Expansion of North Cascades National Park

Nice creativity Scotsman...I could see the sunday night movie with the panoramic shot fading out....

Thanks,
I'm thinking George Clooney for my role and my grandson, Lowell Marcus played by Jake Gyllenhall.
It's going to be called  "Paradise Lost... Again".

My screen play has a subplot with Megan Fox playing a young idealistic Park Ranger who falls hopelessly in love with a renegrade snowmobiler/skier played by Brad Pit. Together they discover that a "bad apple Superintendent" at the Park is involved in corruption and it all eventually leads to a big shoot out at Cascade Pass involving helicopters crashing and a band of ski tourers on snowmobiles rushing in to save the day.

I think it could be a blockbuster.

I'm thinking George Clooney for my role

Clooney?

He's only going to f up the accent.

If you're going to do it, do it right.......

My screen play has a subplot with Megan Fox playing a young idealistic Park Ranger

I know the current backcountry/climbing ranger in NCNP and prefer her over Megan Fox.

I'm going to bring this up again, and hopefully someone in the N3C / AAA / etc crowd can answer -

What is the problem with converting the proposed area to a National Recreation Area?

Similar restrictions on extractive development as a national park, but no new bans on mountain biking, heli-skiing, hunting, snowmobiling, or motorized vehicles.

If people just want protection from further development, this would seem to accomplish that while not affecting the existing uses of the area - assuming that is the actual goal behind the conservation efforts, and not just a new restriction/exclusion of existing users.

I would also like to understand this option better. As I understand it the main reason that the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs were created was to accommodate hunting. That was a key political compromise needed to establish the national park. It seems like an NRA along the Highway 20 corridor could prevent undesired development while accommodating a variety of recreational activities. Can anyone comment on potential problems with this approach?

If this path is taken, I foresee a need in a few short years for a "recreation user conflict management czar." That seems like the crux of future management to me.

If this path is taken, I foresee a need in a few short years for a "recreation user conflict management czar." That seems like the crux of future management to me.

Interesting thought there....maybe more of a committee to cover most/all user groups.

I would also like to understand this option better. As I understand it the main reason that the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs were created was to accommodate hunting. That was a key political compromise needed to establish the national park. It seems like an NRA along the Highway 20 corridor could prevent undesired development while accommodating a variety of recreational activities. Can anyone comment on potential problems with this approach?

If this path is taken, I foresee a need in a few short years for a "recreation user conflict management czar." That seems like the crux of future management to me.

I think you must have missed an earlier link I provided in response to your request for info about NRAs :

Mt. Rogers NRA . 

It is a NRA established in the 60s for dispersed backcountry recreation, including wilderness, as opposed to NRAs associated with lakes and reservoirs.  Of particular note in the link is the ongoing public process for determining limits of acceptable change. 

An NRA would not require a Czar at all--not any more that an existing NP or NF.  However, many NFs are much more experienced in mediating among different user groups than most NPs. For example:  Olympic NF In PNW, Adaptive Management Areas were set up with AMA managers who mediated amongst conflicting demands and influences and who operated below the Ranger District level.  The AMA process was actually an exciting and rewarding process for many from quite different interest groups.

No matter what the administrative structure on public lands there will be increasing demands from diverse publics requiring skilled managers to manage, mediate, and arrive at, I hope, some consensus management.  An NRA would, however, put recreation at the top of the priorities, under the constraints of environmental protections that apply to all federal lands, but especially to National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and National Parks (BLM has slightly less mandated protections).

Just as an aside, given some comments about protections:  NF are required by law to provide viable populations of all indigenous and all desired non-native species (for example, introduced trout) of wildlife and to maintain biological diversity under the National Forest Management Act and to abide by the Endangered Species Act (and to cooperate with the Department of Interior in threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management) and the National Environmental Policy Act, etc.  Yes, I am more than intimately familiar with how the USFS has broken the letter and the spirit of the laws, and also with how they were subsequently lambasted publicly and in court because of that.  I think the culture of the agency has changed over the years [I did a study of the cognitive preferences of USFS professional and scientific employees that showed District Ranges differed in the information and values they incorporated in their decision making compared to previous generations].   Foresters no longer dominate the line officer positions as they once did.  For example, the Supervisor of the Olympic National Forest, formerly the principal line officer in the Methow area, Dale Hom, got his degree in outdoor recreation (not board feet production).