The State of our State Parks: Not good

Below is an open letter from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission on the state of funding for our state parks. Read it and feel free to comment both to the commission and to your elected representatives. Feel free too to leave a comment here. As most of you know I have been very critical of the way we have been funding (rather lack of funding) our parks for the past several years. I have been deeply impressed with Oregon's solutions for funding their parks and I wish that we can adopt a few of those methods here. In a perfect world it would be nice to have our legislators (with the governor's insistence)fully fund our parks. But it is not going to happen-it didn't happen during our boom years. Therefore we are left with two choices: to accept (onerous to many) user fees or a greatly reduced state park system. I'm willing to pay for our parks-they are too valuable to be sold off or left to languish. Evidently many of my fellow citizens are vehemently against user fees. And while I respect your opinions and understand the principles that you stand on-I ask you then how are we going to keep our parks from being shut down and/or sold? I welcome your solutions-and I hope that we can all weather this economic climate to get our parks through this very trying time.

Governor’s 2011-13 budget moves State Parks off general fund tax, supports user-based fees to keep parks operating

Dear state parks friend,

The start of the 2011 legislative session finds State Parks at a crossroads. Now, more than ever, donations tied to vehicle license tabs are needed to bridge the budget gap, as we potentially move from an agency that relies on general fund state tax dollars to one that may rely primarily on user fees.

In response to the state budget crisis, the Governor’s budget makes dramatic reductions in basic health, social and education programs and in the mix proposes a reduction of 70 percent of the agency’s general fund tax support in the 2011-13 biennium, which begins July 1, 2011. This would leave $20 million in one-time tax support to help the agency transition to a funding base built on new user fees. Then in 2013-15, there would be no general fund tax support, and State Parks would rely on user fees alone. In addition, the State Parks Commission knows that it will have to manage the park system differently in order to sustain it in these times.

Faced with the prospect of losing tax support for parks operations, the Commission believes that user-based fees are the best and fairest option we have to operate the park system, because it relies upon those who use the parks to pay for them. We are optimistic that this could support the system. We are already deeply involved in the Governor’s reform initiative and are working together with other natural resource agencies to find savings and efficiencies. As part of this effort, State Parks, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources are exploring the idea of charging a reasonable fee for a single permit that would provide access to state parks and recreation lands.

If the Legislature includes the permit/fee in its final budget this spring, one model being considered would enable vehicle owners to buy their recreation permit at reduced cost when they renew their vehicle license tabs through the Department of Licensing. Without the permit/ fee in the next biennium, parks all over the state could be reduced to zero service.

While we wait for things to unfold this legislative session, your donations are still very much needed to help us keep operating through the current budget period and into the next.

For more information about the donation program and current charts showing monthly donation levels, visit www.parks.wa.gov/donations/ and public comments are always welcome via e-mail to public.information@parks.wa.gov. We will provide you with periodic updates on the State Parks budget and parks services.

Thank you for your support,

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

A Reading from the Book of the Columbia Highlands

Today, Mitch Friedman of Conservation Northwest and I had the opportunity to talk about the Columbia Highlands on KUOW's Weekday program. To those who know this area, no introduction is needed. But to most residents of Washington state, a blank stare is what usually follows when you mention this area. Or worse, a false image. The northeast corner of the state from eastern Okanogan County to the Idaho border is a mountainous, forested, sparsely populated region. Politically, economically, and geographically resembling more the northern Rockies than the Pacific Northwest, it is truly a unique region of the Evergreen State. A good portion of the area lies within the Colville National Forest. Yet this 1.1 million acre public forest reserve only contains 40,000 acres of wilderness; a mere 3% of its base. Of all the national forests within the country, the Colville ranks among the bottom in wilderness protection. The Kettle River Range, the crown jewel of the Columbia Highlands was negotiated out of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act. One of the biggest conservation shames in our state's history. Conservation Northwest and others have been working hard to correct this--and we are getting really close to having new legislation introduced to protect over 200,000 acres of this ecological haven as federal wilderness. I hope you join in the movement. Below are some excerpts from my book, Columbia Highlands- Exploring Washington's last Frontier. I hope they inspire you to explore this area and vow to protect it.

