Huge increase to NCNP?

[num1mc]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110925/OPINION03/709259983

 

Many effects onto hikers, climbers and skiiers. Inclusion of the Liberty Bell massif and Golden Horn into the NP regulation mire?

[dberdinka]

Excellent and lengthy discussion of that idea here

 

Alps Legacy Discussion at TAY

 

Considering that much of that area is already protected and plenty wild I don't see a lot of value to recreators unless your fond of more fees, more regulations and more restrictions.

[sobo]

Considering that much of that area is already protected and plenty wild I don't see a lot of value to recreators unless your fond of more fees, more regulations and more restrictions.

That's what I took away from the discussion...

[Fairweather]

I'm kind of torn over this one. With the NPS's wild mood swings between scenic nationalism and green ideological purity, day-use limits at Washington Pass trail heads would almost be a given--even as countless RVs would continue to grind their way over the nearby highway.

 

Do we really want even more of this kind of NPS nonsense?

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1030902/Re_TR_Forbidden_W_and_NW_ridge#Post1030902

 

 

[JasonG]

Can someone give me the short version on how their proposal might affect day/overnight use of WA/Rainy pass climbing routes. Thinking about Liberty Bell and Black Peak areas....Thanks!

[num1mc]

day-use limits at Washington Pass trail heads would almost be a given--even as countless RVs would continue to grind their way over the nearby highway

 

Presently there are no limits to day trips in MRNP, NCNP, Grand Teton or ONP. The closest Natioal Park where day use limits are enforced is Yosemite and Half Dome

[dberdinka]

Presumably it would be mamnaged much like the rest of the park in that day use would be unregulated and overnight trips would require permits highly limited by zone. So Liberty Bell not much difference, Black Peak hope to get a permit.

 

Even if I'm against the idea I think we are all very fortunate that NCNP has the management and attitude it does regarding backcountry recreation. They are great!

[JasonG]

How is it exactly that they are great?? Most of the rangers in MM are polite, but hardly enthusiastic that I am going somewhere wild. I get the vibe that most are wringing their hands over the damage that my party may or may not do the land under their management. I find it a bit ironic that these are also places that most of them haven't been to or ever will go to (with the exception of the climbing rangers). I'm not out to wreak havoc on the backcountry, so this vibe gets a bit tiresome.

 

And, what about guiding services and Boston Basin permits (and probably Shuksan and Eldo as well)?? Why can't normal citizens reserve in advance like the guiding companies (why not a lottery system for a spot of two a night, like the enchantments)?? Why do guides get the majority of spots in BB on a nightly basis?? Because of the typical NPS relationship with concessionaires, I am leery of them managing a greatly expanded NCNP.

 

The NPS is a pretty screwed up organization, and I am not sure they are any better than the FS in managing the land. From today's Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016356020_rainier02m.html

 

Do we want this organization in charge of a much expanded NCNP? Why not wilderness status under the FS for these lands under consideration in the park???. To me that would preserve the land without the added frustration of dealing with the NPS.

 

More protection (from resource extraction, not recreation) for land in the North Cascades is very good IMO, I just doubt the NPS is the best organization to take it on.

[Fairweather]

 

More protection (from resource extraction, not recreation) for land in the North Cascades is very good IMO, I just doubt the NPS is the best organization to take it on.

 

Well said.

 

That Seattle Times link is absolutely shocking. Worthy of its own thread here.

[stevetimetravlr]

As part of the National Parks, it will then be eligible for mining when they ramrod another stimulus bill thru like this one..

http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2005/page-27601016.html

[mattp]

I really can't see where there is much threat of resource extraction or commercial development for most if not all of the area involved. There may be some valuable timber in low-lying areas that could become threatened if our political system and environmental community did a 180 degree reversal at some point but, really: is there any significant concern that the we're going to see logging or mining in the Ross Lake Recreation Area or along that highway 20 corridor east of the R.A. up toward Rainy Pass and Washington Pass? I think not.

 

Might there be some possibility of timber harvest in Bacon Creek, or the lower Cascade River road? Maybe but even here too I think Congress has pretty well removed that threat barring a huge shift in paradigm.

 

Recreational use, on the other hand, is increasingly subject to threat. For us, back country permits are becoming generally harder to get whether on Park Service or Forest Service land, but I'm worried that it'll probably be more difficult under Park Service management - at least at places like Black Peak and Washington Pass.

 

We are seeing roadway access lost due to a lack of funds and flooding events where, even if there is money to perform the repairs, such efforts are blocked by environmental groups that see easy access as a threat to wild lands (Suiattle and Mountain Loop Highway are recent examples). At Rainier Park, the Park Service has let the West Side Road and the Carbon River Road go, and if you want a wilderness experience in the meadows below the Tahoma Glacier this is a good thing but if you used to like to take your kids up Mt. Wow or hike with Aunt Betty to the toe of the Carbon Glacier it is not. I think the Park Service may be less friendly in this respect than the Forest Service though I'm not entirely sure.

 

Parking would almost certainly be more restricted if the Highway 20 corridor east of Ross Lake were to become National Park.

 

Climbing, too, would likely be subject to increased regulation. I'm still trying to learn more about this park expansion proposal but I fear that we as climbers stand to lose more than we'll gain from it.

 

The legacy project people propose to add more visitor center facilities and what they describe as short easy hiking trails that will help children and families bond with nature. In the short run, then, wouldn't we see MORE development along highway 20 if this proposal is adopted?

 

[JasonG]

I agree Matt, when the charge mounts to start clear cutting or mining in the Hwy 20 corridor I will be first in line to step up and make my voice heard. Shoot, I'd even probably chain myself to a tree with my kids if those lands were really under the gun. But, until then, why do we need to fix something that is working quite well?

 

Leave things the way they are.

[jordansahls]

What is a big issue, at least for me, is the weekend warrior mentality. Often times I am leaving for climbs late Friday night or extremely early Saturday morning. I can't get a permit until the ranger stations open. For example, this year it has been the norm to start climbs around midnight and climb through to the morning. I'm not camping, or if I do grab a few z's its usually up on some obscure ridge. If I run into a ranger and say, "I'm not staying overnight", they are going to think I'm suspect (I have yet to see a ranger around 12am). My impact is usually minimal. I don't carry a stove and I don't set up a camp.

 

What is real bullshit in my opinion is the fact that guided parties can reserve permits. Why should they have special consideration? Seriously, WTF? I feel like I have to continually search for more and more obscure places to climb to avoid these silly regulations. But the regulations keep reaching out further. The day is soon approaching when I will not be able to climb. That or I climb my own way and play cat and mouse with the authorities, which I have done a few times. It shouldn't be a crime to access our public lands. I'm all for conservation, but this is just getting ridiculous.

Edited October 2, 2011 by jordansahls

[genepires]

I can't speak for all guide outfits and certainly can't speak for how things are run today as I don't guide anymore, but late 90 to early 2000's we were never in the places in question above on weekends. I am not even sure if we could reserve weekends. Is this different?

 

Is the trouble with guide outfits getting permits for midweek? Because I don't remember seeing to many (if any) people out there midweek and it wasn't because we had all the permits.

 

I would definitely agree that guide services reserving weekend permits is complete BS but it would be interesting if this is even a problem. I suspect not.

[Fairweather]

Keeping extractive entities at bay is why climbers, hikers, and yes, even mountain bikers and horseback riders need to advocate for their particular brands of utility. Locking out those who have enjoyed the outdoors in a given area or region and have long advocated for its preservation makes no sense in the long term.

 

As for wilderness itself, well, it's probably time to reexamine the definition before we move forward. Below is a great essay written by William Cronon from the American Society for Environmental History. He also has a recently published book called Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature.

 

http://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html

 

 

 

[JasonG]

Thanks for the clarification Gene, I'm not sure if the guide services can reserve on weekends or not (I made a leap that may have been unjustified). Kurt or Jason may be able to weigh in on this....

[kurthicks]

I don't know the exact verbage, but I believe it's not expressly forbidden in Boston Basin, and it isn't recommended either. I know that AAI tries to avoid doing it.

 

We're climbers after all and we get it--a good guide will do their best to choose low profile crags on weekends or avoid popular routes during their peak seasons.

 

 

[mattp]

Kurt,

Have you looked at how a change from FS to NPS management at Washington Pass might affect guiding there?

[kurthicks]

nope, been too busy guiding (and it's not the side of the business that I am involved with on a daily basis). I assume that it would be managed as per the current NCNP regulations.

[num1mc]

I really can't see where there is much threat of resource extraction or commercial development for most if not all of the area involved. There may be some valuable timber in low-lying areas that could become threatened if our political system and environmental community did a 180 degree reversal at some point but, really: is there any significant concern that the we're going to see logging or mining in the Ross Lake Recreation Area or along that highway 20 corridor east of the R.A. up toward Rainy Pass and Washington Pass? I think not.

 

Although it seems that development is unlikely, the "Headwaters of the Skagit" area contains the mining areas (or portions of) Harts Pass, Barron, Slate Creek, Chancellor and the Azurite Mine area. In fact, the Azurite Mine is undergoing a large scale Superfund cleanup. For more information on the mining history of this area, please read "Discovering Washington's Historic Mines, Volume 3" by Northwest Underground Explorations, Phil Woodhouse, Daryl Jacobson and Victor Pisoni

 

 

The legacy project people propose to add more visitor center facilities and what they describe as short easy hiking trails that will help children and families bond with nature. In the short run, then, wouldn't we see MORE development along highway 20 if this proposal is adopted?

 

I agree with the premise of this question. I also wonder that since this is a "legacy" project, based on portions of the initial NCNP proposals, what about the proposed visitor center at Cascade Pass which was to be serviced by a tram?

[mattp]

Num1,

I've always been curious about those mining areas back there over Harts Pass. Have you ever been there? Do you have any information as to whether National Park status would change what is happening there or how it would change any prospect for future mining there?

 

As to Cascade Pass, I doubt there is any prospect for a tram. If past experience is any indicator, the main proponents behind this project would rather see the road in the North Fork closed than remain open and there is no way they'd support any action that might lead to the construction of a tram. And, the politics of the parties involved aside, I don't think there is any way someone could get such a facility built in an area that is designated wilderness within a National Park.

[Wastral]

This is the exact question posed when NCNP was first created. It is also the reason that Glacier Peak Wilderness Area was created. GPWA was designated as WILDERNESS and thus subject to NO development whereas National parks can be developed for any reason.

 

Bob/Ira Spring along with Harvey Manning and company fought hard to get the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area EXCLUDED from the North Cascades National Park as at that time the WHOLE area was up for inclusion as the National Park.

 

Quite humorous.

 

All National Park status will do is create more damned permits and fees we the common people have to pay so a couple of high school drop outs can man a desk at a park office or clean the toilets at the trailheads while hassling us for our day-overnight camping permits. We the common people get screwed by more regulations making the wilderness less user friendly at a time when national park attendence is dropping drastically.

 

Is any section in said proposed area overused? NO. Will any section ever be? Maybe. Would the Methow or equivalent ranger section be any worse to work through than the Leavenworth ranger station as done in the Enchantments? NO. So, why are we putting this into the hands of the national park? Just to make our lives Hell it seems.

 

Boils down to some nit wit moron environmentalist who wastes their time all day going after things that don't improve our lives or the world but just makes them worse and makes them feel like they are actually doing something good when in actuality they are screwing the common Joe over and the environment.

 

Idiots Unite!

[num1mc]

I've always been curious about those mining areas back there over Harts Pass. Have you ever been there? Do you have any information as to whether National Park status would change what is happening there or how it would change any prospect for future mining there?

