Open Westside Road Now!

[Fairweather]

I understand that the Westside road in Mt Rainier Park has been adequately repaired for quite some time now but that only country club rangers are allowed to use it. Is this so that the NPS can concentrate more hikers/climbers/tourists at Paradise and then point their fingers with their mouths wide open, agast at how we're "loving our mountain to death"? Then they can implement their "shuttle bus/no private vehicles in the park" plan and further limit access to "their" mountain. I thought when Jarvis took over as 'Super things would loosen up a bit and yet as of today even Mowich lake road has yet to open for the summer although the snow has long ago melted off of it. My point is that it would sure be nice to climb west side routes like Tahoma Glacier without having to plan a mini expedition. This would free up some of the supposed "overuse" on other routes as well. I know some of you like the mountain biking opportunities that Westside road provides but some great climbing opportunities as well as dozens of family dayhikes are fading away. The NPS has been promising a shuttle service on Westside Road for years now too but, of course it has yet to materialize. This wouldn't fit their master (whine about Paradise) plan.

[benman]

Any word on the new estimate for the Mowich Lake road opening?

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Rybolt:

I understand that the Westside road in Mt Rainier Park has been adequately repaired for quite some time now

---

Where did you get your information? I had heard (from a friend of a friend)that the Westside road is a fairly pleasant mountain bike ride, with a couple of washed out spots that they had to carry their bikes. Perhaps your info is newer than mine?

 

[pete_a]

Mowich lake road opening estimate July 18th-19th according to todays phone recording road report. What gives!?! I just wanna ski the Flett glaciers and not have to bike up the road, is this too much to ask?

[snowleopard_x]

As of last week, the Westside Road would certainly be drivably by most cars to at least the unmaintained trail up Tahoma Creek (to Indian Henry's Hunting Ground). There is one section where the road is rough gravel, and another where a small amount of water runs over the road with the left side of the road crumbling away (though still plenty of room for a car). As a matter of fact, some hikers saw a NPS car on the road going past that point. But at the same time, I can easily see some mom and pop driving their motorhome off the edge of the road somewhere in there. Then of course suing the NPS for a zillion dollars.

I agree that Rainier is getting overcrowded, and that NPS idea of herding everyone in shuttles to Paradise isn't the best idea. I also agree that if the west side road were open, more climbers would attempt some fine intermediate routes on that side of the mountain more often. But in the road's current condition, I don't see them opening it anytime soon, unless some money is budgeted to it. And that's another question to ask. How much money is there, and where is it going?

[pms]

Here's my vote to open it for the public. Probably a shuttle system of some kind. Then folks would have another place to hike and climb. Probably a new parking lot would be necessary somewhere. Why not?

[Alpine_Tom]

I'd be fine with a shuttle, except you know it would be run strictly for day hikers. It'd run about once an hour, starting around 9:00 AM, and the last shuttle out will be at 4:30 or so. Climbers? Fine, as long as you don't plan on an early start, or descend in the afternoon. They could have people park at the Sunshine Point campground, and run the shuttle from there.

I can certainly see, if there's water running across the road, that they don't want to open it to cars that'll erode it quckly and turn it into an impassible mess (and get some Oldsmobile stuck there!)

[This message has been edited by Alpine Tom (edited 07-13-2001).]

[Beck]

From my understanding, MORA's use plan for Westside road has gone to the "let's not plan to use it" because of it historically getting washed out every so often. With the new Bush adminstration's plan to"streamline" the "backlog" of maintence projects in the Nat'l Parks, having MORA admin plan to fix it up enough for public use is probably a long shot.

The new draft plan for use in MORA shows shuttles being implemented for guests of RMI and guided climbs, possibly Paradise Inn guests, NOT dayhikers(as of the last planning documents I saw from MORA)for the Paradise Area.

 

[Fairweather]

Westside Road stands a better chance of being repaired under the current administration than it did under the previous one. They seem to be more interested in spending money to repair exixting National Parks than simply aquiring more lands to strain an already burdened system. Do you remember when Carbon River Road was closed for 4 or 5 years a while back? The repair $$$ were appropriated but went unused for years because the old superintendant ( Bill Briggle) subscribed to the "let nature take over" philosophy that allows access roads to fall into disrepair. This misguided idea espoused by some radical, and sub radical environmentalists is designed to keep people OUT of wilderness areas. The Clinton era "roadless proposal" would extend this access-killing idea to Forest Service land as well.

[mattp]

Brian -

I hope you are right that we will see greater funding for maintaining the roads and trails on public lands, but I can't resist responding to your criticism of the "Clinton era roadless proposal." Do you really think we need MORE roads in the National Forests? Wouldn't this, as you put it, strain an "already overburdened system" even more? I believe the roadless area proposals were based upon an inventory of areas that are currently roadless.

