Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
LittleJohn

Paradise Parking Lot

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, KirkW said:

Sure. If you leave off the last part. Parse it however you want. 

Seems pretty cut and dried unless you're a stupid ranger, or you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JasonG said:

The "well known local climber" sounded like he actually broke the law (and was surly when confronted about it), quite unlike the instances we're talking about..  There really isn't a gray area when it comes to a permit in NOCA.  Spending the night in the park (or the Ross Lake NRA)?  You need a permit. 

 

 

Exactly.  Simply walking through the park with a heavy pack is not a crime or violation of anything.  If you are actually camping and have no permit, different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kirk, 

Please allow me clarify my statement on the NPS and our natural lands.  I strongly feel that the National Park Service should be disbanded and all of the lands that they have been keeping made into Wilderness Area and protected under the 1964 Wilderness act.  Num1mc pointed out that there're a number of Park properties that aren't wilderness like the Statue of Liberty or that granite mural project in the Dakotas or some civil war battle fields.  However, all of the big parks out west should have every building and road removed.  Parks like Arches, Zion and especially Yosemite.  When we have traffic jams in Yosemite where it takes 3 hours to get from the gate to the first point you can turn around or a mile plus long line of motor homes waiting outside Arches these are strong indicators of mismanagement.  People will still come to these places, they'll simply have to hike in.  Making people walk in won't slow down use, look at places like the John Muir Trail as an indicator.  The best thing that could ever happen to the North Cascades would for the Park service to quietly walk away and simply have far less access in the way of roads.  Momma Nature doesn't need a hand managing wilderness.  At some point in our distant past the Park Service was a good idea, times have changed and the park hasn't changed with them.  We don't need hundreds of motor homes streaming into wild places we're trying to protect so the park can peddle the gate.  It's disgusting.  No person that works for the NPS can call themselves an environmentalist or naturalist.  Anybody that works for the NPS peddles our most special natural places to make a living.  That's my biggest issue, it's bigger than the harassment from amateur hour LEO's or some 20yo kid from Ohio trying to explain how my bag should be hung from bears or the dick that Kozak ran into.  Basically, from a climbers perspective, the park isn't just zero value added, they're a problem and they've got to go.  

Ansel Adams said, "We should kick the money changers out of the temple."  

Edited by Eric T
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 7/14/2018 at 10:25 AM, Eric T said:

No person that works for the NPS can call themselves an environmentalist or naturalist.

Good luck on your quest to close down one of this nations most treasured assets. Once you successfully close our national parks I'm sure that even more people will become tireless defenders of wilderness since they'll have even less access to it than they do now. O.o

“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” – Ansel Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be nice if the solution was that simple but from what I've seen, management-as-wilderness isn't some silver bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KirkW said:

 

Good luck on your quest to close down one of this nations most treasured assets. Once you successfully close our national parks I'm sure that even more people will become tireless defenders of wilderness since they'll have even less access to it than they do now. O.o

“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” – Ansel Adams

 I would agree.   The mind set can be maddening, but I don't want to do away with what has been called America's greatest invention just because Chongo, EricT and the Polish guy got hassled while walking from Mount Rainier to Cascade Pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climbing in the Valley during the shutdown on 2013 was incredible, completely empty, no sirens or downshifting diesel busses taking a left every 15 minutes. We road our bikes to the base of the nose, left them on the side of the trail unlocked. Still there when we got down. 

 

Compare that to the zoo it is now, only 5 years later. I wish they'd tear out some of those buildings and come up with a different strategy. What's going on now sure isn't working. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 1:46 AM, KirkW said:

Unfortunately it appears most in this shit hole country are walking around with less than half a functioning brain. This board being no exception apparently. 

I fail to see why a broken NPS LE system means the citizens should be robbed of their public lands and the wilderness act repealed but there's a lot of crazy things people think and say these days that don't make much sense.

