Expanding North Cascades NP

[mountainsandsound]

I thought I would post a few links about the proposed NCNP expansion in case anyone is interested. The proposal area has been scaled back in the last few years from what it was.

 

http://www.americanalps.org/

 

http://noparkexpansion.blogspot.com/

 

http://www.environmentwashington.org/programs/wae/protect-north-cascades

 

Some front-country facilities and developments are proposed but most of the additions will continue to be managed as backcountry wilderness. The Liberty Bell group would be included in the new boundaries.

 

[JasonG]

I would view their proposal more favorably if the areas north and south of the North Cascades Highway Scenic Corridor were added to the adjacent wilderness areas and managed under the USFS rather than the NPS.

[mountainsandsound]

My guess is, being climbers, many of us would support the expansion of designated wilderness areas but would prefer management by the USFS rather than the NPS because the rules and regulations are fewer.

 

I also think a lot of us, myself included, are somewhat ambivalent about the prospect of increasing exposure and visitor use to this gem of a park in our backyard.

 

As I understand it, most of the proposed additions would be USFS or NRA land not already managed as wilderness. So even with some development of front-country facilities, there would be a net gain of wilderness and land permanently protected from future development.

[JasonG]

But where's the threat under the Northwest Forest Plan? I know that the plan isn't forever, but it sure seems like it has stood the test of many challenges thus far.

 

I would be more than willing to chain myself to a tree if they try and push into roadless areas and start clear cutting up in the Golden Horn/Cutthroat/Liberty Bell areas. Until then, the status quo is working just fine.

Edited February 25, 2013 by JasonG

[mountainsandsound]

Until then, the status quo is working just fine.

 

And that is what has kept me from fully embracing the plan. It's nice to know that if I don't want to hassle with fighting for a permit in the NP, there are enough options on the adjacent NF land that don't require any planning of that sort.

 

At the same time I do have lingering doubts about how long the Northwest Forest Plan will be the law of the land. I won't pretend to be a policy guru, but it seems like conservation rules regarding forest service land are always being fought against. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is a good example.

[dougd]

bump.

I'm Johnny come lately to this issue, but NCNP expansion is on my mind. Devil's in the details but a cursory glance has me thinking this is a pretty well balanced proposal...

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/push-is-on-to-expand-north-cascades-national-park/

 

http://www.americanalps.org

 

http://www.americanalps.org/Am%20Alps%20Proposal%207-21-14%20Revised%20-%20Part%203.pdf

 

This part sounded good:

 

"Backcountry management of the existing National Park will not be changed under this proposal. This vast area will be left in its current wild and natural condition. This proposal does not include any new roads or trails in backcountry areas of the National Park or the new National Preserve."

 

If anyone has thoughts on this proposal (and hasn't done so already) the time is now to contact representatives, and keep an eye out for the public meetings.

 

d

 

[dberdinka]

If you place conservation ahead of recreation then go for it. But if you want to backpack to Snow Lakes, or bivi in the Blue Lake parking lot,or....?....I'd be careful what you ask for.

[mountainsandsound]

Funny, I was just thinking about this issue again the other day. I have preferred the status quo, but I have also read there will be a revision in the NW Forest Plan, and it makes me wonder how safe some of these places will be this time around. But maybe the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule has enough teeth to stop any hypothetical future development in these areas?

 

I've been on the fence but new developments might be pushing me to support these additions. Thanks for the bump.

[JasonG]

And here I was just thinking I'd gladly trade a few clear cuts for better road access and some trail maintenance dollars. Not pushing the old grades farther up valleys mind you, but the reprod. is getting pretty tall these days....

 

 

[mountainsandsound]

Sounds like we're on the same page then. I'm not worried about logging, just logging in adjacent wilderness-quality land that is not officially designated as wilderness. If none of the additions in question are actually threatened by future development, then I see little need for expansion.

[Jason4]

Reading all the comments on access at MRNP here and over on TAY makes me very thankful that we don't have problems like that on the north end. I have no interest in dealing with national parks as long as our current division of land management protects further new development. I might be persuaded to change my mind if there were a new ski area on Hwy 20 though.

[dougd]

Any links to related info and/or discussion on this issue would be appreciated.

 

I've read through the American Alps Legacy Proposal and done some other reading on news offerings and the AALP Facebook page.

 

Although my initial take was that NCNP expansion was closer to becoming a reality than it is, the AALP does seem to have that inexorable momentum to it...

 

d

[Fairweather]

Take everything NOCA and ALPS are saying about this proposal and simply add the words "for now" at the end of each sentence. NPS promises were made to the people of Stehekin in 1968. They've all been broken.

[payaso]

Anyone know if the copper mining claim right smack in Mazama would become part of the expanded National Park?

 

What happens to that killer rappel anchor on Liberty Bell? I bet it gets hacked.

[num1mc]

Anyone know if the copper mining claim right smack in Mazama would become part of the expanded National Park?

 

What happens to that killer rappel anchor on Liberty Bell? I bet it gets hacked.

