Expanding North Cascades NP

[num1mc]

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.

 

Would that ban on stocking apply the the three big dam impounded lakes, as well as Lake Chelan? This (NPS produced [biased?] history includes the statements by the head of WA Dept of Fisheries [factually biased?] that stocking was required for at least some of these lakes) .

While less dramatic, a park would have similar consequences for sports fishing, given the range's extensive system of rivers and lakes. Ross and Diablo lakes and the Skagit and Stehekin rivers, he noted, were the most important fishing waters in the proposed park. These waters were heavily used yet without his department's extensive restocking program, fishing would diminish, for they offered "little or no potential for natural restocking." The Stehekin River figured most prominently in the discussion of fisheries management. The Stehekin was "the key to fishing" in Lake Chelan because it was the only tributary which had "the physical characteristics needed to implement modern fisheries management programs

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/noca/adhi/chap1.htm

 

Regardless of one views, the NPS produced history is fascinating, and details the struggles between the USFS+DoAg v. Dept. of Interior+NPS, as well as the personalities of Bob Marshall and Harold Ickes. At one time, the precursor of NOCA was hoped to contain almost all of the North Cascades north of Stevens Pass.

 

And in contrast to an earlier poster who stated "...Wilderness designation is the gold standard.." the NPS history points out that Wilderness is merely an administrative designation, while NP status mandates the protection and management by an entire service.

 

Never the less, folks are right to be concerned.

[num1mc]

For the record: I'm 55% against it.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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.

 

Yes, and that is even more perplexing! The NCNP does its best to thwart climbers. There is no consistency between National Parks, even in WA. I have no bones to pick really with how MRNP handles climbers and multiuse access (except the closing of W side road - a bit of an annoyance), or the Olympics (climbers, backpackers). It's the NCNP in particular that has a hostile and overprotective attitude towards climbers and protecting resources - especially in the Boston Basin area. If that's the model - I don't want it to expand.

[mattp]

I believe the recent ban on bolts in the entire Park was a poor idea, KK, and I have been frustrated by some of their administration of the permit restrictions over the years, but I don't think the NPS has done its best to thwart climbers. For example, they improved the trail in Eldorado Creek (or is it Roush Creek) not long ago.

 

I don't support the proposed expansion, but the NPS has not been all bad or even mostly bad in the North Cascades. I think the establishment of the Park has been a PLUS for protection of the wilderness character of this magical wilderness that so many of us cherish.

[Eric T]

And in contrast to an earlier poster who stated "...Wilderness designation is the gold standard.." the NPS history points out that Wilderness is merely an administrative designation, while NP status mandates the protection and management by an entire service.

 

http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm

 

Q--How is wilderness different from other federal public lands?

 

A--Designated wilderness is the highest level of conservation protection for federal lands.

 

The highest level equals "The Gold Standard".

 

More than half of our Nations Wilderness areas aren't in National Parks. Hence we can protect the land to the highest level, ie "The Gold Standard" and not involve the park or expand the park.

 

I'm sorry, lets go back to the beginning. Why does anyone want to expand the park?

 

Edited July 23, 2015 by Eric T

[num1mc]

That was based on this:

A park seemed to offer the most practical alternative to saving the wilderness of the North Cascades. Under the Forest Service, wilderness received only administrative protection and therefore the agency was not accountable to Congress and the American people. National parks, however, represented the nation's premier form of scenic preservation; parks were legally bound to protect wilderness, for the most part, by their enabling legislation and the Park Service's Organic

 

Written by the NPS

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/noca/adhi/chap1.htm

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I believe the recent ban on bolts in the entire Park was a poor idea, KK, and I have been frustrated by some of their administration of the permit restrictions over the years, but I don't think the NPS has done its best to thwart climbers. For example, they improved the trail in Eldorado Creek (or is it Roush Creek) not long ago.

 

I don't support the proposed expansion, but the NPS has not been all bad or even mostly bad in the North Cascades. I think the establishment of the Park has been a PLUS for protection of the wilderness character of this magical wilderness that so many of us cherish.

 

I have observed behavior that thwarts climbers.