 

Move to Canada you patriot!   

eeyore.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the major functions of the NPS that many seem to forget is education. From my observation, the pendulum has been swinging more into that role than the preservation role. The "why" for that shift could be any number of reasons; lack of funding, trying to get people to care more, a general lack of natural wonder in an increasingly technology dominated society, all of the above, idk. I agree with you on a lot of your points though. Giant motorhomes streaming into beautiful places to "camp" is disgusting to me as well, but banning access and educational opportunities of beautiful places is a fast way to get the majority of people to give less of a shit than they already do. I think we can agree that people caring less about the wild spaces we still have left is the opposite of what we all want to happen.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a ranger. I have too on occasion. People can be assholes, it's a fact of humanity. Don't let it ruin your day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, keenwesh said:

Climbing in the Valley during the shutdown on 2013 was incredible,

How did you manage that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't leave in 2013. It was pretty simple. 

 

NCNP is fantastic because if it's lack of access and consequently very low visitor numbers. No amount of instagram spray will create an overloading of the northern pickets. Paving a road and installing a hotel at the head of big beaver creek, different story. Effectively that's what has happened in many of these most popular places.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, keenwesh said:

Climbing in the Valley during the shutdown on 2013 was incredible, completely empty, no sirens or downshifting diesel busses taking a left every 15 minutes. We road our bikes to the base of the nose, left them on the side of the trail unlocked. Still there when we got down. 

 

Compare that to the zoo it is now, only 5 years later. I wish they'd tear out some of those buildings and come up with a different strategy. What's going on now sure isn't working. 

Not disagreeing with you, but it is pretty amazing how "passionate" folks are about this argument, which I suppose pits "access" vs "winderness".    As in, if the land is the peoples land, but they are too out of shape, handicapped, or unmotivated to use it then what do they care what happens to it.  So people want to maintain existing roads and infrastructure so that enough people use the land and care about it and will maintain it.  This "shit hole"  is governed by the people (at least in theory) and if the majority would rather drive their RV to managed facilities rather than backpack in to unmanaged wild spaces...that group will win.   

And on the other side is those that see the value in wild spaces, not just in the landscape but in the mind.  A place were you can go and escape the humans, the crushing spread of the humanity.  A place were you won't be hassled by the Man.  I would think that all of us here are in that group, but actually it isn't so.  I recall some spirited arguments back and forth whether to rebuild/restore the Dose road washout on the Oly Pen.   

Barring some great scythe like a virus or war that wipes out the human race and knocks population back it sure seems like things will only get worse and worse if you want to escape your fellow man or enjoy solitude.  We can create more wilderness by designation, but there is going to be more and more people getting sick of being stuck in an RV traffic jam.  Just try to go camp at a state site on the Washington coast during the summer.  If you didn't reserve your campsite 9 months in advance, you are SOL.   The earth isn't getting any bigger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, olyclimber said:

Not disagreeing with you, but it is pretty amazing how "passionate" folks are about this argument, which I suppose pits "access" vs "winderness".    As in, if the land is the peoples land, but they are too out of shape, handicapped, or unmotivated to use it then what do they care what happens to it.  So people want to maintain existing roads and infrastructure so that enough people use the land and care about it and will maintain it.  This "shit hole"  is governed by the people (at least in theory) and if the majority would rather drive their RV to managed facilities rather than backpack in to unmanaged wild spaces...that group will win.   

And on the other side is those that see the value in wild spaces, not just in the landscape but in the mind.  A place were you can go and escape the humans, the crushing spread of the humanity.  A place were you won't be hassled by the Man.  I would think that all of us here are in that group, but actually it isn't so.  I recall some spirited arguments back and forth whether to rebuild/restore the Dose road washout on the Oly Pen.   

Barring some great scythe like a virus or war that wipes out the human race and knocks population back it sure seems like things will only get worse and worse if you want to escape your fellow man or enjoy solitude.  We can create more wilderness by designation, but there is going to be more and more people getting sick of being stuck in an RV traffic jam.  Just try to go camp at a state site on the Washington coast during the summer.  If you didn't reserve your campsite 9 months in advance, you are SOL.   The earth isn't getting any bigger.

My view is that there are different kinds of protected areas, and that all of these have value:

1 - High use areas concentrate impact, are carefully managed, may be crowded, likely have limitations on spontaneous access. Examples are overnight permits in the Enchantments. Some have tons of facilities, like Yosemite, some are in the back country, like Enchantments or Grand Canyon.

2 - Medium use. Trails, trailheads, parking, forest service roads, and a variety of parks. See medium use, have some facilities, often have areas of high use within them and areas of less use. Examples, Blue Lake Trail and climbing around WA Pass, Mt Rainier climbing and hiking. Trails along the I90 corridor.