Beyond the craggy and glacial-covered Cascades, and north of the arid Columbia Plateau lies Washington’s Columbia Highlands. Spanning from the Okanogan River to the Idaho border, this isolated region contains the wildest lands remaining in eastern Washington. Rising to heights exceeding 7,000-feet, the Highlands’ Selkirk and Kettle River Mountains are impressive and imposing landmarks.

But it’s not the lofty peaks, the highest in eastern Washington that attract me here. It’s the region’s pure wildness and remoteness that I find so alluring.

The Columbia Highlands are a land of incredible biological diversity; where east meets west in the Evergreen State. A transition zone between the wet Cascades and the drier Rocky Mountains, the Highlands act as a land bridge for wildlife populations from these greater ecosystems. Moose and lynx, species more associated with the Rockies, thrive here. Flora too mingles in this ecological conversion zone. Sagebrush creeps skyward on south slopes, while north facing ravines shade dense stands of moisture loving fir and cedar.

Deer are profuse in the region’s open pine forests and rangelands. This land is a refuge for grizzly, wolves, and wolverines. Black bear and cougar roam freely within this wild country, and woodland caribou hang on to their last stomping grounds south of the Canadian border.
To the Colville Nation these mountains are sacred-a sanctuary for young warriors engaging in vision quests. And I too, have felt spirits in these mountains; in winds whistling through silver snags and in thunderous clouds swirling over high peaks aimed toward the heavens.

Words like, awesome, stunning, and defiant roll off the tongue when describing the beauty of the Cascade and Olympic Mountains. The mountains of northeastern Washington rarely garner such lavish praise. Here the landscape is more likely to soothe the soul than stimulate it. The beauty in this region is subtle. It is measured in rays of sunlight filtering through a cathedral forest of ancient pines; a golden hillside teeming with deer; an alpine meadow kissed by morning dew and brushed in a rainbow of colors; or a colonnade of blue peaks fading into the night. Solace is felt in the soft breezes that whistle through shiny snags perched in heavenly gardens. The highlands are cherished for its vastness-its lack of human intervention-its rejuvenating properties, and its abundance of God’s living creations.

Yet, while the Columbia Highlands contain some of the most beautiful, remote, and wildlife-rich lands in Washington, only a mere fraction of it is protected. Less than 3% of these public lands are classified as federal wilderness. Just one small wilderness area of 41,000 acres is all that has been set aside from the ever-present and ever-growing threats of road construction, resource exploitation, and off-road vehicles.

For decades the Columbia Highland’s best protection was its obscurity. But as Washington’s population continues to burgeon, pressure is mounting to open up these wild lands to development and other incompatible uses. How we respond to these impending threats depends on how much we cherish and value this special place?

You Can't Have It Both Ways!

We Americans are in a quandary. Many of us have grown quite alarmed at the size of the national debt. It is staggering and many economists believe that we are on a path to financial disaster. The current president and the previous one have exacerbated the debt to a staggering level. In the last 60 years only presidents Clinton, Johnson, and Eisenhower have resided over balanced budgets-and only for a year or two of their terms. We clearly cannot spend more money than we take in any longer and most Americans realize this. Whether Congress does or not is another story however.

And on the state level, the current revenue scene is even bleaker. For most states, unlike the federal government must balance their budgets-it is the law, cemented in their constitutions. Achieving a balanced budget is simple in theory. You either raise revenues-ie TAXES- or reduce spending-ie CUTS. Simple, right? But, just like losing weight it is easier said than done. You either eat less-or exercise more-everyone knows this, yet many of us continue to struggle with weight gain. And we continue to struggle with bloated budgets starved of revenues. The economy is whimpering, so revenues are barely trickling in. We don't dare tax more, especially when so many folks are losing their jobs, their houses, and soon the battle with inflation.