 

Answer me this, how can Mt. Rainier manage climbers on Muir, Schurman, etc by # of climbers but NCNP does it by # of permits? If the issue is impact wouldn't that mean # of people at a time and not # parties (a party could be 1 or 12). In boston Basin, 6 parties are allowed and that could be anywhere from 6 to 72.

 

And why can't climbers make reservations? Why do you have to roll the dice and show up at 7 am (or the evening before) only to find the park has issued all the permits, including those to guides who pay franchise fees? Makes it hard to plan anything too.

 

Have you been up the Boston Basin trail recently? It's overgrown. Why is WTA not allowed to go in there and do volunteer trail maintenance?

 

Sorry, but I am not happy with the NCNP and how they administer the land. I'm much happier with the Olympic NP and MRNP.

 

 

[dougd]

I believe the recent ban on bolts in the entire Park was a poor idea, KK, and I have been frustrated by some of their administration of the permit restrictions over the years, but I don't think the NPS has done its best to thwart climbers. For example, they improved the trail in Eldorado Creek (or is it Roush Creek) not long ago.

 

I don't support the proposed expansion, but the NPS has not been all bad or even mostly bad in the North Cascades. I think the establishment of the Park has been a PLUS for protection of the wilderness character of this magical wilderness that so many of us cherish.

 

I have observed behavior that thwarts climbers.

 

Answer me this, how can Mt. Rainier manage climbers on Muir, Schurman, etc by # of climbers but NCNP does it by # of permits? If the issue is impact wouldn't that mean # of people at a time and not # parties (a party could be 1 or 12). In boston Basin, 6 parties are allowed and that could be anywhere from 6 to 72.

 

And why can't climbers make reservations? Why do you have to roll the dice and show up at 7 am (or the evening before) only to find the park has issued all the permits, including those to guides who pay franchise fees? Makes it hard to plan anything too.

 

Have you been up the Boston Basin trail recently? It's overgrown. Why is WTA not allowed to go in there and do volunteer trail maintenance?

 

Sorry, but I am not happy with the NCNP and how they administer the land. I'm much happier with the Olympic NP and MRNP.

 

 

Are we saying because we are not pleased with NPS administration, we are going to oppose protecting NCNP as is, and an additional 237,000 acres?

 

Is that all this user group has to offer in opposition? Or am I misreading the theme of this thread...

 

 

[num1mc]

No, I think you have it right

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Is that all this user group has to offer in opposition? Or am I misreading the theme of this thread...

 

 

That's how I use the park, so that's my perspective. IF the park is expanded and further restricts my access and enjoyment why would I support it?

 

What does the public care in general?

 

The park system is about preserving the land for the enjoyment of its users for generations. You have to have both.

 

I'm all for preserving the land, but I don't buy the argument that you have to have the NPS do it in the way they do in the NCNP since I go elsewhere and don't see the land getting trashed and going to hell in a hand basket - even at popular places like WA pass.

 

[Tom_Sjolseth]

Not in favor for many reasons. I don't think it will happen either.

[cakeo48]

I think it would be better, if it became it's own park including the pasayten wilderness, but the park would have to be more like the Gates of the Arctic national park, with no fees, and passes, with no facilities, or up keep.

[JasonG]

 

Are we saying because we are not pleased with NPS administration, we are going to oppose protecting NCNP as is, and an additional 237,000 acres?

 

Is that all this user group has to offer in opposition? Or am I misreading the theme of this thread...

 

 

No, at least what I hear (and personally think) is that we are opposed to giving more land to NOCA to manage. In my view, the USFS land in question is already adequately protected under the NW forest plan (or wilderness protections if any of those lands are included in the ALPS proposal). If the NWFP is amended significantly to undermine that protection, then I will re-evaluate. Until then, I will oppose the park expansion, for the many reasons outlined above.

[payaso]

I tend to lean towards oppose rather than support this proposal.

 

What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve? If someone could show that there were active mineral and mining claims that could be activated in the proposed new boundaries, that might change my mind. In today's world, I find it unlikely that this would be a feasible area for a ski area. The gains from this proposal seem to be somewhat superficial.

 

What we stand to lose however will be the big killer rappel bolt on Liberty Bell, the ability to climb in the WA Pass area w/o bureaucracy, the ability to mountain bike in the area, the ability to bring your dog, and the ability for professional guides to bring clients or instruct in the area, and lastly it will limit the ability of volunteer groups to learn to climb in the area. South Early Winters is a pretty popular first climb for many.

