Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Baker and Helens should be a National Park!
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6299 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostWed Aug 10, 2022 3:35 pm 
Kim Brown wrote:
I have a copy of the Ice Peaks National Park study under Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes - the Ice Peaks area was huge, and included practically the entire planet.
Described by Harvey Manning here in 1963 http://npshistory.com/newsletters/the-wild-cascades/may-june-july-1963.pdf

uww
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8838 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Aug 10, 2022 3:43 pm 
DrScience wrote:
The biggest challenge faced by popular parks such as Great Smokies, Yosemite and Mount Rainier is how to protect the park from its visitors
This statement is at odds with history. Yosemite was a very popular tourist destination before it was protected by National Park status. E g. Camp Curry in Yosemite was a private campground for Yosemite visitors that were not as wealthy as those staying at the resort built at Mirror Lake Resort https://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/yosemite_nature_notes/46/2/mirror_lake.html#:~:text=The%20Mirror%20Lake%20House%2C%20as,and%20removed%20Mirror%20Lake%20House.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6522 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostFri Aug 12, 2022 8:54 am 
Schroder wrote:
Kim Brown wrote:
I have a copy of the Ice Peaks National Park study under Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes - the Ice Peaks area was huge, and included practically the entire planet.
Described by Harvey Manning here in 1963 http://npshistory.com/newsletters/the-wild-cascades/may-june-july-1963.pdf
Thanks Randy; I did locate the 1937 Ickes report on Ice Peaks I mentioned earlier, and placed it on my coffee table two weeks ago. Step One. But haven't yet cracked it open to provide any whizzy quotes here. I'm only two weeks into Step Two; I believe in a calm, cautious approach. clown.gif But within the NC3 article you posted is a citation for Vanishing Forest Reserves, Problems of the National Forests and National Parks by Willard Van Name. <===link to a PDF to read. Interesting reading, though I have only glanced at it. It's clear that NC3 became fast disciples of Van Name (Goldsworthy gushes about the publication). Nc3 worked hard on our N Cascades National Park. I wonder how divisive they were in their work then. I doubt no one came through it unscathed. I've seen how they work nowadays, and I've seen other ugly stuff from many different walks of life regarding Wild Sky and other environmental and conservation issues. Environmentalists are wicked to each other. Absolutely awful. But we have great stuff.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 10726 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostThu Aug 25, 2022 12:09 pm 
I resent all the rules, planning and control that is done is a national park. I haven't been to many because I am traveling with a dog and national parks are in no way dog friendly. Grand Canyon did have a kennel that housed my friend's dog while we hiked, but I wonder if that still exists? You can't walk on a trail with your dog, yet you can have unleashed children running around. Hunting is not allowed in parks so wildlife becomes stupid and dangerous from being around stupid people. We have too many people coming to this state as it is. We don't need more. I had a memorable day, which would not have been possible if the blast zone of St Helens was a park. The road was gated so I could ride behind the gate on my bike with The Used Dog galloomping along. No cars, only a few movie people wandering around and doing what they do. Probably more solitude than in a wilderness that day. We have enough over regulated pieces of ground for those who like that. Leave the rest as it is.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bosterson
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Posts: 236 | TRs | Pics
Location: Portland
Bosterson
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2022 5:59 pm 
treeswarper wrote:
I had a memorable day, which would not have been possible if the blast zone of St Helens was a park.  The road was gated so I could ride behind the gate on my bike with The Used Dog galloomping along.  No cars, only a few movie people wandering around and doing what they do.  Probably more solitude than in a wilderness that day.
up.gif up.gif It's great when they close the gate at Coldwater for the winter. I once walked the frozen road surface on New Year's Day from Hummocks to South Coldwater and then snowshoed up the ridge. No one else out there except an RV parked at the gate with some skis learning up against it. On the drive in, there were a bunch of local families stopped on the side of the road to take their kids sledding. If the area becomes a national park, none of that happens.

Go! Take a gun! And a dog! Without a leash! Chop down a tree! Start a fire! Piss wherever you want! Build a cairn! A HUGE ONE! BE A REBEL! YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE! (-bootpathguy)
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7881 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostMon Sep 12, 2022 12:06 pm 
Yeah, this plus the need to get on the reservations site to fight for permits in the nanosecond after the reservation window opens (or gamble on walk up luck) in order to camp in the backcountry in the Park are both concerns that leave me underwhelmed by NCNP expansion notions. I'm content to leave the Mt Baker Wilderness boundaries as they are, along with the NCNP boundaries.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jaysway
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2020
Posts: 213 | TRs | Pics
jaysway
Member
PostTue Sep 13, 2022 10:32 am 
joker wrote:
Yeah, this plus the need to get on the reservations site to fight for permits in the nanosecond after the reservation window opens (or gamble on walk up luck) in order to camp in the backcountry in the Park are both concerns that leave me underwhelmed by NCNP expansion notions. I'm content to leave the Mt Baker Wilderness boundaries as they are, along with the NCNP boundaries.
Mount Margaret Backcountry permits are already difficult to get and sell out seconds/minutes from when they are put on sale for the most desirable camps and weekends. If the area became a national park I wonder if the Loowit would start requiring permits as well? Anecdotally I've seen more reports for the Loowit this season so I wonder if the camping situation is getting crowded or not?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7881 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostTue Sep 13, 2022 11:41 am 
I have less of a take on the implications of MSHNM becoming a NP. My knee jerk reaction regarding NCNP expanding is "nope" though.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
zimmertr
TJ Zimmerman



