Should North Cascades National Park Be Abolished?

[olyclimber]

Popcorn with a cigar? I hope it was chocolate popcorn.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

wow, this thread really went south.  

[Tenzinandrio]

This is an odd take to me. Most of the entire country is full of roads and management. N. Cascades has always been presented to me as a "backpackers National Park", which frankly to me makes it one of the few national parks that I would consider visiting. The rest are overrun with humanity, which I guess is great b/c it keeps them away from other amazing natural areas like the Wind River range in WY. 

Interesting though, bc Olympic NP, while having more services, is similarly remote with huge areas of little infrastructure or people. WA is lucky to have two such parks, IMO.

[thedylan]

I find myself agreeing with @Fairweather even though, yes, his rhetorical style is disrespectful.

Here's my take: between the Washington Climbers Coalition, Access Fund, AMGA, American Alpine Club and other guiding companies, Wilderness Society, The Mountaineers, Washington Alpine Club, Skagit Alpine Club, Washington Trails Association, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Northwest, and on and on, we can manage our lands just fine.

In my opinion, the NPS is the only one not participating in democracy.

We do not need an institution with punitive authority to realize our values in the management of public lands. Public opinion, advocacy, and volunteering are far more effective.

Just my 2 cents.

[jdj]

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.)

[JasonG]

45 minutes ago, jdj said:

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?

No.  The Access Fund and several local guides including @kurthicks met with NOCA several times over years to try and sort this out in a way that made sense (I think there was emailing back and forth too). It was awhile ago (~2013-16), after @kurthicks hand-bolted a safer descent off Forbidden. It was thoughtfully done and kept people out of the line of rockfall.  Most of us rejoiced.  Nevertheless, the NPS chopped the bolts.

Anyways, the climbers got nowhere (as I understand it) in trying to craft a sensible anchor policy with NPS, and the talks fizzled out.  Maybe Kurt or @sambataro can weigh in with more details. 

[thedylan]

Absolutely we need a well organized and funded firefighting force and all that. The problem is punitive power and the ability to make the rules without a discussion, or only as much of a discussion as you feel like. We all know the park rangers are great people who we would feel are on our side if there were not this power imbalance.

I know most probably won't find my argument convincing and that's ok. I'm a little "out there" because I don't believe we need the threat of punishment to run a productive society. In fact, it is the threat of punishment which inflames people's anger, makes them feel helpless, and leads to the intense power conflicts and struggles we see all around us.

For example, the logging, mining, and drilling companies would be completely defanged without the backing of the police and military to sanction their activities. And I believe that Blue Lives Matter, which is why I think fines and jail time should be voluntary. Then people's ability to resist it would only be as strong as their conviction that what they did was right. Public opinion and appeals to conscience are a lot more powerful than we think.

But I feel like I've said enough, my goal was just to share what I feel and the conclusions I've come to and I have done that!

Edited Monday at 05:18 PM by thedylan

[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