[MtnGoat]

I appreciate the forthright attitude of the last post.

[l]

Ski, I agree with much of what you have written. But not this: "Again, look at the map. You'll find a dismal lack of day hike opportunities along the Washington coast and the west slope of the Olympics." Here’s a list of possible dayhikes you didn’t mention: East Fork Quinault. The hike to the Pony Bridge area is very nice. North Fork Quinault. A stroll out to Wolf Bar should satisfy any rainforest want. South Fork Hoh. Some prefer this to the main river. The Hoh. Forget the nature trails. What’s better than hiking the first 3 miles to Mineral Creek and Tom Meadow? The Bogachiel. Talk about a red-headed stepchild! Not a true Olympic rainforest but good enough. So I don’t believe subtracting the Queets from the menu deprives tourists of a great experience to the west end. Especially those on a ‘tight schedule’. Before the road washed out, I wonder how many tourists drove that 13 mile, liver-jolting hardpan and forded the river with their kids and grandparents? I don’t mean to be snide here. I’d love to know a rough count of not only yearly vacationers but also local hikers and visitors to the Queets. If you were trying to convince the Park to keep access, I don’t think you’d win with numbers. Unfortunately, they currently operate under a triage system. Maybe a better argument would be based on principle, namely, the Queets is a world-class river valley which the Park is obligated to make accessible to the public. Why have a road in the first place if it’s just a survival test just to reach the end? For the record, I’m for access. But I wouldn’t care if they didn’t pursue the alternate route. I might feel differently in another 20 years or so, but I hope not. As I stated in the Dose Road thread, it’s not like we have a surfeit of low elevation (below 1000’) trails. And they’ll only get better with age. BTW, let me make a distinction here between these two valley roads and those in the Cascades, like the MF and Wild Sky. Neither men nor valleys are created equal. From the posted pictures and text I’ve seen and read, I say reopen those roads! As Brownster145 argues, the Queets Corridor was set aside to protect the valley’s ecosystem. His focus is salmon runs. If you could show me that cars impact the salmon in such a detrimental way that it endangers their long-term viability, I would change my stance. I completely understand his caring about nonhuman entities. With all that I know and project, I don’t think – in this specific case – the Queets warrants exclusion.

[Ski]

Shacknasty Jim- Sorry for the omissions of the hikes you listed. I'm not aware of them, nor have I seen them mentioned here in threads where new users or out-of-area users were looking for "day hike" destinations in that area. Consider the new user or person unfamiliar with the area who's at home looking at a map. Would those destinations you mentioned in any way appear as "day hike" destinations? Are they mentioned in any guide books, tourist pamphlets, or by ONP staff as "day hike" destinations? I'm not saying they're not suitable for that purpose, but would they appear as such to the unknowing eye, searching a map for trails less than 5 miles in length? As for "how many tourists" drive that 13.2 mile road, the answer is: a lot. More than you can imagine. I would never have believed how much traffic there was on that road if I hadn't spent the better part of a summer up there in the ranger station, listening to them drive up and down up and down up and down all day long every day. As for kids and grandparents, I had a nice little talk one afternoon with an 85-year old man who was leading his 3-year-old grandchild up to the Big Fir. He told me it was an annual event for him. I had a very short conversation with a couple one afternoon just above Spruce Bottom who had an infant in a little back-pack contraption on Dad's back. Those are but two instances out of many I've observed over the years. The children on the Sams Loop Trail were not a "once in a blue moon" occurence. There were cars full of couples with kids up there on that trail every day I was up there working the trail during the summer of 2004. I too, would love a "rough count", but user count studies are dubious at best. There is no regulation requiring a backcountry permit for day-hike use, so there is absolutely no way to even guess at what the user counts are up there. "Tire counter" tallies are misleading at best, and those few which have been done up there did little to provide accurate user count numbers. I have repeatedly asked ONP about user count numbers, and they're at a loss for answers. I can't imagine how cars, in and of themselves, would be a detriment to the resident fish populations up there, unless one were to drive a car into the river.* The problem isn't the cars, it's the road, which has been troublesome since its construction. Washouts are a regularly occurring event up there. Some of them ( like the one just above Matheny ) dump thousands of cubic yards of silt into the river. That, however, is in invalid argument when one considers that there are bank washouts all along the length of the Queets annually, and have been for thousands of years. There is no hard data to support an argument that the washout of a road dumps any more or less silt into the river than would a naturally-occurring bank washout upstream. That argument has been espoused by those in opposition to the reconstruction of the Dosewallips road as well, and is just as full of holes, lacking any merit. * as for driving cars into the Queets: up until the early 1950's, the standard practice was to DRIVE to Andrews field via a ROAD that went all the way to Andrews lower meadow ( presently referred to as "Andrews Field" ). There was no bridge. My mother clearly remembers riding in a car up to the "trailhead" at Andrews field in the early 1950's. They drove right across the Queets, and depending upon the location of its mouth, across Sams River as well. Thank you very much for the list of the "day hikes". I am asked for information by tourists every time I'm up there, and I've pretty much been at a loss as far as where to send them for an easy 3-5 mile walk with their children, outside of those I mentioned previously.

