Expanding North Cascades NP

[Fairweather]

Well said.

[JasonG]

And then there's this.

 

I hiked into Blum lakes this weekend only to find that the NPS has killed all the fish in the lake with chemicals. From my sources at work, I guess they flew 20+ 55 gallon barrels of Rotenone(or some similar pesticide) up there a few years ago and killed all the fish in both lakes. These lakes were teaming with trout 15 years ago when I was last in there. This time we had our fishing gear, but no fish were to be seen. I heard that this has been done to 26 lakes in the park in the last 5 years. I'm trying to find out which ones so I don't haul gear in for no reason.

 

The USFS sees eye to eye with fishers such as myself, which unfortunately isn't the case with the NPS. I couldn't care less about salamanders.

[num1mc]

There were extensive discussions at NWHikers regarding this very subject and the NOCO expansion several years ago. NWHikers is very pro- stocking, and the admin and his clique are members of the Trailblazers and such.

 

Me personally, I would not in anyway base my gross opinion on NOCO expansion on high lakes stocking, but to each his own. There are persuasive arguments of how stocking these formerly barren lakes which are often bereft of food is not a good thing. What I mainly took away from the conversation was that the pro-stockers were a bunch of Branch Davidian-Amway freaks.

 

The very same Sandy McKean referenced in your link sent me a series of PM's, about the subject, finally accusing me of being the type that would support Osama bin Laden over the USA.

 

All because of milk jugs of fish.

[JasonG]

That's unfortunate. I certainly don't get that upset over the issue but I can't see how this is a good use of tax dollars. It has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement, and meant many heli trips into the wilderness. This money could be much better spent on trail work, but I admit I'm biased.

 

I think the whole situation typifies the NPS attitude towards recreation in the park. I get the sense that they feel human influence must be minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent possible. I could be wrong, but I would think that vast majority of park users would be just fine letting the stocking and fishing continue. And it would be way cheaper.

 

I have to admit that I think the high lake fish eradication program is borderline insanity. I have a hard time understanding the rationale. Of course, I'm a fish biologist and a life long fisherman!

[num1mc]

 

I think the whole situation typifies the NPS attitude towards recreation in the park. I get the sense that they feel human influence must be minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent possible.

 

That is sometimes my feeling

[num1mc]

That's unfortunate. I certainly don't get that upset over the issue but I can't see how this is a good use of tax dollars. It has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement, and meant many heli trips into the wilderness. This money could be much better spent on trail work, but I admit I'm biased.

 

I could be wrong, but I would think that vast majority of park users would be just fine letting the stocking and fishing continue. And it would be way cheaper.

 

I have to admit that I think the high lake fish eradication program is borderline insanity. I have a hard time understanding the rationale. Of course, I'm a fish biologist and a life long fisherman!

 

The fact that the majority of the users "feel" that stocking should continue shouldn't be part of the equation.

 

I have a minimal opinion on stocking, but after reading on NWH why stocking should be discontinued, I appreciate those reasons.

 

A salander may think you're not a nice person

[JasonG]

I guess that is where I disagree on the purpose of National Parks. I feel that they should be responsive to their users, provided that the wishes wouldn't irreparably harm the parks for future users. For a long time, this is how the parks were run. The fact remains that just traveling and camping in the alpine damages the meadows and leaves a mark that everyone will see for generations. Fish or no fish, we are leaving our mark whenever we visit the hills.

 

The Rotenone kills everything in the lakes, salamaders included, and the amphibs recolonize from nearby habitats. Why not wait until the public is more behind the need for such anal ecological restoration?

 

And I don't need a salamander to tell me that I'm not a nice person.

[num1mc]

Nice job, you dodged the tyranny of the masses corner.

[JasonG]

There's a fine line between clever and stupid.

[AAC-PNW]

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?)

 

Thought I'd just add my two cents here. A few years ago the AALPs folks asked a number of local climbing organizations to meet with them to discuss their plan and field the questions/objections that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

I was there, in addition to Joe Sambataro (Access Fund), Matt Perkins (WCC), members of the Mountaineers board and staff including Katherine Hollis. It was a pretty crowded room already, and climbers speaking on behalf of the expansion plan included Roskelley and Jim Wickwire. Both of these guys hold a pretty special place in American climbing, so we're more than happy to listen to them.

 

The AMGA has their own concerns and needs that the other orgs may not have a stake in, so they've had their own conversations with the AALPs.

 

Ideas were shared, we (AAC/AF/WCC/Mountaineers) raised our concerns, shared our objections, found some common ground and all shook hands. Even within the same organization members can lean closer to conservation vs. recreation, but the common ground is that we want our beautiful places to remain beautiful, and also have access to these same areas. The inherent conflict will always be an endless source of discussion.

 

In this case the question is: which agency would manage this climbing resource based on what our collective values are? To be fair, we all automatically think of Mt. Rainier permits and the North Cascades' belay station removal when the NPS is mentioned, but that agency spans the range of access from having only one road into Denali to a sea of bolted lines in Yosemite and Joshua Tree.

