are talking about a short trail to a scenic overlook of the Skagit Valley, a salmon viewing platform on Bacon Creek, a guided tour of the native plant restoration facility in Marblemount, or a nature trail from Lone Fir Campground up Pine Creek to the falls.

Wildlife conservation is a core value guiding development of the American Alps proposal.  Converting 304,300 acres of Forest Service and National Recreation Area lands to National Park will limit hunting in these areas and create a major refugia for wildlife populations, including wolves, grizzly bears, wolverine, lynx, and other species.  Front-country recreation along State Route 20 can be developed in a way that is compatible with wildlife conservation.  Specifically, the American Alps proposal will include language requiring the Park Service to identify, preserve, and enhance wildlife corridors that cross State Route 20.

Through conversations with Forest Service staff and several Methow Valley residents, I have been able to identify only three trails in the American Alps study area that are both legal and popular with mountain bikers.  These include Cedar Creek Trail, Cutthroat Lake Trail, and the West Fork Methow Valley Trail.  My previous reference to popular mountain bike trails included all three of these trails.  There may be other popular trails that were not mentioned to me.

Dog walking on public lands is a complex and potentially controversial issue no matter who manages the land.  I am a dog walker and know this from all sides of the issue.  This is indeed an area where significant public discussion is needed.  I think my recent comment (below) could be a starting point for that conversation.  “Dog walking could be allowed in areas where it will not significantly impact wildlife or the outdoor experiences of other visitors.”  What does that mean?

I have been following this debate with some interest and I thought that I would chime in with my assessment of U.S. national park management. I am a Canadian who has visited quite a number of these parks. In fact, I recently returned home from a road trip that included 5 national parks and 3 monuments. My perception was that they cater to an ever increasing aged and unfit clientele. All outdoor activity information is directed to the lowest common denominator. Most trail descriptions are over exaggerated, even on the "Disneyized" paved paths. A ranger had my wife almost in tears about the risks of going on a cliff dwelling tour by using the routine summer heat speech, (while snow flurried around us). She declined the walk and missed out on something that she could have easily done.  However, the topper was the trail description handout given by staff at the Capital Reef National Park visitor center.

The first red flag (knowing what I have experienced in other national parks) should have been finding that a trail (Fremont River) with an elevation change of 770vf over 1 1/4 miles had been placed in the Easy category. My altimeter registered 490vf when I did this quick climb above the campsite;  a park topo map confirmed this figure when I checked later. Even so, using the dumbed down criteria that national parks all seem to use, this would appear to be a "Moderate" hike. I wanted to take my wife along on a hike to Cassidy Arch, but she refused based on the handout stating that the trail would rise steeply up 1,150vf in just over 1 3/4 miles. So once again I went on my own. I noted that the large stone marker at the beginning of the trail said that the arch was 950' above. Well, my altimeter told me that it was actually 660'...not even close! I had failed to measure the first trail (Hickman Bridge) that we walked, but I kind of doubt that it is the 400vf on the handout.

I stopped in the bakery/museum before we left the park. The volunteer worker told me that most of the measurements on the handout were incorrect and that the park staff was aware of this fact. A uniformed person at the visitor center acknowledged that they had the correct data, but couldn't explain why they gave out misinformation to hikers. While I was writing a form letter to express my displeasure, the park's General Manager appeared. He couldn't explain either why their information wasn't even close to being right and why they continued to dispense it when they had the correct measurements at the desk. He said that I was the first person to complain. Maybe that is true, but I have to wonder what the rangers who walk those trails think. Could they be that incompetent,too?

Perhaps you think that my little rant is silly, but I was less than impressed with how national parks manage something fairly straightforward. It is very unlikely that I will ever be in the financial position to afford heli-skiing, but I rather like the North Cascades the way it is now.

I lost this attachment while posting.

