|
|
|
|
|
|
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 15402 times)
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
I think that many are forgetting or do not realize that because of N3C and their cumulative efforts over the past 50+ years, many of the areas which we earn our turns are, have remained untouched. Additionally, the N3C is not hoping to abolish all of these things that have been claimed will disappear with the expansion of the National Park. Even so, if some 'activities' are lost, are we being selfish in wanting all them to remain an option? While personally I would like to be able to eventually paraglide over the N Cascades, and National Parks prohibit this activity, I would still prefer that the area be more thoroughly preserved (with the expansion of the NP) than to be left with some risk of development. Which brings me to another point:
I would say that the dangers of not doing something to further extend protection to the North Cascades may be quite high. How can I get away with saying this? By applying the concept (from avalanches!) danger = risk*consequence. The risk that the Forest Service (Dept of Agriculture) opens these areas up to tree farming, mining, hydro... etc might be low, (some may disagree with this evaluation). However the consequences will be considerable: Examples are: Azurite mine (super-fund site), Erosion, Loss of scenic beauty, loss of habitat. Once done, any actions to these areas will take decades or centuries to recover, if ever. If it remains in the realm of National Parks (dept of Interior....) they will be more thoroughly protected.
So, I'd rather not risk the danger, and I'll forgo selfish considerations for the extended preservation of these amazing mountains and ecosystems.
[edited for spelling/grammar, oops]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/18/10, 11:49 AM by sukiakiumo »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
Once again, the nuances are lost in the discussion as each side espouses it's ingrained dogma and point of view.
There is no doubt IMHO that there are portions of the area not currently incorporated in the park that make absolute sense to do so. When you look at the map and study areas, there are certainly areas that should be included in the park which= reserved for wilderness in perpetuity.
However, the area I ( yes selfishly) am concerned about is the Hwy 20 corridor that presently allows multi-use such as heli-skiing and mountain biking and seems to work quite well and offers a mix of activities not available elsewhere in WA( heli-skiing).
If it was just about incorporating the areas around Ross Lake and the Pasyaten, I would wholeheartedly support it frankly, but it's not.
The Highway 20 area is emphasized in their promotional data. Their announcement in the Mountaineer's newspaper started with a quote by Fred Beckey about his views and impressions from the top of Liberty Bell so one can only construe that they consider the Early Winter Spires a " must have" area in their expanded park vision.
So although your altruism Sukiajiumo is much to be admired and far superior to my selfish desire to have heli-skiing and mountain biking available to me for the rest of my active life and my son's during his, could you be more specific in your argument and state wether you think the Hwy 20 corridor should be turned into Park and not just the overall general park expansion vision which as you can see , even some of us selfish types support as well.
|
|
|
|
|
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: 3169
|
It's pretty easy to take pot shots (comparing with Glenn Beck) or picking select items to criticize or generalize.
Well Jackal, you've pretty much covered all the bases there. We can't select items or generalize?? You can't have it both ways or are you just implying that no critiscm or arguments should be allowed and that we should just accept their intentions as being benign and that they know better?
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
While personally I would like to be able to eventually paraglide over the N Cascades, and National Parks prohibit this activity...
As long as you don't land, it is permitted, isn't it?
I assume that you're interested in fulfilling Bruce Tracy's dream, described here:
http://mountaineers.org/NWMJ/07/071_Paragliding5.html
Best of luck! That would be quite a flight.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
...
However, the area I ( yes selfishly) am concerned about is the Hwy 20 corridor that presently allows multi-use such as heli-skiing and mountain biking. ...
You nailed it. I am glad to hear that you agree with some areas within the American Alps proposal. However, on a personal note, I resent the implication of superiority in my post as I was not trying to be pompous nor snooty, merely suggest a course of consideration by EXAMPLE.
Going beyond ad-hominem...