It is my impression that, for the most part, new roads on public lands are built with public funds that are usually spent for the benefit of private interests. I can only think of one new road on public lands in Washington State that has been built for public access in the last thirty years -- the road to the new Mount Saint Helens visitor center, but scores of roads have been put in, at public expense, for resource extraction. Recreational users are then dis-served when these roads are decommissioned or allowed to fall into disrepair, but they really wern't built for us anyway and I doubt that many of these decisions are made out of a desire to preserve nature but, in general, on the practical reality that less access means less cost, less need for patrols, fewer rescues, etc. I believe that in most cases, even if it is cited as a reason, the reduction of environmental impact is mosty just an excuse (the idea that we are promoting conservation by closing a road in a valley that has already been both mined and logged is rather ludicrous, isn't it?).

I agree with you that it would be a good thing if more of the existing roads and trails were to be maintained.

 

[scott]

The clinton roadless proposals, made a law by executive order, and over ruled by some federal judge in idaho, were intended to keep the Tongass national forest (in se alaska) from being logged. it is a huge area, a major pristine rain forest. the judge who overruled the clinton order said he had to stop it "before irreperable harm occurs." what a joke. now that they can log it, irreperable harm will occur.

[Fairweather]

mattp,

thanks for your thoughtful reply. While I don't have a problem with the Roadless Proposal on the face of it, we must realize that such a policy will inevitably take on a "life of it's own". Two cases in point would be The Wilderness Act of 1964, and The Endangered Species Act. Laws written with a good and fair, basic premise in mind...but then horribly twisted by radical environmentalists and their lawers. (ie: the "solitude" and "motorized"....now "mechanized" provisions of The Wilderness Act and the backdoor use of The Spotted Owl and now the Klamath Sucker Fish to accomplish their socialist agenda rather than having a public debate on the issue at hand, which was logging and now is regulation of farming and hydroelectricity). I certainly DON'T support NEW road construction in National Forests, but environmental interest groups will easily twist the wording/meaning in this proposal and step in to PREVENT the repair and maintainence of EXISTING roads. This means reduced access for hikers and climbers! This "twisting" has been shown time and time again. As for the proposal being given a fair hearing....it was not! When you hold public meetings and notify/invite only those groups who you know in advance will support your proposal, then NO...you haven't held fair and adequate hearings. The judge in Idaho was 100% correct.

[mattp]

Bryan -

It appears that we both would advocate preserving wilderness environments and public access to those areas, and I absolutely agree with you that the "no mechanized" and "solitude" interpretations of the wilderness act are pure bullshit (though I believe these are not provisions within the act itself but provisions in the rules that have been adopted to carry out that act). However, it is interesting to me that even if we agree in general about what we might like done with our public lands, we seem to have a completely different view of the politics of the situation.

1. I do not believe that the spotted owl controversy was driven by any "socialist agenda." The preservation of owl habitat certainly WAS promoted by government regulators who sought broad control over logging practices and the issue may have been over-hyped by environmentalists opposed to logging operations, and while it may be true that the biology behind the issue was obscured by the political agendas of the parties involved, I do not believe it is socialistic to think that logging in old growth forests should either be halted entirely or severely restricted. Or it is socialistic, I guess I am a socialist. The logging companies have removed just about every big tree from lowland forests all the way from Mexico to Canada, and I DO think it is time to stop. We can build houses and make paper from second growth.

2. I do not believe that most environmentalists want to keep us from using public lands for recreation. I know several environmental lawyers and activists, and every one of them is a backcountry skier, hiker, climber or all of the above. In the thirty five years that I have been engaging in wilderness sports, I have not once met an environmentalists who suggested I should not go into the back country. However, government land managers have been closing roads and trails, enacting rules against public use of public lands, and doing whatever they can to discourage me at just about every turn.

3. If any group has discouraged public comment on their activities, it would be the logging and mining companies and the legislators and bureaucrats who support them. Example number one: the timber salvage rider. Any environmental group that wants to accomplish anything with regard to the preservation of public lands has no choice but to try to generate public attention whereas any private developer or miner or logger has exactly the opposite motivation because public attention will only generate increased costs and possibly cause their plans to be tanked.

4. I think the judge in Idaho was probably 100% wrong.

Having noted these differences of opinion, I should say that I do not believe that our public lands should be locked up and that all resource extraction or mechanized activities should be halted. There is a lot of public land, and I believe there is room for recreational use, habitat preservation, and resource extraction. In the North Cascades, for example, I think it is great that the snowmobiliers have been given access to the south side of Mount Baker and the road up toward Mt. Watson, east of Baker Lake, but I am just as glad that most of the rest of the areas adjacent to the N.C. park are closed to their use and I would hate to see any of the remaining uncut areas logged though if there can be some managed harvest of second growth, I would have no objection.

