Expansion of North Cascades National Park

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" There seems to be general agreement that current user groups are getting along very well in the proposed AALP areas compared to the controversy surrounding most new wilderness area proposals in the past. Overall, I think the Forest Service has done a more balanced job than the Park Service in managing wilderness, and with less heavy handed (and expensive) methods. The argument that the FS is biased toward logging is 20 years out of date, congress forced that on them. Transferring this land from one agency to another would result in the loss of a lot of existing knowledge about the land and unnecessary additional management expense. It seems the NPS spends a lot more money per square mile of wilderness than the FS, we don't need to make the federal deficit even worse. Designated wilderness expansion could be a good idea in several of the proposed areas, but keep it under FS control, not NPS.

Here's a latest snippet from my" buddies" over at the Alps Project.

Mice weren’t the only ones not cleaning up. Every ski party (about half-dozen) that has come through since Winter has defecated right outside the lookout on the snowfield. It was a mine field of disgusting. Sacrilege! Finding clean drinking water would take me out on the huge summit cornice—very dangerous, but there was no other choice. I felt so let down, by myself and my fellow human. I would NEVER be so selfish, or so unconcerned with others—common courtesy alone would dictate these people take some responsibility…
And so it is with the profusion of high tech ski gear that the back country is not as protected as it used to be, even 10 years ago. I see there is a new usage challenge to consider as we work to protect and enhance our North Cascades.

Seemingly people have been pooping outiside who use the Winchester Mountain Lookout.
Although I agree with him that the popers need to carry their poop out , I'm also concerned about his statement that "And so it is with the profusion of high tech ski gear that the back country is not as protected as it used to be, even 10 years ago. I see there is a new usage challenge to consider as we work to protect and enhance our North Cascades.

So high tech ski gear is now a challenge to the wilderness and needs to be addressed in their expansion plans.
My fear exactly.
Maybe it was climbers not skiers... the poopers that is?

Edited to correct location

Very interesting...

A few weeks ago I was contacted by a writer for Powder magazine who is working on a story about using Cascade fire lookouts as ski shelters. He and some friends had recently stayed at Hidden Lake Peak, Winchester, and Park Butte to spend time, take pictures, and work up the story. He asked me if I would talk to him about lookouts in the Cascades and their potential use by skiers.

I told him that I thought promoting winter use of fire lookouts was a bad idea because they are such a scarce resource, they have no sanitary facilities, they are in vulnerable alpine locations, and the voluntary organizations who maintain them are not set up to manage winter use. In short, they are not like Canadian huts and their use in winter cannot "scale up." I told him that I would not help him with his story.

Good decision Lowell. And when reading Scotsmans post above, I wonder if people know there is an epic toilet just down from the lookout on the ridge. I think it is exposed most of the year due to location. I can't remember seeing a note for it in the lookout, just happened across it when skiing.

.....

I told him that I thought promoting winter use of fire lookouts was a bad idea because they are such a scarce resource, they have no sanitary facilities, they are in vulnerable alpine locations, and the voluntary organizations who maintain them are not set up to manage use. In short, they are not like Canadian huts and winter use of them cannot "scale up." I told him that I would not help him with his story.
...

Lowell, I respectfully disagree with you.  While I appreciate your point re sanitation, I don't see how that is different than any other overnight outing.  Many , if not most, fire lookouts are/were USFS, and while they may not currently be 'budgetly' set up for winter use, I can't help but think that such a public resource should be put to fair use.  I think the greater issue would be accessibility ~ they don't tend to be within just a couple of hours of available winter parking.  Still, I think fire lookouts should be explored/incorporated into the network of refuges for the winter traveler.  

At one time, there was nearly 1000 fire lookouts in Idaho ~ now there are about 200.  Letty and I regularily tour to a couple of them in spring.  How nice would it be to spend the night and comfortably extend the tour?  And, why not?  I'd agree, though, that unlike Euro touring, we'd be unlikely, in the near term, to expect a resident chef ~ but it will eventually happen.  So.., who want's the concession..?




http://picasaweb.google.com/117750425208092389612/SturgillSki2009#5442944358007401602

I think he (LS) just doesn't want winter use of lookouts promoted in a national mag (which I guess I kinda agree with.).  I'm sure people use them a lot already...

ps that guy's post on the Alps Project blog is a little off-putting.  He seems to have a distaste for mice as well as his fellow man.  His sanctimonious attitude is pretty disgusting.  Jeez, loosen up the gaitors.  His attitude (the barely-veiled contempt for everyone but himself) is why lots of independent-minded outdoor enthusiast find the Mountaineers a joke.  I'm sure some folks in the ever-present LARGE and slow Mountaineer parties have, over the past 100 years, crapped where they weren't supposed to at one point or another .