 

But the crux is: what really are climbers' collective values? Roskelley and Wickwire are about as 'climber' as you can get, and also believe that NPS land has the most staying power of the land management agencies hence their support of this effort. Others obviously feel it's not worth the sacrifice of more limited access (and other issues). All different shades of gray I suppose.

 

At the end of the day, we neither objected nor supported their plan. I wish it were as dramatic as was written here...it would make for great TV. Happy to discuss further too at the next Pub Club too

 

Eddie Espinosa

NW Regional Manager

American Alpine Club

[num1mc]

They're still pissing their pants in Mountlake Terrace

 

WHISKY TANGO FOXTROT OVER!!!!!!

Edited July 6, 2015 by num1mc

[Eric T]

Mr. Espinosa,

 

Thank you for your comments and clarifications. It's refreshing to know the the American Alpine Club neither supports nor objects to the AALP plan. That sounds like a safe and neutral position.

 

It's the same position the WCC puts forth. I was at VW for the WCC meet and greet last week and when the floor was opened for questions I asked about the WCC position on park expansion. They said they won't take a position publicly until they need to but it was obvious that no person there supported the expansion.

 

1MC is the only source for mountaineers support with that four year old article he gave the link for.

Which in my mind isn't active support. Again when I ran this question up the chain of command at the Mountaineers all I got back was silence.

 

I couldn't agree with you more that Mr. Roskelley and Mr. Wickwire are some of Americas most respected, accomplished and celebrated Alpinists. It's obvious why the AAC would listen to them.

 

However, I don't believe that one's climbing resume or accomplishments make any Americans opinion on Federal Land Conservation more important than any other Americans opinion. And it's because those two are such respected and storied climbers that the AALP proposal feels like a betrayal. And my words sound dramatic because they need to know people are pissed off about this.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to comment on this very important issue Mr. Espinosa.

 

Eric

[mattp]

Eric,

 

I was answering your questions about this at the Vertical World event.

 

I would add that we have not seen either the Forest Service or the Park Service express support for this proposal, as far as I know.

 

I believe the North Cascades Conservation Council (NCCC), who was involved and maybe instrumental in the formation of the North Cascades National Park, put this proposal together but there have been some efforts to distance that group from this particular campaign. While I don't think the park has managed things the way I think they should, or could, I'm very happy to see the North Cascades recognized and preserved as a national gem the way that parks are.

 

The National Park Service has recently promoted an outreach campaign advocating an opportunity to experience nature. The Governor has too. I'm not sure the Forest Service has put it the same way, but I think that this is a general message that we can expand upon.

 

North Cascades expansion or not, we need to advocate for public access to public lands, as long as it may occur in a long-term sustainable manner.

[AAC-PNW]

And it's because those two are such respected and storied climbers that the AALP proposal feels like a betrayal. And my words sound dramatic because they need to know people are pissed off about this.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to comment on this very important issue Mr. Espinosa.

 

Eric

 

No worries...maybe I'll just make one more comment about this. I guess one of the points I was trying to make is that I feel their efforts are in good faith with respect to climbers, however there is obviously a difference of opinion among climbers as to who would manage those areas best. And I brought up the other national parks as examples of how climbing can still exist under NP management.

 

I guess for me, betrayal is a pretty strong word. I know this proposal has created some friction among climbers but I think I would only use it if they were advocating for the park to be sold to BP for fracking or something.

 

I'm on the board of the WCC too, and we've talked about this issue more than once. Feedback from you guys is definitely heard, so thanks for bringing this up!

 

- Eddie

[curtveld]

And my words sound dramatic because they need to know people are pissed off about this. Eric

Eric T is certainly welcome to his opinion, but no doubt there are a variety of opinions around this site, whether posted or not.

 

My personal climbing convenience is not the only consideration, and I see both advantages and disadvantages to the expansion proposal.

 

Appreciate the thoughtful comments from Eddie and Matt, and good to see that AAC and WCC have been following this issue along the way.

[num1mc]

 

I couldn't agree with you more that Mr. Roskelley and Mr. Wickwire are some of Americas most respected, accomplished and celebrated Alpinists. It's obvious why the AAC would listen to them.

 

However, I don't believe that one's climbing resume or accomplishments make any Americans opinion on Federal Land Conservation more important than any other Americans opinion. And it's because those two are such respected and storied climbers that the AALP proposal feels like a betrayal.

 

You need to get a grasp on reality. While I don't agree with Jim Wickwire and John Roskelly, they are welcome to have their own opinion on NOCA without me crying about a gross betrayal. They obviously feel the the North Cascades warrant this extra protection, and that the increased bureaucracy is a worthy price to pay.

 

So far in this thread you've accused the NPS of trying to reinvigorate Agenda 66, sell the place off to the concessioners, and lock up Liberty Bell.

 

Some of your claims are mutually impossible.

