Fairweather

They already have the idea. In fact, it's what lies at the core of their support for NOCA expansion to include Ross Lake NRA, WA Pass area, and a huge chuck of Glacier Peak Wilderness. North Cascades is the least visited national park in the lower 48. This makes sense--since they've gone to great lengths to lock everyone out. No reason, IMO, to let them start claiming Hwy 20 as their own.

Good post. Maybe the hypocrisy of this vested welfare crowd is part of what makes their interpretations suspect? Does the Wilderness Act itself have something to do with the trash? IOW, have the NCCC and WW blocked efforts to heli out the garbage? (Serious question, I don't know the answer.) I read a post recently asking for help cleaning up the research station on Olympus Snow Dome. Same story? As for Wilderness Watch, well, I couldn't disagree with you more. Non-motorized access equals wilderness advocacy. I understand Leopold, Yard, Marshall very well, but locking out responsible users and supporters in the 21st Century is a bad idea--and still it remains at the core of what drives WW, NCCC, Audubon. Their missions are no longer conducive to reasonable access to outdoor recreation--climbing included. Sierra Club, however, seems to be coming around.

And for all the other privileged kids who don't spell good: it's you're.

Hmm, not sure about old, but whatever floats it for ya. Weird? maybe. In any event, kind of disappointing to see privileged kids like you OK with this kind of police nonsense. Sad really.

Police State: . . . "the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, says law enforcement met a broad public outcry over the Aug. 9 killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown with "militaristic displays of force and weaponry," (and) engaged U.S. citizens "as if they were war combatants." Now, I understand that Pete and his LMA Seattle-area transplants would love to see this level of police protection for the Icicle Creek area--you know, to keep those "damned outsiders from telling us how to manage our local crags" n' all. But, unfortunately for Pete & Co., there are still constitutional limits in place that govern what can and cannot be done to good citizens who reside in this country of ours.

Since you're advocating violence against the police, I suggest you take your own advice, lead by example, and see how that works out for ya. Fuck off, spoiled little boy. I did no such thing.

If this is true--and apparently it is--then the already growing animosity toward police will just continue to harden. Not just in places like Furguson--and not just from the so-called underclass--but from ordinary law-and-order folks who are really getting tired of this shit. That picture I posted says it all; these soldier-wannabees need to have their toys taken away and submit to a new training mindset.

Police certainly are obligated to shoot only their intended target. Anything less means they are putting their own lives over the lives of the citizens they are supposedly sworn to protect. In other words, this particular cop cared more about emptying his gun to stop a perceived threat to his own safety than he did the safety of an innocent man. I suppose I understand the instinct, but aren't cops supposed to have the wherewithal and training to resist this scorched-earth type of response? So, I'm not sure I agree with you this time, Ben--but I'm glad we're an armed citizenry nowadays, for sure. And by the looks of things lately we might eventually be needing more than muskets and single-action revolvers.

They could race bicycles. Or compete in synchronized swimming events.

whatchagonna do?

I don't understand the big picture when it comes to Grizzly Bear eradication efforts of the 19th and 20th centuries, but I do know that wolf eradication during the same period had (and continues to have) a disastrous effect on ecosystems. If grizzlies were always rare here, then it's probably not something worth getting too excited about as any transplants will probably migrate to more favorable ranges in short order--or not propagate too rapidly. Other than my beloved Wild Country Quasar tent that was destroyed by a griz in Wrangell-St Elias in 1999, my encounters with grizzly bears have been nil. (I was not in the tent at the time, and there was no food in the tent. Just a pissed-off, bad day bear I guess.)

Whatcomboy nails it, IMO. I don't think Griz will be leaving us entirely any time soon, but I think Leopold summed up species extinction perfectly in one my favorite passages: "Some day, perhaps in the very process of our benefactions, perhaps in the fullness of geological time, the last crane will trumpet his farewell and spiral skyward from the great marsh. High out of the clouds will fall the sound of hunting horns, the baying of the phantom pack, the tinkle of little bells, and then a silence never to be broken, unless perchance in some far pasture of the Milky Way."

The truly dangerous omnivores usually hang out closer to the trail head. I have no problem reintroducing grizzlies--or wolves--back into the places they once lived. As long as it doesn't result in closures or restricted access.

The ultimate Olympic loop, IMO. Thanks for sharing your trip. The photos are very very nice as well; what kind of camera did you take? I have a week off (finally) in mid-September and your TR might make me change my plans.

Amazing trip, I'm jealous. Not too many folks venture into that area. Any truth to the rumors about giant quartz crystals lying about on Crystal Peak?

