REBUTTAL: Paul Keller's facts don't add up
In his April 25, 2004 Oregonian piece, Paul Keller's short-sighted vision for Mount Hood ignores the obvious damage that Forest Service exploitation of the mountain has brought, while perpetuating several National Park myths. Mr. Keller's apologist perspective is understandable, given his history in public relations for the U.S. Forest Service. But many of his statements are misleading and false. The following are the top ten falsehoods from this article:
1. National Parks have more roads than National Forests: False.
Even if you were to limit this comparison to paved roads, National Forests (like Mount Hood) have hundreds of miles of paved roads that were built to serve logging trucks; there is simply no corollary in National Parks, where few roads are built, and only to serve recreation. Even heavily visited parks like Yellowstone or Yosemite have fewer paved roads than Mount Hood already has under Forest Service management.
For this reason, the Mount Hood National Park proposal requires no new roads.
This road comparison between National Parks and National Forests does not even consider the many hundreds of miles of gravel and dirt logging roads that the Forest Service has built to log Mount Hood National Forest. These roads are costly to maintain, cause landslides and siltation into nearby streams and fragment natural habitats. This maze of un-patrolled roads has also devolved into dumping grounds and shooting galleries, as anyone who has seen the dumped large appliances, household trash and shot-up trees can attest to.
The Mount Hood National Park proposal would decommission all gravel and dirt roads that are not tied to recreation.
2. National Park status would trigger a flood of tourists: False.
Mount Hood is already overrun with tourists, with more than 2 million visitors annually, according to the Forest Service, several hundred thousand more than Mount Rainier and Crater Lake National Parks, combined. This number would already place Mount Hood near the top of the list among National Parks. Yet, the difference is that National Parks have a core mission of responding to recreation demand, while the Forest Service has actually been closing trails, campgrounds and picnic areas at Mount Hood, despite growing demand. The reality is that we live in a rapidly growing region, and the future management of Mount Hood and Columbia Gorge will have to cope with that pressure.
The Mount Hood National Park proposal is built on the simple fact that the National Park Service has a long, proven record of meeting such challenges in a far more balanced, sustainable fashion than the U.S. Forest Service has been able to achieve.
3. Local communities would not benefit from National Park status: False.
National Parks draw national and international tourism, unlike National Forests. A National Park designation would bring a new level of prestige to the area that would put Mount Hood in major tourism guides and maps. Though the number would be small in proportion to the large number of local visitors, these distant visitors would bring a significant increase in local tourism spending, since they are much more likely to stay near the mountain, and patronize local businesses, and take home local goods to remind them of their visit.
A central strategy in the Mount Hood National Park proposal is to restore the mountain communities to the economic health they once enjoyed as tourism destinations.
4. National Park Status would bring traffic jams: False.
Mount Hood already suffers traffic jams, but largely due to the carte blanche manner in which the Forest Service has allowed the mountain to be developed for skiing. The Oregon Department of Transportation has obliged by simply widening Highway 26 to serve the weekend crush of skiers. This is not only a short-sighted solution to the ski traffic problem, but it is also comes at the cost of the mountain communities, where ever-wider highways and speeding traffic undermine their economic viability.
The Mount Hood National Park proposal would limit further development of the mountain for skiing, and further expansion of the highways purely to serve weekend ski traffic, instead favoring better management of the ski areas to lessen traffic impacts. The proposal would also put the economic and livability interests of local communities on the same level as traffic concerns in managing the forest highways.
5. Mount Hood and the Gorge offer "countless" recreation opportunities: False.
Sadly, the number of miles of hiking trails at Mount Hood and in the Gorge has dropped by more than half in the past 50 years, with most of the closed trails replaced with logging spurs and clearcuts. The Forest Service stopped building new campgrounds years ago, and has abandoned a number of smaller campgrounds that once served visitors seeking a quieter camping experience.
The Mount Hood National Park Proposal seeks to reverse this trend, tripling the number of trails and doubling the number of campgrounds and picnic areas.
6. The Forest Service has changed its timber focus: False.
There are nearly fifty active timber sales in the Mount Hood National Forest at this moment, and the agency is under great pressure from Congress and the current administration to increase commercial logging, not slow it.
The Mount Hood National Park proposal would end commercial logging on Mount Hood, and focus on restoring logged areas and decommissioning logging roads, instead.
7. National Park status would "renew logging and gouging and scraping" of Mount Hood: False.
National Park status would ban commercial logging and mining, both of which are encouraged by the Forest Service in their current plans. The Forest Service even allows mining in the four wilderness areas around Mount Hood, a threat that would also be prevented by National Park status. The Forest Service worked behind the scenes to trade public land that would encourage development of a new ski resort, with condominiums and golf course, at Cooper Spur. National Park status would prevent this sort of commercial over-development of the mountain and Columbia Gorge.
The Mount Hood National Park proposal would ban mining in the four wilderness areas that surround Mount Hood, and preserve the Cooper Spur area from commercial exploitation.
8. National Park status would cost taxpayers more than Forest Service management: False.
Today, taxpayers subsidize timber that is sold at a loss to the logging industry, and are also on the hook to maintain the massive network of aging logging roads that have been built over the past fifty years. On an acre-by-acre basis, National Parks are cheaper to administer than National Forests, simply because there are no timber subsidies and logging roads to maintain. For comparison, Mount Hood National Forest spends in excess of $25 million annually to maintain the current management of the forest. This is more than the total operating budgets of Mount Rainier, Olympic and Crater Lake National Parks, combined!
The Mount Hood National Park proposal would end subsidized logging, and decommission logging roads as part of restoring the natural ecosystems around Mount Hood.
9. National Park status would cost visitors more than Forest Service management: False.
The Forest Service's Northwest Forest Pass costs visitors to the Mount Hood National Forest $5 dollars per day or $30 annually to park at forest trailheads. National Park status would include similar use fees, with an annual pass costing $50. However, the Park Service has variable day use fees, and in many cases has no entrance fees to its facilities when they serve a large metropolitan population. More importantly, all National Park Service fees go directly into maintaining and improving recreation facilities for visitors, according to their core mission. In contrast, the Northwest Forest Pass has proved to be an excuse for the Forest Service to cut tax funding for recreation, and a continued decline in recreation opportunities.
The Mount Hood National Park proposal would create a balanced fee system that helps manage the park, while ensuring continued access from local visitors.
10. National Park Status would cause pollution: False.
This claim alludes to smog from traffic, but in fact, the greatest threat to air pollution at Mount Hood and in the Columbia Gorge are from the adjacent urban areas in Portland and the Willamette Valley. The state Department of Environmental Quality is already addressing this larger issue, in the interest of protecting the air quality around the mountain and in the Gorge.
The most significant sources of pollution within Mount Hood National Forest are from logging operations and associated road building, where great quantities of silt area released into streams, and are a major contributor to the decline in native salmon and steelhead populations. Mining operations compound the silt problem in some areas, as well.
The Mount Hood National Park Proposal would end logging and mining at Mount Hood and in the Columbia Gorge. A central goal in creating the new park will be to restore damaged areas, as well as the stream corridors that have been impacted by Forest Service management.
Copyright 2004 - Mount Hood National Park Campaign