Expansion of North Cascades National Park

On the American Alps Website there are bloggers who write as follows:
This from Tom Hammond
quote...
As it pertains to American Alps Legacy Project, we conducted a bit of informal research. Over the past decade, I've noticed a significant increase in the number of people visiting The Valley in Spring. Whereas I/we used to be alone the entire weekend, now there are plenty of backcountry skiers and folks venturing around on snowshoes, enjoying our National Parks.
I have recently become aware of a vocal minority of downhill/backcountry skiers concerned about American Alps, mistakenly believing Park designation will somehow inhibit their ability to access the backcountry. Based on my real-life experiences over the years, and a weekend of watching DOZENS of backcountry skiers enjoying the upper N Fork Cascade Valley, and visiting with many, I can say with confidence that people come to this place BECAUSE it is a National Park! end quote.

What Mr. Hammond fails to realize is that ski tourers go to cascade pass because it has high level road access NOT because it's a National Park. It's beautiful and I'm glad it's protected but I'm equally happy that I can get near the place by road.
The irony is that we can get access because at one time it was unprotected and there was once a plan to put a road and railway over the pass. I'm glad that didn't happen but that( apart from it's beauty) is why Cascade Pass is so popular with ski tourers..... ACCESS! I wonder how many would get to see it if there was no road.

A few years back I and some buddies went to CP to climb Sahale. We were training a mountaineering trip to AK so we had heavy packs and glacier gear. We called into the Ranger station in the morning to check on conditions etc. When we told them where we were going their first words were that you can't camp without a permit. We told them we weren't camping. They said our packs looked too large for a day trip. We said were going on a day trip. We left.
At Cascade Pass we parked, a ranger came up and asked us were we going. We told him, he told us we can't camp at the Glacier without a permit. We said we know. He said our packs looked to big for a day trip. We said we know but we're only on a day trip. We started hiking. At the actual cascade pass a ranger was standing... where are you going... Sahale.. you can't camp without a permit... we know that.. are sure you are not camping your packs looks too large... no we are not camping...... By this time we were pretty sick of the constant questioning.

Some more questions for JRD.
What is the status of the Cascade River Road ... is it presently under Park authority?
If not and  Park area is extended, will the Cascade River road come under Park authority?
Do you intend to add to any restrictions regarding access on Cascade River Road.
Will the Park maintain it or close it like West Side Road in MRNP?

On another matter the NC3 people have been meeting with Senator Patty Murray and lobbying for funding for their proposal.
The Senator is in a tight race and has been targeted by the GOP. Now, I think the Senator is  a very good Senator and has been very supportive of veterans rights and has superiority in the senate that gives her much weight and I don't personally want another in that seat. However, I would vote her out in a new york minute if I thought she would support the turning over of the Highway 20 area to the Park Service, it's that important to me. She can't afford to loose any votes in such a tight election year so if you feel the same way as me, please contact her at her website and tell her not to support this group or she will loose your vote.

Yammadog.. Can you cross post this over on some other sites and see if we can get some e-mails and calls to the Senator on what the people want?
Thanks
Likewise if you feel different, then tell her that as well .
Here is her website link.
murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Excellent points, Jason. Thanks.

I share your concerns.

As much as I admire what N3C has accomplished in the past, I'm concerned that their approach on this project may be applying a "blunt instrument" (a term I used before) where more refined tools are needed. I'm still not sold on the N3C approach.

What do you mean by" more refined tools".... a better marketing campaign... or revised goals.
A fair question I think.

Scotsman, your remarks are indeed not ambiguous but they are full of implicit disrespect, disinformation, distortion and distrust. I find this far from constructive. Your questions, I do admit are quite relevant, but I find it further frustrating that you immediately are against their proposal, regardless of the answer.

Scotsman, your remarks are indeed not ambiguous but they are full of implicit disrespect, disinformation, distortion and distrust. I find this far from constructive. Your questions, I do admit are quite relevant, but I find it further frustrating that you immediately are against their proposal, regardless of the answer.

They already gave us their answer, read JRD's post carefully, they have already concluded what they want to do and yes I have nothing but disgust and distrust of the NPS.

Here's a quote from a government report. It's not a blogger page or a conspiracy nut. Its a report fr0m the Office of Inspector General to Congress.

The Superintendent was not the NC super but was close. It's not hard to find out who it was if you care to do the research. I think he may have been transferred again recently.

quote.
from:  www.doioig.gov/upload/APR2009SAR.txt
Report to Congress
Office of Inspector General.
"Superintendent Given Letter of Reprimand After Conflict of Interest Uncovered

After a confidential source alleged a possible conflict of interest over a real estate transaction between a park superintendent and a park concessioner, the OIG investigated the case. We determined that the superintendent bought a parcel of land in 1992 for $84,000, sold it in December 2002 for $425,000, and financed the sale of the property to a concessioner over the course of 63 months.

Based on the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, we reviewed documents submitted by the superintendent. This review determined that he made false statements or concealed material facts on his Office of Government Ethics form 450, as well as in an e-mail he sent to the NPS reviewing official who had requested additional information concerning the nature of the transaction. The superintendent also signed the conflict of interest certification for
the contract process, further complicating his position.

Our findings were presented to the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, which declined to prosecute the NPS employee ecause his case did not meet its criminal threshold. Our office was notified in March 2009 that the superintendent had been transferred to another national park and given a Letter of Reprimand."

Scotsman, your remarks are indeed not ambiguous but they are full of implicit disrespect, disinformation, distortion and distrust. I find this far from constructive. Your questions, I do admit are quite relevant, but I find it further frustrating that you immediately are against their proposal, regardless of the answer.

Additionally if you actually care to read my posts carefully and not just stick to your dogma, you will see that I have stated publicly that I support some of the study areas becoming part of the PARK but not the highway 20 study area. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Indeed, your support for some areas was lost in all of your dogma as well. This post has gotten quite long, and I apologize for not recalling every word verbatim. I think many of us are passionate about this, and dogma does get in the way. My response was initially immediately referring to your post where you were insulting to Lowell, which you have since edited.

I will admit, the post that you just found is interesting, but guess what, there is that in all levels of government, quite unfortunately. The FS is not excluded, neither is the NPS.

Relating to one of your quotes that I have read that is distortional:

Part of the proposal has the expansion of the area for greater access to families, disabled, etc. As mentioned previously, to maintain or increase support for wilderness protection younger generations must be given the ability to experience the wilderness to some degree. As such, increasing the access for families and their KIDs is not a appeal to emotion, ergo fallacicious, as some you sarcastically implied:

I mean who can be against stuff for the KIDS?

. By saying this ridiculing the N3C's intentions and yielding an unfair representation of their efforts.

Such expansion efforts for greater are intended to cultivate preservationalism and respect for youth, and even for those who are older. It is additionally seems to be a 'selling point', for the proposal many would not want any money spend on such a project if they could not possible reap any benefit from it. I believe somewhere someone said that such access doesn't improve environmental awareness, perhaps, indeed. I have not seen the studies. This is not the case for me, as I did 'park disneyfication' stuff like that when I was a kid.

I'm sure as Lowell has mentioned, you may constructively contribute to the alteration of this plan or an alternative proposal to make preservation plans that amenable to people sharing your interests.