Expansion of North Cascades National Park

At least you are asking questions which is good.
Thanks

If I'm reading this correctly, I think it presents a thought that is useful for ALL forum participants to keep in mind while in conentious discussions such as this thread: when you've drafted a statement that starts to read between the lines of what another poster has written, consider rephrasing that statement as a question, as your reading may be wrong, and besides, you might find that this leads to a more intellectually interesting dialog (though perhaps at the expense of a little momentary catharsis at the expense of another). To that, I'll add a question: does making negative observations about the character of other posters and otherwise negatively commenting on the other members instead of debating the content of their posts tend to add to or detract from the value of the conversation?

I think most bureaucrats are either inept or corrupt, he should have been dismissed. People might take you seriously if you omit sentences like the first part of your quote above. You're obviously passionate about these issues and if you could be more civil maybe people would be more sympathetic to your point of view.

I assume you know you are talking about the vast majority of the white-collar population because "bureaucrats" does not apply solely to gov't employees.  I, however (never having been a bureaucrat), kind of agree with the inept (has an objective observer measured your competence in your job?) but not the corrupt; in fact, I have known many excruciatingly honest, very knowledgeable, highly efficient bureaucrats in local, state, and federal governments and in companies and corporations.  You must like very broad statements.  I don't necessarily agree the person in question should have been dismissed because I don't know the details and what administrative punishments were instituted, for example suspension without pay as well as reassignment for more than a year.  I can not, however, agree that reinstatement was appropriate.

To that, I'll add a question: does making negative observations about the character of other posters and otherwise negatively commenting on the other members instead of debating the content of their posts tend to add to or detract from the value of the conversation?

To the extent (from my perspective) that it will lead to the thread being shut down and discussion curtailed entirely, I'd say it definitely does. Great post Jim and I want to thank folks for trying to work out their differences here.

Here's some comments an questions that lead from them specifically for JRD of NC3.

JRD
As you can see some of us have a deep distrust of the NPS even though we love and cherish the land they administer. Perhaps you can see why some us might  feel that way and greet your group's attempt to further increase their mandate and funding with such skepticism, cynicism and outright fear and resist any attempt that may result in lose of access or present use.
Perhaps your group's aims would be better received by some of us with those views if your group expended the considerable good will, money, time and effort to ensure that the land that your advocacy group has won for perpetual protection is administered correctly with transparency and an attempt at efficiency.
To just say ( I hope you won't ) that that's not your groups aim and  it is for others to deal with would be a real cope out.
How can you advocate for something and then hand over your prize and not take some inherent responsibility for how it is then managed???

As a skier in this beautiful sate and a chronic user of both the MRNP and the NCP there are several issues that concern me greatly and cause my ire and attempts to defeat your group's aims.
1) How can the Park Service allow a Superintendent ( wherever he is now based) with the Report to Congress record remain in a supervisory capacity administering concessionaires when his involvement in the affair and obstruction in declaring it has been found unethical by the government. Do you see how that diminishes your argument for better care of the land by the NPS rather than the USFS?

2)  Why at MRNP is the Sunrise Area purposely opened late when there is no snow to prevent backcountry skiing.?

3) Why at MRNP is a paid park employee posted at the ski are to harass skiers legally entering the park under the direction of a Superintendent who is on the record as saying the he " feels" skiing harms the park?

4) Why has the Superintendent at MRNP actively perused the closure of the Crystal/Park boundary for skiers but actively allowed an increase in guided concessionaires?( where the hell are good old fashioned investigative journalists when you need them)

5) Why is the White river road selectively plowed by the MRNP Superintendent to discourage and effectively destroy legal snowmobile access along that part of the parks's road system.

6) Why has the NPS become one of the least regarded of all the Government Agencies in terms of employee satisfaction .

7) Why has the NPS become one of the least regarded in terms of the use of their budget and have become synonymous with waste, nepotism, cronyism and bureaucracy.?

I have more, but it's a start. As I say, please explain why I should support your groups aims to sign land over in perpetuity to an organisation that exhibits the above problems as it specifically relates to skiers. After all this a skiing website.

Thank you

I assume you know you are talking about the vast majority of the white-collar population because "bureaucrats" does not apply solely to gov't employees.  I, however (never having been a bureaucrat), kind of agree with the inept (has an objective observer measured your competence in your job?) but not the corrupt; in fact, I have known many excruciatingly honest, very knowledgeable, highly efficient bureaucrats in local, state, and federal governments and in companies and corporations.  You must like very broad statements.  I don't necessarily agree the person in question should have been dismissed because I don't know the details and what administrative punishments were instituted, for example suspension without pay as well as reassignment for more than a year.  I can not, however, agree that reinstatement was appropriate.

I totally agree, I deal with government agencies and private companies across the spectrum on a daily basis. There are some highly ethical and effective leaders in some government agencies I deal with and some private businesses. There are also some unethical and useless leaders in the government agencies and private businesses I also get to interact with.  The latter thankfully is a small minority and gives one hope. It also makes the NPS's retainment and reinstatement of this individual so egregious and unfathomable.

Despite what Scotsman may think, I have not made up my mind on whether the Highway 20 corridor should be added to North Cascades National Park.

Scotsman has tried to turn this discussion into an indictment of the Park Service. Some serious accusations have been raised, and I agree that cronyism and corruption should be rooted out of the Park Service as much as possible.

But I don't agree with wholesale bashing of the Park Service or the argument that we should cut support for the agency more than we already have. It seems to me that the Park Service has been a victim for the last two or three decades of the "starve the beast" approach to government. Remember James Watt, Reagan's Interior Secretary? He thought stewardship of public lands was less important than preparing for the Second Coming. Since the Reagan years, the Forest Service and Park Service have been repeated targets of budget cutting by politicians eager to "starve the beast." They don't want to make the parks more efficient, they want to strangle and/or privatize them. I suspect that some of the poor leadership in these agencies is the result of this malign neglect.

Most of my contacts with Park Service people over the years have been with career-level rangers, people like Bill Lester and Kelly Bush (North Cascades), Mike Gauthier and Stefan Lofgren (Rainier), and Jack Hughes (Olympic). My impression is that all of these people are absolutely first-rate, and they're all dedicated to the National Parks. And, from what I hear, they've all coped with tremendously tight budgets and barebones staff and resources. I want these people to get more support, not less.

Let's elect national leaders who'll put good people in charge of these agencies and provide adequate funding. Let's quit pretending that we can "starve the beast" of the Park Service and still protect the National Parks we love.

I haven't decided about expanding the National Park in the North Cascades, but I'm absolutely sure that I want the existing park to be well managed and well funded.