Should North Cascades National Park Be Abolished?

[Fairweather]

It is the least-visited national park in the nation outside Alaska. Decades of NCCC litigation has rendered it little more than a playground for public-sector elites and staff residing in Marblemount and Stehekin. Park management has let access roads and trails fall into disrepair one after another--in the name of some nebulous green religion. And now they want to expand the park and absorb the National Rec Area? I say decommission the park, retain the wilderness ares inside its present boundaries, and turn management over to either the USFS or Washington State.

 

There is precedent for doing this:

https://www.sierra.com/blog/lifestyle/disbanded-national-parks/#:~:text=4 National Parks That No Longer Exist 1,Travertine Creek. Photo by Jonathan C. Wheeler

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

Quote

public-sector elites 

Is that who has been posting TRs in the North Cascades forum?  All those people work in the public-sector?

[olyclimber]

I mean I just represent one small opinion, and that is all it is, and I don't belong to a mysterious public sector cabal of elites, but I don't mind having one place in this country where there are no roads and the trails are faint or even in disrepair....like untouched wilderness as much as that is possible these days. I'm not saying that is the mission of the US Park service, but just my personal opinion it isn't a bad thing.  It isn't a religion for me, but there are lots of trails and roads that are maintained elsewhere.   I don't mind one park where it is just a wild vast.  But I understand that isn't for everyone...thats why its just my opinion.....man. 

I'm not speaking, of course, to any actual disfunction or failure of the Park Service to do its mission, whatever that may be in this particular case.  

In a personal sense, I think that would me I could bring my dog into the area, which he would like.

Would be interested in specific examples and implications of what the USFS or State of WA do better, and how that would benefit the NCNP land beyond maintaining trails and roads.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'd like to see them improve their reservation system and permitting processes, and for some rangers to behave differently towards climbers.

I would also like to see better trail maintenance (even allow WTA to do work on trails like the Boston Basin trail), and some repairs done (rebuild a bridge across Thunder Creek near McAllister camp)

 

[Fairweather]

7 hours ago, olyclimber said:

I mean I just represent one small opinion, and that is all it is, and I don't belong to a mysterious public sector cabal of elites, but I don't mind having one place in this country where there are no roads and the trails are faint or even in disrepair....like untouched wilderness as much as that is possible these days. I'm not saying that is the mission of the US Park service, but just my personal opinion it isn't a bad thing.  It isn't a religion for me, but there are lots of trails and roads that are maintained elsewhere.   I don't mind one park where it is just a wild vast.  But I understand that isn't for everyone...thats why its just my opinion.....man. 

I'm not speaking, of course, to any actual disfunction or failure of the Park Service to do its mission, whatever that may be in this particular case.  

In a personal sense, I think that would me I could bring my dog into the area, which he would like.

Would be interested in specific examples and implications of what the USFS or State of WA do better, and how that would benefit the NCNP land beyond maintaining trails and roads.

You answered your own question in your preface. What's more, yes, in many ways the national park service has become the poster child for government dysfunction. Not sure Washington State government would be any better, but, hey, why not give it a try at this point.

[JasonG]

I'd be up for turning over to USFS and managed as wilderness.  They would need to retain limited entry for the really popular areas, but I bet the numbers could be increased a bit with some more toilets.  USFS does a great job with way more people in the Enchantments.

Might slow down the out-of-towners if it wasn't a National Park.😂

And, to be clear, this will never happen.  But fun to blather about it.

[olyclimber]

Well Kiba is down with it.

[Fairweather]

USFS would be fine, but as screwed up as Washington State government is, they still seem to be managing their state parks fairly well. For now. I say let them have it.

[Fairweather]

Related. Sort of.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/national-park-fees-booz-allen-68d4d6d8?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

[AlpineK]

National Parks vs Forest Service lands

• https://morethanjustparks.com/national-forest-vs-national-park/

National Parks focus on land/space preservation and forest service land is for mixed use, but preservation is an element of mixed use

While there are visitor centers on National Park and Forest Service lands most of these regions see limited recreational use.  People stop to watch old faithful errupt or visit the lodge at Paradise.  Only a small number do a significant amount of backpacking/climbing in those areas.

The North Cascades visitor center is small, and only a few people use the area within the park.  Based on that preservation is a bigger goal for the North Cascades Park.

 

[AlpineK]

The manager of the outdoor program at my university worked as a climbing ranger in the Tetons prior to when I knew him.  He told me if he wanted to keep working as a ranger in the Tetons, he would have needed to attend a police training school.  Apparently being able to ticket drivers in the park for speeding or whatever was a bigger priority for that park.