Well, based on precedent, I'm don't trust how the Park Service would be likely to adjudicate that public discussion on hiking with dogs. I'd like to retain some nice places I can hike with my dog along highway 20. I don't see supporting a proposal that strikes me as leaving this up to NPS, and in fact, unless I saw that this was the only flaw and otherwise the proposal was super compelling, I'd support a fight against it on this count. I had a great trip to the Barron Yurt thanks to Paul's helicopter this winter - I'd like to be able to repeat the experience well into the future. I'm wondering if you might get his (and others', including my) support if you could bake a 20 year extension to his lease into the proposal? As for the wildlife, the general notion of protection sounds good to me. I have put my money where my mouth is there, giving significant $$$$ to the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (now Conservation NW ), as they sold me on a cogent proposal with good evidence for how what they planned would help wildlife in a very meaningful way (maintaining and increasing key wildlife corridors for species that have issues with range size). This proposal seems fuzzy on this front, and the global warming justification is just the worst of it. As for biomass, it's hard to imagine we'll allow harvest of slow-growing forest for this purpose with so much better opportunities west of the crest, and global warming won't be a good argument for biomass (compare C02 release to Coal if you don't believe me, and then ponder that these trees are both slow-growing and slow to decay, so it would be crazy to release their carbon by burning in the name of slowing GW). Dams - hmm. What valleys are most at risk due to their tempting nature as a great dam sites?

I'm frankly left feeling that this proposal is either the product of fuzzy thinking, or someone thinks they can snooker me. I respect the notion of preventing future threats, but again, let's be crystal clear on what they are, and discuss possible alternatives for dealing with them.

One of the biggest changes inherent in park management has barely been mentioned: permit regulations. As the Program Director for Outward Bound in Mazama, this is my chief concern. We operate extensively in the study area, as well as the adjacent wilderness and the NCNP. The NCNP requires all parties to be 6 or less in the backcountry, and 12 or less on trail (these parties must camp in designated campgrounds). Although I understand and support the rationale for this management scheme, this would obviously pose an enormous problem for our organization, which relies upon a financial and educational model of using medium-sized groups (8 -- 12 total).

In the many years we have operated in Washington, we have introduced thousands of students to the North Cascades and inspired them to be stewards of our wild lands, both while they travel within them and in how they conduct themselves at home. I believe we have made an enormous positive impact toward conservation through our work.

While AALP very reasonably says that they would support the continuation of our current permit limits, it is unfortunately not within their control in any way. If NCNP manages the lands, they make the decision. While I have enormous respect for NCNP and the manner in which they manage their lands, I think that if we loose the educational and inspirational value of these lands for organizations such as ours (and NOLS, Wilderness Ventures, the YMCA, etc.), we create an overall negative impact on these lands. The young people that come on our courses see the wilderness as a place they "can't go to" where we humans just "mess things up"; we strive to show them their connection to these wild places. Maintaining sensible access for people creates a connection to place, and that, ultimately drives the conservation movement.

As a resident of the Methow, and a avid snowmobile-assisted backcountry skier, I also have an admittedly personal stake in this decision. I would ultimately support the health of this ecosystem over my own recreation any day of the week, but it is a complex system that requires a nuanced decision. What is clear and simple, however, is where the real local impact on this ecosystem occurs and what causes it: summer tourists. The amount of pollution, impact, trash, etc. created by summer tourists is infinitely greater than that created in the winter. Anyone that has biked across highway 20 can see and smell it directly. If one of the goals of the AALP is to increase park visitors (mostly in the summer), that will have a direct impact on the park ecosystem. More visitors creates more impact. Visitors that tour through in cars and stop briefly at overlooks, paved paths and information booths are not those that develop a lasting connection to a place and work to conserve it (there is ample research showing this correlation).

And lastly, I put on my hat not as an educator or recreationalist, but as an earth scientist. The greatest negative impact that I will ever have on the North Cascades will come not from my snowmobile, skis, boots or tent, but from my commute. Nothing (not mining, logging, or hydro) will change the North Cascades more in my lifetime than global warming. If we want to get serious about protecting the North Cascades, it must include advocating for national global warming legislation. All those cars, power plants, etc. from Seattle to New York are what drive the irreversible impacts to the North Cascade ecosystem.

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).