3 - Wilderness. This is the most protected, where people are visitors who are not to remain, protection is more important than human use. Examples: designated wilderness areas.

There are climbing and other adventures available in all three of these. Some need more advance planning than others. Learn the rules, follow the rules, and let's behave like a civil society rather than a bunch of selfish idiots. This will improve/maintain good relationships with land managers who have the power to limit/increase our access to the natural places we love.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, keenwesh said:

No amount of instagram spray will create an overloading of the northern pickets.

I'm not so sure about this.....the NPS has low enough permit numbers in these zones that I can easily see them filling up on July and August weekends in a few years.  Will that mean that they're "overloaded"?  I would say if you can't get a permit for when you want to go.....yes.  Does that mean that they'll be "crowded"?  Probably not....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
On 7/16/2018 at 8:39 AM, num1mc said:

 I would agree.   The mind set can be maddening, but I don't want to do away with what has been called America's greatest invention just because Chongo, EricT and the Polish guy got hassled while walking from Mount Rainier to Cascade Pass

 

The NPS was called America's best Idea by Wallace Stegner in 1983, he didn't see what happened in the 30 years that followed and i'm sure Mr. Stegner would have a much different take on today's park.  It's not just Chongo, Bob and I that have a strong wilderness ethic; please read the below article detailing where the park lost it's way and was corrupted by corporate interests.  Bottom line, there was a core group of Park Employees who wanted a strong wilderness effort and they were ran off by some corporation that, to this day, peddles the gate and sells lodging and knick knacks to make a buck on our nations most treasured places.  It's a multi billion a year industry.   Do you think the Delaware Corp cares if there's a traffic jam in Yosemite?  Have you ever slowed down to consider that they want those traffic jams in our National Corporate Parks???

THE PARK THEMSELVES WANTED MORE WILDERNESS!!!!!

 

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article55465600.html

The commercialism of the Yosemite name grab by Delaware North is getting national publicity, but the battle for the heart of Yosemite National Park was lost decades ago.

 

For much of the late 1970s, the National Park Service went to extremes to draft a master plan that would guide Yosemite National Park through the years. Thousands of park loyalists were involved in that effort, and hearings and planning sessions were held throughout California.

 

Yosemite Valley was the spiritual home and cradle of the American preservation ethic. Countless suggestions were advanced, including banning cars, removing buildings and restoring natural systems.

 

The park was a national shrine and citadel, and it was no place for small dreams. After much hand-wringing and controversy, the 1980 general management plan was adopted with the aim of “de-urbanizing” the park and providing the guidelines for a more natural park experience.

 

 

Under then-Superintendent Robert O. Binnewies, several buildings were removed. It was an auspicious start.

 

Then things went terribly wrong. The Yosemite Park & Curry Co., the park concessionaire and MCA affiliate at the time, saw the management plan as a threat to its bottom line – and Binnewies was terminated under some spurious, trumped-up charges.

 

After that, it was downhill for the management plan and the concept of a more natural park. Today, the de-urbanized Yosemite is in shambles. Echoes of “Disneyland North” or “Yosemite World” once again rumble through the land. Some park veterans admit that Yosemite Valley is a “lost cause” and they are just trying to preserve the rest of the park.

 

What happened? After spending countless millions of dollars and a couple of decades of dreaming and planning, MCA and the Reagan White House – and a compromised National Park Service – torpedoed the dream of a restored Yosemite.

 

 

Gradually the dots came together. Binnewies and his stewardship were sent packing, and the Yosemite Master Plan was shoved to the back burner.

 

AFTER SPENDING COUNTLESS MILLIONS AND A COUPLE OF DECADES OF DREAMING AND PLANNING, MCA AND THE REAGAN WHITE HOUSE – AND A COMPROMISED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE – TORPEDOED THE DREAM OF A RESTORED YOSEMITE.

 

Back in his Hollywood days, Ronald Reagan had Lou Wasserman as his agent. Now, fast forward to the Reagan White House. Wasserman and his MCA hirelings didn’t need an appointment to see the president.

 

 

Today, Yosemite Valley lies far removed from the vaunted general management plan. Instead of removing facilities, the park service adds more. Through a succession of park superintendents and an indifferent public, the “nibbling away” at the Yosemite dream continues.