A big point is they are not wanting to remove Mountain biking as per your arguments:
Taken from front page http://www.americanalps.org/ (5/18/2010):
------------------------------------------------
Recreation Opportunities Must Be Preserved
Recreation is also an essential aspect of the North Cascades National Park. Major Puget Sound population increases may overrun the limited recreation resources available in the North Cascades. Hiking, wildlife viewing, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, and climbing are all extremely popular. Opportunities for these outdoor activities must be preserved and expanded in the North Cascades. Incompatible uses, such as downhill skiing and motorized recreation, are also popular and are slowly encroaching on pristine non-motorized recreation areas adjacent to the current park.
--
So you see that they are not wanting the to remove Mountain Biking. Heli-skiing is likely another story as it is 'moterized recreation'. There are likely leases/policies that would have to be grandfathered in to be properly honored by the NP. Does this mean that we should continue to allow it after expiry of such leases? France and Germany have prohibited this endevour and maybe Switzerland soon. Because heli-skiing may be losing support globally, does NOT mean that it should continue to support it locally.
Ha, yeah. I saw that looking at that sight a while back and it inspired me. That coupled with stories of friends parasailing in the Alps made me look into it. Just need to get more $$ and a fully healed shoulder to have the chance to properly learn. I called one of the ranger stations near the NC NP and they said parasailers are considered 'low flying aircraft', which is prohibited in park terminology.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
You nailed it. I am glad to hear that you agree with some areas within the American Alps proposal. However, on a personal note, I resent the implication of superiority in my post as I was not trying to be pompous nor snooty, merely suggest a course of consideration by EXAMPLE.
Going beyond ad-hominem...
A big point is they are not wanting to remove Mountain biking as per your arguments:
Well excuse me Mr/Mrs Resent but it was You who started your argument by implying that those that want to retain the area around Hwy20 for multi-use were SELFISH and that you were NOT and wiling to give it up for the greater good and then you take umbrage to me implying an implication of superiority. You are quick to apply derogatory name tags to those that have different views from you but very sensitive when the same is given back to you.
But back to topic
I have read the statement you cut and paste and it is very carefully worded and ambiguous.
So they are going to disallow downhill skiing (presumably they mean heli-sking)and snowmobiling but allow horse back riding and mountain biking in the Hwy 20 corridor if it becomes a Park. Are you sure about that?
Edit to add. so we should follow the Euro's and ban heli-skiing? Do you feel heli-skiing should be banned globally then? why is heli-sking such a sore point with people with your conservationalist views?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/19/10, 10:38 AM 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.
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
One of the things I wonder about when I think about the Highway 20 corridor is whether we are living in a "golden moment" that cannot last.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't have a problem with heli-skiing along the highway at the current level of activity. But anyone who's been around a few years will remember that the previous owner of North Cascades Heli-skiing applied for a permit to operate two helicopters simultaneously in the highway corridor. I was against that, and as far as I know the request was denied. If heli-skiing grew too much along the highway corridor, I would no longer support it.
The same thing goes for snowmobiling. Although I don't live in the Methow Valley, and I don't own a snowmobile, I believe that nearly all the snowmobile use along the highway corridor has been limited to the established roads. I'm not aware that riders have been leaving the highway and heading for the alpine zones. I'm extremely thankful for this. If snowmobiles were to begin riding to the alpine zones near the highway, I would do everything in my power to have them banned.
So, in this golden moment that we are experiencing, I am ambivalent about whether more protection is needed along the highway, because the situation is not too bad at this point. But what about the future? I'm on the fence about including the highway corridor in the National Park, but it wouldn't take much to knock me off the fence.
The North Cascades Conservation Council long ago concluded that they prefer Park Service management to Forest Service management. I haven't seen detailed N3C proposals, but I presume that they do not think the current situation will last, and I imagine that they are less comfortable with the current situation than I am.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
Well there's plenty of folks on this site who use the Hwy 20 corridor for snowmobile access and there's people I'm sure who are associated with the heli-skiing groups. I'd very much like to hear from them.
I'd also love to hear what the N3C's specific fears are regarding the Hywy 20 corridor and why they feel that this area needs protection now.