If you can put such permit language into the legislation, perhaps also legislate in a nice two-decade extension to Paul's heli-permit, allowing leashed dogs on all trails where they're currently allowed, mtn biking where it's currently allowed, roadside parking where it's currently allowed, plowing of the road to the Silver Star Creek gate as is currently done, and perhaps a few other things that make it tough to simply have faith that "it will all work out well and the primary impact will be to ensure that things stay more or less as they are rather than turning into open-pit mines, clearcuts, condos, and dams..." (which seems to be in the spirit of the claimed intent of the proposal...)

And lastly, I put on my hat not as an educator or recreationalist, but as an earth scientist. The greatest negative impact that I will ever have on the North Cascades will come not from my snowmobile, skis, boots or tent, but from my commute. Nothing (not mining, logging, or hydro) will change the North Cascades more in my lifetime than global warming. If we want to get serious about protecting the North Cascades, it must include advocating for national global warming legislation. All those cars, power plants, etc. from Seattle to New York are what drive the irreversible impacts to the North Cascade ecosystem.

+1
My understanding is that our biggest impacts on the environment come from: how we commute to work, how we heat and cool our homes, the efficiency of our home appliances, and what foods we choose to buy and eat. The next down on the list is a long ways down in terms of environmental impact from these choices.

On the American Alps Website there are bloggers who write as follows:
This from Tom Hammond
quote...
As it pertains to American Alps Legacy Project, we conducted a bit of informal research. Over the past decade, I've noticed a significant increase in the number of people visiting The Valley in Spring. Whereas I/we used to be alone the entire weekend, now there are plenty of backcountry skiers and folks venturing around on snowshoes, enjoying our National Parks.
I have recently become aware of a vocal minority of downhill/backcountry skiers concerned about American Alps, mistakenly believing Park designation will somehow inhibit their ability to access the backcountry. Based on my real-life experiences over the years, and a weekend of watching DOZENS of backcountry skiers enjoying the upper N Fork Cascade Valley, and visiting with many, I can say with confidence that people come to this place BECAUSE it is a National Park! end quote.

What Mr. Hammond fails to realize is that ski tourers go to cascade pass because it has high level road access NOT because it's a National Park. It's beautiful and I'm glad it's protected but I'm equally happy that I can get near the place by road.
The irony is that we can get access because at one time it was unprotected and there was once a plan to put a road and railway over the pass. I'm glad that didn't happen but that( apart from it's beauty) is why Cascade Pass is so popular with ski tourers..... ACCESS! I wonder how many would get to see it if there was no road.

A few years back I and some buddies went to CP to climb Sahale. We were training a mountaineering trip to AK so we had heavy packs and glacier gear. We called into the Ranger station in the morning to check on conditions etc. When we told them where we were going their first words were that you can't camp without a permit. We told them we weren't camping. They said our packs looked too large for a day trip. We said were going on a day trip. We left.
At Cascade Pass we parked, a ranger came up and asked us were we going. We told him, he told us we can't camp at the Glacier without a permit. We said we know. He said our packs looked to big for a day trip. We said we know but we're only on a day trip. We started hiking. At the actual cascade pass a ranger was standing... where are you going... Sahale.. you can't camp without a permit... we know that.. are sure you are not camping your packs looks too large... no we are not camping...... By this time we were pretty sick of the constant questioning.

Some more questions for JRD.
What is the status of the Cascade River Road ... is it presently under Park authority?
If not and  Park area is extended, will the Cascade River road come under Park authority?
Do you intend to add to any restrictions regarding access on Cascade River Road.
Will the Park maintain it or close it like West Side Road in MRNP?

On another matter the NC3 people have been meeting with Senator Patty Murray and lobbying for funding for their proposal.
The Senator is in a tight race and has been targeted by the GOP. Now, I think the Senator is  a very good Senator and has been very supportive of veterans rights and has superiority in the senate that gives her much weight and I don't personally want another in that seat. However, I would vote her out in a new york minute if I thought she would support the turning over of the Highway 20 area to the Park Service, it's that important to me. She can't afford to loose any votes in such a tight election year so if you feel the same way as me, please contact her at her website and tell her not to support this group or she will loose your vote.

