The future of access to Mt. Rainier

[MtnBoy]

Here is a link to an interesting article that explores the balance between maintaining access to Mt. Rainier and protecting wilderness areas and endangered species.

 

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=pacificprainier24&date=20070624

 

 

[SemoreJugs]

Wow. That was a pretty well-balanced and thorough article. The only glaring omission was that climber's access concerns were not really addressed. Despite this, the Times has at least one good reporter on staff after all.

 

I'm interested in what climbers think of leaving the Carbon Road unrepaired. IT seems like there is still reasonable access to any point on the mountain without it. People are still getting up liberty ridge (with a little more effort). I'm with Edward Abbey, the less roads the better. It helps to keep away the riff-raff that don't really appreciate the mountain.

 

From the north side of the mountain, at sunset, you can just barely make out the Seattle skyscrapers as the bask in a reddish-golden hue. It immediately conjures up the reverse image of Rainier as seen from Seattle. The mountain looks so massive, yet the Seattle skyline looks rediculously small and insignificant as it is momentarily visible infront of the Sound during sunset.

 

Do you think people in their cars will ever notice something like this? And if they do, would they care? We could pave the entire mountain, but it has the power to make our "improvements" noting more than a silly memory.

[MtnBoy]

See-more,

 

I agree with you in you comment where distance and accessibility limit access to only those who are interested. I think that it is important for people to have the opportunities to easily access the wilds. Otherwise, when it comes time to appropriate funds there will not be the constituency to support the allocation. Additionally, most of us go up in a urban setting and have to get our early experiences some how.

 

Thanks

[Fairweather]

Any park staff who hold membership in "PEER" should be asked to immediately seek other employment. Yes; fired.

[W]

Any park staff who hold membership in "PEER" should be asked to immediately seek other employment. Yes; fired.

 

Fairweather, apart from muzzling the personal views of park employees and discriminating for government employment based on the applicant's socio-political views, I would hope that you don't also propose this purge as a first step towards removing all oversight of NPS policy as related to environmental issues. While I don't know a thing about PEER, given your intense mistrust and dislike of the government, I would otherwise assume you would applaud an effort to hold the government accountable; or is accountability not so important when it comes to protecting the park resource measured against keeping the road open at all costs and keeping money flowing? I'm not trivializing the latter issues but I am saying that both have to be considered with equal weight. Government agencies shouldn't be given absolute trust with anything- including protection of the resource.

 

Pulling a page from your own book, I'd also ask if you would suggest that any park staff who own businesses in Ashford or surrounding communities, or who hold membership or stake in any pro-development lobbies, be terminated as well, for similar reasons of conflict of interest in unfairly influencing park policy from within?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Any park staff who hold membership in "PEER" should be asked to immediately seek other employment. Yes; fired.

 

Fairweather, apart from muzzling the personal views of park employees and discriminating for government employment based on the applicant's socio-political views, I would hope that you don't also propose this purge as a first step towards removing all oversight of NPS policy as related to environmental issues. While I don't know a thing about PEER, given your intense mistrust and dislike of the government, I would otherwise assume you would applaud an effort to hold the government accountable; or is accountability not so important when it comes to protecting the park resource measured against keeping the road open at all costs and keeping money flowing? I'm not trivializing the latter issues but I am saying that both have to be considered with equal weight. Government agencies shouldn't be given absolute trust with anything- including protection of the resource.

 

Pulling a page from your own book, I'd also ask if you would suggest that any park staff who own businesses in Ashford or surrounding communities, or who hold membership or stake in any pro-development lobbies, be terminated as well, for similar reasons of conflict of interest in unfairly influencing park policy from within?

 

Good points, all. The answer to your last question is a resounding yes. Just as private enterprise holds employees accountable re conflict of interest or non-compete clauses, the NPS should have every right to stipulate the same - especially if those interests are geographically close at hand and involve $$$. I have never heard of this being a problem at any Washington State National Park.

