Park Controversy in Washington

Posted by Aurae Beidler Jun 17, 2008

Last week, I wrote an article on one of Washington State's national parks, Mount Rainier National Park. Little did I know that Washington actually has two other national parks: Olympic National Park and North Cascades National Park, with a possible fourth to come. A reader asked if I could write a blog on the controversy concerning turning Mount St. Helens into a national park.

It all comes down to money and access. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington has appointed an advisory committee to look into changing Mount St. Helens to a National Park. The committee findings will be shared next spring 2009.

According to The Seattle Times, a comparison by the Cowlitz County tourism director found a large discrepancy between the funds the Forest Service gets in a recreation budget for Mount St. Helens, around $500,000 and what a comparable location, California’s Lassen Volcanic National Park receives from the National Park Service, $4.5 million! Imagine what the area could do with an extra $4 million!

Pros:

An increased, steady source of funding, would allow for more ranger staffing, expanded trails and campgrounds and re-open the visitor center. The 110,000-acres park currently enjoys 750,000 annual visitors. National parks receive a “line item allocation of funding” in the annual federal budget. Right now, Mount St. Helens receives recreation funds from the Forest Service, after the money has been filtered down from national headquarters, regional offices and forest headquarters. In other words, Mount St. Helens has to compete with other recreation programs for its funds.

Cons:

Limited access for hunters, fisherman and snowmobilers who currently use the land controlled by the U.S. Forest Service. New rules would restrict or change hunting and fishing, berry picking, dog control, snowmobiling, and other activities.

Do you think they should change the Mount St. Helens status to a National Park?