[l]

[Ski]

brownster145- Early Queets history: check my website here, and follow the links to the other information available at windsox. There are stories/photos/historical documents from several people there. Also check out "Elder Bob's" site. His site has information posted regarding the early Queets settlers and the inclusion of the lower Queets into the Park as well. I spent years searching for historical information. The best information you'll find presently is probably on the windsox and Elder Bob pages. (There are a couple errors in MY information there: Oscar Smith operated Meadowsweet Dairy, not Smith Dairy. I can't recall what the other boo-boo is right now. Hopefully at some point we'll get it corrected. ) Let's clear up something here please: Distance from Hwy 101 to ONP park boundary: 0.5 miles Distance from Hwy 101 to Matheny Creek Bridge: 7.0 miles Distance from Hwy 101 to end of Queets River Road: 13.2 miles I've driven the road hundreds of times. I log the odometer readings. The numbers above are accurate.

[Rich Baldwin]

Ski, did you mean windsox.us? windsox.com appears to be a non-hikey commercial web page.

[Ski]

Rich Baldwin- sorry... my mistake... here is my page. there are links there to the main windsox page, on which you can search "queets" and "elder bob". ( at least there were last time I was on there ) and thanks... prompted me to go back and run 'spellcheck'... i guess i'm getting stupid in my old age.... but what i wanna know is: why is it on a hiking website, the "spellcheck" feature doesn't know what to do with the words "trailhead" or "dayhikers" or "streambed" ??

[brownster145]

Ski, I'll be frank and brief (relatively). Talk to a few fisheries biologists. Ask them if my claims are baseless. Ask them if my statements are "nonsense," as you charge. Read The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon & Trout (Thomas P. Quinn, 2005), perhaps the most definitive scientific literature we have on the matter. I'm sure there's some basis by which you are systematically invalidating (at least in your own mind) my statements without offering any opposing evidence (naturally, while demanding that I provide evidence additional to that which I have already provided (talk about a diatribe)), but I do not have any more time to try to convince one individual of my position when that individual refuses to hear facts because the facts do not accommodate his position. And certainly, let no reasonable inferences be made, ever, save we conceive a new avenue of scientific investigation (by extension, of course, in lieu of a custom-designed immediately available scientific study (if, for example, there has not been adequate time to collect reliable data), let reason have no place in guiding policy decisions). Green cheese indeed. Forgive my sarcasm, but I find your indignant and unsupported accusations against my statements at least as peculiar as you find my statements pretentious and "nonsensical." In plain truth, I greatly respect your extensive personal history and experience with the basin, but neither your personal experience nor admirable desire to introduce others (including children) to the Queets will undo the aforementioned impacts on its fish, thus ecosystem (which I refuse to rehash without good cause (you have not given good cause)). f(t)=10691e^-.0162t This is a regression line to fit runsize data from the years 1972-2005 (campground in use). Once access is reopened, the temporary closure will be but a blip in the data set, its long-term effects never realized or observed. If this doesn't matter to you or other things matter to you more, that is your prerogative. I will harbor no ill will, I will only hope that more people see it my way. For fun, though, try plugging in some different "t" values. Like 50 (2022). Or 75 (2047). Argue all you like, but those aren't healthy numbers. I do not care to see the day when stepping in a single redd will have a major impact on the run, but inertia will take us there. Activism in other avenues will go far, but I cannot in good conscience ignore recreational impact (especially not when presented with an opportunity to curtail it). I am far from alone in this, I'm just glad to have been able to offer a different perspective in a forum where one otherwise might not have been offered. Anyhow, I guess I'd better be taking my ball home. A very happy (and safe) New Year to all of you since I doubt I'll return until after the holiday has passed. Andrew

[MtnGoat]

see ya next year!