 

I've been back there a number of times, chiefly to Barron and Chancellor. I have never made it to Azurite, and am probably too late, given that the remediation project currently underway will result in wholesale changes to the adventuresome and historical aspects of the area. Azurite, along with the work at Monte Cristo and Alder has led some to question the cleanup of small sites which may not have very serious problems, while far larger sites continue to languish.

 

As far as the effects of NP status on the mining, I believe that is a huge subject, with no clear answer. Much of the present mining is placer operations on claimed land. I don't know if these claims can be unilaterally ended by the US government, if the claimer's continue to follow the rules required of them. In any event, the areas where they are working is not suitable for Wilderness following the (vague) 1964 definition, and I don't begrudge these generally hobbyists miners their pleasure.

 

The future of large scale commercial mining seems bleak, not only because of lack of large scale mineralization, but also because of environmental and safety requirements, and the cost of American labor. But a crystal ball is needed to really give an answer

 

As to Cascade Pass, I doubt there is any prospect for a tram. If past experience is any indicator, the main proponents behind this project would rather see the road in the North Fork closed than remain open and there is no way they'd support any action that might lead to the construction of a tram. And, the politics of the parties involved aside, I don't think there is any way someone could get such a facility built in an area that is designated wilderness within a National Park.

 

I was speaking about this facetiously

 

This is the exact question posed when NCNP was first created. It is also the reason that Glacier Peak Wilderness Area was created. GPWA was designated as WILDERNESS and thus subject to NO development whereas National parks can be developed for any reason.

 

Bob/Ira Spring along with Harvey Manning and company fought hard to get the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area EXCLUDED from the North Cascades National Park as at that time the WHOLE area was up for inclusion as the National Park

 

You may want to double check some thing here, GPWA was created in 1964, so it would pre-date the NCNP. Was there actually ever a real proposal to include the Glacier Peak area into NCNP, and to roll back Wilderness protection as part of this inclusion? I would actually tend to think that there was never any real thought to ending the GPWA, especially only four years after it's creation. In any event, the creation of Wilderness inside NCNP by (?) 1970 made the whole worry obsolete.

 

Feck can consult a expert on this history

 

All National Park status will do is create more damned permits and fees we the common people have to pay so a couple of high school drop outs can man a desk at a park office or clean the toilets at the trailheads while hassling us for our day-overnight camping permits. We the common people get screwed by more regulations making the wilderness less user friendly at a time when national park attendance is dropping drastically.

 

Is any section in said proposed area overused? NO. Will any section ever be? Maybe. Would the Methow or equivalent ranger section be any worse to work through than the Leavenworth ranger station as done in the Enchantments? NO. So, why are we putting this into the hands of the national park? Just to make our lives Hell it seems.

 

Boils down to some nit wit moron environmentalist who wastes their time all day going after things that don't improve our lives or the world but just makes them worse and makes them feel like they are actually doing something good when in actuality they are screwing the common Joe over and the environment.

 

It comes down to a question of management versus protection. In Wilderness, you get a huge degree of protection, often with little obtrusive management (areas such as the Enchantments excepted). The NPS is management heavy. Some level of additional protection is warranted, but I worry about the NPS and their love of rules and regs. Since much of the area may not be suitable for Wilderness, could a designation such as "National Scenic Area", managed by the USFS afford the reasonable amount of protection, while allowing climbing, hiking, hunting and a modicum of hobby mining to continue?

 

[Wastral]

Ok, you are right. I screwed up. It was originally all wished as Wilderness area. Oops sorry.

 

What they got was Glacier Peak Wilderness Area instead instead of the proposed North Cascades Wilderness Area. Mainly due to infighting about the incorporation of Ross Lake Area and competing interests in that region.

 

They still wanted that whole area as wilderness but due to Ross Lake Area the best they got was NCNP which eventually became a wilderness area.

[sobo]

As part of the National Parks, it will then be eligible for mining when they ramrod another stimulus bill thru like this one..

http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2005/page-27601016.html

Jeebus H. Christ, this fukker's as bad as Ralph Regula, the "mastermind" behind the Fee (Not) Demo (Anymore) shenanigans...