 

Read the proposal, you would know that Mazama is quite distant from the proposed boundary of any park expansion, which would not enter eastern Washington at all.

 

The rappel anchors is a good point. The existing anchors should be OK, but what of new bolts or the maintenance of existing?

[Eric T]

Giving what is argualbly the finest road side Alpine Climbing area in North America to an government agency that specifly discriminates agenist our user group is a profoundly bad idea.

 

Any Climber supporting the the NCNP park expansion is commetting

a wildly treasonious act agenist every climber past, present and future.

 

What other road side attraction does the NCNP have that compares to wa pass? Nothing.

They want to peddel it to make a buck and not even god knows what the NCNP would do with wa pass if they were given it.

 

Staying the same is fine, a wilderness area is fine and the gold standard in land protection. The NPS is not fine. It's a problem.

[num1mc]

Well, the worst could be inclusion of the western half of the Libery Bell massif into the NPS along with Wilderness designation

[Eric T]

 

Here's some more discussion on the AALP. The AALP lists The Mountaineers as a supporter on their web site. So I go to my good friend who has a leadership position in one of the posts and ask him about the support for AALP. He says "I haven't heard anything about it." So he waits until the next time The Mountaineers have a leadership meeting and brings it up in a meeting with leaders from all of The Mountaineers posts present. He said "No one said a word or had any idea who had given them permission to say that the Mountaineers supports the AALP."

 

So the AALP is clearly lying about who supports them. I wonder what else they're lying about?

 

 

I'll tell you what else really pisses me off, the below statement written by J. Roskelley.

 

the American Alps Legacy committee is working with the AAC and NPS on their differences

 

http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1134150/John_Roskelley_interviewing_Re#Post1134150

 

That stinks of classism and elitism! Why the fuck would the American Alpine Club be trying to fuck over Washington Climbers by having some sort of secret closed door negotiation about giving the finest roadside alpine climbing area in North America to the NPS with the NPS and AALP?

 

WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT OVER!!!!!!

 

Why wouldn't every local club from the mountaineers and the WAC and local guides and independent local climbers be invited to contribute? (no money in it?)

 

Why when every user group from hikers to hunters to snowmobilers, the people of both towns Marblemount and Mazama are against the expansion is the AALP trying to cram this down all of our throats?

 

Mr Roskelley don't think you're going to get remembered as some great environmental stewart. You're going to be remembered as the well poisoning, back stabbing, judas, Jane Fonda that sold us all down the river to make a buck.

 

I'll tell you what, let's kick the NPS out of the North Cascades and make the whole thing, plus the proposed expansion area, a Wilderness Area and we can call the whole thing "The John Roskelley Wilderness Area". How about that?

 

You get remembered as the Man, (which in my eyes you already are for FA'ing Trango Tower) and the North Cascades can get the protection it deserves and climbers won't get wildly fucked over by giving something to the NPS that they obviously don't deserve to manage.

 

I couldn't care less on a lot of issues but i'm not just prepared to fight on this issue, i'll go Thermonuclear War over this! (not to quote Steve Jobs).

 

 

[num1mc]

Here's some more discussion on the AALP. The AALP lists The Mountaineers as a supporter on their web site. So I go to my good friend who has a leadership position in one of the posts and ask him about the support for AALP. He says "I haven't heard anything about it." So he waits until the next time The Mountaineers have a leadership meeting and brings it up in a meeting with leaders from all of The Mountaineers posts present. He said "No one said a word or had any idea who had given them permission to say that the Mountaineers supports the AALP."

 

So the AALP is clearly lying about who supports them. I wonder what else they're lying about?

 

The Mountaineers have clearly supported AALPS in the near past, so these allegations of lying are not true.

https://www.mountaineers.org/mountaineer-magazine/2011/jul-aug-2011

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/parents-of-north-cascades-park-want-it-to-grow/

[Eric T]

Fair enough, 2011 was a minute ago and that support seems to have waned.

 

Here's some more discussion about the NPS.

 

It's really sad what the NPS has become. The NPS is all about auto tourism mostly to an aging White demographic that isn't being replaced by younger generations. The NPS has and continues to cater to that affluent, White, aging demographic that has more funds to spend than any other user group. The rules are made to please this demographic and that severely limits any type of innovative sport or activity that displays the human spirit.

 

In fact, other users groups are actively discriminated against to keep this dying demographic pleased.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/national-parks-try-to-appeal-to-minorities.html

 

http://gadling.com/2011/08/04/despite-population-diversity-u-s-park-visitors-are-overwhelmin/

 

I was at a picnic table last week with a known NW Climber. She lamented to me about camping in the normal campgrounds in Yosemite. That she witnessed some old couple pull up in an RV worth more than her total worth and they proceeded to sit inside and watch TV. Why come to a NP to watch TV? Why put an RV slot in an NP? Why build a village in a Valley as amazing as Yosemite? Is this what we want for the North Cascades?