[Ski]

brownster145- I've talked with a lot of fisheries biologists over the years. I currently am waiting for responses from the fisheries biologists at both ONP and the Quinault Tribe regarding the question of whether or not anadromous returns have increased or decreased in the last two years. While I can accept the book you've mentioned is probably quite informative, I would doubt it addresses the question at hand: has the road washout of the Queets River Road, and the subsequent closure of the road, had a detrimental or positive effect on the anadromous runs? As for my offering 'opposing evidence' to your argument: You've made several statements in several posts on this thread which are clearly in error. I have posted the correct information for you on those issues. Regarding your 'facts' about the fish: I'm sorry, but I still don't see where you have substantiated any of your claims. Your actions follow the same pattern I see in many debates on various issues: (1) present an argument without backing it up with facts, (2) when challenged as to the validity of the argument, change the wording and structure of the statement, adding longer words and constructing more convoluted sentences, (3) when challenged again as to the validity of the argument, present the same argument again in a revised form using more cryptic language ( f(t)=10691e^-.0162t <-- what is this supposed to be?? ) in the hope that somebody will view it as 'scientific', (4) when all that fails, attack the messenger ( indignant and unsupported accusations ?? ), (5) bail out ( happy new year to you too ). You have failed to substantiate your claim that the temporary closure of the Queets River Road has had any impact, detrimental or positive, on the anadromous runs. You have failed to provide any evidence that continued closure of the road, and restricting vehicle access to the trailhead and campground, would have any long-term positive effect on the anadromous runs. You can continue to claim your statements are "facts", but twisting them around and stating the same thing over and over doesn't necessarily make it true. I've repeatedly requested some sort of evidence to support your claims, and all I'm getting is more of the same opinion, speculation and extrapolations of theoretical mathematical equations, none of which are worthy of consideration in the NEPA process. I would submit that there are a number of factors which have impacted anadromous runs, especially on the Queets: over-harvest of food-fish stocks in the North Pacific; degradation of habitat for those food fish stocks; toxic waste and oil spills in marine waters; el niño; increases in ocean temperatures; record-low water years ( especially the last few years ) on the Queets; questionable ( if not illegal ) Tribal harvesting; increases in stream temperatures of major tributaries ( Clearwater-Solleks, Sams, Matheny, Salmon River ); substantial increases in resident and migratory populations of predators ( seals, sea lions ); non-point pollution from residential and agricultural runoff, none of which have anything to do with whether or not there's a road or no road, a campground or no campground, fishermen or no fishermen.

[brownster145]