This , at least to me, seems based upon what I'm hearing above, boild down to muscle-powered vrs mechanized issue simil;ar to the Wilderness thread.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
JimH
Member
Offline
Posts: 253
|
This , at least to me, seems based upon what I'm hearing above, boild down to muscle-powered vrs mechanized issue simil;ar to the Wilderness thread.
I think that's only partly true. Park status gives better protection against things like mining, road building or hydro electric projects, which may still seem like bigger long term threats.
User conflict between motorized and non-motorized groups is a growing issue. But there's a pretty long history of other major land use projects really being seen as the major threat to conservation and I don't think that lesson has been forgotten just yet. Park status is really the best way to prevent that stuff if that's your goal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
Well excuse me Mr/Mrs Resent but it was You who started your argument by implying that those that want to retain the area around Hwy20 for multi-use were SELFISH and that you were NOT and wiling to give it up for the greater good and then you take umbrage to me implying an implication of superiority. You are quick to apply derogatory name tags to those that have different views from you but very sensitive when the same is given back to you.
Fair enough. I have been in Seattle long enough to degrade into passive statements unintentionally. I should have directly argued "It is SELFISH to want to DO something that may (in all likelyhood) directly (via pollution or development) or indirectly (via preventing formation of preserved areas for recreational desires) contribute to the decadence of an ecosystem or area". By this statement, I would be directly calling you, Mr. Heliski, selfish. Before you go so far, I will agree with you that I am selfish, every single time, I drive to the mountains. Whatever. Can't get away from that, and it would be harder to appreciate the mountains if I couldn't enjoy them by driving to them. The thing is, Mr. Heliski, is that we can choose to do things that will be better for more. Some things are easier to choose to not do (like heli skiing, or not paragliding) than others (like driving). I would rhetorically ask you, if you couldn't heli-ski or mountain bike in the North Cascades, would you even care about them that others could enjoy them in the ways that they do? Don't worry, as I believe that you would indeed still care about them based on the passion of your responses. But I am asking this question to the emphasize my point there are ways to enjoy the mountains without dropping out of choppers and bombing down mountains that may allow the greater preservation of the area.
Edit to add. so we should follow the Euro's and ban heli-skiing? Do you feel heli-skiing should be banned globally then? why is heli-sking such a sore point with people with your conservationalist views?
I would personally say, that heli-skiing in the NC should be banned. Recreational heli-skiing and the protection for the remaining parts of the North Cascades (such as with American Alps expansion) are likely mutually exclusive. One of these actionsis a fairly trite desire to get some adrenaline and wicked turns in amazing scenery, the other being a plan to preserve the amazingess of so that your sons and daughters can enjoy this amazing scenery later on in his adult life. This is not about mechanized vs muscle powered (I use ski lifts...another selfish desire). Europe is a slightly different story, from what I can gather. They did it because it was ffing noisy and dangerous. So, we shouldn't just follow suit because of Europe's reasons, but for that I said above.
As for the term 'conservationalist': I think I would prefer to be called a preservationalist. As I've heard before, conservation is what you do when you are running out... Preservation is what you do before you run out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
Upon further reflection, I believe if I had instead completely bypassed all of my above two posts above and instead asked the question: "Is it perhaps selfish...?" then such passionate ad-hominem back and forth would not have followed: if we could not agree on the answer to question there would be no sense in arguing as would not be talking on the same page. I apologize for not framing it this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
The North Cascades Conservation Council long ago concluded that they prefer Park Service management to Forest Service management. I haven't seen detailed N3C proposals, but I presume that they do not think the current situation will last, and I imagine that they are less comfortable with the current situation than I am.
Well THEY would wouldn't they!!!! Just because they think that way and have concluded that , it doesn't mean its' beyond discussion or is even in the best interests of the owner's of the land. They are naturally biased in their conclusion aren't they?
This is the problem I have with some of the generalized statements and attitudes being presented, namely MAKING MORE AREAS NATIONAL PARK MUST BE A GOOD THING AND THE INTENTIONS OF THIS GROUP SHOULDN"T BE QUESTIONED AND WE SHOULD JUST ACCEPT THEY KNOW BETTER.