So, it's time to cut the budget-until it is your sacred cow that gets slaughtered. Parks are one of my sacred cows. They are good for society, nature, and our nation. I don't believe I have to argue that point to you. Our parks have never been funded properly even during good times. The slide to fee collections began during the booming 1990s. Many folks protested loudly over park and forest fees and understandably so-but many of these same folks would probably yell loudly if we raise taxes to pay for these lands. We simply cannot have it both ways. We must resign ourselves to accepting fees, or lest we lose our parks and forests. In the United Kingdom which is suffering from crushing debt right now, members of parliament have approved the drastic measure of selling off public lands. The bi-partisan commission here in the US which is about to release their suggestions on how to cut the debt also includes the suggestion of selling off public land. That would be a tragedy on so many accounts and an affront to the millions of citizens and thousands of lawmakers both Democrat and Republican that have fought hard over the past century assuring us a legacy of public lands. Ironically, one of the periods of the greatest acquisition and development of parks and preserves was during the Great Depression, our worst economic period in our nation's history.

Selling and shutting down our public lands should not-should never-be an option. And our nation must practice fiscal prudence and responsibility and get its finances in order and balanced. But we as a nation have to decide-are our parks worth paying for? One way or another-increased taxes or increased fees seem to be the only answer. We can't have it both ways-We can't demand no tax increases and fees and expect our parks and preserves to remain open. Some things in life are worth fighting for and paying for-parks are one of them. I hope that regardless of your political leanings you agree with me. We have our work cut out for us if we are to continue our amazing legacy of parks and conservation in this great nation.

Save the Whales Part II?

Wow, I'd never thought that we in America would have to rally once again at our own government to Save the Whales. I remember well back in 1986-I was a left-leaning 25 year old angry at my government because they weren't doing the right things when it came to environmental preservation. It seemed like all of the great environmental strides that we accomplished under Democrats, Johnson and Carter and Republican Nixon would be the zenith in conservation acts. The Reagan administration just wasn't as interested in environmental protection-after all this was the time of the Sagebrush Rebellion and the New Right-a shift that began pushing moderate-conservation-minded Republicans to the side. But Ronald Reagan in 1986 signed two landmarks pieces of environmental legislation-one, the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Act (more on that later with my upcoming book on the gorge) and the other, the International Whaling Commissions (IWC)'s ban on commercial whaling. The slaughter at sea of our majestic sea mammals would finally end-well at least abate greatly-

Well-then again maybe not. So, here 24 years I was absolutely shocked when I saw a headline from Fox News that President Obama plans on lifting the Whaling moratorium. Surely that can't be correct-those right wingers at Fox just want to smear the president. Right? Well, maybe not- So I went over to Greenpeace, that seminal organization responsible for bringing the whaling issue (that and a Partridge Family episode) into my conscious. Yep-according to Greenpeace-it is true! Funny though how I can't seem to find much in the mainstream media about this-just like I had a hard time finding that the Obama administration has a worst record on protecting endangered species than George W Bush. Now, I'm not smearing the president. I'm just reporting some inconvenient truths. I commended the president when he signed into law last year an Omnibus Wilderness bill. Bravo Mr President-but you still have a long way to go convincing me that you are a conservationist. You are no Dick Nixon or Teddy Roosevelt or even Jimmy Carter (on the environment that is-one of Carter's few bright spots).

Oh yeah-Candidate Obama said in 2008, "As president I will ensure that the U.S. provides leadership... including strengthening the international moratorium on commercial whaling." You wouldn't break your promise now would you? Not like the one on having the most transparent government in US history? Nah-

Mr President, in case you need to hear why it would be a terrible idea to let the whaling moratorium lapse-I quote you Rich Lowry from the conservative magazine the National Review-

Why protect whales? They should be preserved as befits anything else that evokes wonder; they are the mammalian equivalent of the Grand Canyon or of the giant redwoods. They are also incredibly long-lived creatures with a sophisticated social structure, closer to chimpanzees than to cattle.

