jdj

Fair enough, I am corrected. Sounds like the Access Fund needs a more sustained effort but they have plenty of their plate in other areas. Pity the rangers can't see how small the actual problem is compared to other issues. I really don't understand what's driving it. Dylan - I like your utopian pov but....it turns out govt is, in fact, pretty functional and as far as sanctions - they seem to work for most of humanity. BTW I've been cuffed and fined in a national park and we parted on pretty good terms. Sanctions don't have to be permanently destructive of the social contract. Like you, I've said enough and these sorts of threads don't change minds anyway. Cheers

And when those public lands catch on fire those nonprofits and volunteers will step up and put it out right? The NPS spends quite a bit of time balancing and counterbalancing the agendas of nonprofits with a stake in the park. One wants to build visitor centers, the other wants to control weeds, another wants to control numbers while still another wants unfettered access. If not the NPS then who would do that and in addition the law enforcement, safety, roads, etc. The fact is that the NPS is the most effective public lands management agency in our govt. The bolting issue is up to each individual park superintendent according to something called the Superintendent Compendium. The problem for NCNP is that it overlays officially designated wilderness and some (and misplaced IMO) advocates are taking on bolts - probably the smallest and least problematic issue in wilderness management. It's too bad because these lands need help against other more powerful outside threats - mountain bikes and "wilderness lite" come to mind. I don't get the feeling in this thread that the climbing community has actually engaged in a meaningful way with the park - is that true? Seems to me the climbing community has not done a good job communicating on this issue (and I count myself in this crowd but we don't have the issue near Boz, yet.)

Will some areas be closed temporarily - I'm sure they will but some on this thread make it sound like the park will shut down. That is not the experience in YNP, Tetons, Grand Canyon or in AK so there's that. Yes, my priority is wildlife. Read the mission of the park service: to preserve and protect resources while providing for the enjoyment of the same. It is a balancing act. Traditionally the park service leans toward preservation in part because there are so many other public resources and because too much "enjoyment" is seen to threaten conservation (I think this is often overstated). I think it is interesting that you are so willing to go on the attack of my motives but seem not to question your own. Who is being superior here? As for behaviors post bear reintroduction - I suspect there will be more bear proof containers in campgrounds and communities. There will be calls to carry bear spray and bear proof food containers and/or bear poles to hoist food in the backcountry. The most important change will be your behavior. Will you go into bear country with the frame of mind of getting along and appreciating the experience or not. If not, that's on you. If yes, your experience will change in my opinion for the better. BTW - this is very likely far down the road for the Cascades, bears do not reproduce quickly.

Nor should it be. I've been around Grizzly bears nearly my whole life. I've worked in their habitat, I've recreated where they live, I frequently ski and climb in their backyard, etc. The amount of pissing and moaning on this thread is a disappointment. There won't be trails closed, there won't be any significant disturbance to your recreation, and you are not going to be torn to bits. Chances are in the Cascades you will never see one. Even here in the GYE we rarely do and we have somewhere north of 700 around here. In the old days most climbers and lovers of wild lands were, to some degree, conservationists. They supported national parks, public lands, and restoration of those lands. That seems to be less true today. Now it seems many want better trails and access but could care less about the land and ecosystem itself - sounds a bit selfish to me. Any by the way - money for trails does not come out of the same fiscal pot as money to restore bears.

I teach research methods. Leading with asking the respondents' name and email is a sure way to get refusals. I can think of no reason to ask for a name. I would only ask for email at the end as an option if you want to do followups but you need to explain that. Sorry, I'm not going to fill this out.

You know what this is. Bibler before BD bought it. Nearly perfect condition. I think $300 is fair but shoot me an offer.

The national parks were not then and not now created to manage wilderness and in fact the term did not exist in the minds of lawmakers in 1872. You are conflating official wilderness and wild lands. The parks are intended to protect significant natural and cultural resources while providing for visitation and enjoyment and for the most part the NPS does an outstanding job of that. To suggest the system should be abandoned for some reason that has you on a personal soapbox (and one I don't understand) is just silly. And by the way - you can take your dog - just keep it on a leash where it should be anyway.

I did not suggest someone wants to log the parks (although there are some politicians that would given half a chance). What I said was that because of different mission statements the two agencies do different things that result in different landscapes. You decide what you want and care about but I will lean toward national park protection nearly every time. People seem to want it all from our public lands - access, conservation, convenience, low cost, services, and fewer people to share it with. It is not the fault of government that those demands are often at odds. With respect to wilderness specifically there is basically no difference between management by the NPS or the USFS. The default position on trails, fires, etc is mostly a hands off approach with some exceptions. Because of user fees the USFS often provides some "services" to wilderness users as on wilderness rivers in Idaho. Wilderness was never about access - it was about preservation of wild lands. Now, various user groups (mt bikes, climbers, boaters) want special rights to those lands often at the expense of wilderness values. Unfortunately, those same user groups are now willing to jump in bed with a slew of conservatives who see expanding access as a way to weaken wilderness protections on FS lands. That is a dangerous game so be careful what you ask for.

Our national parks are about more than recreation access for weekend warriors. Read the dual mission statement and consider the implications of canceling a park. Probably more parks should be managed like NCNP with trails slowly being overgrown and access harder - we have plenty of easy access frontcountry for those unwilling or unable to get deep in the woods. And Alpine K is right - the USFS has a very different mission than the NPS. If you like roads and logging then national forests are for you.

I'll take the farmer john. Can you send me payment details, thanks

I have an early Red Rocks guide (Urioste) and John Harlin's West Coast Rock Climbs I don't need. Both are in great shape. Make me an offer.

The first time I climbed the N face it was November - perfect conditions and no one around. Fall in the Lost Rivers is well worth the trip. Another time was during a dry January = we walked in with only a few inches on the ground (that trip had some interesting moments). I've been back several times and about the only time I would not go is spring. That time is reserved for skiing in the range - which can be quite good. What a nice set of mountains.

One pair of quarks that have seen moderate use. One pick is new, the others are usable. Includes wrist loops and a Blue Ice tether. $350. Thanks.

PMd you

I have a yellow Bibler I need to sell. Perfect condition and clean. Can send photos but you already know what they look like. $350 + shipping from Bozeman