Forum Index > Stewardship > Olympic Wilderness Stewardship Plan - comment by May 17
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
markh752
Snoozing on a rock!



Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 840 | TRs

markh752
  Top

Snoozing on a rock!
PostMon Apr 14, 2014 5:47 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
coldrain108 wrote:
I mean actually affected, like their actual visit impacted - to the point that they won't come back and visitation takes a hit.

From the ONP_WSP_Preliminary_Draft_Alternatives_FULL_TABLE.pdf   (532.5 KB, PDF file)  pg 9 under Quotas and Use Limits (bold is mine):

Alternative A:
 Under the no-action alternative, groups camping in the park backcountry would continue to be limited to a maximum of 12 persons per group; and affiliated groups whose combined total number of people is greater than 12 would continue to be required to camp and travel at least one mile apart.
 Under this alternative, in specific backcountry areas groups of 7 to 12 people would continue to be required to camp in sites designated as “Group Camps.”
There would continue to be no limits on day use.

Alternative B:
 Quotas/use limits for overnight use would be established throughout the wilderness.
Quotas and use limits for day use would be considered for high use areas.
 Group size limits would be 12 people in Zones 1-3, and 6 people in Zones 4-6.

Alternative C:
 Visitor use would be managed at levels that would not have increased detrimental effects on natural resources. This could include quotas for overnight and day use.
 Group size limits would be 12 people in Zones 1-3, and 6 people in Zones 4-6.

Alternative D:
Quotas/use limits would be established for overnight and day use throughout the wilderness to offer a variety of wilderness experiences.
 Group size limits would be 12 people in all zones.


Vague wording in documents like could and would raise a red flag for me.

It looks like the motel and RV users (the 99%) might be impacted by the new policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
markh752
Snoozing on a rock!



Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 840 | TRs

markh752
  Top

Snoozing on a rock!
PostMon Apr 14, 2014 8:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
From the ONP_WSP_Preliminary_Draft_Alternatives_Newsletter.pdf   (2.0 MB, PDF file)(bold is mine);

Zone 1:
 The primary trails in this zone would be Nature Trails. This zone could also include minor segments of other maintained trail types (i.e., All Purpose, Secondary, Foot, and Primitive trails). Designated paths/routes, not part of the maintained trail system (e.g., way trails, social trails, routes, and coastal travelways) could be present.
 Resources would be protected while providing access by trails and related facilities (i.e., bridges, boardwalks/puncheon) to park wilderness.
Camping at designated sites would be accommodated.
 Many trails would be maintained for pack or riding stock, but stock would be prohibited on/in some trails and areas.
 This zone has heavy use because it’s more focused on day use, but there are through-hikers that utilize this zone.
Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection.
 Examples include Sol Duc Falls, Marymere Falls, and the west side of Staircase Rapids.

Zone 2:
 The primary trails in this zone would be All Purpose and Foot Trails. This zone could also include minor segments of other maintained trail types (i.e., Secondary and Primitive Trails). Designated paths/routes, not part of the maintained trail system (e.g., way trails, social trails, routes, and coastal travelways) could be present.
 Resources would be protected while providing access by trails and related facilities (i.e., bridges, boardwalks/puncheon) to park wilderness.
Camping at designated sites would be accommodated.
 All Purpose (2s) Trails: Would be maintained for pack or riding stock.
 Foot Trails (2f): Pack or riding stock would be prohibited, except occasional administrative use if determined to be the minimum tool in a minimum requirements analysis.
Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection.
 An example includes the Hoh River Trail.

Zone 3:
 The primary trails in this zone would be Secondary and Foot Trails. This zone could also include minor segments of other maintained trail types (i.e., Primitive Trails). Designated paths/routes, not part of the maintained trail system (e.g., way trails, social trails, routes, and coastal travelways) could be present.
 Resources would be protected while providing access by trails and related facilities (i.e., boardwalks/puncheon) to park wilderness.
Camping at designated sites would be accommodated.
 Secondary (3s) Trails: Would be maintained for pack or riding stock.
 Foot Trails (3f): Pack or riding stock would be prohibited, except occasional administrative use if determined to be the minimum tool in a minimum requirements analysis.
Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection.
 An example includes the Bogachiel River Trail.