Besides, there’s no reason to kill whales. No one has needed whale oil to light lamps for at least a century, and blubber isn’t a necessary source of nutrition in a modern society. Yet Japan persists. It agitates against the moratorium and organizes international opposition to it at the same time it cynically defies it.

This would be one case for you Mr President and your administration to now be the party of "No!" That is NO TO WHALING! I hope I made myself clear.

(Picture from Greenpeace UK)

Roads to Trails

Can you bank on them?

One of the last projects that the late great Ira Spring worked on was a Roads to Trails Book in cooperation with the Washington Trails Association. Published in 2002, Ira saw that the glory days of trail building and funding for the US Forest Service was over-and that they were probably not ever going to come back. Since 1990, the Forest Service has been rapidly diminished in its scope and work force. Timber production has been greatly curtailed resulting in very little money being allocated by Congress (under both parties) for road construction (to reach trails) and for trail construction and maintenance itself. The result in the last 20 years is that we are losing trails. Ira saw that perhaps as the Forest Service abandoned many of its roads (roads that were built primarily to access timber) that they would be good candidates to be converted into trails. A great concept indeed-except for a couple of problems-

Many roads simply don't access areas that are of interest to most hiking enthusiasts.
Roads can be a drag to walk-especially when they wash out and their beds become strewn with rocks.
Roads need to be maintained too-even as trails-and in just 10 short years after abandonment a road can be cloaked in alders and other greenery rendering it pretty darn difficult to hike

Recently I blew some dust off of that old Roads to Trails book to see if there were any gems in there worth exploring. Many of the highlighted roads held no interest to me-and many others have already been either fully obliterated or cloaked in greenery. Point is that even a great concept as roads to trails still requires budgets in the form of hacking back encroaching plants.

I did however zone in on one particular walk. Jumpoff Ridge seemed like an interesting candidate-and in fact it turned out to be-except that the views that Ira's crew railed about back in 2002 are going fast. Now it wouldn't take much to get them back-just a crew of two or three people with some loppers and saws. We have to assess as a hiking community, do we want to keep any of these routes open-and if we do, we need to incorporate them into our hiking agendas and maintain them. A hike like Jumpoff Ridge just outside of Index can certainly draw hikers and be a nice alternative to very busy nearby Lake Serene. I encourage you to check it out and and decide whether road-trails like Jumpoff Ridge should be part of or trail inventory. Stay tuned for this week's Hikeoftheweek.com for the full scoop on hiking Jumpoff Ridge.

Build them and they will come (hike, run, walk and bike)

-but build them fast!

Although I am a fiscal conservative, let me be clear (to paraphrase our president) we can't spend enough money on parks, trails and nature preserves. I'm a utilitarian to some degree-believing in spending money for projects that do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Parks and trails fit the bill. As our population continues to spiral out-of-control and we continue to consume land for residences, industries, commercial establishments, roads, airports, power plants, wind farms, Walmarts, Costcos, etc,etc, etc-we are not keeping up with parks, preserves, open space, and trails. As American waist lines continue to expand and at ever younger and younger ages, we are not giving an increasingly large amount of them convenient access to trails and bike paths. We need to make the expansion of trails and parks a national priority. This administration is throwing around all kinds of stimulus money for roads, schools, rail lines, and God knows what else-and why I believe that some of this spending may be reckless, some of the projects being funded will indeed benefit the country. Expanding and improving our infrastructure is good. Our trails and parks are part of our infrastructure too for a healthy America. How about it, President Obama? Some money for parks and trails? And you governors? Insist on it! And the GOP-this is one area you don't want to say "No" to. Put this fiscal conservative on record. "I support spending more money on parks and trails--and I want to see it happen now!"

(Photo-Snohomish County's Whitehorse Trail. How much longer do we need to wait to run, hike, and bike this recreational treasure?)

