|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Expansion of North Cascades National Park (Read 15421 times)
|
telemark90
1Member
Offline
Posts: 4
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JRD
1Member
Offline
Posts: 4
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 1227
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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.
http://murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/25/10, 06:54 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/25/10, 08:01 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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: http://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."
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/25/10, 08:49 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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 http://murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/25/10, 10:15 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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??
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/06/survey-says-national-park-service-far-best-government-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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/25/10, 11:12 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
Knock it off burns-all-year, you're not helping.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline
Posts: 1620
WWW
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
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.
I think he's insinuating it was the Super of MRNP, "close" meaning proximity, but he should clean up his act anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
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. http://murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe
Will do....it is an impact to sledders as well.
Between the AALP and the WMC proposals, I think the closure of public land to the public is extremely negative on the expansion of the population knowing how we interact with areas out side the cities and our urban neighborhoods. Recreational opportunities are limited as it is for much of the population, but to limit them even more in the name of stopping development is overstepping the ideas I think some of these concepts were thought of initially. Effectively using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.
Having a 2 minute hike on the side of the road as you drive by is not of any benfit to the greater population, only to those few that want their own adgenda realized. I don't see how public money can be spent on this type of restriction or enforcement, given the tight budgets the entire scheme of gov't is under and the concept that we live in a democracy.
The days of having pristine untouched lands went away with our(making some assumptions here) occupation of America and pushing the Indians to the side. Although we do need some protections and some restrictions, the pace and volume the land is being "reclaimed" is out of step with the demands of the pupulation.
As was stated earlier, many of the proponents of these proposals become somewhat like zealots in trying to make their point and it gives way to productive communication to have very workable solutions in the name of kids or wildlife or what ever other trigger they try to use and it does nothing but create conflict.
The only way to keep people from Florida making determinations on our local areas is to gather the groups that actually live in and use the areas to hammer out agreeable terms. Zealots like WMC and such need to be dragged to a table for talks or ignored by the decision makers. And it should be a crime with punishment if our gov't agents in charge of these descisions are not including all groups.
Until that utopia comes about, it will be a letter writing and voting campaign. And Scotsman, I'm sure we'll be hearing of your support in opposing the WMC proposal as it is in it's current description?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
With the idea that we need to move to renewable energy sources, what do you think is the ways in which we produce the power our society needs? And where do we do it if not in our backyard? Or someone elses back yard?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Online
Posts: 113
|
With the idea that we need to move to renewable energy sources, what do you think is the ways in which we produce the power our society needs?
Nuclear, nat. gas, solar, wind, etc...
But, I would ask the question 'How much power does our society need?'. Cutting our very frivolous energy use would help the situation a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
This is slightly different topic. But here are my thoughts:
As someone else has mentioned above, Biomass is not a clean renewable energy solution. Nor is it, sustainable, scientifically speaking, as with any growable product switchgrass, corn or what-have-you. The amount we consume is annually is greater than what is stored in biological reserves. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but in merely ~100 yrs we've depleted say (as a highly conservative estimate) of 10% of the natural fuel reserves, that have taken hundreds of MILLIONS of years to accumulate. Forests, though renewable, take much longer to develop than other fuel sources. This is why some may say 'using tree's for biomass, ridiculous...'. But as indicated below, the fact that tree left overs can be used in addition to the main lumber, make forests more valuable to harvest.
Yes, I am NIMBY or NIYBY for bios-mass-for-fuel when it is not a bi-product of something not harvested for fuel (i.e. such as food-scraps, yak-dung etc...). But when biomass is harvested with the intent for energy, even if partially (as in lumber), then it shouldn't be considered a real solution. There are other ideas to combat our problems: higher efficiency and energy conservation /solar/wind/wave/geothermal. There is also the not-renewable but increasingly popular Nuclear-power.
Admittedly, there is high need for energy and sources. However, biomass is only a temporary bandage to our help with energy wants. I would hope that the the desire for this as energy source, does not consume old growth forests or other areas within the proposed expansion of the park before it may become protected.
[edited for grammar]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Online
Posts: 113
|
The days of having pristine untouched lands went away with our(making some assumptions here) occupation of America and pushing the Indians to the side. Although we do need some protections and some restrictions, the pace and volume the land is being "reclaimed" is out of step with the demands of the pupulation.