Yammadog.. Can you cross post this over on some other sites and see if we can get some e-mails and calls to the Senator on what the people want?
Thanks
Likewise if you feel different, then tell her that as well .
Here is her website link.
murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Excellent points, Jason. Thanks.

I share your concerns.

As much as I admire what N3C has accomplished in the past, I'm concerned that their approach on this project may be applying a "blunt instrument" (a term I used before) where more refined tools are needed. I'm still not sold on the N3C approach.

What do you mean by" more refined tools".... a better marketing campaign... or revised goals.
A fair question I think.

Scotsman, your remarks are indeed not ambiguous but they are full of implicit disrespect, disinformation, distortion and distrust. I find this far from constructive. Your questions, I do admit are quite relevant, but I find it further frustrating that you immediately are against their proposal, regardless of the answer.

Scotsman, your remarks are indeed not ambiguous but they are full of implicit disrespect, disinformation, distortion and distrust. I find this far from constructive. Your questions, I do admit are quite relevant, but I find it further frustrating that you immediately are against their proposal, regardless of the answer.

They already gave us their answer, read JRD's post carefully, they have already concluded what they want to do and yes I have nothing but disgust and distrust of the NPS.

Here's a quote from a government report. It's not a blogger page or a conspiracy nut. Its a report fr0m the Office of Inspector General to Congress.

The Superintendent was not the NC super but was close. It's not hard to find out who it was if you care to do the research. I think he may have been transferred again recently.

quote.
from:  www.doioig.gov/upload/APR2009SAR.txt
Report to Congress
Office of Inspector General.
"Superintendent Given Letter of Reprimand After Conflict of Interest Uncovered

After a confidential source alleged a possible conflict of interest over a real estate transaction between a park superintendent and a park concessioner, the OIG investigated the case. We determined that the superintendent bought a parcel of land in 1992 for $84,000, sold it in December 2002 for $425,000, and financed the sale of the property to a concessioner over the course of 63 months.

Based on the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, we reviewed documents submitted by the superintendent. This review determined that he made false statements or concealed material facts on his Office of Government Ethics form 450, as well as in an e-mail he sent to the NPS reviewing official who had requested additional information concerning the nature of the transaction. The superintendent also signed the conflict of interest certification for
the contract process, further complicating his position.

Our findings were presented to the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, which declined to prosecute the NPS employee ecause his case did not meet its criminal threshold. Our office was notified in March 2009 that the superintendent had been transferred to another national park and given a Letter of Reprimand."

Scotsman, your remarks are indeed not ambiguous but they are full of implicit disrespect, disinformation, distortion and distrust. I find this far from constructive. Your questions, I do admit are quite relevant, but I find it further frustrating that you immediately are against their proposal, regardless of the answer.

Additionally if you actually care to read my posts carefully and not just stick to your dogma, you will see that I have stated publicly that I support some of the study areas becoming part of the PARK but not the highway 20 study area. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Indeed, your support for some areas was lost in all of your dogma as well. This post has gotten quite long, and I apologize for not recalling every word verbatim. I think many of us are passionate about this, and dogma does get in the way. My response was initially immediately referring to your post where you were insulting to Lowell, which you have since edited.

I will admit, the post that you just found is interesting, but guess what, there is that in all levels of government, quite unfortunately. The FS is not excluded, neither is the NPS.

Relating to one of your quotes that I have read that is distortional:

Part of the proposal has the expansion of the area for greater access to families, disabled, etc. As mentioned previously, to maintain or increase support for wilderness protection younger generations must be given the ability to experience the wilderness to some degree. As such, increasing the access for families and their KIDs is not a appeal to emotion, ergo fallacicious, as some you sarcastically implied:

I mean who can be against stuff for the KIDS?

. By saying this ridiculing the N3C's intentions and yielding an unfair representation of their efforts.