Joined: 24 Jun 2018
Posts: 716 | TRs | Pics
Location: Newcastle
zimmertr
TJ Zimmerman
PostTue Sep 13, 2022 12:00 pm 
jaysway wrote:
joker wrote:
Yeah, this plus the need to get on the reservations site to fight for permits in the nanosecond after the reservation window opens (or gamble on walk up luck) in order to camp in the backcountry in the Park are both concerns that leave me underwhelmed by NCNP expansion notions. I'm content to leave the Mt Baker Wilderness boundaries as they are, along with the NCNP boundaries.
Mount Margaret Backcountry permits are already difficult to get and sell out seconds/minutes from when they are put on sale for the most desirable camps and weekends. If the area became a national park I wonder if the Loowit would start requiring permits as well? Anecdotally I've seen more reports for the Loowit this season so I wonder if the camping situation is getting crowded or not?
When Neek and I did the Loowit Trail in July there were maybe 10 tents, mostly concentrated in the Plains of Abraham. But in general I didn't really think the trail looked very fragile. We saw perhaps 50 people all day long and I think the trail could support even more.

Flickr | Strava

jaysway
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jaysway
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2020
Posts: 213 | TRs | Pics
jaysway
Member
PostWed Sep 14, 2022 9:33 am 
zimmertr wrote:
jaysway wrote:
joker wrote:
Yeah, this plus the need to get on the reservations site to fight for permits in the nanosecond after the reservation window opens (or gamble on walk up luck) in order to camp in the backcountry in the Park are both concerns that leave me underwhelmed by NCNP expansion notions. I'm content to leave the Mt Baker Wilderness boundaries as they are, along with the NCNP boundaries.
Mount Margaret Backcountry permits are already difficult to get and sell out seconds/minutes from when they are put on sale for the most desirable camps and weekends. If the area became a national park I wonder if the Loowit would start requiring permits as well? Anecdotally I've seen more reports for the Loowit this season so I wonder if the camping situation is getting crowded or not?
When Neek and I did the Loowit Trail in July there were maybe 10 tents, mostly concentrated in the Plains of Abraham. But in general I didn't really think the trail looked very fragile. We saw perhaps 50 people all day long and I think the trail could support even more.
That's awesome to hear smile.gif. I want to do the whole loop, or at least the Plains of Abraham depending on timing, next season! It looks amazing.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bosterson
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Posts: 236 | TRs | Pics
Location: Portland
Bosterson
Member
PostWed Sep 14, 2022 11:39 am 
zimmertr wrote:
jaysway wrote:
Mount Margaret Backcountry permits are already difficult to get and sell out seconds/minutes from when they are put on sale for the most desirable camps and weekends. If the area became a national park I wonder if the Loowit would start requiring permits as well? Anecdotally I've seen more reports for the Loowit this season so I wonder if the camping situation is getting crowded or not?
When Neek and I did the Loowit Trail in July there were maybe 10 tents, mostly concentrated in the Plains of Abraham. But in general I didn't really think the trail looked very fragile. We saw perhaps 50 people all day long and I think the trail could support even more.
One thing to note re NP status is that both of those areas are currently accessible for free day use. I'm sure camping in the Large Marge backcountry is fun, but the Coldwater side is only 2h from Portland and there are lots of good day trips that can be done, including long 20+ mi days, with no permits or reservations required. This would presumably change with NP status. Ditto for Loowit. I'm sure it's fun to backpack but it is a very doable 32 mi dayhike (seeing all sides of Helens in a single day is neat). Otherwise, you can access various parts of it for shorter day trips without needing permits or reservations. Again, this would presumably change with NP status. So changing the area into a NP would presumably make access harder/more restricted than it currently is in this otherwise not terribly crowded spot. The question is whether that tradeoff is worth it for NP status - right now I would say no. Side note to Jaysway: the Helens area is nice in fall, so there's still time to visit this year. smile.gif

Go! Take a gun! And a dog! Without a leash! Chop down a tree! Start a fire! Piss wherever you want! Build a cairn! A HUGE ONE! BE A REBEL! YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE! (-bootpathguy)
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11996 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Sep 14, 2022 11:48 am 
We currently host no fewer than three world-class National Parks in Washington State, two of which are among the crown jewels of the National Park System: Olympic and Rainier, both of which are unequaled by anything on the North American continent. We do not need another National Park, and with it all that it entails. The National Monument status assigned to Mt. St. Helens is more than adequate "protection" (for all of you worrywarts about that issue.) Several times in this thread it's been made clear the reasons Mt. Baker was not included in North Cascades National Park. That ship has sailed. It's not coming back. I am really curious about the reason this thread started. Just because it's "fantastic"? Lots of things are fantastic. That doesn't necessarily mean they're candidates for National Park status. I vote NO, NO, and NO.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Logbear
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 314 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash
Logbear
Member
PostWed Sep 14, 2022 9:32 pm 
North Cascades Conservation Council didn't include Mt Baker in their proposed North Cascades National Park boundary back in 1965. This map is in the book "The Wild Cascades: Forgotten Parkland".

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 774 | TRs | Pics
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostWed Sep 14, 2022 10:13 pm 
Ski wrote:
We currently host no fewer than three world-class National Parks in Washington State, two of which are among the crown jewels of the National Park System: Olympic and Rainier, both of which are unequaled by anything on the North American continent.
“Unequaled by anything” is pretty bold. I’d bet folks in Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, California, Utah, Montana and Colorado would argue differently. As would those in British Columbia, Alberta, the NWT and the Yukon. And that is just in the western part of the Continent. And no, I don’t think Baker or St. Helens deserve NP status.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Baker and Helens should be a National Park!
  Happy Birthday summithound!
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