Zone 4:
 The primary trails in this zone would be Primitive Trails. Designated paths/routes, not part of the maintained trail system (e.g., way trails, social trails, routes, and coastal travelways) could be present.
 Resources would be protected and primitive recreational opportunities with fewer maintained trails provided than Zones 1-3.
Camping would be accommodated at designated sites or on durable surfaces.
 Pack or riding stock would be prohibited.
Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection.
 An example includes the Skyline Trail.

Zone 5:
 The primary trails in this zone would be Way Trails. Other designated paths/routes, not part of the maintained trail system (e.g., social trails, routes, and coastal travelways) could be present.
 Way Trails: Officially recognized paths open to hikers only. Previously established by ongoing use. In sections with no established path, routes may be marked for resource protection. Maintenance for resource protection only if/as determined by minimum requirements analysis.
 Routes: Known travelways ranging from abandoned trails to mountain climbing routes. No visible signs of resource impact, except footprints, and no route marking.
 Resources would be protected and primitive recreational opportunities with no maintained trails provided except where necessary for resource protection.
Camping would be accommodated at designated sites or on durable surfaces.
 Pack or riding stock would be prohibited.
Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection.
 An example includes the Bailey Range.

Zone 6:
There would be no trails and no established campsites in this zone.
 Preserving wilderness resources and character would take precedence; large trail-less areas and opportunities for unconfined, primitive recreation would be preserved.
 Camping on durable surfaces would be accommodated.
 Pack or riding stock would be prohibited.
Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection.


The continual use of "camping at designated sites would be accommodated" leads to me to believe that camping (I did not see where backpacking is specifically mentioned in this document ) would only be allowed only in designated sites.
"Access or use might be restricted or limited for resource protection." This is another phrase that has me worried. It is followed by examples, including an area as an example does not mean that the example will be included or that a non example won't be included.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostTue Apr 15, 2014 1:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You absolutely should be worried by the language you bolded. Both lines of policy will be used to limit your use and choice within the Park.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2489 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 16, 2014 1:57 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
coldrain108 wrote:
I mean actually affected, like their actual visit impacted - to the point that they won't come back and visitation takes a hit... What % of all visitors to the park are part of the visitor group that uses the individual facilities that are backcountry trails?  1%?  Could be higher I don't know the actual #.

All right, let's check NPS Stats for Olympic NP Visitation:
3 million Recreation Visitors
985,000 Trail Users
300,000 Total Overnight Stays
245,000 in Lodges, RVs, campgrounds
55,000 Backcountry Campers

You're right.  Clearly, frontcountry trails - Hurricane Ridge, Marymere Falls, Rialto Beach, Rain Forest Nature Trail - are the most used.  About 6% of Park visitors camp overnight and (from surveys) 10% dayhike deeper in Olympic Wilderness.

But you're dead wrong that most Park visitors do not care about Wilderness trails - or its glaciers, sea otters or eagles - and wouldn't miss them, even though they aren't walking on them.  That is what ~90% of Park visitors told us in the OLYM and national NPS visitor surveys.

coldrain, even visitors in wheelchairs get a vote.  Visitors like FDR, who designated this Park, and whose personal representatives declared Olympic from its founding in 1938
Quote:
It is a WILDERNESS PARK.  It is proposed to maintain for a principal use as a trail park.  Owing to the extremely uneven, broken, precipitous topography, a system of trails becomes necessary, which will probably appear to a casual observer of the park map as almost a gridiron of tortuous trails; yet, in fact, such a trail system will not become in any sense an overdevelopment until years have passed with far more trail construction than is now anticipated.

So what have we done over the past 75 years to fulfill this vision?  Abandon 1/3 of the trail system we then inherited from USFS, abandon almost all of the USFS trails then under construction (Bailey, Pyrites, Godkin, etc.), complete three (Long Ridge, O"Neil Pass, Cameron Creek) and set policy to never build another, lowered maintenance levels on most remaining trails from stock to foot only, and now propose to abandon and/or downgrade even more.

coldrain, you're totally missing the big picture here.  The American people want to know those trails are there, that they could walk on them, just as much as they want to know the elk are there, and they could go see them.  They really believe in the Wilderness Act:

Quote:
the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park...

in accordance with the NPS Organic Act:

Quote:
which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.