Such expansion efforts for greater are intended to cultivate preservationalism and respect for youth, and even for those who are older. It is additionally seems to be a 'selling point', for the proposal many would not want any money spend on such a project if they could not possible reap any benefit from it. I believe somewhere someone said that such access doesn't improve environmental awareness, perhaps, indeed. I have not seen the studies. This is not the case for me, as I did 'park disneyfication' stuff like that when I was a kid.

I'm sure as Lowell has mentioned, you may constructively contribute to the alteration of this plan or an alternative proposal to make preservation plans that amenable to people sharing your interests.

It is an interesting report to congress isn't it. Do you know who it is?
A FOIA request will be denied because its a personnel issue, however
researching public real estate records will EASILY reveal the answer.
Since you are such an advocate for the NPS you should do the research.
Explains a lot when you find out the answer.
Simply pointing out that other such as the FS may be as corrupt as some in the NPS seems a deflection rather than a defense and the easy way out. Do the research.
It's very illuminating when you find out who it is.

I am ridiculing the NC3's propaganda. I'm sure they are nice people and we might even enjoy a ski tour if we didn't talk about the NPS and their aims and goals good intentioned but I find their arrogance that they know whats best for the area unacceptable. Even people on this site far less reactionary than me have questioned the hyperbole, grand generalizations and cloying pander to heart searing issues.
It's spin of the highest order and  very well done frankly
You disagree with me, I disagree with you. We both get to post our thought in our own ways although I don't use latin as much as you!
If you read my post I told people who agree with my views to contact Senator Murray. I had the grace to suggest that those that have different views also do so.
I think you may be a reactionary as well. hahah

Again, express your views regarding hwy20 study area. Tell her not to support park expansion into highway 20 study area or support or give funding to the ALP project or NC3 group. or you will take your vote elsewhere.
Contact her at murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Indeed that link to Sen. Murray was nice to have. Thanks. But I would say that merely saying 'no' is not constructive towards the preservation of the areas of the North Cascades.
Saying something along the lines of:
No, but maybe if <dogs can reign free on the park>...
Yes, but only if <hwy 20 is excluded>...
or
No, but instead let us <do this>...
You get the point.

I would say all of these are far more constructive than our possibly dogmatic and blindly disagreeing conversations. So if you do contact any politician, please let them know the aspects you do like, and the ones that you do not.

Since you like my links , here's another.

We want to put an area as precious and important as the highway 20 corridor into the hands of this agency??
www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/06/su...vernment-agency-work.

Contact Senator Murray .......express your views on how this area should be managed and tell her not to support the ALP project or NC3 .
The Park Service is a broken agency with poor leadership, rampant corruption, cronyism , nepotism and waste. Do not give them more land or bigger budgets until they correct their inadequacies and realign their mission. Protection is afforded to the highway 20 study area by it's present administration and it's working just fine. The NPS will just mess it up.. for perpetuity.

Knock it off burns-all-year, you're not helping.

A few people found the concept of forests-for-biomass as ridiculous. In is not. In fact, Two companies in Shelton are in stages of wood burning powerplants that will burn sawdust, bark, woodchips and straff. This was on a NPR story this morning while I was waking up.
A quick internet search yielded
www.tri-cityherald.com/2009/03/19/514732...ants-considered.html
www.king5.com/news/business/250M-biomass...helton-83821887.html
for non/less biased news sources. While they are using more of the trees felled, it makes the green gold much more valuable and desirable. Please realize forests are now wanted biomass-energy projects, putting more pressure on us (citizens) to get them protected.

They already gave us their answer, read JRD's post carefully, they have already concluded what they want to do and yes I have nothing but disgust and distrust of the NPS.

Here's a quote from a government report. It's not a blogger page or a conspiracy nut. Its a report fr0m the Office of Inspector General to Congress.

The Superintendent was not the NC super but was close. It's not hard to find out who it was if you care to do the research. I think he may have been transferred again recently.

You say, "The Superintendent was not the NC super but was close." What the heck does that mean? It seems to me that you're smearing the superintendent of North Cascades National Park. I don't see how that sort of tactic has any place here. Clean up your act, Chris.