Beck Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 Isn't the unofficial management plan for the Olympics something along the lines of"let mother nature close it?"- Now they won't EVER have to fix the bridge on the approach to Mt. Anderson, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted February 6, 2002 Author Share Posted February 6, 2002 The National Park does seem pretty passive about maintenance sometimes. But this washout is on national forest land-- and they love building roads, don't they? But the lady at the forest service in Hoodsport said that they had to coordinate this project with several agencies, specifically because there are a couple of endangered species of fish in the river (salmon runs, maybe, though I don't think any salmon can get past Dose falls a few miles above, so there couldn't be too many in such a short stretch from Hood Canal). I wouldn't mind it if they rebuilt the bridge on the Anderson Pass trail either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 6, 2002 Share Posted February 6, 2002 I've been "nagging" the ONP folks about the High Bridge on the West Fork of the Dose for 4 years now. They rebuilt it once and it collapsed under the weight of winter snow. (must have been an NPS engineer who designed it) Now they say they can't rebuild it because it would disturb nesting Spotted Owls in the area. Call me cynical, but do Spotted Owls nest all freakin' year? May through October? The $$$ have been "appropriated" for this project. It now just boils down to NPS obstinance. As for the Dosewallips; The USFS has a better track record than NPS when it comes to "gettin' things done. (EXCEPT down at Gifford Pinchot!) I have confidence that they will want to meet thier "multiple use" mandate in this case. I did Constance from the North Fork of Tunnel Creek back in the 80's, but I don't know if this road is still accessible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted February 6, 2002 Author Share Posted February 6, 2002 I spoke to the Park Service and Forest Service yesterday to confirm the post about the Dosewallips road. This washout is not from a side stream, but from the river itself taking a big bite out of the bank. It's impassable to cars or bikes, and probably treacherous even to cross on foot. Any repair will likely be delayed for months, because of environmental impact on the river and budget considerations. Access to the Dose trailhead therefore involves a difficult crossing plus six extra miles to hike. A climb of Mt Constance via the usual approach doesn't make much sense at this point. A pure E. face ascent via the Tunnel Creek trail, while longer than the standard approach, is probably shorter than the above hike past the washout. Tunnel Creek trail can be reached from the Dose road just short of the washout, or from the N. side which is higher elevation but would have snow until spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted February 7, 2002 Author Share Posted February 7, 2002 How long was the approach by this route? There must be some reason why this approach is less popular. Bushwacking problems? More rockfall danger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 7, 2002 Share Posted February 7, 2002 It was less than 4 miles. No trail, and I do remember getting a fist full of Devils Club along the way. Beautiful little valley above treeline...Constance' east face on the right and a cool looking spire ahead/left. I'm still not sure what it's called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fairweather:[QB] Call me cynical, but do Spotted Owls nest all freakin' year? May through October? The $$$ have been "appropriated" for this project. It now just boils down to NPS obstinance.QB] fyi, spotted owls generally begin the nesting process in march. they usually cease nesting, and become less territorial, in late july. however, if they actually manage to fledge some young (basically a miracle these days) the owls might be supersensitive to disturbance into fall. the nps isn't displaying obstinance in this case, fairweather. the nps is mandated by the endangered species act and the fish and wildlife service to protect these endangered owls. the forest service is mandated as well, they just mysteriously seem to find a lot less owls on their land, thus requiring a lot less protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 Duchess, maybe we should just close the whole park? ...That is, except for ONP rangers (and their close friends). Show me hard corraberated science that demonstrates N.S. owls will abandon their hatchlings at the sound of a few distant hammers and saws over a relatively short span of time. I believe there are even cases of Spotted Owls nesting in urban surroundings!...I believe one case was inside of an abandoned K-Mart sign! Should we ban all trail maintainence within ONP? Not trying to flame you too bad here as you did attempt to reply to me query about the nesting owls, but if The ESA comes down to "what if's" and not hard science then maybe it is due for a re-write. (along with the solitude provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964) [ 02-21-2002: Message edited by: Fairweather ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 don't worry, fairweather, i don't feel particularly flamed. everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding public land. and i will admit that i don't know a ton about the spotted owl situation at olympic, i am much more familiar with the sitation at mt. rainier... i think that it's important to realize that olympic was created as a national park relatively recently (as far as nat. parks are concerned). it, more than most parks such as rainier, yellowstone, yosemite, etc., was established to preserve wilderness and wild nature. and olympic does offer the largest chunk of some of the best-quality owl habitat left on this planet. surely you've seen the devestation that logging and clearcutting has caused just beyond the borders of olympic!! i am by no means suggesting that owls are super-ultra-sensitive to the slightest noise in the distance. and i will admit that i am not sure what restoration of the bridge would entail. i do know that it frequently involves the use of a helicopter and/or very heavy machinery. at rainier, getting hit by cars is the #1 known cause of mortality in the past decade!! spotted owls are entirely docile and curious about humans. i have stood less than ten feet away from a dozen of the guys. more importantly, though, spotted owls are extremely sensitive to disturbance when they are nesting and breeding. eggs are often found unhatched near disturbance sites. and in the interior of washington atleast, the numbers of young fledged is SO incredibly low that it is almost mind blowing. okay, i apologize. i don't want to sound like a flaming environmentalist, because i certainly am not. you are absolutely right when you say that the esa should be re-written. there are slews of problems with the current legislation and management. and you are absolutely right to assert the need for access. however, i stand