Expansion of North Cascades National Park

You say, "The Superintendent was not the NC super but was close." What the heck does that mean? It seems to me that you're smearing the superintendent of North Cascades National Park. I don't see how that sort of tactic has any place here. Clean up your act, Chris.

I think he's insinuating it was the Super of MRNP, "close" meaning proximity, but he should clean up his act anyway.

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

Will do....it is an impact to sledders as well.

Between the AALP and the WMC proposals, I think the closure of public land to the public is extremely negative on the expansion of the population knowing how we interact with areas out side the cities and our urban neighborhoods. Recreational opportunities are limited as it is for much of the population, but to limit them even more in the name of stopping development is overstepping the ideas I think some of these concepts were thought of initially. Effectively using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.

Having a 2 minute hike on the side of the road as you drive by is not of any benfit to the greater population, only to those few that want their own adgenda realized. I don't see how public money can be spent on this type of restriction or enforcement, given the tight budgets the entire scheme of gov't is under and the concept that we live in a democracy.

The days of having pristine untouched lands went away with our(making some assumptions here) occupation of America and pushing the Indians to the side. Although we do need some protections and some restrictions, the pace and volume the land is being "reclaimed" is out of step with the demands of the pupulation.

As was stated earlier, many of the proponents of these proposals become somewhat like zealots in trying to make their point and it gives way to productive communication to have very workable solutions in the name of kids or wildlife or what ever other trigger they try to use and it does nothing but create conflict.

The only way to keep people from Florida making determinations on our local areas is to gather the groups that actually live in and use the areas to hammer out agreeable terms. Zealots like WMC and such need to be dragged to a table for talks or ignored by the decision makers. And it should be a crime with punishment if our gov't agents in charge of these descisions are not including all groups.

Until that utopia comes about, it will be a letter writing and voting campaign. And Scotsman, I'm sure we'll be hearing of your support in opposing the WMC proposal as it is in it's current description?

A few people found the concept of forests-for-biomass as ridiculous. In is not. In fact, Two companies in Shelton are in stages of wood burning powerplants that will burn sawdust, bark, woodchips and straff.  This was on a NPR story this morning while I was waking up.
A quick internet search yielded
www.tri-cityherald.com/2009/03/19/514732...ants-considered.html
www.king5.com/news/business/250M-biomass...helton-83821887.html
for non/less biased news sources. While they are using more of the trees felled, it makes the green gold much more valuable and desirable.  Please realize forests are now wanted biomass-energy projects, putting more pressure on us (citizens) to get them protected.

With the idea that we need to move to renewable energy sources, what do you think is the ways in which we produce the power our society needs? And where do we do it if not in our backyard? Or someone elses back yard?

With the idea that we need to move to renewable energy sources, what do you think is the ways in which we produce the power our society needs?

Nuclear, nat. gas, solar, wind, etc...

But, I would ask the question 'How much power does our society need?'. Cutting our very frivolous energy use would help the situation a lot.

This is slightly different topic. But here are my thoughts:
As someone else has mentioned above, Biomass is not a clean renewable energy solution. Nor is it, sustainable, scientifically speaking, as with any growable product switchgrass, corn or what-have-you. The amount we consume is annually is greater than what is stored in biological reserves.   I've forgotten the exact numbers, but in merely ~100 yrs we've depleted say (as a highly conservative estimate) of 10%  of the natural fuel reserves, that have taken hundreds of MILLIONS of years to accumulate.  Forests, though renewable, take much longer to develop than other fuel sources. This is why some may say 'using tree's for biomass, ridiculous...'. But as indicated below, the fact that tree left overs can be used in addition to the main lumber, make forests more valuable to harvest.

Yes, I am NIMBY or NIYBY for bios-mass-for-fuel when it is not a bi-product of something not harvested for fuel (i.e. such as food-scraps, yak-dung etc...). But when biomass is harvested with the intent for energy, even if partially (as in lumber), then it shouldn't be considered a real solution. There are other ideas to combat our problems: higher efficiency and energy conservation /solar/wind/wave/geothermal. There is also the not-renewable but increasingly popular Nuclear-power.

Admittedly, there is high need for energy and sources. However, biomass is only a temporary bandage to our help with energy wants. I would hope that the the desire for this as energy source, does not consume old growth forests or other areas within the proposed expansion of the park before it may become protected.
[edited for grammar]

The days of having pristine untouched lands went away with our(making some assumptions here) occupation of America and pushing the Indians to the side. Although we do need some protections and some restrictions, the pace and volume the land is being "reclaimed" is out of step with the demands of the pupulation.

I agree that we took the territory that now comprises the US from the Indians by bullying, killing, and lying and in the process degraded much of the wilderness character that existed just before settlement by European-style civilization. I do not agree that the time for having lands in the lower 48 with wilderness characteristics is gone. I also am not convinced that the 'demands of the population' do not include preservation of mountainous regions that currently posses wilderness characteristics.

The only way to keep people from Florida making determinations on our local areas is to gather the groups that actually live in and use the areas to hammer out agreeable terms. Zealots like WMC and such need to be dragged to a table for talks or ignored by the decision makers. And it should be a crime with punishment if our gov't agents in charge of these descisions are not including all groups.

Why shouldn't folks from FL get their say? Do you count preservation as a use that should be allowed at the bargaining table? In my view, it should be a crime with punishment if the management agencies do not include interested parties, but I fail to see how choosing not to live close to an area negates your (democratic) stake in the management of the area.

Personally, I feel that preservation of nice places is one of the best and most important goals of wildland management. Recreation by those of us living close in time and space is also important, and current needs of sledders, hunters, dog walkers, hikers, skiers, climbers, etc. should certainly be taken into account. But the bigger picture is that we have removed wilderness characteristics from lots of land and it might be a good idea to save/restore/preserve places that are still nice.

That being said I am a long way from being 'sold' by the NC3 proposal.