--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
cascadetraverser
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2007
Posts: 1166 | TRs

cascadetraverser
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 16, 2014 3:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Interesting discussion and I particularly appreciate your point, Rod, in regards to the Rangers/Park Officials in the NPS.  An elitist/patronizing tone from them seems so often the norm.  From the pre trip speeches to the on the trail encounters, I generally loath any contact with them.  Maybe that is unfair, but its been my multi decade experience as well.  Better communication skills and a we are all in this together attitude would serve all much better.  I know it works better in my profession...

As someone who supremely loves the off trail, I none the less feel trail maintenance is crucial.  The cross country potential of the North Cascades and Olympic NPs is endless with the trail system as it stands.  Keeping a healthy, well kept trail system intact is important for the vast majority of backcountry users and I worry in this day and age of a much busier and sorry to say it, softer populous any move towards less trail access to me decreases access and could spell a dwindling number of users and supporters to green bond and maintain the status quo of wilderness and Park use and protection.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostThu Apr 24, 2014 12:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm not the only one who sees a connection between visitor access and economic benefits to the local economy.

Port of Port Angeles seeks new possibility for Olympic National Park wilderness plan; says area tourism would suffer

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2489 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostFri May 09, 2014 7:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Olympic National Park News Release   
May 9, 2014
For Immediate Release
Barb Maynes 360-565-3005 or 360-477-5326

Public Comment Opportunity Continues for Olympic National Park’s Preliminary Draft Alternatives for Wilderness Stewardship

With a week remaining in a 60-day comment period about Olympic National Park’s Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Superintendent Sarah Creachbaum invites the public to review the preliminary draft documents and provide comments and suggestions.

“We’d like to have as many comments as possible – public input has already helped us identify topics and ideas that people are particularly concerned about and has highlighted areas that need clarification,” said Superintendent Creachbaum.  “We look forward to using the input we receive during this comment period to improve the preliminary alternatives and develop the  draft plan.”

The park released a set of preliminary draft alternatives for public review and comment on March 11.  Six public meetings were held in communities around the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound and about 100 comments have been received so far.  A copy of all comments received during the current comment period will be posted on the planning website this summer. 

Once this comment period has ended, park staff will begin developing the draft plan, which will include an updated and refined set of draft alternatives, along with full environmental analysis in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS.) 

“The draft wilderness stewardship plan and EIS will be ready for public review and comment next spring,” said Creachbaum.  Public meetings will be held and public comments will again be invited.

This planning process applies only to lands within Olympic National Park.   The goal of the plan is to protect the Olympic Wilderness and its unique wilderness character and provide for the public purposes of wilderness which are recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historical use.

The preliminary draft alternatives and maps, along with extensive background information and a copy of all the public comments submitted during last year’s public scoping period, can be reviewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/olymwild.  Comments should be submitted at that website by May 17, 2014.

Public comments may also be mailed or delivered by May 17, 2014 to: 
Superintendent Sarah Creachbaum
Attn:  Wilderness Stewardship Plan
Olympic National Park
600 East Park Avenue
Port Angeles, WA  98362

Ninety-five percent of Olympic National Park was designated as wilderness in 1988, and is part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.  The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and established a policy for the protection of wilderness resources for public use and enjoyment.

For more information or to be added to the Olympic National Park Wilderness Stewardship Plan, people should visit http://parkplanning.nps.gov/olymwild or call the park at 360-565-3004.

-NPS-

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostSat May 10, 2014 10:53 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Try this link which takes you directly to the alternatives and the comment button (button located in the middle of the page. It's kinda difficult to find otherwise).

The comment button leads you to a type of a questionnaire - and of course you need to actually know what the alternatives are in order to answer the questions. Designed to keep folks focused.