Changing the status of the Highway 20 corridor from it's present governance and thereby banning previously allowed multi-use activites and the effect on the local communities, businessess and current end users is a huge deal especially considering that PARK status is probably, effectively forever.
I am more concerned about PARK governance and prefer Forest Service goverance as the Park service at some future date could decide that the highway 20 area is getting too much use and that they need to protect biodiversity at all cost ( conservation is their primary goal) and ban or restrict access to a permit sytem sometime in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
mmmh sukiakiumo.
I dont mean to be pedantic( OK... yes I do haha) but why is heli-skiing and preservation of the Hwy20 Corridor( again I'm being specific and not generalizing it into the North Cascades as a concept as you did) mutually exclusive??
In terms of the National Park concept. I think earlier in this post it was indicated that National Parks do not permit this (and I believe this is so). So if is against the National Park concept for, instead, the preservation of heliskiing, then the two are mutually exclusive. Exclusivity is not the case, were there some other way to preserve it at the same level as National Park, but I haven't heard of anything of this ilk being a reasonable course.
Your answer implies that continued heli-skiing along the Hwy20 corridor will denude the preservation of this particular mountain area for my son and your prodginy to enjoy in later years and generations. I honestly don't understand that. Can you explain further why heli-skiing if it is allowed to continue will destroy the area arround Liberty Bell and Silver Star for future generations?
But as it seems you are fundamentally apposed to NP governance vs FS service governance for the preservation of the area, this is a whole different discussion that would be better settled with hard facts (historical or otherwise) which I do not have.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JRD
1Member
Offline
Posts: 4
|
I was recently referred to this conversation because I am the Exec. Dir. of the North Cascades Conservation Council and coordinator of the American Alps Legacy Project. Several folks ask me to respond to comments on the blog about environmental threats to the North Cascades, so I registered and here I am. These comments are long and sound a bit formal for a blog, but I have pulled them from a larger document I am producing. So, please bear with me on all the words. In the next few days, I will comment on concerns about how American Alps will affect current recreation activities.
The American Alps Legacy Proposal will provide protection for public lands in the North Cascades that are threatened by natural resource extraction, energy development, and global warming. Some of these threats are immanent and others may develop over decades, yet they are all very real.
The North Cascades Conservation Council takes a long-run view of conservation. It has been more than 50 years since we first started promoting the North Cascades National Park and we will still be committed to protecting the North Cascades 50 years from now. When you love a place with 500 year old trees, you can not narrow your focus to just immediate environmental threats. You must take the long-run approach to conservation.
The statement, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” is short-sighted. Many of the threats to the North Cascades ecosystem are linked to the health and competitiveness of the US economy. Who can predict where the US economy will be in 10 or 20 years, little lone in 50 years? Will we remain the most advanced economy in the world? Will our education system continue to support our scientific and technical leadership in the world? Or, will we become a nation that depends more on natural resource extraction and export to help preserve our economic strength? I would like to think everything will remain the same, but it seldom does. So, let’s look at specific issues.
How long has it been since an endless stream of logging trucks were carrying old growth trees out of the North Cascades? Not much more than 30 years, and perhaps only a brief pause in the traditional extractive approach to the North Cascades. With economic growth and resource depletion in Asia and South America, and continued aggressive logging in northern Canada, who can say that the US won’t become a major source of timber for developing economies? How much pressure is there going to be to “harvest” the maturing and very valuable timber in the Bacon Creek, Baker River, and Cascade River watersheds? We need to protect our forests before the logging pendulum swings the other way.
Mining is also an ever-present threat to the North Cascades. There is gold (and other minerals) in the American Alps Legacy Proposal area and the price of gold is increasing almost every day. As the world population increases and demand for minerals increases, there will likely be more pressure for mining in the North Cascades. Mines not only destroy the land, but they also pollute streams with acids and heavy metals. Including language in new North Cascades National Park legislation that limits future mining claims will likely make a big difference in the number of new mines that come into the American Alps area over the next 50 years.
