One of the biggest changes inherent in park management has barely been mentioned: permit regulations. As the Program Director for Outward Bound in Mazama, this is my chief concern. We operate extensively in the study area, as well as the adjacent wilderness and the NCNP. The NCNP requires all parties to be 6 or less in the backcountry, and 12 or less on trail (these parties must camp in designated campgrounds). Although I understand and support the rationale for this management scheme, this would obviously pose an enormous problem for our organization, which relies upon a financial and educational model of using medium-sized groups (8 -- 12 total).
In the many years we have operated in Washington, we have introduced thousands of students to the North Cascades and inspired them to be stewards of our wild lands, both while they travel within them and in how they conduct themselves at home. I believe we have made an enormous positive impact toward conservation through our work.
While AALP very reasonably says that they would support the continuation of our current permit limits, it is unfortunately not within their control in any way. If NCNP manages the lands, they make the decision. While I have enormous respect for NCNP and the manner in which they manage their lands, I think that if we loose the educational and inspirational value of these lands for organizations such as ours (and NOLS, Wilderness Ventures, the YMCA, etc.), we create an overall negative impact on these lands. The young people that come on our courses see the wilderness as a place they "can't go to" where we humans just "mess things up"; we strive to show them their connection to these wild places. Maintaining sensible access for people creates a connection to place, and that, ultimately drives the conservation movement.
As a resident of the Methow, and a avid snowmobile-assisted backcountry skier, I also have an admittedly personal stake in this decision. I would ultimately support the health of this ecosystem over my own recreation any day of the week, but it is a complex system that requires a nuanced decision. What is clear and simple, however, is where the real local impact on this ecosystem occurs and what causes it: summer tourists. The amount of pollution, impact, trash, etc. created by summer tourists is infinitely greater than that created in the winter. Anyone that has biked across highway 20 can see and smell it directly. If one of the goals of the AALP is to increase park visitors (mostly in the summer), that will have a direct impact on the park ecosystem. More visitors creates more impact. Visitors that tour through in cars and stop briefly at overlooks, paved paths and information booths are not those that develop a lasting connection to a place and work to conserve it (there is ample research showing this correlation).
And lastly, I put on my hat not as an educator or recreationalist, but as an earth scientist. The greatest negative impact that I will ever have on the North Cascades will come not from my snowmobile, skis, boots or tent, but from my commute. Nothing (not mining, logging, or hydro) will change the North Cascades more in my lifetime than global warming. If we want to get serious about protecting the North Cascades, it must include advocating for national global warming legislation. All those cars, power plants, etc. from Seattle to New York are what drive the irreversible impacts to the North Cascade ecosystem.