Serendipitously (or perhaps not), I find myself with some extra time this afternoon (that'll happen, on Winter Break). I apologize for my premature New Years wishes, then, although I will be shocked if I've got any reason to post until after then (after this). Ski - I'm almost incredulous. Are you really so blinded by your biases that you cannot even fathom an opposing position might have its own merit? Did you really even read my last post, or did you just jump right to the rebuttal? f(t)=10691e^-.0162t <= "What is this???" Are you serious? One line down: "This is a regression line to fit runsize data from the years 1972-2005" (again, run=Queets winter steelhead, data=WDFW). And, evidently, a line of best fit for a 23-year data set is now nothing more than a "theoretical mathematical extrapolation," with no practical application in resource managment. Are you unaware that scientific data is useless (to resource managment or anything else) without intepretation, or do you just pretend so when the interpretations don't agree with your preconceived notions? Are you further unaware that it is impossible at this point in time for anybody to have a "hard science," data-based interpretation of the effect of recent changes in Queets access? As I indicated previously, spawner escapement, the most readily available data (well over 6000 in 2005 with near-zero sport harvest, for what its worth) is only one dimension of run health; improved outmigrating juvenille survival would not be reflected in returns for at least 4 or 5 years from the date of closure; redd destruction is difficult to measure quantitatively since many people don't know when they've destroyed a redd and nobody is there to ask them about it anyway. Besides the multiple variables to account for, it would likely take at least a few generations of fish to detect a reliable change in run-size trends (due to statistical margins of error; as you addressed in your last post (as if I hadn't in my previous posts), there are several other factors impacting the fish which could some years negate or exaggerate whatever positive effect restricted access had had). Your premise, then, is that since no direct scientific study has been done to quantitatively describe the impact of access changes on declining populations of Queets anadramous salmonids, no reasonable comparisons or logical deductions can be made based on the outstanding body of existing scientific literature which overwhelmingly indicates that (1) more fishermen mean more dead returning adult fish, (2) more boats and people in the water mean more destroyed redds, and (3) more anglers mean more dead premigratory juvenille fish... even though it would be impossible to have your requisite scientific study for another several years (and waiting to make a decision until then, naturally, would be an unacceptable solution). While you have continued to ignore the numbers and cited data I have provided you, you have continued to propound your agenda, lauding its validity simply because my arguments have not disproven its validity sufficient to your standards. Your conclusion is that since I can't prove your perspective wrong to your satisfaction (which, I'm guessing, exists at an unattainable level), then your perspective, by default, is right? Let's take a look at your arguments: There are "more" elk in the Queets basin now then there were at some arbitrary point earlier in the 20th century so their effect on spawning populations of salmonids could not possibly have been assimilated into the runs' genetic history, therefore, human-caused redd destruction must have no significant additional impact. Reopening road access will be economically positive and might help local proprietors' babies "get fat." The displacement of would-be Queets tourists has increased pressure on nearby destinations which maybe has had an adverse impact on those ecosystems. Once again--are you serious? Do you have scientific studies designed to corroborate these claims? The only clearly discernable aspect of your argument which is valid is that you want to hike the upper Queets, and you want others to be able to do the same. This, alone, is a perfectly acceptable reason to favor restoration of access. Just don't hide it under a facade of concern for the fish at some higher level of scientific understanding which you obviously do not possess. The devaluation of salmon--from the Pacific Northwest Indian perspective (equals of mankind) to the modern perspective (a commodity, or, at best, a quaint artifact of Northwest history)--is remarkable, and is clearly reflected in the decimation of PNW salmon runs over the last 200 years (where PNW Indians were able to sustain a healthy and productive relationship for several thousand years or more (starting at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age)). My personal perspective is not nearly so extreme as the ancient Indians', but I do think salmon and steelhead are an incredible natural asset to our region which deserve substantially more consideration than they get. As such, I am willing to temporarily limit access to some areas in hopes that some runs will some day enjoy better status than they do currently. If we ever reach this day, I'm sure incidental recreational impact will no longer be a concern. A fence around ONP? Absurd. Public resources depend on compromise. Some basins are hopelessly exploited in their lower reaches--Hood Canal, have at it--and others offer immense recreational and economic opportunities (#s of people, $s of money) which cannot be ignored. I can't imagine where Forks or Port Angeles would be without nearby major ONP access corridors. I only thought that the Queets (which I still contend is not nearly as popular as other areas in the park), having experienced a natural lapse in the current access corridor without earthshaking consequnce to the area economy or recreational value of the ONP at large, might benefit from some time away from the public. You know, just to see if, by some miracle, the predictions made by the best available scientific information would be fulfilled in a healthier Queets for the long-term. I realize that I have represented this perspective imperfectly during the course of this debate. To that end, sorry for my multisyllabic words and convoluted, cryptic sentences--it's just the way I write. Sorry that the body of information I am using to support my position changes as I add more information to support my position. Sorry that my sore lackings continue to require your wise elucidations. Oh, and thank you for your shrewd dissection of the characterstics of my argument and other arguments you have seen? I understand opposition, but that much opposition, and with so many unsubstantiated contentions to obscure your underlying motive? Whatever. Bail out, ball home, environmentalist utopia here I come. Andrew

[Ski]

[Ski]

Honorable Norm Dicks 2467 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 the congressman's "aide" referred to above is: Mr. Pete Modaff, Legislative Director same address

[Ski]

Olympic National Park News Release March 7, 2007 For Immediate Release Barb Maynes 360-565-3005 Finding of No Significant Impact Signed for Interim Access Route into Upper Queets Valley The environmental analysis for restoring interim access to the upper Queets River valley has been completed and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was released today. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for Restoring Interim Access to the Queets Area was released in December for public review and comment. The EA analyzed a single action alternative for restoring interim access into the Queets Valley, along with a no action alternative. The selected alternative will use existing U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) roads to access the upper Queets area of the park. The Queets Road has been closed to traffic since March 2005, when a landslide at milepost 8 undercut the road and rendered it unsafe for vehicles. In January 2006, an even larger slide at the same site completely wiped out 150 feet of the road, leaving a 100-foot deep chasm and closing the area to pedestrian traffic. “We are excited to be moving ahead to restore access into the Queets rain forest by the end of this summer,” said Olympic National Park Superintendent Bill Laitner. “We are particularly grateful to the DNR and U.S. Forest Service, for working with us to establish an alternate route into the upper Queets.” The roads to be used in restoring access to the Queets are USFS roads 21 and 2180, both of which are currently open to the public. These roads connect to USFS road 2180-010 and DNR road FR-Q-2100, neither of which is currently open. In turn, these roads lead to a National Park Service road to provide a route into the upper Queets. Park crews will begin improvements to these existing roads this spring, including installing a bridge, clearing the roadways, adjacent ditches and shoulders, and grading and resurfacing the roads. Restored access is anticipated sometime this summer. Once road access is available, crews will prepare the ranger station and campground for opening. Both the EA and the FONSI may be reviewed online at the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment website, http://parkplanning.nps.gov. For more information or to request a copy of the FONSI, people may call the park at (360) 565-3004. - NPS -

[Magellan]

Wow, that was a fun read! My brain hurts...