[Fairweather]

4 hours ago, AlpineK said:

While there are visitor centers on National Park and Forest Service lands most of these regions see limited recreational use.  People stop to watch old faithful errupt or visit the lodge at Paradise.  Only a small number do a significant amount of backpacking/climbing in those areas.

 

 

This is demonstrably untrue. Permits to climb? Lottery for the Wonderland Trail? Back country quota areas expanding every year at Olympic, and MORA--and NOCA? If there's no "loving nature to death" crisis in our NPs, then why all the restrictions? 

[Fairweather]

4 hours ago, AlpineK said:

The North Cascades visitor center is small, and only a few people use the area within the park.  Based on that preservation is a bigger goal for the North Cascades Park.

 

That might be the noble goal for park staff and urban elites--but the 1968 enabling legislation doesn't make it so. 93% of the park is now Stephen Mather Wilderness. The USFS can manage that just fine.

[JasonG]

5 hours ago, AlpineK said:

Only a small number do a significant amount of backpacking/climbing in those areas.

Maybe small compared to overall visitation, but there are a lot of people in the backcountry of most of the NPs these days.  So much so that it has fundamentally changed the character of backcountry areas I never thought would get busy (think Terror basin, Luna col, etc.)  I have been surprised at how this has surged over the past 10-15 years, despite the hardships that come with remote "trail less" destinations.  For trailed areas in the NPs, the crowding is way more acute.  Thus the ever increasing limitations that @Fairweather cites above. 

[jdj]

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.

[JasonG]

2 hours ago, jdj said:

If you like roads and logging then national forests are for you.

I don't think anyone is advocating for logging parks.  I think the question is whether or not NPS or USFS is the better manager of wilderness (of which NOCA is mostly comprised). 

Better is entirely subjective, of course, which is why we are spraying here.  What say you @jdj, based on your experience with both management regimes?

[Stefan]

I just over 50 years old.  When I was a wee one in the third grade and fourth and fifth grade, I delivered newspapers to peoples homes on my bicycles.  About 70 homes.

Back then, I even read the paper.

People bitched about the government's ineptitude then.  Too many taxes.  Wasted money.

Nothing has changed in people's complaints about their own government.  And yet things still work out.  Just add another bitchfest to the pile.

[JasonG]

Love it @Stefan.  Let the spraying continue!

[jdj]

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.

[JasonG]

6 hours ago, jdj said:

With respect to wilderness specifically there is basically no difference between management by the NPS or the USFS.

I have not seen this to be true in WA, esp. with regards to NOCA. 

My guess is that @Fairweather  has similar observations and that is the reason this discussion was kicked off.  And, of course, because he likes to liven things up around here.

[Fairweather]

11 hours ago, jdj said:

 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.

To whose "wilderness values" are you referring? I'm a conservative. And a conservationist. Sixty years of hiking, climbing, paddling, and yes, occasional mountain biking. One mistake urban liberals make is viewing wilderness as their inviolate playground, not realizing people of all political persuasions own it--and use it.

[Fairweather]

As for USFS, well, I have issues with them too. Particularly regarding their partnership with the "Mt. St. Helen's Institute," and various permit and quota schemes. It's never funny when public agencies offer up a 'free-market solution' to an arbitrary quota they imposed. They provide the problem--and then sell us the solution. (Now available on recreation.gov!)

That said, NPS often behaves in an utterly draconian manner couching institutional laziness in a green wrapper. The debacle along the road to Paradise this last winter was just the latest example. Back to NOCA, recall rangers frog-marching climbers and hikers out of the backcountry because they lacked a permit said ranger could have just issued on-site.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Fairweather
clarity

[JasonG]

13 hours ago, Fairweather said:

As for USFS, well, I have issues with them too.

Of course.  😂

[Fairweather]

USFS is more respectable than most--and light years better than NPS/Interior. They would manage the North Cascades wilds far better than they are managed under the current regime.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Fairweather

[JasonG]

I tend to agree based on my long experience with ranger behavior in NOCA (not ALL, mind you, some great staff interactions over the years, including with some of the current staff). 

The weird part of the NOCA experience, for me, is that other parks tend to have a much different vibe towards climbers/off-trail types. The Tetons, notably (and they deal with a LOT of unruly tourists).   So I don't feel like this is a NPS-wide thing. 

And like all things, it will change in time with staff turnover.  And us dinosaurs will need to keep an open mind.