Matt

[Fairweather]

Mattp,

I respect your viewpoint but would like to point out a couple more cases to make my case:

1.) Mount Hood,1999. Under pressure from environmental groups the manager of the Mount Hood National Forest decides to impose a limit of 25 climbers per day on the south side route of Mount Hood. He uses the "solitude" provisions of The Wilderness Act as justification. He can cite no "physical environmental damage" as this route has seen heavy traffic for over 100 years. Only when fair minded groups such as The Access Fund step in does he put his plans on hold.

2.) Wenatchee National Forest. Thousands of blow downs block hundreds of miles of trails in wilderness areas after the "big winter of 1998." Trees are "piled like jackstraws" over popular trails. When the USFS starts to clear these trails they are stopped by at least 4 environmental groups decrying the use of chainsaws to clear access. (even though this practice is used in National Parks and is the quickest and least overrall impactful way to clear blowdowns.) These groups insisted that handsaws only be used to clear the trails. When it was estimated that this might take 10 or more years, the head of the local "Alpine Lakes Protection Society" stated "If hikers cant overcome these obstacles then they don't belong there." When a fair minded FS Manager threated to uphold the letter of the law by using dynamite instead of chainsaws these groups backed off.

3.) Let's not forget the unresolved "fixed anchor" debate. What's up with that!?!?

4.) Exatctly what is "mechanized"? Certainly mountain bikes...what about rondonee skis? Climbing skins are certainly a "ratcheting" device and a tele-skiier is certainly travelling at an "un-natural speed"(as Harvey Manning likes to justify with)downhill. What about a wheelbarrow used for trail maintainance?

Matt, I certainly agree with you that your "follow the money" theory is up to 50% of the cause of lost access. But I think that environmental intolerance (to other user groups) is just as big a part. Additionally, let me clarify my statement about "socialist" environmentalists...I did not intend to apply this tag to all those involved in the logging debacle of the 1980's, however a better front-door approach would have been to push legislation banning raw-log exports.

I do believe however that either A) socialists like wearing environmentalist clothing, or B) many environmentalists are in fact Socialists. One need not look farther than the WTO protests, or environmental views re rivate property rights to see this.

I love the outdoors and don't want to see wilderness ravaged by greed. We must remember that we are ALL part of "The Corporation". To think otherwise is denial.

......I'm climbing Mt. Cruiser (Olympics) this weekend! I hope I'm allowed in!

[mattp]

Brian -

I agree that it is rediculous to limit the number of climbers on the South side of Mount Hood in the name of controlling environmental impact. A big rubble heap, it probably wouldn't look any different or serve any different plant or animal communities no matter how many people hiked up and down. And the promotion of "opportunities for solitude" is a B.S. excuse for "let's keep the people out so we have less work to do." Consider the West Side road at Mt. Rainier: from a management perspective, what good could come from opening it to the public? There would only be more to maintain, more need for patrols, more people needing rescues in a now rarely visited part of the park, etc. There may be some in the Park Service who feel it is their job to facilitate public use of the National Park, but aside from such a subjective motivation there would be no push to reopen the road.

I also agree that chainsaws ought to be used where necessary to maintain trails in the wilderness. If used to clear away a blow-down on the trail, I doubt the noise, smoke and oil spilled from the running of a saw for five minutes or even a whole day would have any lasting detrimental effect on plants and animals in an area. I wonder if any objection from the Alpine Lakes Protection Society is actually based on a direct opposition to the use of chainsaws or to something else they might represent. And I doubt that a knee jerk reaction against all mechanised equipment is shared by most people who consider theirselves environmentalists.

I would say a similar thing about the fixed anchor debate. It is not environmentalists, or certainly not mainstream environmentalists, who oppose "fixed anchors." It is people that have some kind of anti-climber agenda. I can think of lots of reasons to oppose climbers or climbing, and I can understand an opposition to the installation of bolts in particular, but we don't see the same kind of opposition to trail building or trail maintenance, bridges across rivers, outhouses, or to a myriad of other "installations" in wilderness areas.

I have talked to Harvey Manning and I haven't asked him about skis or about bolts, but I bet he would be more on the side of access than non-access. I know he has opposed the imposition of quotas and would not favor limiting the numbers of people climbing Mt. Hood, and I rather doubt he is in favor of a blanket ban on bolting in wilderness areas. I bet he would be concerned if he were shown that backcountry skiers were destroying the meadows at, say Paradise, or if he were shown that the bolts on Liberty Bell were leading to some kind of irreparable damage.

I also agree that "environmental intolerance" is a problem and this applies to recreationists as well. Many of my back-country ski partners are seriously wigged about snowmobiles on the south side of Mount Baker although I point out to them that as far as I know it is the only alpine area in the State where snowmobiles are allowed. Similarly, I have heard climbers voice the opinion that hikers should not bring children on the trail to Little Si or to the railroad bed at Exit 38.