by my position that olympic wasn't created for easy access. olympic was created more for the oldgrowth, for the rainforest, and for the owls than it was for us. and that's one of the reasons that olympic is so incredibly rugged and precious and why we all love it so much. finally, i would like to add that road restoration is thwarted by the same thing that plagues the entire park service this year--war. until the united states "brings an end to terror," i expect to see a lot of projects go unfinished. and i expect that a whole hell of a lot less people are going to be studying the owls. under this administration, we'll never learn how disturbance affects the spotted owl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 Fairweather - I share your frustration over the low priority given hiking and climbing access and I think both of us would agree that we'd like to see the local districts spend more money and effort on road and trail maintenance. However, I think we have entirely different ideas about the politics behind why that priority is what it is and, without diving into the question of whether environmentalists have destroyed this great democracy of ours (wink), let me just contradict one small bit of what you stated above – the idea that the Endangered Species Act should not be based on "what ifs." Indeed, that is all that it or any act like it, or any decision that may affect the future, ever will be based upon. There is no way "Science" will ever tell you that if you remove this or that rock or tree, a certain owl will or won't survive. Without a crystal ball, we will never know what will happen if we do or don't take any particular action and all we can do is to gather up all available information and try to make the best possible choice. If you are objecting to the misuse of quasi-science by environmental activists, I believe the truth is that all parties to these issues are probably equally guilty of engaging in distortion and showmanship when it suits their immediate needs. And the holler of the Washington Forest Protection Association and groups like that – that they want to see "hard science" before they think it appropriate to limit resource extraction – is just more of that same distortion and showmanship. The general question is and always should be, if we perform an honest cost-benefit analysis based on all that we know at this time, whether that information is hard science, anecdotal information or simply our best guess, what should we do next? - Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Petersen Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 I'll make the observation that this situation didn't make Constance "inaccessible", just harder to access. No more comparing times up, ala Mt. Si, at least until the new "standard route" gets wired. In the meantime the adventure factor goes up, with no guaranteed success and a certain potential (maybe a strong one in my case) for an extra night out. Not a bad thing, brought to us at no extra cost by Mother Nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 MattP and Duchess, My biggest problem regarding the High Bridge issue is that I have been repeatedly lied to by ONP officials. They have stated on several occasions "next spring", or "this fall". One park official even told me that repairs were underway "as we speak"....that was 2 years ago. Why not just come out and say "we aren't going to repair the bridge because of the ESA"? That would open the subject for public debate....and hopefully stir the ire of hikers/climbers....the very thing I suspect they are trying to avoid. Don't get me wrong you guys; I love watching eagles, hawlks, and other birds of prey as much as you do. When I think of how rare a sighting used to be when I was young, compared to now....the recovery is incredible! And we can thank good science followed by the enactment of reasonable environmental law for this wonderful (ongoing) story. I believe that the ESA crosses the line between "reasonable" law and social engineering. It is being abused by some groups and their lawers who hold sway over the National Park Service and other land mgmt agencies. On the other hand, I like the fact that the ESA is now being used against (or for; depending on your point of view) urbanites/Seattleites who have so smugly imposed it on those in rural areas. (Hey Seattle! Tear down the Ballard Locks!) ....I digress. Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: It is being abused by some groups and their lawers who hold sway over the National Park Service and other land mgmt agencies. that's one statement that i totally agree with. the esa definetly provides a legal excuse to preserve undisturbed land. just one final question, brian...where did you learn that they aren't repairing the bridge because of the esa/owl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 Duchess, I have spoken to two park rangers re: the reasons behind the delays; one at the wilderness desk in Port Angeles, and last month a naturalist at Hurricane Ridge. Both told me that this was the reason bridge repairs were being "delayed". Both of them conveyed via their tenor and expressed impatience with my questioning of ONP motives, that hey were 100% behind keeping hikers out of this area. The Hurricane Ridge ranger was delighted that the Dose Road had washed out recently and the fact that this would (her words) "take some of the pressure off". (getting the bridge repaired) You stated that you have had some experience dealing with these issues at MRNP. This case at ONP reminds me of the Carbon River road debacle, where federal repair $$$ went unspent and were almost lost because Bill Briggle refused to stand up to environmental groups/lawyers who wanted to see the road closed for good. I attended a public meeting where many, including Dee Molenaar gave him a real ear-full about this subject. (as well as the Westside road issue) I can't help but think his early "retirement" had something to do with the many letters that were sent regarding this....but this is just speculation on my part. I'm glad he was replaced with Jarvis who seems to have a more "even handed" approach to things at MRNP. (his Crystal Mountain meddling notwithstanding) I know he was respected up at Wrangell-St Elias where I have spent some time. Just speculation, but I predict that within 5 years you will hear talk of, or outright proposals to severely cut the # of climbers on Rainier under the "solitude" provisions of The Wilderness Act. The USFS is already being threatened with lawsuits by "Wilderness Watch" down at Mount Hood. If they succeed down there it will embolden them to try the same on Rainier. Solitude is so subjective a concept, I believe it has to be ammended within (or out of) the Wilderness Act. "Opportunities for solitude" will always exist for those who are willing to go off the beaten track. Just throw a dart at a map of ONP or MRNP....chances are about 99% you can go to that place and find "solitude"! [ 02-22-2002: Message edited by: Fairweather ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.