National Forests-lands of multiple misuse

A very disturbing AP story today about Mexican drug gangs and illegal immigrants using our public lands for their criminal activities. Once again our refusal to deal with these two issues as the serious plagues on this country that they are is having a real impact on our society, safety, and freedom. It is only a matter of time before some horrific event will happen when an innocent hiker, hunter, law-abiding citizen stumbles upon one of these criminal enclaves. And I want to know how we as a nation of laws can tolerate this? It is our (Law-abiding Americans born and naturalized citizens) land! Not the land of illegal drug running criminals. If this doesn't disturb you, don't dare venture too far from the trail then. And if you think this is just a California problem, I have seen the drug runners right here in the North Cascades and we had a major drug growing operation busted right next to Ross Lake last summer. This is our problem too here in the Northwest and having a complacent attitude towards drugs and illegal immigration isn't going to help maintain the integrity of our public lands and safety of those who recreate on them. This is not the type of use that Gifford Pinchot envisioned with his utilitarian views of our national forests of greatest good for the greatest amount of people. We are failing as wise stewards of our public lands and our society at large will suffer along with our forests.

Time to Adopt a State Park?

These are tough times for state parks across the nation. States grappling with record deficits are cutting from their appropriations funding to their parks and forests. Not, that they ever funded them adequately even during good times. Now a state senator in New Hampshire is proposing legislation to adopt a state park to keep them afloat. Read and listen here from NH public Radio.

Adopt-a-Park: A Plan for New Hampshire State Parks
NHPR, by Rick Ganley

New Hampshire has 71 state parks. It's the nation's only self-funded park system, and it's operating at a loss. That leaves many smaller, lesser-known parks with little care and oversight. State Representative Jeffrey St Cyr, a Republican from Alton, thinks he has a solution. He's proposing legislation to form an adopt-a-park program.

Is this a good idea? Any other good ideas out there to keep our parks afloat during the Great Recession? As more people lose their jobs and scale back their budgets, our public lands are more important than ever!

Necklace Valley-Tarnished

What a hike yesterday! Summer has returned in the Northwest. I got a little behind in my research due to the lousy weather that lasted for over a week. What to do then? Go into hyper drive! I ended up hiking into the Necklace Valley all the way to the base of La Bohn Gap with a side trip to Ilswoot Lake in a day! Yep-22 miles worth! Ugh-and yes I'm tired this morning. Half of the way I was able to run-the first five plus miles barely gain any elevation and the tread is pretty smooth-then its a three mile grunt-but once you get to the Valley it is pretty easy going-and this what I want to address. While there are a good half dozen plus lakes in the Necklace Valley, the trail only leads to one of them directly-so what has happened is that there are way-paths all over the freaking place up there. Now, while that presents challenges to hikers sending them out and about-it also creates serious problems for the heather parklands-they are being trampled and chewed up-Pretty unsightly-pretty bad for this fragile environment-and pretty poor land management. Yes, hikers should have access to these wonderful lakes-But how about designating just one side trail to each of the lakes? Label these trails so hikers know where they are going and will use them-and then start closing and rehabilitating the other "trails" that are scarring this beautiful valley and tarnishing these gorgeous alpine gems? Your take?

(photo-Gorgeous Ilswoot Lake-which I believe is a bastardization of Itsoot which is Chinook for black bear)

Expanding Washington's National Parks

Restricting Freedom vs Better Protection

Hope the title didn't mislead you. I am a huge fan of the National Parks System--a system that began on March 1, 1872 when Congress established Yellowstone as our first national park. Republican President Ulysses S Grant mired in a country deep in post civil war reconstruction signed the bill. On August 25, 1916, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act creating the National Park Service. The whole concept of national parks is a truly American ideal that countries around the world have emulated and embraced. The park system has expanded greatly to not only incorporate our crown jewel national parks, but also national seashores, national historic sites, national monuments, and a whole slew of other designations to include properties in every state except Delaware (could Joe Biden's boyhood home change that? Nope-he was born and raised in PA, home to many park units!) and several of our territories. There are currently 394 units within the park system and we continue to expand our park system with each administration. The latest additions to our national parks (the main parks) were under George W Bush in 2003 and 2004 when South Carolina's Congaree Swamp and Colorado's Great Sand Dunes were elevated from national monuments to national parks to become our 57th and 58th national parks.

