If the long term health of the landscape is the central issue then it's hard not to come down on the side of expansion of NCNP if for no other reason than mandates. The USFS multiple use mandate, grazing, timber, minerals,recreation etc. etc. seems to pull it in many different directions at the same time. On the other hand the NPS mandate to preserve the landscape for the enjoyment of all americans in perpetuity ( it's been a while since I've read through all this so if I'm wrong someone jump in here and correct me) is simple and direct and in my opinion leads to a better preservation model. Use patterns in the HWY 20 corridor are changing, will continue to change and I think that in the long run, and given the singular mandate, the NPS is probably better positioned to manage those changes. This doesn't mean that I'm a fan of Park management style. I was once given a ticket halfway through a seven day ski traverse and the law enforcement attitude of the Park seems offensive and absurd to me.
Having said the above I, like probably a lot of people thinking through this issue, am not entirely certain how I'll finally come down on this. For over 30 years I've thoroughly enjoyed unfettered access via the HWY 20 corridor and my dog would be really unhappy to be left at home during the summer months. But if we're talking about the land, the long term health of the landscape, then.......... Matt Firth Twisp
Long term health is not the central issue. The central issue is whether the nearby population centers have enough integrity to stand up and say we buy lumber, use metal, eat beef, want cheap power, and all the rest. Not that all this will occur and compromise the area in question or that even the area is well suited for resource extraction of one or all, but it's really crazy to think that stuff always has to come from somewhere else. You can be pretty much assured that the USFS is no longer in the business of routinely growing and selling timber (to the bigtime detriment of the local tax base), as the National Forests are now nearly parks, but since we are such worldly people around here, we should ask ourselves where the lumber should come from - from the worlds' most productive region for quality wood fibre or from someplace we'll never visit, where the productivity of the land is 10% of what it is here. Similar arguement for all the rest, wherever it is most efficient. What do you think happens in the developing world where the west goes to slurp up materials on the cheap? Here we have a well educated (?) population of pseudo environmentalists commanding resource managers, through laws and other behavior, to bring the best science to the table - and this is as it should be.
People should pull their head out and realize we don't, and can't, live in a park. Protect and manage the special places as best we can but understand that your footprint is visible, even if you don't look for it.
