Expansion of North Cascades National Park

The statement, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” is short-sighted.  ... We need to protect our forests before the logging pendulum swings the other way."

Mining is also an ever-present threat to the North Cascades.  ...

Energy sources are coming to dominate environmental thinking at the national and state levels. ...

The US is actively pursuing biomass as a source of future energy.  ...

Global warming is also a very real threat to the North Cascades.  W...

Global warming also directly impacts wildlife.  ...

I believe national park status will provide far more long-term protection for the North Cascades than the current multiple use national forest status, with its management plan overlays that can change with the next administration.

As the one who stated the "if it's not broke ..." statement, I must reply to the bald assertion of short-sightedness.  In relation to long-term thinking, I've spent 30 years in the PNW researching old-growth forests (actual on the ground research and conducting research by funding universities), spotted owls, other TE&S species, and on ways to restore biocomplexity and biodiversity using approaches that take 300 years or more.  I've thoroughly studied the history of conservation ideas and ecology and, indeed, I have written a book on it.

I agree we need to revise the mining laws; almost all environmental regs, including parks and wilderness designation are exempt from mining laws.  This is a problem that needs to be attacked directly, not indirectly.  But no one has seriously made an effort to change these laws.  Similarly, decisions on energy need to be attacked directly, not indirectly; but who is going to do it.  Another Cheney and no wildlands will be left no matter what the designation is..  Although I am not sure where dams would be built in the Methow  but water use and rights have been a very hot issue there.

The USFS has been degraded into an inept, non-functioning agency; Chief Thomas testified to that.  The agency (and Congress) refused to learn from the Monongahela Controversy, the Bitteroot Controversy, and the PNW Old Growth Forests Controversy and has been effectively eviscerated.

The NPS all too often (in my considerable direct experience) has been guided by inept, ineffectual, poorly educated (in ecology), and counter-productive technical and administrative leadership ascribing to quasi-religious concepts of the "awesome power of nature" and "preserve [by human exclusion]" in perpetuity when we are facing major issues of global warming, pollution, and other human induced stresses that will only increase as human populations do.  We're getting inundated by Gobi Desert dust and industrial pollutants from China already (for quite a few years).

IMHO, nothing done in the North Cascades within the realm of any reason will have any effect on global warming.  You could make some real changes in the Bellingham to Eugene megalopolis, however.

"biomass" as an energy source is ridiculous, as has been shown over and over through research; it just needs to be exposed to the unwitting public that is refractory to science, including evolution, global warming, and modern medicine.  Rand Paul just won an election campaigning in part on doing away with National Parks.  Cutting trees in the Methow to power Seattle?  Really?

We need a political revolution; Obama obviously wasn't it; he's only marginally better than Bush (who would have privatized the parks and forests).  Expanding parks in the short term doesn't affect future political decisions.

I feel clear, cogent arguments about the value of remote healthy, relatively undeveloped ecosystems for the aesthetic, spiritual, and physical appreciation by people and as part of the larger ecosystems' life-support system of air, water, biodviersity, and open space need to be combined with arguments for maintaining healthy forest and prairie ecosystems in conjunction with and embedded in our megalopolises for human health and renewal.  But who is going to listen?  I mentioned I would like to see the National Recreation Area concept developed; my favorite example is the Mt. Rogers NRA in western Virginia, at least as it was developed in the 1960s.  

Thanks for weighing in, JRD. You're reply begs a few questions in my mind, such as:
1) how does National Park status help protect the N. Cascades from global warming? I'm not entirely following you there. You make a brief hand wave at other stresses to animals, but don't really explain how the NPS status would help mitigate the impact of warming on the environment in that area.I don't get who having a little more range that is also ceasing to have a useful climate for current flora and fauna helps, nor why this little sliver is so crucial as compared to so many other unprotected spots along the east slopes. Examples of wildlife that would benefit along with a real explanation of why might help this look like more than just spinning the hot button issue of the moment...
2) Do you think the price of gold will continue climbing, or that it will fall in a repeat of a cycle of rises and falls that has gone on for some time (with current market conditions causing the sort of jitters that lead to an especially big peak)? Which gold deposits are at risk of seeing new mining activity?
3) And to the point of some of the concerns raised on this thread, what's your stance on continuation of recreational activities like mountain biking and heli-skiing in this area (and if you support a continuation, what's your strategy for ensuring that the NPS carries through on that)? It seems that uncertainty on such questions is one block to gaining some potential support for your proposal.