I have been to 32 of these gems-hiking, camping, and bicycling in them. I would love to see more parks and many of our parks expanded. Here in Washington I would love to see Mount St Helens transferred from the Forest Service to the park service and I would love to see Mount Rainier and Olympic National Parks expanded. There is currently a movement afloat to expand the North Cascades National Park; and while in theory I support it-I have some reservations about this proposal. First and foremost in our real world of political sacrifice, compromise and unlimited capital-the North Cascades proposal is of the least importance compared to other national park expansion issues within the Evergreen State.

Let me explain in order of importance (as I see it) issues pertaining to expanding national parks in Washington.

1. Highest Priority-Expand Olympic National Park. Too much of this park's periphery (particularly along the coast, Lake Ozette and along Hood Canal drainages) borders along industrial forest lands and neglected national forest lands where poaching of resources (illegal plant harvesting by illegal immigrants and illegal game hunting by native born riff raff) and illegal activity (squatting and meth labs) threatens the park's visitors and resources. And a constant threat exists that many of these industrial forestlands will be subdivided and developed further compromising the park.


2. Expand Mount Rainier National Park's Boundaries. Especially along the Carbon River Area and near the Clearwater Wilderness where as stated above, illegal activity and marginal industrial forest lands compromises the park's integrity and the safety of park visitors.


3. Transfer Mount St Helens to the Park Service. Under a better funded park service and one with a clearer objective (preservation vs multiple and often conflicting use) than the disgraced and underfunded Forest Service, St Helens would be elevated to a higher status with better protection, funding, and better and expanded visitor facilities-like perhaps a campground and better maintained trails. Also, St Helens' borders should be adjusted to help better manage it and incorporate periphery areas that should have never been left out when the monument was established-like the old growth forests of Quartz Creek.


4. Lastly, expansion of the North Cascades National Park. While it sounds noble, it is mostly unnecessary. Nearly all of the lands bordering North Cascades National park are federally protected wilderness areas and are under no threat. Perhaps the only exception would be north of Rainy Pass along the PCT in which case national park status or even better-an expansion of the Pasayten Wilderness would be better suited. Why waste political and real capital on an area that is under virtually no threat when other areas in the state are in dire need of protection?

Besides-one of the beauties of the North Cascades complex outside of the National Park lands is the freedom to camp and travel (mostly) unregulated. While I support permitting by the park service as necessary in highly visited areas, why bring this cumbersome and often frustrating process to areas that don't need it-areas that are far more wild and untrammeled than within the park's boundaries. And while I support keeping our park's free from dogs and hunting (another argument that I can address in a separate post) expanding North Cascades National Park into adjacent forestlands where these activities are currently allowed would lock out these users-whom I don't believe should be locked out (yes, they would be locked out) of these lands where they can now freely roam. My biggest reasons for supporting any national park expansion are for better protection and better visitor services. In the case of the North Cascades National Park periphery I don't believe there is much of a resource threat or need for visitor expansion. In Rainier, St Helens and Olympic, I believe otherwise, and I believe it would be wise for conservationists and politicos to concentrate on expanding and improving these crown jewels of Washington State instead. Your take?

Start with Al, Henry, Nancy, and Oprah!

This in today's Reiters-

(bold face my emphasis)

New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest
Mon Jul 6, 2009 11:04pm EDT
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion "high emitters" in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.
EACH PERSON'S EMISSIONS

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

"You're distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that's actually doing the most damage," said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study's authors.

Rich people's lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: "We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it's great."

This week's climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions.
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

My take-I couldn't agree more. It just happens that the biggest climate change alarmists in this country are also some of the wealthiest people in this nation. Their plans to cap and trade and get us all into tiny cars or on crowded buses would only be a hardship to the middle class, working people and the poor. The rich can easily pay their tax proposals to assuage their guilt about their consumption. So let em! Oprah and Al- how much carbon do your jets emit on each single trip?! Yep-more carbon than you and I can possibly emit in our lifetimes! It's about time that the Als and Oprahs and Waxmens fess up for their own consumption and stop trying to put the blame (and burden) on the rest of us. And its also the Gores, Nickels, and Pelosis who spew the most hot air -let's cap their rhetoric and trade it for some sane energy policies that won't destroy industry and burden the middle and working classes in this country. Meanwhile China and India continue to add a carbon-belching power plant to the landscape every what now- three days?! Good grief!