Energy sources are coming to dominate environmental thinking at the national and state levels. The North Cascades has many pristine streams that are ideal for small hydropower production. Energy from small hydropower is now perceived by some as “green” energy. Green energy is being aggressively promoted at the national level. Every year, Washington State considers legislation to designate small hydropower as a “renewable energy source.” Numerous public and private entities are searching the North Cascades now for small hydropower sites. One of the constraints on small hydropower is the cost of building and permitting the power lines that carry energy from source to user. The power lines penetrating up the Skagit Valley to Ross Dam make Skagit watershed streams a powerful attractant for small hydropower developers.
The US is actively pursuing biomass as a source of future energy. The Forest Service, with its multiple use mandate, is already looking at its role in producing biomass for energy production. Most of the trees east of Ross Lake are not attractive for traditional logging. However, they would make excellent biomass to feed the US demand for energy. When the energy spigot in the Middle East dries up, as it certainly will some day, will conservationists be able to withstand the public demand for biomass from National Forests to fuel our cars?
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.
I believe national park status will provide far more long-term protection for the North Cascades than the current multiple use national forest status, with its management plan overlays that can change with the next administration.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
Thanks for signing up Jim, welcome to TAY.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
Thanks Jim. Very helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline
Posts: 1031
|
The statement, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” is short-sighted. ... We need to protect our forests before the logging pendulum swings the other way."
Mining is also an ever-present threat to the North Cascades. ...
Energy sources are coming to dominate environmental thinking at the national and state levels. ...
The US is actively pursuing biomass as a source of future energy. ...
Global warming is also a very real threat to the North Cascades. W...
Global warming also directly impacts wildlife. ...
I believe national park status will provide far more long-term protection for the North Cascades than the current multiple use national forest status, with its management plan overlays that can change with the next administration.
As the one who stated the "if it's not broke ..." statement, I must reply to the bald assertion of short-sightedness. In relation to long-term thinking, I've spent 30 years in the PNW researching old-growth forests (actual on the ground research and conducting research by funding universities), spotted owls, other TE&S species, and on ways to restore biocomplexity and biodiversity using approaches that take 300 years or more. I've thoroughly studied the history of conservation ideas and ecology and, indeed, I have written a book on it.
I agree we need to revise the mining laws; almost all environmental regs, including parks and wilderness designation are exempt from mining laws. This is a problem that needs to be attacked directly, not indirectly. But no one has seriously made an effort to change these laws. Similarly, decisions on energy need to be attacked directly, not indirectly; but who is going to do it. Another Cheney and no wildlands will be left no matter what the designation is.. Although I am not sure where dams would be built in the Methow but water use and rights have been a very hot issue there.
The USFS has been degraded into an inept, non-functioning agency; Chief Thomas testified to that. The agency (and Congress) refused to learn from the Monongahela Controversy, the Bitteroot Controversy, and the PNW Old Growth Forests Controversy and has been effectively eviscerated.
The NPS all too often (in my considerable direct experience) has been guided by inept, ineffectual, poorly educated (in ecology), and counter-productive technical and administrative leadership ascribing to quasi-religious concepts of the "awesome power of nature" and "preserve [by human exclusion]" in perpetuity when we are facing major issues of global warming, pollution, and other human induced stresses that will only increase as human populations do. We're getting inundated by Gobi Desert dust and industrial pollutants from China already (for quite a few years).
IMHO, nothing done in the North Cascades within the realm of any reason will have any effect on global warming. You could make some real changes in the Bellingham to Eugene megalopolis, however.
"biomass" as an energy source is ridiculous, as has been shown over and over through research; it just needs to be exposed to the unwitting public that is refractory to science, including evolution, global warming, and modern medicine. Rand Paul just won an election campaigning in part on doing away with National Parks. Cutting trees in the Methow to power Seattle? Really?
We need a political revolution; Obama obviously wasn't it; he's only marginally better than Bush (who would have privatized the parks and forests). Expanding parks in the short term doesn't affect future political decisions.
I feel clear, cogent arguments about the value of remote healthy, relatively undeveloped ecosystems for the aesthetic, spiritual, and physical appreciation by people and as part of the larger ecosystems' life-support system of air, water, biodviersity, and open space need to be combined with arguments for maintaining healthy forest and prairie ecosystems in conjunction with and embedded in our megalopolises for human health and renewal. But who is going to listen? I mentioned I would like to see the National Recreation Area concept developed; my favorite example is the Mt. Rogers NRA in western Virginia, at least as it was developed in the 1960s.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
... want your own private skintrack? :-) better move to the yukon dude ....(B'ham Allen, 2011).
...
Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 1226
|
Thanks for weighing in, JRD. You're reply begs a few questions in my mind, such as:
1) how does National Park status help protect the N. Cascades from global warming? I'm not entirely following you there. You make a brief hand wave at other stresses to animals, but don't really explain how the NPS status would help mitigate the impact of warming on the environment in that area.I don't get who having a little more range that is also ceasing to have a useful climate for current flora and fauna helps, nor why this little sliver is so crucial as compared to so many other unprotected spots along the east slopes. Examples of wildlife that would benefit along with a real explanation of why might help this look like more than just spinning the hot button issue of the moment...
2) Do you think the price of gold will continue climbing, or that it will fall in a repeat of a cycle of rises and falls that has gone on for some time (with current market conditions causing the sort of jitters that lead to an especially big peak)? Which gold deposits are at risk of seeing new mining activity?
3) And to the point of some of the concerns raised on this thread, what's your stance on continuation of recreational activities like mountain biking and heli-skiing in this area (and if you support a continuation, what's your strategy for ensuring that the NPS carries through on that)? It seems that uncertainty on such questions is one block to gaining some potential support for your proposal.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/20/10, 05:33 AM by Jim Oker »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
Acarey: I respect your experience in these subjects and your passion for them. But your suggestions about needing a "political revolution" seem unrealistic. Do you seriously believe N3C can pull off what you're asking for?
It seems to me that N3C is taking the pragmatic position that there are a very small number of blunt tools available to them. National Park designation is the tool that they've chosen to apply to the North Cascades problem. It may not be the perfect tool, but they don't have the option of creating a whole new toolset. That's my impression, at least.
I too would like to hear more about the National Recreation Area idea. Would it be possible to address the problems that JRD's post describes by designating some of these areas as NRAs? My maps and memory are dated, but my understanding is that the Ross Lake NRA extends from the lake to Crater Creek, but no farther. Would designation of the Highway 20 corridor from Crater Creek to Silver Star provide the necessary protections? How would NRA management differ from National Park management?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
[quote author=acarey link=topic=16559.msg69978#msg699
The NPS all too often (in my considerable direct experience) has been guided by inept, ineffectual, poorly educated (in ecology), and counter-productive technical and administrative leadership ascribing to quasi-religious concepts of the "awesome power of nature" and "preserve [by human exclusion]" in perpetuity
Nailed it!!!!!!!!
Thanks Acarey, this exactly expresses the fear that many who think like I do have but fail to explain with so much eloquence.
JRD, This is the fear that many of us have. When I explain my loathing of the NPS, many find my revulsion completely unbelievable. I mean how can't you like National Parks considering you spent most of you time off in them??
Well, I explain to them that I love the concept of National Parks... Americas crowning jewels.. the best idea America ever had.... but I detest the National Park Service and what it has become and how they administer their mandate. The waste, the bureaucracy, their ineptness I can live( grudgingly and with disgust) with but it's the whole" preserve(by human exclusion) in perpetuity "that scares me, makes me sit up at night writing on blogs like this.
Many who think like I do fear that the dominance of the conservationists within the NPs who just want to lock it up and throw away the key is a real danger. We call it the Disneyfication of the parks. Build a big parking lot, park all the cars, put them in a tour bus, take them to the new visitor center, march them along the new paved boardwalk to the viewing area, give them a heart warming talk by a NPS Ranger dressed in a cute uniform and funny hat while they look at the park that they can't access. Let them buy an overpriced hot dog at the park concession, a sparky souvenir, put them on the bus and take them back to their cars. Least ecological effect, least hydrocarbons and the park is preserved for the NPS field biologists who study in perpetuity.
Its well documented that the majority of day visitors( maybe 90%) already only do this already and only a relatively few ( like most on this website) venture more than a mile from the visitor center at any park.... so why not... sacrifice the access of that small minority that roam far from the visitor center for the greater good of preserving the biomass and fauna untrammeled... in perpetuity.
Your organizations attempt ( presumably) to turn the Hwy20 area into a National Park and de facto curtail certain existing uses does not exactly help dispel the fears that people who share my views have. Answering my specific questions contained in my previous post would certainly help or at least clarify your intentions.
thanks
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/19/10, 11:22 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.
|
|
|
Andrew Carey
Member
Offline
Posts: 1031
|
Acarey: I respect your experience in these subjects and your passion for them. But your suggestions about needing a "political revolution" seem unrealistic. Do you seriously believe N3C can pull off what you're asking for?
It seems to me that N3C is taking the pragmatic position t...
I too would like to hear more about the National Recreation Areas ... How would NRA management differ from National Park management?
1st let me say my post may seem a little harsh because I forgot the universal politically correct disclaimer that I know lots of intelligent, hard-working, dedicated people in the USFS, NPS, USF&WS, WADF&W, DOE, etc. etc. and I have worked fruitfully with many conservation organizations as well.
I don't see N3C or any other conservation organization or any other organization leading national political revolution. But I don't see switching National Forest land into National Park custody (or trying to purchase state or private lands for that purpose) as the panacea that N3C spokesman seems to think it is. Both NFs and NPs have organic and guiding legislation that spell out good deeds--the National Forest Management Act for forests and the NPs organic legislation and both are subject to NEPA, ESA, etc. But both have repeatedly compromised their mission by developing internal group-think ideologies, by intense pressure from special interests (from logging to concessionaire corporations), and from our elected representatives, who themselves have responded to socioeconomic pressures with short-term instead of long-term solutions. The broad, sweeping conservation mandates in federal legislation seem to be undercut at local levels.
What is the answer. I think a legislated NRA designation that sets out very specific objectives and that requires collaborative management incorporating only the necessary and sufficient federal, state, local governments and very specifically the highly interested publics is the best way to manage in a democracy. It wouldn't be perfect. But it could cut some of the power-play management that marks our management now. It is time-consuming and complex, but really aren't all politics and all environmental solutions local? Thus: N3C, Conservation NW, and the local environmental groups in the Methow, etc. The key would be to build very strong alliances among those most affected. Anything less just leads to one upmanship and management shifting with political winds. I'm working with one loose alliance (including MRNP officials and congressional staffs) now for Mt. Rainier access issues.
Anyway, I've had one request for my book from this site, so see [url=http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29208 ], it is free for the asking from PNW because you paid for it anyway.
Because of the adversarial nature of our politics, the polarization of our society, and our burgeoning population and increasing demands on natural resources, we're at a point where there are no simple environmental problems and no simple solutions. Any positive progress will require lots of hard work.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
... want your own private skintrack? :-) better move to the yukon dude ....(B'ham Allen, 2011).
...
Andy Carey, Nisqually Park, 3500 feet below Paradise
|
|
|
sukiakiumo
5Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
In the next few days, I will comment on concerns about how American Alps will affect current recreation activities.
It will come, Scotsman. It will come as per him already saying it will.
Many who think like I do fear that the dominance of the conservationists within the NPs who just want to lock it up and throw away the key is a real danger. We call it the Disneyfication of the parks.
I don't see why you think this as big of danger. In fact, without Disneyfication, as you call it, people would be less interested in the wilderness at all and hence its preservation or access. Without the ability for of a 'hard-core' hiker, once upon a boy/girlscout types, or without a few paved pathways, or without access to others who aren't able/willing to hike 15 miles just for 5k of turns, the general populace wouldn't likely care as much. This effect would more likely lead to the 'locking up' of the environment for those who want to go beyond the parking lots, because we wouldn't be able to get to any parking lots.