 

Again, my mind could be changed if you showed me that there are locations in real danger of being turned into resource extraction, yuppie hotels, or carnival rides or whatever, but so far, I don't see what the real or perceived threat we would be protecting this land from might be.

[Eric T]

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article55465600.html

The commercialism of the Yosemite name grab by Delaware North is getting national publicity, but the battle for the heart of Yosemite National Park was lost decades ago.

 

For much of the late 1970s, the National Park Service went to extremes to draft a master plan that would guide Yosemite National Park through the years. Thousands of park loyalists were involved in that effort, and hearings and planning sessions were held throughout California.

 

Yosemite Valley was the spiritual home and cradle of the American preservation ethic. Countless suggestions were advanced, including banning cars, removing buildings and restoring natural systems.

 

The park was a national shrine and citadel, and it was no place for small dreams. After much hand-wringing and controversy, the 1980 general management plan was adopted with the aim of “de-urbanizing” the park and providing the guidelines for a more natural park experience.

 

 

Under then-Superintendent Robert O. Binnewies, several buildings were removed. It was an auspicious start.

 

Then things went terribly wrong. The Yosemite Park & Curry Co., the park concessionaire and MCA affiliate at the time, saw the management plan as a threat to its bottom line – and Binnewies was terminated under some spurious, trumped-up charges.

 

After that, it was downhill for the management plan and the concept of a more natural park. Today, the de-urbanized Yosemite is in shambles. Echoes of “Disneyland North” or “Yosemite World” once again rumble through the land. Some park veterans admit that Yosemite Valley is a “lost cause” and they are just trying to preserve the rest of the park.

 

What happened? After spending countless millions of dollars and a couple of decades of dreaming and planning, MCA and the Reagan White House – and a compromised National Park Service – torpedoed the dream of a restored Yosemite.

 

 

Gradually the dots came together. Binnewies and his stewardship were sent packing, and the Yosemite Master Plan was shoved to the back burner.

 

AFTER SPENDING COUNTLESS MILLIONS AND A COUPLE OF DECADES OF DREAMING AND PLANNING, MCA AND THE REAGAN WHITE HOUSE – AND A COMPROMISED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE – TORPEDOED THE DREAM OF A RESTORED YOSEMITE.

 

Back in his Hollywood days, Ronald Reagan had Lou Wasserman as his agent. Now, fast forward to the Reagan White House. Wasserman and his MCA hirelings didn’t need an appointment to see the president.

 

 

Today, Yosemite Valley lies far removed from the vaunted general management plan. Instead of removing facilities, the park service adds more. Through a succession of park superintendents and an indifferent public, the “nibbling away” at the Yosemite dream continues.

 

Those concerns are evident today as one walks through the urban jungle of Yosemite Valley. A more natural park has become little more than wishful thinking.

 

The ongoing construction of a new restroom facility near Ahwahnee Meadow is a case in point. While the project ostensibly complied with the management plan, the prolonged review transcended the intent of the plan.

 

The transformation of the area across from Camp Four into an unplanned parking lot is a blight upon the land. The relocation, instead of removal, of the tent cabins from the rock fall area is another indignity to the spirit of the master plan. More facilities will only demand even more.

 

A more natural park … dream on.

 

The new concessions contract with Aramark – with an estimated value of $2 billion – underscores that premise. Against ever-increasing park visitation, that new contract should have required a gradual reduction in the number of overnight units – a staged reduction – that would, perhaps in a century, offer a more natural Yosemite Valley.

 

Overnight accommodations need to be moved outside the park to the gateway communities.

 

Back in 1990, Herb Ewing, a third-generation “Park Service brat,” saw the gradual erosion of the preservation mission. Park use and visitation began driving park management. He believed that the Park Service had become lost in the wilderness of Washington, D.C., and had become part of the bureaucracy.

 

Money and commerce became the master plan. The park’s founding mission of preservation was pushed aside.