(photo- Al Gore's house -what's the carbon foot print on this "little earth friendly adobe?")

Anatomy of an abandoned Trail

Using Karen Sykes' Hidden Hikes in Western Washington, I ventured over to Barlow Pass this past week. The Barlow Pass Trail is in excellent shape and in no danger of disappearing. However, the connecting Old Government Trail is fading into history. Yep-death of another trail. I lament yet another trail being loss to either lack of maintenance, lack of access, and/or lack of government funding and interest in keeping it alive. It is amazing how much our trail inventory has shrunk just in the past 20 years.

I only hope that the Obama administration with its propensity to pull money out of thin air and liberally sprinkle it across the land-will see that next to auto companies, banking firms, fraudulent vote getting machines, and corrupt loan offices-that maybe some of my hard earned tax dollars can make its way to our trails! Please! FDR who also spent quite a bit of public money spent quite a bit of it on our natural resources. And 70 years later we have quite a legacy for it. I'll take trails over GM any day for an Obama legacy.

Meanwhile-the Old Government trail isn't completely unhikable. The tread is still in pretty decent shape-and while there are lots of blowdowns across it-almost all of them are quite easy to negotiate. You can easily amble 1.5 miles down this trail. Bring along a saw and help clean it up. I'll do my part by publicising it and trying to get you to hike it. Save our trails!

Canadian Parks Plan for a Big Freeze!

Price freeze-that is. This from this morning's Vancouver Sun.

National park gate fees --including those at Banff and Jasper--are being frozen in a bid to entice cash-strapped Canadians to visit more often.
A two-year fee freeze at national parks and historic sites, described as"some of the most magnificent and fascinating places to visit in the world," was announced Saturday by Environment Minister Jim Prentice.
"In this time of global economic recession, our government is doing what it can to encourage Canadians to enjoy these places," said Prentice. "For many families, every dollar counts."
Adults currently pay $9.80 at the gates in Banff National Park. Annual park passes for adults are $67.70, and $84.40 for deluxe passes including historic sites.
Individual rates for 2008 will stay in place until April 1, 2011. For the travel trade, the 2009 rates now in effect will be frozen until April 1, 2012. Read the rest here.

I'm all for getting more people to visit national parks and I'm all for equitable user fees. $9.80 Canadian is still a deal to hike all day at Banff. What's the cost for a crappy 90 minute movie at the theatre? Nine bucks! Skiing all day at Whistler? Almost $90! Box seats to watch the Mariners? How about $53!! And we tax payers even subsidized their stadium-Ay Carumba!

Now, we definitely need to fund our parks better- Congress needs to cough up more money-and we visitors need to stop whining over spending $10 to hike in Mount Rainier -these places are worth far more than funding steroid taking athletes, breast-enhancing drug-taking actresses and providing mega resorts for the rich. I already have my money put aside for my American and Canadian National Park passes for this season. I buy annual passes and my trips come out to less than a buck a visit! My coffee on the way home costs more! And next year on my Canadian Parks visits I'll have a little extra money for my Tim Hortons stop since my park fees won't be going up!

Too Dam Much Money

Too Damn Little for Trails

Here's the Good News- $62 million dollars of federal stimulus funds are heading to Washington's National Parks. Here's the Bad News-the majority of it-nearly $55 million worth is just for the dam removals on the Elwha River in Olympic National Park. That doesn't leave a whole heck of a lot for Rainier, North Cascades, and all of the National Historic Parks like, San Juan Islands, Fort Vancouver and Whitman.