Acarey: I respect your experience in these subjects and your passion for them. But your suggestions about needing a "political revolution" seem unrealistic. Do you seriously believe N3C can pull off what you're asking for?

It seems to me that N3C is taking the pragmatic position that there are a very small number of blunt tools available to them. National Park designation is the tool that they've chosen to apply to the North Cascades problem. It may not be the perfect tool, but they don't have the option of creating a whole new toolset. That's my impression, at least.

I too would like to hear more about the National Recreation Area idea. Would it be possible to address the problems that JRD's post describes by designating some of these areas as NRAs? My maps and memory are dated, but my understanding is that the Ross Lake NRA extends from the lake to Crater Creek, but no farther. Would designation of the Highway 20 corridor from Crater Creek to Silver Star provide the necessary protections? How would NRA management differ from National Park management?

Likewise welcome JRD and for your explaining your point of view.
I like Jim Oker have a few specific questions.... your general overview and generalized goals are all great and who couldn't support the stop to potential despoiling of our wonderful North Cascades.. not even a selfish heli-skiing miscreant like me...... however the "devil's in the details" as is often quoted.
Rather than just quote your lofty goals can we get some specifics?

So........  down to details as it pertains to the Hywy 20 study area.

1) Is the Hwy 20 study area part of the plan to turn into National park?
2) If so, will heli-skiing still be allowed when the road is closed in winter.
3) If so, will mountain biking still be allowed.
4) If so, will snow-mobile road access along hywy20 still be allowed in winter?
5) If so,will the existing campgrounds be kept?
6) If so, will there be restrictions imposed upon the extraordinary heavy use this area sees from ski-tourers once the road opens and snow persists( usually May and early June)
7) If so, what other restrictions/improvements will this particular area suffer/enjoy if turned into National Park?

The problem I have with the whole heli-skiing debate  about being incompatible with preservation and conservation and the point being missed is......
heli-skiing only occurs in winter when the road is closed. When the road is closed, this area ( around sliver Star and the Early Winter Spires ) it can only be accessed by either snowmobile or hiking from the gate at Mazama ( 12 miles) or the gate on the west side( 35 miles?).
To get there by snowmobile is difficult and dangerous and side-hilling across the slide paths very difficult and only a brave few do.  Hiking takes extraordinary commitment and few do.The fauna is covered by deep snow, the critters are hibernating and damage to ecosystems and biomass negligible if not nonexistent.
Noise pollution can't be much of a concern as there are few if any other users.
Avy danger caused by heli-operators skiing above others is again not an issue as few are there and the guides highly trained.
So what's the problem.
Use of hydrocrabons by the heli-s???? if so everybody should be made to cycle to every NAtional Park.
A deep seated hatred of mechanized recreation??
That to protect it must be National Park and that means no heli-skiing by default... and tough titty to those that like heli-skiing????
I just don't get it as it pertains to winter( road closed) heli-skiing.
Care to explain and answer my specific questions.

[quote author=acarey link=topic=16559.msg69978#msg699

The NPS all too often (in my considerable direct experience) has been guided by inept, ineffectual, poorly educated (in ecology), and counter-productive technical and administrative leadership ascribing to quasi-religious concepts of the "awesome power of nature" and "preserve [by human exclusion]" in perpetuity

Nailed it!!!!!!!!
Thanks Acarey, this exactly expresses the fear that many who think like I do  have but fail to explain with so much eloquence.