Speak up. If you want ONP to maintain historic structures, or better maintained trails, etc. then tell them. It's difficult down the road to present a case to ONP that the public wants to retain historical structures, for instance, when the public comments are few.  This happens time and time again - going back to older public processes hoping to prove public desire, only to find that merely 12 people bothered to comment* on plans for a nearly 900,000 acre park or forest, and of those 12, half were gassy, rambling ineffective rants (though some of them are quite entertaining). It makes it difficult to prove to judges how important this stuff is, when the sound of crickets chirping in an empty public comment section are louder than the public's voice.  Hypothetical scenario.

*I mean the public comment to the Park, not on NWHikers  tongue.gif

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostTue May 13, 2014 3:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Interesting statements by the author and a comment from Barb Maynes of ONP in this article today in the PDN.

Quote:
None of the preliminary alternatives is preferred by park officials now.

One alternative for the plan is obligatory. Alternative A is to make no changes in current practices.

The public can focus on any part of the remaining three alternatives.

“The preferred alternative we end up with may include elements of each of B, C and D,” Barb Maynes, park spokeswoman, has said.

The first statement is the author's alone with nothing to back it up. The quote at the end shows how purposely ambiguous the leadership of the NPS and ONP are.

Comment deadline is this Saturday; speak up people!

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9854 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon May 19, 2014 1:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sarah Creachbaum, Superintendent
Christina Miller
Olympic National Park
Pt. Angeles, Wa.

re: Wilderness Stewardship Plan


I received hard copies of the documents and maps for the Wilderness Stewardship Plan (WSP), and attended the public meeting in Seattle on April 3, at which I had conversations with Park staff and other interested citizens.
I spent a good deal of time going over the documents and maps, and spent several hours on the phone talking with several other individuals about the proposals outlined in the WSP, as well as communicating with several others online.

At first I was quite confused by the information included in the documents and maps, and wondered if perhaps it was my own inability to make sense of all of it.
However, after the aformentioned communications with others, I had to conclude that it was no fault of my own that I was unable to understand clearly exactly what the proposals meant. To a man, all agreed that the proposals outlined in the documents, as well as the maps, were confusing at best.

The maps contain errors, omissions, and contradictions which make absolutely no sense. There are some trails on the "Current Trail Classes" map which no longer exist, yet they are shown as being part of the current trail mile inventory. Other trails which are viable routes are not shown at all. The "zone" assignments are not clear. When I inquired about those trails shown on the "Current Trail Classes" map which are no longer viable routes (having been abandoned for decades) I was told that those trails were included in the current trail inventory. When I inquired about trails which do not appear on the map, I was told that those are "user maintained" trails: the rationale being that since hikers use them, they are "user maintained".

The documents, charts, graphs, and "zone" proposals simply do not make sense. A bar graph clearly shows that trail miles for each alternative vary (in one case substantially), but when an inquiry was made regarding those the response was that trail miles would be essentially the same under each alternative.

While the outlined proposals use eloquent language and espouse lofty and noble goals, they do not clearly indicate exactly what sort of action is being proposed for each individual trail within the Park.

What is needed is a clear and accurate listing of all trails being affected, and exactly what sort of action is being proposed for each of those trails. Lacking that, no informed opinion can be made of any of the proposed alternatives.

Therefore, I reject all the outlined proposals (Alternatives A, B, C, and D), and suggest that a more comprehensive and more easily understood proposal be offered for public consideration.


re: "Four Qualities of Wilderness"

When I inquired as to how the "Four Qualities of Wilderness" were formulated, I was told that they were written by an interagency group.
Each of them mentions the word "modern".
When I inquired as to the definition of "modern" (as used in the WSP "Four Qualities") I was told "anything other than Native American."
When I asked specifically (by name) if Grant Humes, Lars Ahlstrom, Peter Roose, and George Shaube (early Olympic Peninsula homesteaders) would be considered "modern" I was told that yes, by that definition, they would be.
It is inexplicable that homestead cabins which have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places can by some stretch of the imagination have been built by men who would be considered "modern".