Now, don't get me wrong. I support the dam removals-say so right in black and white in my Day Hiking Olympic Peninsula Book. But I also support getting our trails and access roads back in shape-and that just hasn't been happening lately. I want people to be able to get out on their trails and enjoy their parks and have lots of opportunities to do so. The Elwha River Dam removals are important but so is restoring our park's trails, roads and visitors facilities. Seven million dollars left over for them is just too damn little. The Dam's portion of stimulus money is just too damn much.

Earth Day Soiled

Happy Earth Day 2009 everyone! I don't get too worked up today though. It's not that I don't believe in Earth Day. I do. It is just that I have always had a problem with this holiday. Not with its intent-I'm all for it! It's how it's practiced- often the way many Christians go to church once or twice a year-at Christmas and Easter- celebrate Jesus and His teachings-and then go back to living a life disregarding The Way the other 363 days of the year. I see many Earth Day Revelers the same. They plant a tree-ride their bike-then go back to over consuming and not addressing the real issue at stake when it comes to protecting the planet-Population Sustainability!

Earth Day Founder, Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin viewed the stabilization of the United State's population as one of the most (if not the most) important factor to preserving and protecting the planet. Among his most resonating quotes back in 1970 was this

"It's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'"

You can not have a sustainable planet (or country) when your population is growing unfettered. Adding one million plus people to the US's already burgeoning 300 million plus people will not yield earth Friendly results. So instead of planting a tree in your lawn this Earth Day, how about working toward a sustainable immigration and population policy. I haven't heard anyone in Congress, the President, or the mainstream Environmental community talk about this. Accomplishing a sane and sustainable immigration and population policy along with a reigned in attitude toward materialistic consumption would be an Earth Day achievement that I would gladly celebrate-and every day-and I'd even plant a tree in commemoration. So, Happy Earth Day everyone- now get to work making the planet and the United States truly earth-friendly by addressing immigration and population reduction. There's a lot at stake and it'll be much more difficult than recycling your Evian water bottles.

Oh yeah-and for Right Wing extremists who mock the whole concept of Earth Day by consuming more-you're far worst (and despicable I may add than the folks who want to do the correct thing but are misguided or afraid to tackle the real issues of population and immigration. Richard Nixon was president when our first Earth Day was celebrated and he proudly signed into law shortly afterwards the Clean Air and Clean water Acts. Many in the Republican party today need to remember how some of our greatest environmental achievements in this country came under Republican administrations.

Earth Day Bonus- Click here to read my 1996 UW Daily Earth Day editorial-classic Romano with the same message more or less.

Howe's the View!
From atop of British Columbia's Stawamus Chief-Howe is the view! Howe Sound that is, the southernmost fjord in North America. And to the north the view includes the city of Squamish, the Squamish River Delta and the massive glacial covered volcano, Mount Garibaldi. Named for the great Italian Patriot Giuseppe Garibaldi (from whom Giuseppe Gattino is named after), the mountain's presence is indeed liberating!

I was up in BC for a couple of days talking to retailers about carrying Green Trails' great new Whistler map. Good news- I got to go to Whistler! Bad news I couldn't afford to go skiing while I was there (hey I'm a writer!). Good news-it was a beautiful spring day yesterday. Bad news- I had to go to Vancouver to talk to retailers. Good news- I got to sneak out early for a hike up the Stawamus Chief. Bad news-the hike is brutal- its all on granite (just like hiking in the White Mountains) steep (2,000 feet of elevation gain in 2 miles) and my patellar tendinitis was painful! Good news- The view! Unbelievable- a cure to all of my mine and the world's problems.

If you haven't hiked this landmark-the second largest granite monolith in the world you owe it to yourself the next time you are heading north to Whistler. The hike is tough, so plan accordingly. And be prepared to socialize. The Chief welcomes over 50,000 hikers in the summer alone. People come from all over to hike it. I met people from Louisiana, Montreal and Lyon, France on the rock yesterday (a little of a French Connection!). The whole area is protected within a provincial park and it'll cost you $3 Canadian to park to hike it. What a deal! And guess what- even with a recession in British Columbia, they're not talking about closing their parks. Washington state-listen!