Expansion of North Cascades National Park

...National Parks have redefined their mission to protect biodiversity first and provide for public enjoyment second... 

Those interested in how the mindset of Park managers evolved and the possible future of  management objectives of the National Park Service should check out:

www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/id...ks-united-states5853

Interestingly, the author suggests that the NPS will soon have to compromise it's current push for ecological  purity:  "Conflicting needs may require that national parks be divided into management zones...".

Sounds a lot like what we have now?   ???

I think that many are forgetting or do not realize that because of N3C and their cumulative efforts over the past 50+ years, many of the areas which we earn our turns are, have remained untouched. Additionally, the N3C is not hoping to abolish all of these things that have been claimed will disappear with the expansion of the National Park. Even so, if some 'activities' are lost, are we being selfish in wanting all them to remain an option? While personally I would like to be able to eventually paraglide over the N Cascades, and National Parks prohibit this activity, I would still prefer that the area be more thoroughly preserved (with the expansion of the NP) than to be left with some risk of development. Which brings me to another point:

I would say that the dangers of not doing something to further extend protection to the North Cascades may be quite high. How can I get away with saying this? By applying the concept (from avalanches!) danger = risk*consequence. The risk that the Forest Service (Dept of Agriculture) opens these areas up to tree farming, mining, hydro... etc might be low, (some may disagree with this evaluation). However the consequences will be considerable: Examples are: Azurite mine (super-fund site), Erosion, Loss of scenic beauty, loss of habitat. Once done, any actions to these areas will take decades or centuries to recover, if ever. If it remains in the realm of National Parks (dept of Interior....) they will be more thoroughly protected.

So, I'd rather not risk the danger, and I'll forgo selfish considerations for the extended preservation of these amazing mountains and ecosystems.
[edited for spelling/grammar, oops]

Once again, the nuances are lost in the discussion as each side espouses it's ingrained dogma and point of view.
There is no doubt IMHO that there are portions of the area not currently incorporated in the park that make absolute sense to do so. When you look at the map and study areas, there are certainly areas that should be included in the park which= reserved for wilderness in perpetuity.
However, the area I ( yes selfishly) am concerned about is the Hwy 20 corridor that presently allows multi-use such as heli-skiing and mountain biking and seems to work quite well and offers a mix of activities not available elsewhere in WA( heli-skiing).
If it was just about incorporating the areas around Ross Lake and the Pasyaten, I would wholeheartedly support it frankly, but it's not.
The Highway 20 area is emphasized in their promotional data. Their announcement in the Mountaineer's newspaper started with a quote by Fred Beckey about his views and impressions from the top of Liberty Bell so one can only construe that they consider the Early Winter Spires a "  must have" area in their expanded park vision.

So although your altruism Sukiajiumo is much to be admired and far superior to my selfish desire to have heli-skiing and mountain biking available to me for the rest of my active life and my son's during his, could you be more specific in your argument and state wether you think the Hwy 20 corridor should be turned into Park and not just the overall general park expansion vision which as you can see , even some of us selfish types support as well.

It's pretty easy to take pot shots (comparing with Glenn Beck) or picking select items to criticize or generalize.

Well Jackal, you've pretty much covered all the bases there. We can't select items or generalize?? You can't have it both ways or are you just implying that no critiscm or arguments should be allowed and that we should just accept their intentions as being benign and that they know better?

While personally I would like to be able to eventually paraglide over the N Cascades, and National Parks prohibit this activity...

As long as you don't land, it is permitted, isn't it?

I assume that you're interested in fulfilling Bruce Tracy's dream, described here:

mountaineers.org/NWMJ/07/071_Paragliding5.html

Best of luck! That would be quite a flight.

...
However, the area I ( yes selfishly) am concerned about is the Hwy 20 corridor that presently allows multi-use such as heli-skiing and mountain biking. ...

You nailed it. I am glad to hear that you agree with some areas within the American Alps proposal. However, on a personal note, I resent the implication of superiority in my post as I was not trying to be pompous nor snooty, merely suggest a course of consideration by EXAMPLE.

Going beyond ad-hominem...

A big point is they are not wanting to remove Mountain biking as per your arguments:

Taken from front page www.americanalps.org/ (5/18/2010):

---

Recreation Opportunities Must Be Preserved
Recreation is also an essential aspect of the North Cascades National Park. Major Puget Sound population increases may overrun the limited recreation resources available in the North Cascades. Hiking, wildlife viewing, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, and climbing are all extremely popular. Opportunities for these outdoor activities must be preserved and expanded in the North Cascades. Incompatible uses, such as downhill skiing and motorized recreation, are also popular and are slowly encroaching on pristine non-motorized recreation areas adjacent to the current park.
--
So you see that they are not wanting the to remove Mountain Biking. Heli-skiing is likely another story as it is 'moterized recreation'. There are likely leases/policies that would have to be grandfathered in to be properly honored by the NP. Does this mean that we should continue to allow it after expiry of such leases? France and Germany have prohibited this endevour and maybe Switzerland soon. Because heli-skiing may be losing support globally, does NOT mean that it should continue to support it locally.

As long as you don't land, it is permitted, isn't it?

I assume that you're interested in fulfilling Bruce Tracy's dream, described here:

mountaineers.org/NWMJ/07/071_Paragliding5.html

Best of luck! That would be quite a flight.

Ha, yeah. I saw that looking at that sight a while back and it inspired me. That coupled with stories of friends parasailing in the Alps made me look into it. Just need to get more $$ and a fully healed shoulder to have the chance to properly learn. I called one of the ranger stations near the NC NP and they said parasailers are considered 'low flying aircraft', which is prohibited in park terminology.