 

Those concerns are evident today as one walks through the urban jungle of Yosemite Valley. A more natural park has become little more than wishful thinking.

 

The ongoing construction of a new restroom facility near Ahwahnee Meadow is a case in point. While the project ostensibly complied with the management plan, the prolonged review transcended the intent of the plan.

 

The transformation of the area across from Camp Four into an unplanned parking lot is a blight upon the land. The relocation, instead of removal, of the tent cabins from the rock fall area is another indignity to the spirit of the master plan. More facilities will only demand even more.

 

A more natural park … dream on.

 

The new concessions contract with Aramark – with an estimated value of $2 billion – underscores that premise. Against ever-increasing park visitation, that new contract should have required a gradual reduction in the number of overnight units – a staged reduction – that would, perhaps in a century, offer a more natural Yosemite Valley.

 

Overnight accommodations need to be moved outside the park to the gateway communities.

 

Back in 1990, Herb Ewing, a third-generation “Park Service brat,” saw the gradual erosion of the preservation mission. Park use and visitation began driving park management. He believed that the Park Service had become lost in the wilderness of Washington, D.C., and had become part of the bureaucracy.

 

Money and commerce became the master plan. The park’s founding mission of preservation was pushed aside.

 

TODAY, PARK APOLOGISTS CLAIM THAT THE AGENCY SUFFERS UNDER A DUAL OR CONFLICTING MISSION, THAT IS, PRESERVING THE PARK WHILE PROVIDING FOR VISITOR USE AND ENJOYMENT. THE PARK SETS QUOTAS FOR ITS WILDERNESS AREAS BUT NO LIMITS ON ITS ITS CASH REGISTERS.

 

It was a hundred years ago when Stephen Mather and Horace Albright – both graduates of the University of California and Yosemite advocates – lent their collective energies and personal wealth toward the creation of a new American institution: a National Park Service. As the first two directors, they saw the future – and it was the preservation of the best of America.

 

Yosemite was central to their efforts to create a greater national park system of the nation’s most significant lands and cultural areas. Essentially, the park charter was to hold these national treasures inalienable for all times while providing for reasonable public use.

 

Today, park apologists claim that the agency suffers under a dual or conflicting mission – that is, preserving the park while providing for visitor use and enjoyment. The park sets quotas for its wilderness areas but no limits on its cash registers.

 

Binneweis’ heart is still in Yosemite. In his book, “Your Yosemite,” he maintains that the national parks have become the pawns of the politicians and money changers.

 

Later this year, the National Park Service will mark its 100th year under the lofty banner that it was “The best idea this country ever had.” With the approaching centennial, the Park Service need to revisit its stated mission. That is:

 

“to regulate the use of the … national parks … (whose) purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

 

Unimpaired – Yosemite is not. Compromised – the National Park Service is.

 

Gene Rose is a former Fresno Bee reporter and photographer who covered the Sierra and has written several books on Yosemite.

 

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article55465600.html#storylink=cpy

 

Edited by Eric T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After digesting the above information and realizing that our National Parks have been compromised by a corporation that is more interested in profit than preservation, then it makes me wonder what some "conservation groups" are doing.

https://www.climbing.com/news/climb-the-hill-2018-climbers-take-their-message-to-washington-d-c/

The AAC and the Access Fund have famous climbers go to Washington DC and speak to Congress members about preserving public lands.  At face value that seems super nobel.  But in a round about way those climbers are lobbying for the Delaware Corp as they stand to profit from future park development.   

Take the Bears Ears as an example.  Here we have a fight over oil and gas corps wanting access to reserves on the other hand we have a National Monument that will someday become a National Park.  With a strong corporate influence who knows what the Park Service would do to Indian Creek or the surrounding area.  Would Indian Creek look like Arches with mile long lines of motor-homes waiting to pay at a gate with big parking lots and little shops and food courts?  Would it forever alter the way you see places like Moon House and commercialize them?  As wildly unpopular thing it may be to say, i'd guess the oil and gas corps would have less impact on the land and bring less vehicles and people than the NPS.   

This is why i flipped out a few years back when some famous local climbers wanted to expand the North Cascade National Park. 

The only real preservation we have left as a Nation is The 1964 Wilderness Act.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×