Therefore, the "Four Qualities of Wilderness" are based on a false presumption: that "wilderness" can only be those places where man's imprint has not been left on the land.
Moreover, a point raised previously by a woman with a PhD who currently is employed in the capacity of a State historian is that this completely ignores the fact that men have been on the Olympic Peninsula for at least 12000 years, and lived on, managed, and considerably altered the landscape over millenia.

While the Wilderness Act of 1964 is clearly a great piece of legislation, it does not recognize the fact that this continent was peopled for thousands of years and carried a considerable population of people who significantly altered the landscape; clearly evidenced from archaeological records and oral histories.

Aboriginal tribesmen and European settlers and explorers were on the Olympic Peninsula long prior to the formation of Olympic National Park, and they left a permanent imprint on the landscape.
To try to erase their effects using the Wilderness Act of 1964 is historic revisionism at its worst.

Moreover, the approach being used ignores the fact that the Wilderness Act of 1964 does not trump, supersede, or override other federal statutes with which Olympic National Park must comply: The Organic Act of 1916, the Historic Sites act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as well as the enabling legislation which created Olympic National Park in 1938. The Wilderness Act of 1964 contains very clear language regarding the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which requires the Director of the Department of the Interior to be the steward of those historic features within National Parks and other federal facilities.

To comply with all applicable federal statutes, a completely different approach needs to be taken in formulating a Wilderness Stewardship Plan: one which takes into consideration all historic features, not those arbitrarily chosen by a select few.

The Park has a long history of disregarding their responsibility regarding the historic features within the Park, from the orgiastic practice of the destruction of the majority of the trail shelters in the 1970s to the current debacle with the Enchanted Valley Chalet.

This must stop. The laws are very clear regarding historic features, particularly those which have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Any Wilderness Stewardship Plan the Park formulates must comply with all federal statutes, not just those arbitrarily and capriciously chosen by those presently in positions of authority.


re: Wilderness Permits

The proposals outlined in the WSP documents seem to suggest that all Wilderness Permits will be issued only through the Wilderness Information Center in Port Angeles, or satellite Ranger Stations around the Park, and that no longer will users be able to self-register at trailheads.
This is an absolutely unacceptable proposal.
I have been a visitor and hiker at ONP for 56 years, and have always filled out permits at the trailhead without any problems (except in those cases where no permits were in the trailhead registration kiosk.)
To require me (or any other visitor) to travel far out of their way to procure a permit places an undue burden on the user.
In my own particular case, I need to be at the trailhead at the crack of dawn, to take advantage of the low water of the early morning.
Fording the Queets with a fully-laden pack is challenge enough at that hour. Later in the day it may pose a hazard. Requiring me to stop at North Fork Quinault Ranger Station or Kalaloch (or anywhere else) for a permit delays my arrival at the trailhead by at least an hour to an hour and a half, by which time the water may have risen considerably.
I have read many online trip reports that noted the required stop for a permit in Port Angeles delayed arrival to the trailhead by several hours, in some cases putting hikers at the trailhead at dusk.

Wilderness Permits should be easily available to the public at all trailheads, as well as online. The entire world does not work on a "nine-to-five" schedule, nor does it "plan ahead": for the last 26 years, virtually all of my visits to the Queets have been a last-minute-fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants-depending-on-the-weather-and-low-water affair. That is my reality. What does the Park propose to do to accomodate my needs?


re: Bear Canisters

I made at least two or three (possibly four) inquiries asking for information regarding incidents that may have occured within ONP involving bears. Unfortunately I received no responses from the Park.
Lacking any clear evidence which indicates that bear canisters are an item which should be required in all areas of the Park, I must reject any such proposal. Should the Park be willing and able to offer forth evidence which proves that bear canisters should be required, I would be willing to reconsider my position.

Understandably, there may be some areas where bear canisters are clearly necessary. Ozette and the Olympic Coast are plagued by pesky raccoons. But to institute a requirement for bear canisters in all areas of the Park without first reviewing each area on a case by case basis is regulatory overkill.


re: Manure Catchers for Pack Stock

I made an inquiry (to ONP's fisheries biologist) asking if there was any definitive information regarding water quality issues on streams and lakes within ONP: specifically if there was any information regarding fecal coliform levels.
Unfortunately I received no response to my inquiry.
Lacking any evidence indicating that there exist any water quality issues directly caused by pack stock, a regulation requiring "manure catchers" on pack stock is unacceptable, and regulatory overkill.