Wow, reading a TR like this makes me want to sell all my gear and disassociate myself from the sport entirely.

That's some nice adventure. Always good to hear about less-visited summits.

Trip: Greenwater to Easton on Mountain Bikes - Date: 7/20/2014 Trip Report: Greg, Pope and I left Greenwater on Hwy 410 at 8am Saturday morning and linked together 41 miles of old logging roads--in various states of disrepair--emerging at Easton Lake State Park next to I90. The trip took up just over eight hours, crossed two major passes, and the net elevation gain was just over 6200 feet. Very windy and cold up high--muggy and hot down low. Not climbing, in an alpine sense, but still a great way to spend the day.

Not a single Saturday or evening option for working folks. A not-so-clever way to hear from the people who will offer up the least amount of angst. I'm sure Polly Dyer and the WW folks will all be there. Reopen-it Dosewallips decision was made three years ago and not a single shovel has been taken outta the shed. That would be a good place to start. Sure, I'll fill out the survey, but forgive me if I'm cynical. In any event, thanks for the post, Matt. It's the first I've heard about it--and I participated in the MBSNF version that was supposedly scrapped.

If real and significant physical damage is occurring then some sort of overnight use restrictions may be occasionally warranted. However, I would argue that "the place would get trashed" sentiment is a sort of red herring because a.)the present quota/permit system needlessly creates artificial demand; b.)repairing lost road access to traditional trail heads throughout the wilderness system would effectively disperse use; c.)the imposition of solitude is not true solitude--nor is it an adequate reason to restrict freedom of access; d.)day use should never be restricted, permitted, or taxed--anywhere; and, e.)as already stated, wilderness use is declining or static.

There is no doubt that population growth is the main component of the larger ecological crisis. But the only problem with your data is that even as the PNW has continued to grow, wilderness visits here and elsewhere continue to decline in real numbers. Likely because of the same complaints I aired above. Why are you OK with tightening restrictions on access? There's really no need for it--other than power and money. The biggest problem is that less visits equals less advocacy, long term. The link below is 2008, but by the USFS's own 2013 account, visitation has since been flat. In any event, don't you have a philosophical problem with being stopped in the back country and asked to produce a permit? http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/national_forests_see_fewer_vis.html The figures are estimates based on surveys and counts around each national forest. Total forest visits dropped from 204.8 million in 2004 to 178.6million in 2007, a 13 percent decline. Visits to Oregon and Washington national forests fell from 28.2 million in 2004 to 20.5 million in 2007, a 27 percent drop. That's the sharpest percentage drop of any Forest Service region in the country. The next largest drop was 24.3 percent decline in the Forest Service's Eastern Region, which encompasses several Midwest and northeastern states. The long-term outlook--a dramatic per-capita decrease and not much increase in real numbers: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p049/rmrs_p049_367_373.pdf

What, exactly, was Vern's "consequential" mistake again?

Oly, I can think of few freedoms more basic than the one that allows us all to enjoy the unimproved commons untaxed and without having to show papers to some government agent. What's more, the absurdity of the current state of affairs in places like the Enchantments can be argued from either side of the political spectrum. This is to say there is lots to dislike about fees and permits--whether you believe outdoor recreation is being commoditized by government-private sector collusion, or simply being strangled by the new nanny-state green police. The result is the same. Frankly, I'm surprised that you and others here are such conformists. Would you tolerate being randomly asked by an agent of government to show a permit in order to walk down the street? Hell no, I suspect. So why should you or Vernman23--or even Max have to tolerate it on a back country trail? As for LMA, well, I think it's sad when certain associations--who claim to speak for us all--are used by the USFS as dupes. And while the efforts of interest groups like LMA, WCC, ACC, etc., to work within an ever-tightening set of pointless government rules is laudable, they always miss the larger point. Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Marshall, Abbey all viewed personal freedom as one of wilderness's best, most liberating features. Apparently conformity is now more important. Welcome to the new world, I guess. Don't forget to bring the correct attitude--and your papers.

Well done, Leavenworth Mountain Association. http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1112791/1

Glad you only want to educate now. We can just ignore you. Still, you sounded like a pretty angry fella in your original post: Just because I lay down a skin track doesn't mean I own it--or the mountain upon which it sits. Snowshoers have just as much right to economize their physical output as they move through taxing terrain as the rest of us. This isn't to say common courtesy is dead--but the issue isn't worth initiating a confrontation. Pete, don't be surprised if your efforts to "educate" others earns you a middle finger--often. :thumbsup: to Ivan.