I agree that we took the territory that now comprises the US from the Indians by bullying, killing, and lying and in the process degraded much of the wilderness character that existed just before settlement by European-style civilization. I do not agree that the time for having lands in the lower 48 with wilderness characteristics is gone. I also am not convinced that the 'demands of the population' do not include preservation of mountainous regions that currently posses wilderness characteristics.
The only way to keep people from Florida making determinations on our local areas is to gather the groups that actually live in and use the areas to hammer out agreeable terms. Zealots like WMC and such need to be dragged to a table for talks or ignored by the decision makers. And it should be a crime with punishment if our gov't agents in charge of these descisions are not including all groups.
Why shouldn't folks from FL get their say? Do you count preservation as a use that should be allowed at the bargaining table? In my view, it should be a crime with punishment if the management agencies do not include interested parties, but I fail to see how choosing not to live close to an area negates your (democratic) stake in the management of the area.
Personally, I feel that preservation of nice places is one of the best and most important goals of wildland management. Recreation by those of us living close in time and space is also important, and current needs of sledders, hunters, dog walkers, hikers, skiers, climbers, etc. should certainly be taken into account. But the bigger picture is that we have removed wilderness characteristics from lots of land and it might be a good idea to save/restore/preserve places that are still nice.
That being said I am a long way from being 'sold' by the NC3 proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
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.
You read it the way you want to Lowell.
You're biased and clearly an apologist for this group, a member of the group although you insist upon presenting yourself as a "doubting Thomas" but remain a staunch defender, cloaked in the shroud of "fairness."
It's not the NC super as I clearly said and its not a smear , unfortunately it's a fact that a Park superintendent was reprimanded for ethical reasons involving real estate deals with park concessionairs and transferred as a result.
Is it germain to the argument.... ...yes I think so as one of the arguments being put forward is that the Park Service should manage this area and not the current government agencies because they will afford more protection to the area.
The NPS whom your group argue are paragons of conservationism and much better at determining what's best for this area are also one of the worst managed, corrupt, inadequate and wasteful agencies in the government.
As a result you should contact Senator Patty Murray and cut the legs from under this proposal by telling her that you will take away your vote if she supports any funding for this group and Park expansion into the highway 20 area. or vote for somebody that will.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
I think he's insinuating it was the Super of MRNP, "close" meaning proximity, but he should clean up his act anyway.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
If this is an important topic to discuss and folks want to discuss it here, please avoid the personal attacks. I've already pulled several and would rather not spend my time babysitting this thread. If we can't keep from slinging crap I'll lock the topic and it'll drift down the page.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Will do....it is an impact to sledders as well.
Between the AALP and the WMC proposals, I think the closure of public land to the public is extremely negative on the expansion of the population knowing how we interact with areas out side the cities and our urban neighborhoods. Recreational opportunities are limited as it is for much of the population, but to limit them even more in the name of stopping development is overstepping the ideas I think some of these concepts were thought of initially. Effectively using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.
Having a 2 minute hike on the side of the road as you drive by is not of any benfit to the greater population, only to those few that want their own adgenda realized. I don't see how public money can be spent on this type of restriction or enforcement, given the tight budgets the entire scheme of gov't is under and the concept that we live in a democracy.
The days of having pristine untouched lands went away with our(making some assumptions here) occupation of America and pushing the Indians to the side. Although we do need some protections and some restrictions, the pace and volume the land is being "reclaimed" is out of step with the demands of the pupulation.
As was stated earlier, many of the proponents of these proposals become somewhat like zealots in trying to make their point and it gives way to productive communication to have very workable solutions in the name of kids or wildlife or what ever other trigger they try to use and it does nothing but create conflict.
The only way to keep people from Florida making determinations on our local areas is to gather the groups that actually live in and use the areas to hammer out agreeable terms. Zealots like WMC and such need to be dragged to a table for talks or ignored by the decision makers. And it should be a crime with punishment if our gov't agents in charge of these descisions are not including all groups.
Until that utopia comes about, it will be a letter writing and voting campaign. And Scotsman, I'm sure we'll be hearing of your support in opposing the WMC proposal as it is in it's current description?
Thanks yammadog and yes I will support your opposition to the WMC land grab. I think we can form a coalition of like minded souls to combat the over-reaching by these two groups. Please lobby your supporters to contact Senator Murray or Dino Rossi and tell them to make sure each candidate knows that supporting these groups will not be acceptable. Spread the word and then we need to get down to business and talk about how sledders and skiers and hybrid skier/sledders can all exist together by mutual land use agreementsthat protects the environments but still allows sensible use by both.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.444 seconds with 20 queries.
|