Should the Park be willing or able to provide information which indicates a need for such a regulation, I would be willing to reconsider.
However, at the present time, considering the abundance of elk droppings one can find on any gravel bar or along any trail, such a proposal must be rejected.


re: "Blue Bags"

While it may well be necessary and appropriate to require the use of "Blue Bags" in some sensitive areas, it is clearly regulatory overkill to require them in all areas of the Park.
When I made an inquiry as to why such a proposal was included in the WSP documents, I was told an anecdotal story about "toilet paper blossoms" surrounding a privy.
As with the "manure catchers", no evidence has been provided by the Park that indicates there are any water quality issues as a result of the disposal of human waste within the Park. Rather, what I was told was that it was more a visual issue.

I had a conversation with an aide to Senator Slade Gorton some years back regarding this issue along Skate Creek Road just south of Mount Rainier. What it came down to was that the problem is one of education.

It is an education problem. If you make it an enforcement problem, you will garner only non-compliance and add to the work load of your already overloaded law enforcement.

I suggest a more intelligent approach be used regarding this matter.


re: Reduction of trail miles and/or reduced maintenance of existing trails

Trail miles have been reduced over 41% since 1935. Any further reduction in net trail miles, or any action which lowers the maintenance standards of any existing trails is simply not acceptable.


re: The Big Picture

In the Park's formulation of the proposals for the WSP, it appears they forgot about their primary mission. I would suggest Park planners go back and re-read the Organic Act of 1916, as well as the founding legislation which created Olympic National Park in 1938.
Federal legislation is generally very carefully written, using a very careful and deliberate choice of words, language, and sentence structure.
While both the aforementioned statutes charge the Park with preserving the natural landscape and native flora and fauna, they both make greater emphasis on "the people".
Go ahead- go back and read them again: you'll find "people" mentioned repeatedly.

Is it a Wilderness? Or is it a Park?

Answer: it is a PARK, for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the people.

Those who want "wilderness" have several options surrounding ONP: Brothers Wilderness, Wonder Mountain Wilderness, Buckhorn Wilderness, etc.
Certainly we have "wilderness" within the Park, and certainly it has been mandated by the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984, but by no stretch of the imagination is it now, nor should it ever be "wilderness" without people, without facilities, or without historic features created by those other than Native Americans.

Bottom line: Park planners need to go back to the drawing board and approach the formulation of a Wilderness Stewardship Plan which takes into consideration all applicable federal statutes; offers clear, concise, readily understood proposals on a trail-by-trail basis; and puts at the forefront its primary mission: the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the people.


Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT RECORD 05/17/14 @ 22:45 PDT

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostTue May 20, 2014 10:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well done.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
reststep
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4268 | TRs

reststep
  Top

Member
PostTue May 20, 2014 1:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ditto.gif

Well done Ski.

You said everything I would have liked to say but didn't know how.

I hope they give close consideration to your well thought out comments.

--------------
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostTue May 20, 2014 3:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It would be nice if they'd give close consideration to anything. Considering all that Ski did, I'd say the NPS and the OPA (writers of all this BS) did a very poor job (or not close) considering their options.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9854 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue May 20, 2014 3:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
well.... for the record: I have to extend many thanks for the help I got from Rod, Greg, Will, Kim, Andrea, Karen, Gay, Jacilee, Harry, Buddy, Sarah and several others whose names I can't pull off the top of my head at the moment. without the investment of their time and their feedback I'd still be working in a vacuum.

so far responses from Kilmer and Murray's offices were positive. haven't heard from Cantwell or anyone else back east yet.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostTue May 20, 2014 3:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yeah, well…..I just want everyone to know that I didn’t come up with the word, “orgiastic.”  That word is Ski’s word, through and through.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Olympic Wilderness Stewardship Plan - comment by May 17
  Happy Birthday kitchy, PCloadletter, LewisGoes!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy