num1mc

It's always 4:20 when you arrive at Camp Muir

They're already there

El Cap in in Wilderness

Looks like a nail drive Zamac, and not the Drive anchor that Bill was refering to, but the point remains the same.

I've been challenged there a couple of times. Once when visiting some other landowners, and a third landowner challenged me. When I responded to whom I was visiting, she said she didn't know those people. I said that was her problem. And the other was when we went there while they were working on the bridge. Another busy body came up and told me the bridge was private property. I told him the rigging tools he was using were my private property (I had lent them to my friend the land owner), and if he wanted, I would take them home.

Do you mean Rat Creek Boulder? The word was that Mark Shipman owned the property, or nearby property, and he established an easement. The boulder could very well be on USFS property. Whatever the case, easements are recorded, but like HOAs, do not appear on iMap. Here is the Chelan County parcel viewerhttp://atlas2013.co.chelan.wa.us/flexviewers/ChelanCountyGIS/

Sherrifs tape on the parking lot. We climbed OS in '83 the day after the two cheeseheads fell off the ledge, and we didn't know anything had happened till two days later.

Lock passed away last year. Looks like he had some money, his home is listed as the Highlands http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/seattletimes/obituary.aspx?n=winlock-miller-lock&pid=176010930

Probably won't happen ever. Not enough money in smaller resorts to justify the developent costs. So that will require a larger area. Large resorts require the development of condos and hotels accessible to the lifts without the use of cars. The permitting required by this by the USFS would likely be so onerous as to scare off any developer. You will also be opposed by: 1) The enironmental groups 2) The "206'ers" already there. 3) The born and bred locals who resent any and all "206'ers".

Primarily the Idaho batholith and Belt super group http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Flythrw/MidFrkSalmon.htm

T minus 45 minutes remaining

From what I understand, it's far from a done deal, even changing the NPS managed Recreation Areas to NPs requires Congressional approval, funding and consternation. Even more so for the relatively small USFS lands involved in this deal.

The OP's a geologist

No, I think you have it right

Good to see photos of Dan

It was always fun to walk on the catwalks above the digesters

That was based on this: Written by the NPS http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/noca/adhi/chap1.htm

I would have thrown it in my car and laughed all the way home at the thought of you shivering uncontrollably all night.

For the record: I'm 55% against it.

Would that ban on stocking apply the the three big dam impounded lakes, as well as Lake Chelan? This (NPS produced [biased?] history includes the statements by the head of WA Dept of Fisheries [factually biased?] that stocking was required for at least some of these lakes) . http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/noca/adhi/chap1.htm Regardless of one views, the NPS produced history is fascinating, and details the struggles between the USFS+DoAg v. Dept. of Interior+NPS, as well as the personalities of Bob Marshall and Harold Ickes. At one time, the precursor of NOCA was hoped to contain almost all of the North Cascades north of Stevens Pass. And in contrast to an earlier poster who stated "...Wilderness designation is the gold standard.." the NPS history points out that Wilderness is merely an administrative designation, while NP status mandates the protection and management by an entire service. Never the less, folks are right to be concerned.

I remember bumping into old Larry, and his wars against REI and the NPS. Funny thing is that back then, MRNP could refuse to give you a permit for Rainier if they didn't like your ice axe, and the Mountaineers had (according to Larry) 400+ Basic students. http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/blog/mountain-safety-research-newsletter-archives/

Uh Oh, what to do now Eric, this one has TR's! The "name" thing's still an issue maybe tho... d And he's the god father to my step dog to boot.

Without knowing who you are you have no point because who the point is coming from has everything to do with perspective. I don't know if you work for the NPS or you're a 14 year old girl from the Philippines. And yes I have made some personal attacks here however I state my name right after them. I'm not cowering like a total pussy behind my screen name. I climb in this town and many climbers here know me, they see my actual face in trip reports and at the base of cliffs. I walk straight into the wilderness permit building at the NCNP and they know who I am. If you'd like to be part of the conversation let us know who you are, then I'll address your points. Unless you're a wanted felon or don't believe in what you're saying, sign your name 1MC. I would think that a little math looking at my posts which go back to 2001 would point to the unlikeliness of me being a 14 year old girl. And I think that my English is good enough that it could be assumed that I grew up in the USA. None of the rest matters. You have asked why I am hesitant about the NPS expanding, and I answered you in about two sentences. Your reasons are accusatory and somewhat specious. It would be nice if your reasons were more cogent. I don't get the chest puffery against me, Wickwire or Roskelly.

None of that has anything to do with my points that it is unfair for your to hysterically attack Jim Wickwire and John Roskelly for voicing their opinion. This is America you know. You then attack the AAC for things that they are not involved in. You then attack the Mountaineers based solely on their involvement several years ago, and on the stance or their Conservation committee. And you attack the the NPS based on this old Mission 66 model that is decades in the past and is no longer a realistic concern. So instead of addressing any of this, you demand a trip report and CV from me. I suggest instead that you calmly look at the issues of expanding NOCA and pare your concerns down to reasonable ones likely to garner support, and not running around like a chicken with its head cut off.