 

TODAY, PARK APOLOGISTS CLAIM THAT THE AGENCY SUFFERS UNDER A DUAL OR CONFLICTING MISSION, THAT IS, PRESERVING THE PARK WHILE PROVIDING FOR VISITOR USE AND ENJOYMENT. THE PARK SETS QUOTAS FOR ITS WILDERNESS AREAS BUT NO LIMITS ON ITS ITS CASH REGISTERS.

 

It was a hundred years ago when Stephen Mather and Horace Albright – both graduates of the University of California and Yosemite advocates – lent their collective energies and personal wealth toward the creation of a new American institution: a National Park Service. As the first two directors, they saw the future – and it was the preservation of the best of America.

 

Yosemite was central to their efforts to create a greater national park system of the nation’s most significant lands and cultural areas. Essentially, the park charter was to hold these national treasures inalienable for all times while providing for reasonable public use.

 

Today, park apologists claim that the agency suffers under a dual or conflicting mission – that is, preserving the park while providing for visitor use and enjoyment. The park sets quotas for its wilderness areas but no limits on its cash registers.

 

Binneweis’ heart is still in Yosemite. In his book, “Your Yosemite,” he maintains that the national parks have become the pawns of the politicians and money changers.

 

Later this year, the National Park Service will mark its 100th year under the lofty banner that it was “The best idea this country ever had.” With the approaching centennial, the Park Service need to revisit its stated mission. That is:

 

“to regulate the use of the … national parks … (whose) purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

 

Unimpaired – Yosemite is not. Compromised – the National Park Service is.

 

Gene Rose is a former Fresno Bee reporter and photographer who covered the Sierra and has written several books on Yosemite.

 

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article55465600.html#storylink=cpy

[Eric T]

Any of you Ladies headed for a National Park should keep your guard up when the Rangers are around. Just one more reason we should disband this broken and archaic agency.

 

The U.S. National Park Service Is Full of Predatory Pervs

By Adam K. Raymond

 

 

 

For female employees working in the U.S. National Park system, there are threats much greater than bears. Namely, their male co-workers. On Thursday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee heard testimony about rampant harassment among employees at some of the nation’s most famous park, including Yellowstone and Yosemite. The conditions at the California park, where 18 employees have complained about the work environment, were described as “toxic, hostile, repressive and harassing.”

 

One of the victims who spoke to the committee was Kelly Martin, a 32-year veteran of the park service who currently serves as Yosemite’s chief of fire and aviation management. She recounted one incident where a park ranger watched her shower and received no punishment when she reported him. In fact, he was promoted despite being “repeatedly caught engaging in voyeuristic behavior.” She also spoke of the time a male supervisor who kept her picture in his car tried to kiss her. And the time another supervisor ran his fingers through her hair during a meeting.

 

Martin said her experience was not unique and that many female employees at Yosemite “are being bullied, belittled, disenfranchised and marginalized from their roles as dedicated professionals.”

 

The allegations at Yosemite are little surprise to those who followed the stories of an abusive chief ranger at Canaveral National Seashore in Florida or the sexual misconduct reported at the Grand Canyon.

 

Lawmakers of both parties were angry about what they heard but had little faith much would be done to stop it. As Maryland representative Elijah Cummings mentioned, a park-service task force was convened in 2000 to find solutions to rampant harassment. None of its recommendations were implemented.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Eric T

[Trent]

Although I am conflicted in my opinion of the park's interpretation and application of policies, especially with respect to climbing, I think that their primary concern is preservation. I can understand and empathize with that mission.

In today's atmosphere of serious consideration by congress to giving away public lands (see http://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2017/1/4/giving-away-our-public-lands-for-free ), I would welcome having more land in a permanently protected status.

[Eric T]

I agree this latest move by Congress is troublesome and that the land should have more protection. That's why we should protect it as a Wilderness Area.

[JosephH]

Anything whatsoever that helps stems the moronic new tide of bolted alpine routes is to be applauded.

[ivan]

a mountain wilderness should not have bolts, but its not always wrong to have bolts in wild mountains

[num1mc]

El Cap in in Wilderness

[Eric T]

 

Did anyone else see that they dropped the grizzly reintroduction options and are now going to have meetings?

 

I, for one, don't want grizzlies in the North Cascades. What do you guys think?

 

[num1mc]

They're already there