KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 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... Hmmm... maybe this also explains how, "for a fee", guide services can reserve Boston Basin permits in advance, while us in the public can do so only the night before... and in person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 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 Think Mount St Helens. A National Monument, of course, but administered by the same bureaucratic mindset as our nation's other scenic wonders. I still have no doubt that the hats at NCNP would--sooner not later--take a look at the Blue Lake trailhead on a sunny Saturday or Sunday afternoon and decide in short order that something just had to be done to preserve the solitude myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I just reviewed this thread, after an interesting discussion with Kevork (sp?) at the SAC monthly meeting last night. I guess the ranger types tune in to our pontificating on cc.com. . . . He was concerned that there was misinformation swirling around the Legacy project and didn't appreciate the personal attacks- I tried to explain that kind of came with the territory around here, and it really wasn't aimed at specific individuals for the most part. Actually I think there is quite a bit of good bit of discussion on this thread, and it is good to see things brought out in the open (if folks are getting the facts wrong, those in the know please chime in). Too often when we are going to get our permits, we just want to keep our heads down and get in and out as quick as possible. Over the years, some of the issues (and our frustrations) can fester. The Legacy proposal is bringing a lot of existing issues to the surface. Regardless, I told him that I certainly don't feel the majority of NCNP rangers are out to mess with me or unfairly limit my access to the park. Like most of us, they care deeply about the North Cascades and often deal with inexperienced people from out of the area. It is probably natural that after dealing with lots and lots of these folks your interactions with experienced locals may start to be colored by these prior exchanges- which is unfortunate. After talking with Kevork, I realized it was just a few instances spread over the years that really had tarnished my impression of the NPS as a whole. Unfortunately these instances (condescending/pushy behavior, assuming I'm out to trash the woods, trying to force the voluntary climbing register on me, etc.) were frustrating enough to really stick with me. Over the same 15+ years I have had only one bad experience with FS rangers (maybe because I almost never see them?). So, when weighing the pros and cons of NPS vs. FS mgmt under the proposed Legacy project, I'm afraid I still stand by my earlier position that we don't really need expanded NPS oversight in the North Cascades. I would encourage Kelly, Kevork, and other NCNP staff to weigh in here to share their perspectives on some of the frustrations voiced here and on other threads recently. Kevork mentioned that they have stated "their" side many times previously (and were thinking of updating the website with some information aimed at these topics), but it doesn't hurt to keep things fresh for our pea brains. I understand that NCNP is not pushing the Legacy project, but I think that many of the issues raised (how permit limits are determined, reservation systems, guiding services, etc.) here are equally valid if NCNP doesn't expand one acre. You will never make everyone happy, but communication is important, and I know most of us would benefit from a broader discussion. Please don't be shy......mattp won't let it get too out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Jason, I am not a moderator of this forum, so I can't "take care of it" if things here get out of hand. However, I would like to see discussions of important issues like this one go well, and I will do what I can to keep it civil and informative. This is an important topic. I think my pals on the moderator board agree, and I expect they will intervene if this discussion deteriorates to a cesspool. As to misinformation and personal attacks, cascadeclimbers.com sees plenty of this and my complaint about that phenomenon lead the site owners to appoint me as a moderator of certain forums. They have set forth policies of a "liberal" acceptance of divergent views and divergent views of decorum, but there are some definite limits. I don't see personal attack and misinformation as issues in this thread so far. My impression is that the Legacy project has been presented with a lot of broad-brush information but many of us would like more information even if we are, at this point, "doubtful." If anybody wants to correct any complaint about past management practices or speculation about possible future events they are free to do so. If they do not do so, there is nothing cc.com can do about that. I think most if not nearly all climbers would welcome the information or ideas that might be provided by all but the most extreme fringe. Representative Pombo, for example, might meet with disfavor around here (I'm just speculating, but he was involved in an effort to suggest mining activity should be allowed or expanded in National Parks a few years ago and I bet most of our posters do not think this is a good idea and many would have a hard time "biting their tongue" and not saying what they think). I'm trying to keep an open mind on this Park expansion proposal. I think all of us should. The proposal is in the early stages of development and, even if not quite yet a good idea, it may become a good idea if we get involved and help shape it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Kevork has rescued a number of people over the years, including yahoos and climbers and climber yahoos. We should be thankful for the service that he and Kelly and the rest of the team do. They certainly don't do it for the money. Sharing views in a relatively benign public forum like this is a good thing. Hopefully this will be a two-way street. Non-communication followed by deliberate non-compliance of regulations may seem like the easiest path to free access, but it's probably the fastest way to bring the hammer down on all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