 

It's all about money and catering to the people with money, and in our nation that's an aging, White demographic.

 

Now look at the AALP board, everyone of them is old, White and affluent.

 

What the NPS and the AALP need to hear is that 1. The North Cascades aren't for sale. 2. The North Cascades aren't a commodity. We don't want then peddled, sold, monetized or otherwise bargained with. 3. Establishing RV campgrounds is not an environmentally conscious decision for like 10,000 fuckin reasons.

 

Bottom line, the National Park Service is an ever changing facade of tenures, ideas, people, personalities and wants. We don't know what were going to get over time or how that is going to evolve. Furthermore the AALP can't promise anything because once their "proposal" goes up to Congress it's gets changed as it's written into law.

 

The 1964 Wilderness Act is the GOLD STANDARD for land protection. There's one administrator, Momma Nature.

Her actions are flawless and timeless and the only person who gets to interpret this beautiful piece of legislation is a Federal Judge who will try uphold the act word for word.

 

The difference between a Park and the Wilderness can't be overstated.

 

Wilderness with the Park painted over it is no Wilderness at all. Let me point out Arches National Park and it's "Wilderness Areas" which the NPS dissected and used Enron accounting tricks to weasel roads in and make a buck from autotoursim.

 

Can someone explain to me, like i'm a five year old, why we're trying to expand the NCNP?

 

Edited June 15, 2015 by Eric T

[num1mc]

There are many reasons to be concerned about expanding NOCA, but I don't think your post hits any of them, and is wrong on several points.

 

1) Arches was established prior to Wilderness designation of it's undeveloped lands.

 

2) Most concerns about NOCA expansion revolve around more rules and less access, the opposite of what you fear.

 

3) The NPS is no longer following it's road and lodge building craze of Mission 66. It seems unlikely that the lands will be commoditized or "sold" if NOCA expands.

 

4) All of this seems to be independent of NP demographics, and in fact contrary to some of it.

[Eric T]

There are many reasons to be concerned about expanding NOCA

 

Okay 1MC, what are your reasons?

[num1mc]

I would be most concerned about bureaucracy and the NPS mindset.

Edited June 19, 2015 by num1mc

[Eric T]

Doing Business with Us

 

"Scenery is a hollow enjoyment to the tourist who sets out in the morning after an indigestible breakfast and a fitful night's sleep on an impossible bed."

-Stephen T. Mather, first Director of the National Park Service (1917 - 1929)

 

 

National parks offer stunning scenery and authentic history…and many of the services of a small city to help visitors enjoy their park experience.

 

National Park Concessions

Food, lodging, tours, whitewater rafting, boating, and many other recreational activities and amenities in more than 100 national parks are managed by private businesses under contract to the National Park Service. The services, provided by more than 600 "concessioners," gross more than $1 billion every year and provide jobs for more than 25,000 people during peak season.

 

Learn More

NPS Commercial Services

Concession contracts open for competition

Contact

Commercial Services Program

National Park Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

(202) 513-7156

e-mail us

 

Contracting and Procurement

National parks have buildings to construct, roads to pave, wastewater treatment plants to operate, and leaky roofs to repair. NPS offices purchase furniture, vehicles, office equipment and a host of other products. The National Park Service issues all bids and requests for proposals through the federal government's electronic business portals.

 

Learn More

Contracting opportunities in FedBizOps

Contact

Contracting and Procurement Office

National Park Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

e-mail us

 

Commercial Tours

Commercial tour operators may bring groups into national parks but must apply for a permit and pay a fee in advance. Details vary and are available from each park. Use our online search to find the park's website - which includes contact information.

 

Special Park Uses and Commercial Filming

Often, businesses consider national parks appealing settings to shoot commercials or major motion pictures, to photograph models for catalogs or kids for their school pictures. Couples choose national parks as beautiful wedding venues. The NPS requires permits for activities like these to make sure they do not unduly interfere with park visitors' access and enjoyment.

 

Other activities that require special use permits include:

Special events

First Amendment activities (rallies, demonstrations)

Right-of-way permits (utilities, telecommunications, roads)

Other non-visitor activities on park land

Permit applications are available through each park's administrative office (and may be available on park websites). Use our online search to find the park's website - which includes contact information.

[num1mc]

You seem to have your mind made up that NOCA wants to Coney Island-ize what ever lands they can get from both the USFS and themselves in their National Recreation Areas. Don't you get it? The NPS already has most of this land under their control and "ownership" in the Lake Chelan and Ross Lake National Recreational Areas.

 

If anything, there have been complaints of the NPS squeezing business, concessions and run-of-the-mill tourism out in favor of preservation and wilderness with or without the capital W.

 

So I think you would best serve yourself to study the issue and realize this Mission 66 windmill you're tilting at probably doesn't exist, and frame your objections more reasonably.

 

I would think the cases of the MRNP West Side road, the Duckabush road and Enchanted Valley chalet on ONP and the Suitable road would serve as better examples of what the future may hold than what you see from the entrenched Delaware North in Yosemite.