LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

March 24

WSEN,

Thank you for reprinting the National Parks Conservation Association’s press release announcing Wrangell-St. Elias National Park as one of America’s Ten Most Endangered National Parks. While it is obvious you don’t agree with us, presenting our position in its entirety generates good community discussion—one that is essential to protecting the park and perpetuating the values of ANILCA, including the guarantee of subsistence rights for local residents and access for traditional activities.

We believe that one of the major threats to the appropriate management of this park is RS 2477. I understand that you don’t see these claims as a threat and, ultimately, our differences will be worked out at higher levels. But I will point out that the 96 RS 2477 routes listed in the park’s 1984 General Management Plan were not identified by the National Park Service but rather by the state of Alaska (the plan’s Reagan administration era map clearly identifies the state as the source). I can find no reference in the 1984 plan that the Park Service “promised to determine the validity of them (RS 2477s) on a case-by-case basis,” nor any reference to the “mandate” you mention. Determining validity starts with the state of Alaska, not the Park Service. It is the state’s responsibility to formally apply and present the evidence it has collected as the first step in determining validity. Until the state submits an application, there is nothing the Park Service can do. And it is not up to the Park Service to determine validity anyway. That is reserved for the courts when a quiet-title action is filed, or the Bureau of Land Management when a Disclaimer Rule application is filed.

However, we don’t believe RS 2477s are necessary to secure access for subsistence, access to inholdings, or for traditional activities. ANILCA already provides access for those purposes. Section 1110(b) states that the State or a private land owner “Shall be given by the Secretary such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate and feasible access for economic and other purposes...” And that “Such rights shall be subject to reasonable regulations.. .to protect the natural and other values of such land.” Granted, we’ll argue over ANILCA’s definition of “adequate and feasible” and what’s a reasonable regulation, and we’ll argue over what’s included in the traditional activity guarantee found in Section 1110 (a). But working within ANILCA, a modern law developed and adopted by people still living, is a far better basis for public discussions about access than RS 2477, a single sentence in the 1866 mining law that lacks any real clues about what Congress intended 148 years ago. Instead of fighting over where trails might have been, let’s identify access needs and work out our differences about what’s reasonable, feasible, and traditional within the context of ANILCA.

NPCA recognizes that activities like hunting, wood gathering, and berry picking are traditional and necessary for continuing a bush lifestyle. We do not disagree with the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, or airplanes for those purposes where allowed. Where we probably disagree is the use of motorized access for recreation. You accurately represented NPCA’s position that motorized recreational use of ATVs, snowmobiles, and Jet Ski®s should not occur in a park. We argue that it was not Congress’ intent to permit recreational use of motorized access as a traditional activity. The very fact that a special access provision exists to protect those activities needed by people living in the bush is an argument that Congress anticipated some limitations. We further argue that plenty of state and federal public lands are open to motorized forms of outdoor recreation. National parks are some of the only public places where a person can experience natural quiet. We will continue to promote these values in discussions and decision-making about the future management of our parks.

The great thing about America is our freedom to disagree and to work out our differences. Many nations do not allow dissent. Disagreements foster healthy discussions and from those discussions come good solutions. Thank you for printing this letter.

Sincerely,

Jim Stratton

National Parks Conservation Association

Editor’s note: On page 212 of the WRST General Management Plan (Appendix M: Possible RS 2477 rights-of-way) the plan states: “The park/preserve was established subject to valid existing rights, including rights-of-way established under RS 2477. The validity of these rights-of-way will be determined on a case-by-case basis.”

Recreational users had a right to use state right-of-way prior to ANILCA. Whether we think it is good conservation or not, the law says those rights are to be preserved.

The State of Alaska has already determined that the McCarthy-Green Butte trail (RS135) is indeed a valid RS 2477 route, and has included it in legislation passed in 1998. NPS need only obey the law and much of the conflict and strife in this park would go away.

We certainly agree with your comment that healthy discussions foster good solutions. Let’s keep talking.

WSEN,

Stop ragging on the Park Service for closing the Visitor Center at the end of the McCarthy Road. It is the Bush Administration who has cut their funding & made the doors shut. Can’t you be honest about it?

(unsigned)

March 9, 2004

WSEN,

Great reporting. Keep up the great work. Sign me up for two more years. I enjoy reading your paper, have been there several times on vacation.

Sincerely,

Lucille Powell

WSEN,

Denali National Park has a road in it. I think the Wrangell Mountains should have one in it. It should go from the end of Nabesna Road, Cooper Pass, around Russell Glacier and into McCarthy. What good are they now – only backpackers and hikers can go in. There is no access for seniors, handicapped and children.

Years ago I went to McCarthy, drove over the road bridge and it washed out the next day I came out. There should be a road bridge only for McCarthy residents. Others don’t need to go in there because there is nowhere else to go.

A road originally was planned to go from Cordova to Chitina over the old RR grade. It would be the most beautiful in the State. I have flown over it and also gone in a jet boat.

Sincerely,

Charles Ricci