2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

This is an ethical debate and the two sides will never agree. On one side you have the recreational fisherman who want to utilize this "limited time opportunity." Because of there focus on this, they will never be able to understand or embrace the scientists.  Then there are the scientists, researchers and naturalists who have been conducting amazing and groundbreaking research and education inside this monument.  Because of their drive to continue this research, they (including myself) well never understand why recreators would want to take that away?  The only difference (and deciding factor in this stalemate) is there are thousands of lakes in Washington and the surrounding areas - including Coldwater lake (which is under utilized), while there is only one lake with the on-going research, only one Spirit lake.  Once we alter it, we can’t go back... scientists should be able to keep this ONE lake. 

Like many of us warned before - allowing in hunters was a slippery slope.

This will continue to be issues while the Monument is under the control of a multi-use agency.  It’s a Forest Service site acting like a Parks Service site – but without the funding, and being forced to walk that “multi-use” line.  Give it a line-item budget! (Forest Service or Park Service) and give the people who love the place a fighting chance!  Then maybe we wouldn’t have to be making all sacrifices??!

Holly, former Park Ranger at Mount St. Helens

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context