And yes - to export raw logs is an absolute crime and pure stupidity!! One day, not too long in the future, we are going to be buying those same logs back from Japan -- at a hundred times the price that we exported them! And I know that this is probably anathema to you, but on this issue I would probably rather trust a socialistic government than a capitalistic one, because if we did have a socialistic system, with governmental managers making the decision to export or not to export apart from some measure of short term profits, I doubt we would have sold all our big logs to Japan during the 70's and 80's. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote socialist in the year 2004, but I'm just saying that I disagree with your suggesting that a socialist-environmentalist agenda would be bad for the management of public lands. Of course, there is nothing that says that capitalists can't plan in the long-term, but it just seems that American capitalists are unable or unwilling to do so – certainly not the timber or mineral or oil-producers.

I hope you are allowed into Mt. Cruiser because I bet you would have a good time if you were, and I am equally willing to bet that the impact of your footsteps would be undetectable – even to the most ardent preservationist. Rock on, Mr. Rybolt. I hear Mt Cruiser is awesome!

-Matt

[Alpine_Tom]

A bit of history re. the raw-log export issue. It was done by the Reagan administration to balance the tremendous trade deficits with Japan. Not because the government was capitalist or socialist, but because it was mercantilist. Unfortunately, a lot of mill workers lost their jobs, and the fingers were pointed at the spotted owl, because it was a more convenient scapegoat, than blaming Americans for prefering Japanese cars to Detroit's.

Another important issue to remember is that logging in public forests costs the government a lot more money than it gets from the leases. The Tsongas forest in particular is the largest money-loser of all the National Forests in the country. What this means, is we have been subsidizing exports, at the cost of jobs, to artificially bring down the balance-of-trade deficit. Your tax dollars at work.

(references available on request)

Not that any of this political screed has much to do with opening the West Side road. My personal beliefs are that the park service is more interested in serving the public than in restricting access so they can sit on their butts. They're sure not in it for the money!

[This message has been edited by Alpine Tom (edited 07-17-2001).]

[Fairweather]

Mattp,

I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for taking an interest in the subject even if we did stray a little. Great debate! (AlpineTom too!)

Also a great string started by you under "Rangers Lie". (Alpine Lakes) Check out my post. I think it will make your blood boil.

Brian

[Beck]

Just some follow ups on this, I've been gone in the mtns and just got back.

The National Parks are "natural preserves" that need to be maintained for future generations, not some "I want to use it now" access-demanding outdoorspeople.It has been difficult for MORA to keep the westside road open; it gets washed out in the spring. Decision? Close road. I may make an assumption and suppose the NPS wants the road open for emergency access and rangers but not the public.

Sure, environmentalists get in the way of trail maintinence and development in wilderness areas. A case in point: the Enchanted valley in the Olympics has been cut off from easy access from both the E and W from bridges being washed out from the winter of 1998. Even last summer ( I haven't checked this season) The bridges were not getting rebuilt because the helicopters needed to fly supplies have the potential for spooking some species of grouse that live oer there. canb't rebuild the bridges with the helicopters, might SCARE THE BIRDS!

All that aside, the park is there for the birds, not the hikers, so i'm willing to wait or hike thirty extra miles if i want to climb Mount Anderson.

To Brian Rybolt, sir, you sound distictly pro logging and pro development in your stance on wilderness use. Wilderness is just that, Wilderness. Some preservationists believe in less trail maintence, less trailheads, more for nature, because,

Mother nature'll be aroung long after the readers on this site are history, the principle on less development is more preservation.

 

[Fairweather]

Beck,

I'm not sure you read the entire string or you could not have come to the conclusion that I am "pro-logging". Simply because I agree that a judge in Idaho made the right decision about the Roadless proposal (which I feel would limit eventually diminish existing access) does not mean that I am "pro logging". (although I do enjoy reading Mountaineer PAPER back guideooks and wiping my ass with PAPER) I am however tired of hikers (like you?) who seem to feel that they hold the deed to all government owned land and see fit (with bogus science in hand) to petition their government to BAN certain types of recreation such as hunting,snowmobiles,(neither of which I participate in) mountain bikes,Paragliders,etc. I believe that if wilderness access is limited, future generations will become ambivalent about wilderness in general. Then you'll really see some wilderness rape goin'on with an apathetic public not giving a rat's ass!

I agree with you 100% about the High Bridge/Dosewallips/Enchanted Valley fiasco. No... the repairs have not been done and won't be until next spring at the earliest. In the meantime I think the Hayden Pass/Sentinel Peak/ Eel Glacier approach and climb is shortest... and probably better anyway.