Such 'Disneyfication' has enabled the enjoyment that is seen in many other place: Mt. Rainier NP. Sure you have to get past Muir to have any chance of isolation. Who do you think pays for the roads up to Paradise? Well, it is not park revenue, but it is the government conned by support of the people who enjoy Mt. Rainier's Disneyland rides...
So like it or not, when the general populace can enjoy a taste of what we do, they will help to enable the preservation. They might even start hiking a bit to go beyond the parking lots. But still I don't see why their access to the immediate areas prevents others from going beyond.
It is time-consuming and complex, but really aren't all politics and all environmental solutions local? I would like to think this, but it seems that there are entities political and industrial that exist beyond the local level, with resources far beyond the local level. So, you are right N3C should do its best to go to the local level for support, as it is essential. But preservation could not be accomplished by purely local groups without massive support from elsewhere.
It is indeed complex and intricate. Getting something done to really protect the wilderness and let people do reasonable things that they want to do, is incredibly difficult. While, as with many things in the gov, a NP might not be the best solution as per suggestions of the NPS having major deficiencies... in fact, there likely isn't a best solution. But it is a solution than what we have that has worked 'OK' in the NCNP currently and just as well elsewhere. Revolutions may need to be had for it to become the best, but I also, don't see this happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NCH
1Member
Offline
Posts: 4
|
Hello,
Since heli-skiing in the North Cascades is part of this thread, I would like to respond with my point of view. We have a vested interest in continuing operations in our permit area for another 20 years so we are obviously concerned about the park expansion project and goals proposed by NC3.
First, a clarification in regard to some of Lowell's earlier remarks: The permit amendment situation in the early 2000's was more complicated than just wanting to operate two helicopters simultaneously. The quick version: The extra ship was only to be used for film and special projects so as to not interrupt the ability to facilitate guests. Although, for a variety of factors, we have no interest in running a second machine, the amendment was not denied.
Second, snowmobiles have been going onto the alpine terrain off the highway for many years now, especially as the machines have become more powerful. Riders have even made it into Temple Creek (part of the Sawtooth Wilderness) from the hairpin. That said, there is limited alpine terrain accessible from the highway for snowmobiles and a fair amount of that is closed to snowmobiles, at least on paper.
It is never enjoyable to read how someone thinks your business should be banned from operating, but with heli-skiing, that literally comes with the territory. We do operate on public lands. While some folks see heli-skiing as a trite desire, others see it differently and certainly something more than good turns, thrills and great vistas (though these experiences are much appreciated on their own). The same could be said for many other recreation/tourism-based businesses, like whale watching, for example.
The AALP is just that, a proposal, which the NC3 is seeking public support and financial backing for to see what is possible. There are many issues and subjects that at this point are somewhat nebulous and clearly debatable if these forest service lands were to be incorporated into the national park system, whether it is smaller themes of recreation-based concerns: Heli-skiing in or out; Mountain biking the Cutthroat trail; Dogs on the Maple Pass loop; Hunters in the Early Winters creek drainage; Snowmobiles on or near the highway; Permits to camp near Blue, Snowy or Wing lakes – the list goes on and on….
Or whether it is bigger issues, such as the implied imminent or futuristic problems listed by Mr. Davis that could alter and damage these "unprotected areas." Should the West Fork of Cedar Creek be managed by the Department of the Interior to help protect against the threat of constructing water storage dams in the upper Methow? One can always build a great case for any cause using the notion of “long-run” threats.
As this project unfolds, it will be interesting to see to what degree the NC3 will exaggerate or misrepresent the situation along the highway corridor to gain support for their project.
There most likely would be greater protection for the "study areas" targeted by the AALP if the park is expanded, and with that also comes greater constraints and rules for these remote and beautiful sections of the North Cascades, much of it along a scenic highway corridor, that is a crown jewel of the USFS’s public land system and is surrounded by hundreds of thousands of acres of protected wilderness. Recreation-wise, the access and amenities largely already adequately exist. Perhaps this is part of what makes these areas have that “Golden Age” feel, one that has been relatively unchanged for decades and has the high likelihood to continue that way for decades to come.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
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 0.45 seconds with 20 queries.
|