 

As for "PEER", it looks like a clear case of the crew trying to gain a means by which they can bypass the officers and run the ship themselves. Congress, current administration/interior, park superintendents all have a hand in making big decisions. Allowing a group of underlings to subvert a stringent review process or make policy - that does allow for the extraordinary contingencies of last November's floods - is madness. I remain convinced that a hard-core minority of park employees are committed to an agenda that will eventually lead to a public lockout from our national parks. If they wish to hold these beliefs at a personal level, fine. But if they want to form a quasi-union to force their agenda from within they should be show to the gate - just as an employee of a private sector company likely would.

 

 

BTW: Nice Climb!

Edited July 12, 2007 by Fairweather

[W]

Most people I know who work or once worked for the park were there simply for the love of the park and the opportunity to work in it. The internal politics of the NPS however are enough to exasperate anyone. I left before I could get too wrapped up in it.

 

As for the flood, well- my own view is that it was worth the months of total closure while park engineers developed a better solution that prevented further and unnecessary destruction of what I think we'd both agree is one of the park's finest forests, one which had already seen tremendous natural damage. Indeed this prolonged closure was not good for local business, or for general access, but like you said, this flood was an extraordinary contingency. Granted this is my personal aesthetic speaking, but in times like this we should simply ramp up our patience and prepare ahead of time, because, being that it's the mountains, it will happen again. As well, those with a monetary stake in the road's open/closed status should also recognize the vulnerability they have being so reliant on the mountain to not, well, be a mountain, and they should also have their own contingency plan for such acts of nature (just as anyone should be prepared if they suddenly become unemployed). Not being unsympathetic- it's terrible for them- but just being realistic.

 

The type of employees you speak of may well exist, but I truly believe that most of the superintendents and administrators are prone towards diplomatic, reasonable decisions that steer the middle ground between the extreme views that pressure them from both sides on a constant basis. Siding with wildly unpopular special interests is not going to help their career very much either. I do know Steve Klump (the guy in the article) and I'm pretty sure he's no activist, he's just a nice guy who cares about the park resource and told his bosses he felt they were making a mistake-and in fact it sounds as though the stringent review processes you yourself mentioned were possibly bypassed by the park's top brass in favor of a politically (local) popular decision to open the park as fast as possible regardless of the damage that would be required to make it so.

 

I still think that the biggest threat to our parks going- not only to the resource, but to the cost and breadth of public access, and to the overall aesthetic experience in the parks- is the gradual bankrupting of the park system over the past several decades by elements in Washington DC who would like to see the park operations, maintenance, interpretation, all of it- taken over by private interests, whose chief concern will be not with the park, or with the public's wishes, but with making money. I'm not opposed to private enterprise in principle, but I firmly believe that the stewardship of our national parks and its heritage is or should be as much the responsibility of- flawed as it is- our federal government, as say, national defense, for example. However much you or anyone mistrusts the integrity of government, there at least remains an avenue for public input and recourse in relation to public lands, that I think becomes very watered down and insulated when we sell off our public lands to private interests. Climbing fees and the like are only one unfortunate byproduct of this fiscal strangulation of the parks.

 

The neglect of the parks system is a national travesty.

 

 

[ScaredSilly]

I just picked up on this article. Not a bad article at all. Having hiked the Carbon River road in the past because it was washed out a few thoughts. The original road went far past the campground almost to the suspension bridge. After it got washed out it was abandoned (ala West Side Road). So in some ways what they are talking about is no different. Yeah it sucks to have to walk in and out so far. But on the other hand those that came in the early years had a bit of journey in as well. So instead of a quick weekend it now becomes a long weekend to do a route on that side of the hill.

 

However, as was said access is important for not just those who are up to the challenge but for others. As such, there needs to be a balance between hump my ass anywhere folks and the bug screen tourist. At this point it is probably time for a study of the river and the cost of routing a trail. Personally I would be up for a mtn. bike trail in that would allow for bike, wheel chair, and perhaps in some cases an electric cart that would get some handicaped folks back into the woods.