Expansion of North Cascades National Park

Well I am being combative as I think your reply exhibits the "reverse elitism" that us ski tourers and "earn your turners" frequently exhibit when talking about others who choose to do their recreation using motorized means and are therefore somehow diminished in terms of their "right to persue happiness" just because they choose ,in our opinion an inferior mode of travel.
Experts ( and I'm not one but do read their views) on the subject of conservation and preservation recognize that the "stakeholder" process is crucial to galvanize support to protect things. Most agree that getting people close up and into the environment or animal that needs to be protected creates stakeholders that will then support the protection cause.
Getting people on whale watching trips and sighting whales from land were possible has done much to up awareness and create stakeholders to protect whales even if they are tourists in Hawian shirts and not "locals in Patagonia soft shells" who are obviously superior in your world view.

Maybe your comment about" leave them alone" the most revealing when you extend the analogy (that even you said is good) to the current main topic. Perhaps you are really suggesting that we leave the  NC alone and close it down and turn it into a museum that only people you deem worthy by dint of their dress and chosen mode of travel should be allowed to access.

Very interesting thread that has lot's of connection to the wilderness thread I've been visiting. Lot's of the same concerns by the proposal impacting even non-motorized recreation. Like I mentioned in the other conversation, the times of locking the public out of public lands has come to an end without modifications to the idea of restricting development seperate from the various recreation opportunities available. And as mentioned in one comment, I do think a revolution is on the way on many fronts. But that's a whole different topic in itself.

The NC3 project is destined to be a complicated one, and most likely, a divisive one. Unfortunately this is not what these study areas need as opposed to unifying all the entities and individuals that are passionate about the North Cascades in advocating better management through greater funding and intelligent supervision.

Thanks for your time,

Paul Butler
North Cascade Heli
Mazama, Wa

BINGO!!! 

I feel that the only way to effectively address an issue as complex as the management of this unique and inspiring resource is to engage the broad community in an honest dialogue about that limited resource, and the threats and opportunities it brings. 

"Starting" the conversation with the "solution" rarely works to  "unify" in any situation like this, and this "we know the solution" approach will likely stand in the way of any real "progress" until it is off the table and an objective facilitator is supported by the public, the USFS, and the NPS.

J.P.

As part of the American Alps outreach effort, I have spoken to about 100 individuals and groups in the past year.  I have heard many positive comments about the American Alps proposal, but I have also heard concerns about dog walking, mountain biking, backcountry party-size limits, horseback riding, hunting, heli-skiing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobile use.

I think our task in American Alps is to address the broader conservation issues mentioned in my comments Wednesday, to assure that pristine backcountry areas are not damaged by any changes we suggest, to enhance non-motorized recreation access for families (more on that later), and to be flexible on existing recreation uses in the area. 

The American Alps Legacy Proposal will support maintaining many of the existing recreation uses on the proposed new park lands.  This can be accomplished through legislative language.  We would like to see backcountry party-size limits for non-profit groups providing outdoor experiences for youth maintained at their current level.  Mountain biking on the most popular mountain biking trails in the area could be continued.  Dog walking could be allowed in areas where it will not significantly impact wildlife or the outdoor experiences of other visitors. 

Other recreation uses will not be impacted much by the American Alps proposal.  Horseback riding is allowed in national parks and will continue as a recreation activity.  Snowmobile use will still be possible on State Route 20 (land that is regulated by WSDOT and not the Park Service).  The American Alps proposal will support environmentally compatible snowmobile access to the Hart’s Pass area.  The areas around State Route 20 and Hart’s Pass will remain available to backcountry skiers who like to use snowmobiles for access.  Backpacking and hiking will continue under park management, with the minor annoyance (major to some) of obtaining permits for backcountry camping.

Other recreation activities will be impacted by the American Alps proposal, but we have tried to reduce that impact.  Several hunting areas have been excluded from the American Alps proposal.  These include the Sauk Mountain to Baker Lake area, lands south of the Cascade River, and the portion of the National Recreation Area east of Ross Lake.  Other areas, especially along the State Route 20 corridor where family recreation is more prevalent, would be converted to front-country park and would no longer be available for hunting.  We will support continuation of the existing heli-skiing permit for the full term of the permit (nearly a decade I believe?).  At that point, the Park Service would need to evaluate whether this recreation use should continue.

We also believe that family-friendly recreation opportunities should be increased along the State Route 20 corridor.  That means adding new attractions specifically for kids.  The American Alps proposal will include 25 miles of new front-country trails, numerous ecotourism and cultural interpretation sites, and a waterfall tour.  We are proposing new and more accessible park visitor centers in Marblemount and Winthrop.  Other than the party-size limit discussed above, we will not propose any changes in backcountry management of the national park.

An economic study that we released to the media on Thursday has shown that an increase in the size of the North Cascades National Park and the addition of family-friendly recreation amenities will significantly increase visitation to front-country areas of the North Cascades National Park.  The economic study found that if the American Alps proposal is enacted, more than 1,000 new jobs will be created over the next two decades in gateway communities from Twisp to Concrete.

The American Alps Legacy Proposal has been shaped by our focus on the long-run approach to conservation.  We are concerned about who is going to be here in 20, 30, or 50 years to protect the North Cascades from logging, mining, biomass extraction, energy development, and other threats?  We recognize that access should be maintained for future mountain bikers, dog walkers, horseback riders, and skiers (people who will advocate for continued protection of the North Cascades).  We want to increase recreation opportunities for today’s youth, whose support will be essential for long-run conservation of the North Cascades.  We believe that businesses in gateway communities should prosper from tourist spending, so that local leaders will be there in the future to advocate for protecting the North Cascades? 