 

You also seem to forget that there are places that the NPS has bent over backwards to accommodate climbers, chief among these is Yosemite. All other back country users need overnight wilderness permits for camping, this is not enforced on the big wall climbers what so ever. Bolts are allowed to be placed by community rules, and even fixed rope shit shows by Chongo, the late Dan Osmand ,Dean Potter and slack liners are allowed.

 

Your shotgun approach is just plain stupid and hysterical

[Eric T]

1mc, it would sure be easier to take you seriously if you had a name or trip report.

 

We may share differencs here but everyone else uses their name.

 

What's your name 1mc?

[num1mc]

None of that has anything to do with my points that it is unfair for your to hysterically attack Jim Wickwire and John Roskelly for voicing their opinion. This is America you know.

 

You then attack the AAC for things that they are not involved in.

 

You then attack the Mountaineers based solely on their involvement several years ago, and on the stance or their Conservation committee.

 

And you attack the the NPS based on this old Mission 66 model that is decades in the past and is no longer a realistic concern.

 

So instead of addressing any of this, you demand a trip report and CV from me. I suggest instead that you calmly look at the issues of expanding NOCA and pare your concerns down to reasonable ones likely to garner support, and not running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Edited July 13, 2015 by num1mc

[Eric T]

None of that has anything to do with my points

 

Without knowing who you are you have no point because who the point is coming from has everything to do with perspective.

 

I don't know if you work for the NPS or you're a 14 year old girl from the Philippines.

 

And yes I have made some personal attacks here however I state my name right after them. I'm not cowering like a total pussy behind my screen name. I climb in this town and many climbers here know me, they see my actual face in trip reports and at the base of cliffs. I walk straight into the wilderness permit building at the NCNP and they know who I am.

 

If you'd like to be part of the conversation let us know who you are, then I'll address your points.

 

Unless you're a wanted felon or don't believe in what you're saying, sign your name 1MC.

 

 

 

[num1mc]

None of that has anything to do with my points

 

Without knowing who you are you have no point because who the point is coming from has everything to do with perspective.

 

I don't know if you work for the NPS or you're a 14 year old girl from the Philippines.

 

And yes I have made some personal attacks here however I state my name right after them. I'm not cowering like a total pussy behind my screen name. I climb in this town and many climbers here know me, they see my actual face in trip reports and at the base of cliffs. I walk straight into the wilderness permit building at the NCNP and they know who I am.

 

If you'd like to be part of the conversation let us know who you are, then I'll address your points.

 

Unless you're a wanted felon or don't believe in what you're saying, sign your name 1MC.

 

 

 

I would think that a little math looking at my posts which go back to 2001 would point to the unlikeliness of me being a 14 year old girl. And I think that my English is good enough that it could be assumed that I grew up in the USA.

 

None of the rest matters.

 

You have asked why I am hesitant about the NPS expanding, and I answered you in about two sentences.

 

Your reasons are accusatory and somewhat specious. It would be nice if your reasons were more cogent.

 

I don't get the chest puffery against me, Wickwire or Roskelly.

[rat]

take your ad hominem attack to spray.

[dougd]

take your ad hominem attack to spray.

 

Uh Oh, what to do now Eric, this one has TR's!

 

The "name" thing's still an issue maybe tho...

 

d

Edited July 13, 2015 by dougd

[JasonG]

One time I criticized the NPS expansion proposal on this board and a ranger showed up at a Skagit Alpine Club meeting to take me and my opinions to task. It wasn't funny then (more creepy), but with time, it's somewhat hilarious.

 

I guess my point is, sometimes anonymity is a good thing.

[dougd]

Agreed Jason. We use our names here and so are easier to find I suppose. I'm not as concerned as I should be perhaps.. The NCNP expansion discussion should be open to every citizen, wherever it occurs. Maybe the Ranger believed you to be influential, and so, sought you out...

 

As far as the NPS goes, my interactions with them over the many years I have been frequenting National Parks have been very good overall. I've ran afoul a few times, paid the price, and moved on with my life somehow. There was the "illegal camp" in Glacier Park in the '70's... In Yosemite a couple years ago when my biker friends and I commandeered a camp host site near Tuolumne because it was open and the Ranger came by to make sure we weren't just some ne'er do wells or whatever... He was great. We ended up with some Japanese and Bosnians sharing our fire. It was fun. It all worked out.

 

Constructive criticism of the NPS administration will always be beneficial and I would think they would welcome it.

 

I find my self leaning toward supporting the AALP proposal. 237,000 plus acres added, without changing the existing NCNP is very attractive. The devil will be in the details though, and that means legislation. I wonder where things are at legislatively and just how closely said pending legislation will resemble the AALP proposal. I see no new events planned on the AALP web site but I'll keep checking and hope to attend in our area if one comes up.

 

I definitely need more information, and I'll continue to monitor sites for info including this one. Good to see thoughtful discussion picking up here lately...

 

d

[num1mc]

take your ad hominem attack to spray.

 

Uh Oh, what to do now Eric, this one has TR's!

 

The "name" thing's still an issue maybe tho...

 

d

 

And he's the god father to my step dog to boot.