JRD, This is the fear that many of us have. When I explain my loathing of the NPS, many find my revulsion completely unbelievable. I mean how can't you like National Parks considering you spent most of you time off in them?????
Well, I explain to them that I love the concept of National Parks... Americas crowning jewels.. the best idea America ever had.... but I detest the National Park Service and what it has become and how they administer their mandate. The waste, the bureaucracy, their ineptness I can live( grudgingly and with disgust) with but it's the whole" preserve(by human exclusion) in perpetuity "that scares me, makes me sit up at night writing on blogs like this.

Many who think like I do fear that the dominance of the conservationists within the NPs who just want to lock it up and throw away the key is a real danger. We call it the Disneyfication of the parks. Build a big parking lot, park all the cars, put them in a tour bus, take them to the new visitor center, march them along the new paved boardwalk to the viewing area, give them a heart warming talk by a NPS Ranger dressed in a cute uniform and funny hat while they look at the park that they can't access. Let them buy an overpriced hot dog at the park concession, a sparky souvenir, put them on the bus and take them back to their cars. Least ecological effect, least hydrocarbons and the park is preserved for the NPS field biologists who study in perpetuity.
Its well documented that the majority of day visitors( maybe 90%) already only do this already and only a relatively few ( like most on this website) venture more than a mile from the visitor center at any park.... so why not... sacrifice the access of that small minority that roam far from the visitor center for the greater good of preserving the biomass and fauna untrammeled... in perpetuity.

Your organizations attempt ( presumably) to turn the Hwy20 area into a National Park and de facto curtail certain existing uses does not exactly help dispel the fears that people who share my views have. Answering my specific questions contained in my previous post would certainly help  or at least clarify your intentions.
thanks[/quote]

Acarey: I respect your experience in these subjects and your passion for them. But your suggestions about needing a "political revolution" seem unrealistic. Do you seriously believe N3C can pull off what you're asking for?

It seems to me that N3C is taking the pragmatic position t...

I too would like to hear more about the National Recreation Areas  ... How would NRA management differ from National Park management?

1st let me say my post may seem a little harsh because I forgot the universal politically correct disclaimer that I know lots of intelligent, hard-working, dedicated people in the USFS, NPS, USF&WS, WADF&W, DOE, etc. etc. and I have worked fruitfully with many conservation organizations as well.

I don't see N3C or any other conservation organization or any other organization leading national political revolution.  But I don't see switching National Forest land into National Park custody (or trying to purchase state or private lands for that purpose) as the panacea that N3C spokesman seems to think it is.  Both NFs and NPs have organic and guiding legislation that spell out good deeds--the National Forest Management Act for forests and the NPs organic legislation and both are subject to NEPA, ESA, etc.  But both have repeatedly compromised their mission by developing internal group-think ideologies, by intense pressure from special interests (from logging to concessionaire corporations), and from our elected representatives, who themselves have responded to socioeconomic pressures with short-term instead of long-term solutions.  The broad, sweeping conservation mandates in federal legislation seem to be undercut at local levels.

What is the answer.  I think a legislated NRA designation that sets out very specific objectives and that requires collaborative management incorporating only the necessary and sufficient federal, state, local governments and very specifically the highly interested publics is the best way to manage in a democracy.  It wouldn't be perfect.  But it could cut some of the power-play management that marks our management now.  It is time-consuming and complex, but really aren't all politics and all environmental solutions local?  Thus: N3C, Conservation NW, and the local environmental groups in the Methow, etc.  The key would be to build very strong alliances among those most affected.  Anything less just leads to one upmanship and management shifting with political winds.  I'm working with one loose alliance (including MRNP officials and congressional staffs) now for Mt. Rainier access issues.

Anyway, I've had one request for my book from this site, so see , it is free for the asking from PNW because you paid for it anyway. 

Because of the adversarial nature of our politics, the polarization of our society, and our burgeoning population and increasing demands on natural resources, we're at a point where there are no simple environmental problems and no simple solutions.  Any positive progress will require lots of hard work.