Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Half Dome from the Four Mile Trail to Glacier Point, Yosemite National Park

The Moon is Waxing Crescent (39% of Full)


Advanced

Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 02, 2007 03:57PM
Why not?


(full article here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004048588_webvolcano02.html)

Push to make Mount St. Helens a national park
By Chester Allen

McClatchy Newspapers

OLYMPIA — There are rumblings around Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, but they have nothing to do with the flow of lava inside the crater.

Instead, these rumblings are calls for the National Park Service to take over Mount St. Helens from the U.S. Forest Service.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest's recent decision to permanently close the Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center — the only year-round visitor center with a clear view of the steaming crater — set off political shock waves.

"Mount St. Helens is a national gem," said Sean Smith, northwest regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. "The volcano deserves the recognition and increased visits that come with national park status."

The National Parks Conservation Association is leading the push to make Mount St. Helens a national park.

Smith said the move would:

• Boost visits to Mount St. Helens, as people tend to want to visit national parks.

• Give Mount St. Helens more services and an increased budget.

• Boost tourism in gateway towns near Mount St. Helens, such as Kelso, Castle Rock and Amboy.
avatar Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 02, 2007 07:24PM
It's already a National Monument. What would the change to National Park do?

avatar Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 03, 2007 03:56AM
eeek wrote:

> It's already a National Monument. What would the change to
> National Park do?

Probably not that much, unless a funding source can be found.

The USDA Forest Service does have a few high profile sites in California. Giant Sequoia NM (within Sequoia National Forest) has lots of visitation because it's next to Sequoia/Kings Canyon. Ever been to Hume Lake? The FS operates several sites in the Tahoe area including the Tallac Historic Site and the high volume Taylor Creek Visitor Center operated by the FS's Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. They've got the Rainbow Trail with interpretive signs (and a really fun "Stream Profile Chamber"winking smiley that's as good as any I've seen at a National Park. I think the FS can do a good job as long as the will and funding are there.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/recreation/visitor-center/streampc.shtml

Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 02, 2007 08:18PM
MSHNVM has a slightly different status than a usual NM - it is run by the DoA - Forest Service instead of the DoI - NPS, which has a somewhat different management style overall, and which also (along with BLM) is sort of a poor stepsister to the NPs/NMs. NPS status would probably net it more funding from the U.S. general annual budget.

Having said that, more conventional NP status is no guarantee of huge visitation. Parks like Redwood and Lassen, even in crowded Califonria, get fairly light crowds compared to the "crown jewels" like Yosemite and Olympic, and it would take awhile - maybe a LONG while - for the idea to sink in that this park deserves more visitation and perhaps more funding than it gets now.





Wilderness forever,
Bruce Jensen
Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 03, 2007 01:53PM
I read about Joshua Tree's change from national monument to national park not too long ago. In their case, apparently some mining operations had to be stopped before it was acceptable for a national park. I don't know, though, whether it was managed as a monument by the NPS or not.

I think the NFS generally allows more commercial use of their land...lumbering, mining, etc., where NPS doesn't. Also things like hunting, off-road vehicles and such seem like they're commonly allowed on NFS land, but not so much in National parks (the Yellowstone snowmobile situation is an exception, but maybe only due to political pressure).

I guess bringing in more visitors and boosting local business is a plus...I think of it more in terms of preserving what's there, and protecting it from folks who might want to "improve" it with luxury hotels, restaurants, and other commercial interests.





Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo
avatar Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 04, 2007 10:33AM
Sierrafan wrote:

> I read about Joshua Tree's change from national monument to
> national park not too long ago. In their case, apparently some
> mining operations had to be stopped before it was acceptable
> for a national park. I don't know, though, whether it was
> managed as a monument by the NPS or not.

I'm pretty sure it was NPS. I would have all the restrictions that you'd normally find in a National Park. That being said, there's the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Jackson Lake Dam. Don't forget that there was an active uranium mining operation within Grand Canyon NP for years.

> I think the NFS generally allows more commercial use of their
> land...lumbering, mining, etc., where NPS doesn't. Also things
> like hunting, off-road vehicles and such seem like they're
> commonly allowed on NFS land, but not so much in National parks
> (the Yellowstone snowmobile situation is an exception, but
> maybe only due to political pressure).

There are certain USDA FS lands where there restrictions are practically the same as on NPS lands. When I was visiting Sequoia NP last summer, the biggest seemed to be about what one could collect. Apparently it's legal to collect and keep pine cones on FS land, but not NPS.

> I guess bringing in more visitors and boosting local business
> is a plus...I think of it more in terms of preserving what's
> there, and protecting it from folks who might want to "improve"
> it with luxury hotels, restaurants, and other commercial
> interests.

I've been hearing about this, and it seems more an issue about respect rather than whether or not the NPS would be able to do a better job.

avatar Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 04, 2007 12:30PM
>apparently it's legal to collect and keep pine cones on FS land, but not NPS

But often it's quite ok to burn them in your campfire winking smiley

avatar Re: Mt. St. Helens National Park
December 04, 2007 02:13PM
eeek wrote:

> >apparently it's legal to collect and keep pine cones on FS
> land, but not NPS
>
> But often it's quite ok to burn them in your campfire winking smiley
>

I never fully understood that. I guess with the NPS, you can collect and use downed branches and the like on site, but not take it with you. With the USDA Forest Service, you can take certain things out. heck - you can get a permit to cut down your own Christmas tree in some FS areas.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login