num1mc Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 I just reviewed this thread, after an interesting discussion with Kevork (sp?) at the SAC monthly meeting last night. I guess the ranger types tune in to our pontificating on cc.com. . . . He was concerned that there was misinformation swirling around the Legacy project and didn't appreciate the personal attacks- I tried to explain that kind of came with the territory around here, and it really wasn't aimed at specific individuals for the most part. I have reviewed this entire thread, and there is nothing that should hurt the tender feelings of any Ranger. Kevork must have been referring to this thread http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1030925/1 Where the OP was also taken to task for being an inpatient dolt. The comments in the above thread, and in this thread mostly illustrate the concerns and frustrations that some people have, at times justly so - and at times very unjustly so, with the rigid bureaucracy of the NPS as a whole, and NCNP in particular. I think many, if not all the posts here regarding the legacy project are based in a reading of the AALP proposal, life time experiences in the Cascades and life time knowledge of the North Cascades. There has been some minor speculation, such as Fairweather's posits on the potential for day use limits at Blue Lake. But nowhere here could I find anything that I would consider as gross misinformation or personal attacks. This is an inter-net discussion. People should realize that, and after almost 20 years of inter BB, it should be realized what level of decorum is norm. I have seen nothing bad on this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Right, THAT thread. Makes more sense now. I was scratching my head a bit..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
num1mc Posted October 8, 2011 Author Share Posted October 8, 2011 Right, THAT thread. Makes more sense now. I was scratching my head a bit..... But there certainly was not any personal attacks there. There were some harsh criticism of the NPS and their policies. But also, the OP (Val Zephyr ) and her party were a bunch of idiots, and were told that in the thread. Sounds like Ranger Kevork(ian) is kinda a cry baby. They are a public servant, and if that level of review of their job performance by the general public causes them that much personal consternation, maybe it's time for them to get off the Government titty, and get wit the private sector, where I'm sure they will find things much easier and the working conditions much friendlier to their thin skin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Right, THAT thread. Makes more sense now. I was scratching my head a bit..... But there certainly was not any personal attacks there. There were some harsh criticism of the NPS and their policies. But also, the OP (Val Zephyr ) and her party were a bunch of idiots, and were told that in the thread. Sounds like Ranger Kevork(ian) is kinda a cry baby. They are a public servant, and if that level of review of their job performance by the general public causes them that much personal consternation, maybe it's time for them to get off the Government titty, and get wit the private sector, where I'm sure they will find things much easier and the working conditions much friendlier to their thin skin The OP of THAT thread certainly were not idiots. As some pointed out the ranger in question could and should have just issued a permit on the spot rather than waste everyone's time and introduce unnecessary hassle and ill-will to visitors to the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Yo KK, We understand that you don't like the Park Service. But what do you think about Park Service vs. Forest Service management of the lands in question? With this proposal we are talking about the Ross Lake NRA, which is currently managed by the National Park Service, but the rest of the areas in play are currently Forest Service lands: the highway 20 corridor east of Ross Lake and some "stray bits" in the Cascade River, Baker River, Nooksak, Bacon Creek, "Skagit headwaters" and the Liberty Bell area. Would any of these areas be better served as a designated National Park? Why or why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Yo KK, We understand that you don't like the Park Service. But what do you think about Park Service vs. Forest Service management of the lands in question? With this proposal we are talking about the Ross Lake NRA, which is currently managed by the National Park Service, but the rest of the areas in play are currently Forest Service lands: the highway 20 corridor east of Ross Lake and some "stray bits" in the Cascade River, Baker River, Nooksak, Bacon Creek, "Skagit headwaters" and the Liberty Bell area. Would any of these areas be better served as a designated National Park? Why or why not? Yo, Matt, I never said I did not like the Park Service. I have some gripes with the way permits are allocated for some areas along Cascade River - like the Boston Basin with preference given to guides (advance permits unavailable to the general public). If extending the NCNP will result in more such issues (e.g. at WA pass), which it likely will, then I am not to keen on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