I think nearly all of these conservation and recreation issues can be worked out.  I personally support a vision of the North Cascades in 2030 and beyond that includes:
- an expanded national park that brings the park down to the road and into the Methow Valley,
- more non-motorized family-friendly front-country recreation that will attract today’s youth and thus encourage future generations to work for protection of the North Cascades,
- continued ecologically sensitive use of the backcountry by hikers, skiers, and horseback riders,
- increased visitation to the park and the local economic benefits that come with it, and
- limits on extractive activities like logging, mining, biomass harvest, and energy development.

The devil is always in the details. Just to pick one example:

Dog walking could be allowed in areas where it will not significantly impact wildlife or the outdoor experiences of other visitors.

can you be more specific? To my ears, this sounds like "forget about taking your dog for a hike on any of the bona fide hiking trails where they're now allowed (PCT, Maple Pass Loop, etc.)," but as with other National Parks, be allowed only in paved areas and car campgrounds and Scotsmans Disney "hiking" loops (which will be the quite short little walks to viewpoints from parking areas).

I agree with the comment above that it would be more helpful to clearly articulate the problems first, then discuss possible alternatives to solving them. I'm sorry, but when I read, for instance, the hand waving about how this is an important mitigation of harm from Global Warming (which, for the record, I believe is a real problem that requires real mitigation and apaptation steps), I end up thinking "someone wants this park expansion for reasons they aren't fully sharing, but they're grasping at hot buttons and straws to garner as wide a range of supporters as possible." And for the record, I'm a big supporter in general of protecting areas such as this from development, but it seems that we've skipped a few steps between there and this proposal..

I'm sorry, but when I read, for instance, the hand waving about how this is an important mitigation of harm from Global Warming (which, for the record, I believe is a real problem that requires real mitigation and apaptation steps), I end up thinking "someone wants this park expansion for reasons they aren't fully sharing, but they're grasping at hot buttons and straws to garner as wide a range of supporters as possible."

Several people have ridiculed the global warming statements in JRD's original post. I think you didn't read his post carefully. What he's saying is that the steps we might take to address global warming could have an impact on the area in question. He refers specifically to small water storage and/or hydropower dams and biomass extraction activities. The N3C position is that we should find other places (besides the North Cascades) to do these things. JRD also mentions that wildlife may be stressed by global warming and that protecting more habitat from development would be a good thing.

These seem like reasonable statements. He's not saying that the American Alps project is going to reduce global warming. He's saying that the project may limit the harm to the North Cascades that could result from global warming and our actions to combat it. Here's the original statement:

Global warming is also a very real threat to the North Cascades.  Water is an increasingly sought after resource in the Methow Valley, as it is in many areas of the North Cascades.  Already, there is a history of conflict between ranchers who need water for irrigation, developers who need water for development, and agencies and conservation groups that would preserve in stream flows for fish and other aquatic resources.  This conflict will only increase as glaciers melt, snow and rainfall patterns change, and streams become drier in the summer.  How long will it be before there are very serious calls for water storage dams in the upper Methow watershed?

Global warming also directly impacts wildlife.  As our forests continue to burn and our riparian areas continue to dry out, wildlife must find suitable habitat to survive.  Biologists do not fully understand how wildlife will be able to move and/or adapt to global warming.  Renewed logging and mining, small hydropower development, and biomass extraction will all place further stresses on wildlife.  It just makes sense to protect as much wildlife habitat in the North Cascades as possible, as we learn more about how global warming will impact wildlife. 

Well there you have it.

Backcountry permits for camping.
Restrictions on party size for backcountry users.
Mountain biking on only "popular trails" whatever that means.
Maybe dogs on special trails..... I bet they'll be exciting trails.
Heli-skiing allowed until their current permit expires then re-evaluation by the park= bye-bye heli- skiing
Disneyfication- more paved trails, visitor centers... for the KIDS so say they. The reason they do this is to give the illusion of permitting more access. They want visitors ..... on the paved areas and in the visitor center while they further restrict access to the untrammeled wilderness.

Lowell, you do a good job as an apologist for them but their propaganda is scare mongering and full of hyperbole at it's best. It is written to carefully extract the most emotional response. Even the reference to all the trails and improving access for "KIDS" is made to deflect criticism. I mean who can be against stuff for the KIDS?

As I've said in my previous posts, there are certain areas that make perfect sense to become part of an extended park. The highway 20 corridor is not one of them. The more I read JRD and N3C's statements the more worried I get. As others have noted, THEY have decided what's the best solution . The arrogance of this group I find mind-blowing and it comes out in their literature. We know what's best...  this is what we are going to do.. and this is what we are going to allow you do in the future..... It's for your own good.

They say that as part of their study the are going to do "ground truthing" but JRD's response only exposes this this for what it is...... study to support decisions they have already made and pre-determined as to whats best... for our own good...others such as the USFS can't be trusted!. A better work for it might be " ground lying and exaggeration done to support our conclusion."

This land around Highway 20 belongs to everybody and the solution lies in everybody getting a chance to determine it's future status not just the Park Service and their supporting groups like this one.

PS
Paul Butler, the last heli-flight at the end of your permit... can I book it now?