num1mc Posted October 8, 2011 Author Share Posted October 8, 2011 The OP of THAT thread certainly were not idiots. As some pointed out the ranger in question could and should have just issued a permit on the spot rather than waste everyone's time and introduce unnecessary hassle and ill-will to visitors to the park Why should the Ranger have issued a permit in the field for impatient idiots with a huge sense of entitlement? Val Zephyr and her crew of idiots stormed out of the visitor center, and were unable to read a map or to understand simple park back country regulations. And for that, they should be rewarded by having a Ranger go out of their way to issue a BC permit? No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Why should the Ranger have issued a permit in the field for impatient idiots with a huge sense of entitlement? Val Zephyr and her crew of idiots stormed out of the visitor center, and were unable to read a map or to understand simple park back country regulations. And for that, they should be rewarded by having a Ranger go out of their way to issue a BC permit? No way. Around the same time of year, we made a trip out to Buckner and had permits for the Boston Glacier. The ranger at Sahale Camp (where we rested en route to our camp) checked our permit and then offered to issue us a permit on the spot for Sahale Camp instead, if we wanted to change our minds and camp there rather than continue up and over Sahale and around Boston. We were grateful, but declined. That's what I call public service, which is what the rangers should be doing (and many do - and do it well). As for Val Z - she also related how they waited forever while the ranger issuing permits BS'd endlessly with the first person in line. I've seen this too, and it can be damn annoying when you get up at 5 am to be at the RS at 7 am when they open, only to stand there for 30 minutes while folks are chit-chatting ahead of you in line. Back on topic, if more of this is to be expected by adding WA pass to NCNP, I say "no, thanks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Anybody have any more information about this proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Here's an update/article from the Seattle PI - I like the premise, which is for groups like the North Cascades Conservation Council to reconsider road repairs and greater access in exchange for such an expansion of park size. SEATTLE PI ARTICLE Greens want bigger national park: Let people into it! By JOEL CONNELLY, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF Updated 07:00 p.m., Sunday, October 2, 2011 Dubbing themselves the "American Alps Legacy Project," a bevy of conservation groups want to put about a quarter-million acres of additional federal land into our state's North Cascades National Park. Nobody doubts the land is of "park caliber." Pull off the North Cascades Highway and look up Ross Lake at Hozomeen Mountain. Watch 8,900-foot Black Peak come into view from the road, or hike to Maple Pass for broader vistas. Or walk the Baker River rainforest on a misty-moisty shoulder season day. But Congress ought to deliver an either/or ultimatum to the more rigid advocates of a larger park: Let people into it. Old-line green groups must drop resistance to reopening roads that access trailheads and campgrounds in the North Cascades and Olympic National Parks. They must stop lawsuits blocking rebuild of the Suiattle River Road in Snohomish County, the major access to wonderful trails into the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. The coalition behind the "American Alps Legacy Project" includes practical people like former Republican Gov. Dan Evans, climber-lawyer Jim Wickwire (first American atop K-2), and Peter Jackson, writer son of the U.S. Senator who wrote the 1968 North Cascades Act. But its lead sponsor is the North Cascades Conservation Council. The N3C was plaintiff in a federal suit, earlier this year, that forced the Federal Highway Administration to abandon a plan to rebuild the Suiatte Road. It seems that some absolutist activists have lived by a motto: Keep everybody out but us. Now that it's time to add 237,702 acres to the park, however, they're singing a different tune. "The North Cascades National Park is currently one of the least visited national parks in the 'lower 48' states," the American Alps Legacy Project said last week. How come? One reason: The N3C, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association and other groups have tenaciously fought -- and helped block -- reconstruction of one of just two roads that lead into the park. The dirt road up the Stehekin River valley washed out in the great fall storm of 2003. The washout occurred near aptly named Carwash Falls. A rebuilt road could use the path of an old wagon road just east of the washout. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., has introduced a bill to do just that. We're not talking about Interstate 5. The Stehekin Road was used mainly for a National Park Service shuttle bus that dropped hikers off at trailheads, and took non-backpackers to such wonderful lowland places as the Bridge Creek Campground. When Congress was considering North Cascades legislation in the 1960s, the Sierra Club produced a film entitled "The Wilderness Alps of Stehekin." It showed club director David Brower and his family on a horseback trip up to Park Creek Pass, a 6,100-foot-high defile flanked by three 9,000-foot peaks. Hiking buddies and I once watched, at Park Creek Pass, as a mother bear and three cubs frolicked in the meadows. It's one of the most beautiful places on earth. A stiff eight-mile hike when the Stehekin Road was open, it's now 14 miles each way: Who has time to follow in the Browers' footsteps? Park legislation has to pass through the House Resources Committee. Doc Hastings is the chairman: The Doc's last League of Conservation Voters scorecard rating -- a goosegg. A chunk of the proposed park addition -- Rainy Pass-to-Washington Pass on the North Cascades Highway -- is in Hastings' district. Hence, park advocates need to ask a question they learned as kids on Saturday morning television: What's up, Doc? The sun will rise over the Olympics before Hastings ever agrees to park status for popular hunting areas (e.g. Canyon Creek) north of the North Cascades Highway. He's going to insist that the Stehekin Road be rebuilt. Driven by outrage in Snohomish County, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., is going to have his back up -- as he should -- over putting back the Suiattle Road. The American Alps Legacy Project proposes some visitor enhancements. But new visitor centers would be located in Marblemount and Winthrop, outside the park. A silky promise reads: "Family-friendly front country recreation along S.R. 20 will be developed in a way that is compatible with conservation in the park." Does that mean a de-emphasis -- or abandonment -- of roads and trails leading to glorious high places? Sweeping views from the Hidden Lake Lookout hold a lot more appeal than the proposed "Goodell Creek Landslide Trail." Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who hikes and climbs in her (little) spare time, is working the issue. She'll need the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon to pull off what would be wonderful for the state -- an enlarged North Cascades National Park that a cross-section of citizens can enjoy. Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/Greens-want-bigger-national-park-Fine-let-2197242.php#ixzz1chOVB3sb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Exactly. Glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels that NCCC would like to lock the young, old, and relatively unfit from some of the prime NC wildlands. Rebuild the roads already! Until they change their tune, I am firmly against the Legacy proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Another example of geriatric editorializing here. Joel seems to be (rightly) bashing the NCCC for their dogmatism vis-a-vis road repairs even as he scolds Doc Hastings for wanting to remedy the problem. Not sure what his point is about Rick Larsen--or Maria Cantwell for that matter. It seems like Connelly wants to bash the deep greens--but can't let go of his own knee-jerk urge to bash a Republican in-kind. By the way, Joel, the sun actually does rise over the Olympic Mountains--if you live in Forks or Amanda Park. Seattle-centric journalism at its finest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
num1mc Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) I didn't read any politico bashing in Joel Connely's editorial. He laid out his own criticisms of some portions of the conservation movement, mainly that they are a roadblock (no pun intended) to recreation and use, even when compared to access levels of forty years ago. He also criticized the dogmatic nature of the NPS. His comments on Doc Hastings revolve on Hastings status as a Congressman from Washington, as well as his Chairmanship of the House Resources Committee. The inclusion of Rick Larson in the conversation is in regards to the need to garner Larson's support, and the fact the many users of USFS lands in Larson's district are angered over the Suiattle Road fiasco. Rightly or wrongly, for the expansion of NCNP to succeed, it is assumed that Maria Cantwell will be the lead politico. As such, a large degree of wheeling, dealing and diplomacy will be involved. Joel Connely is a Puget area editorialist, and as such would be expected to write for the Puget Sound metropolitan area. Would you take a (presumably conservative) editorialist writer from Tonasket to task for stating something similar about the sun rising over the Cascades if he agreed with you? I think not. I don't think that Joel Connely disagrees with you, and your axe grinding against him on this subject does not seem justified Edited November 4, 2011 by num1mc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campwire Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The issue of permits I find particularly frustrating, not just with NCNP, but almost every national park. I understand permits are needed for some areas to keep from over crowding. However, pre-reservation system permits like what Yosemite uses don't work. You have to know exactly what day you want to go months in advanced, so there is no flexibility for weather or other plans and you have to be online at the exact moment the permits become available or you won't get one. To make it worse, most people who get permits don't use them, which takes permits away from people who would use them. They issue 300 permits a day for half dome. The day I went it was sold out in 5 minutes 3 months in advanced. The weather was absolutely perfect and I saw no more that 100 - 150 people on the trail that day. The day before the weather was horrible. There is no reason some of the people with permits the day before should not have been able to go the next day. The system the NCNP uses where there are no reservations doesn't work either. You have to get lucky enough that nobody else is doing a longer trip that uses the camp sites you need. On multiple occasions I went to take a small group from cascade pass to lake chelan, but unless I go a week in advanced and pretend I am hiking for a week I can't get a permit for the popular areas. I think a combination system of some reservations like what olympic uses, but allow some on site issue is probably the best. They also need to reconsider the number of permits per location. In most cases it seems overly conservative on the low side. I can't help but wonder if it isn't part of the parks strategy to get people to go other places. It works, this year I took my family to the Psayten where there are no permits required other than the parking pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Exactly. Glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels that NCCC would like to lock the young, old, and relatively unfit from some of the prime NC wildlands. Rebuild the roads already! Until they change their tune, I am firmly against the Legacy proposal. Connelly leaves out a few key facts in the discussion of both the Suiattle and Stehekin Roads, maybe he was just trying to simplify the discussion to meet column space limitations. I don't know. Having worked on the natural resource issues for both - here is what I came across. The Suiattle road is not in a good place, that combined with long term land use (timber) has caused a more dynamic patter of erosion and aggradation. FEMA provided some funds for the project as did the county. But - because FEMA was recently sued regarding their affects on floodplains/ESA listed fish, there is much more scrunity regarding puting roads and facilities back where they are susceptible to repeat damage (read - floodplains)which doesn't make sense regarding policy or budget. So moving the road requires a USFS permit/environmental clearance - which also opens up a more robust public process. So it's more than throwing a bunch of rip-rap in the river, adding fill, and resurfacing. If access is going to be continued, then it's is a new road alignment. For the Stehekin it's even messier. That road also is susceptible to multiple flood events, and is likely to get worse give the flahiness of NC rivers - due to global warming and effects on lower elevation snow pack (See the UW Climate Group papers). Plus - the favored new alignment is decent, but it is in the designaged Wilderness! So to get a road there they will have to either 1) pull that sliver out of the Wilderness designation, or 2) get an exception. Good luck getting Congress to act on either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I agree that both roads need to be realigned and would support redrawing of wilderness boundaries to make it happen. I have written my reps in support of such a change, and I encourage others who feel the same to do so also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm all for realigning such roads were they can be done so reasonably. In these cases I believe there are decent options. Somewhat related - there has been a constant drop in use of trails by folks, maybe everyone is getting more enamored with their electronic toys. And taking a ride up the old Stehekin road allowed folks not otherwise inclined to see the beauty of the NCs. Yea, maybe they were a bit portly and that's why they were taking a ride - or maybe they were phyched to take their kids into the wilderness for a couple of nights. That's how you build future advocates for our parks and their budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wastral Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 The biggest problem with National Parks is the permit process. That and $$$ wished for overnight camping when its supposed to be a public venue for poor and the rich. Just try pricing a week backpack trip in the Olympics. You get sticker shock at the counter and quickly decide to go elsewhere as the thieves suck you dry for a stupid camping "permits". 1) The fact it exists when 95% of the camping sites don't need it as there is a tiny population 2) Areas that do need it the NP service limits to miniscule absurd numbers of people. 3) Because of 1)&2) Everyone lies at the counter through their proverbial teeth. If a ranger finds them, they go... OOOPS. So sorry. 4) The ludicrousness of them issuing permits for areas like the Pickets and to camp at certain locations on a certain day when its utterly dependent on weather. Last time I went I lied through my proverbial teeth by selecting an area no one ever went and said I would camp 7 days there. Crescent Creek Basin as I recall or it was the one on the other side of Goodell Creek. Mt. Despair area. PS. I was in the pickets for 10 days of outstanding weather, saw 0 people. 2 boot tracks 2 weeks old near Luna. PPS. IF they want user statistics, fine. Requiring "permit" for certain days is beyond stupid. Maybe for a season or month would be more appropriate. Along with the stupidity of designated camping sites which you don't want to camp at as the idiots put sharp gravel down where your tent is supposed to go...(Glacier National Park, Yosemite, Grand Canyon etc) Never had such "problem" in North Cascades, but then I never camp at designated camping sites as I don't like mice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Layback Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I'm not really sure why we'd ever want to consider getting behind something spearheaded by the North Cascades Conservation Council. These are the same jackasses that delayed repairs on the Mountain Loop Highway and sued to terminate repairs on the Suiattle River Road. They're not about preserving access; they're about restricting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I'm not really sure why we'd ever want to consider getting behind something spearheaded by the North Cascades Conservation Council. These are the same jackasses that delayed repairs on the Mountain Loop Highway and sued to terminate repairs on the Suiattle River Road. They're not about preserving access; they're about restricting it. Harvey Manning's bitter NCCC legacy: "Buy my guidebooks and then stay the F@#$% out of my mountains." By the way, ALPS is not any better. 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.