Should the Blue Mountains be a national park? (Bend, Umatilla: construction, design)

[Mini-apple-less]

I think they're the most unspoiled mountainous part of the state and most of the range is national forest. Would you support turning it into a national park to protect it?

[crazyme4878]

Having the Forest Service designate it as wilderness might be easier than having it switch agencies.

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less

I think they're the most unspoiled mountainous part of the state and most of the range is national forest. Would you support turning it into a national park to protect it?

Since much of the area in Northeast Oregon you are talking about (I assume you are including the Elkhorn and Wallowa mountains in addition to the Blues) is national forest, it is already being preserved. What's nice is a lot of people don't seem to know about it. Why ruin it by making it a National Park which would flood the area with people. We don't need another Greater Bend Oregon area.

Have you ever been to the Steen's Mountain/Malheur Wildlife Refuge/Alvord Dry Lake/etc. area in Southeast Oregon? If you want unspoiled, go there.

There was a time when there was a movement to turn this area into a National Monument or even a National Park. The locals and environmentalists knew that the resulting influx of people would ruin it so they fought it. Instead, the Steens Mountain BLM Cooperative Management and Protection Area was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steens...tal_protection

[Larry Caldwell]

People who support economic development would like the idea. It would bring billiion$ into the local economy for construction of roads, lodges and tourist facilities.

[delta07]

Originally Posted by crazyme4878

Having the Forest Service designate it as wilderness might be easier than having it switch agencies.

There are actually quite a few wilderness designations in the NE part of the state already, including the North Fork John Day wilderness & the North Fork Umatilla wilderness in the Blue Mountains. There is also the Eagle Cap wilderness, Hells Canyon wilderness, and a few others in the vicinity.

Originally Posted by karlsch

Since much of the area in Northeast Oregon you are talking about (I assume you are including the Elkhorn and Wallowa mountains in addition to the Blues) is national forest, it is already being preserved. What's nice is a lot of people don't seem to know about it. Why ruin it by making it a National Park which would flood the area with people. We don't need another Greater Bend Oregon area.

Have you ever been to the Steen's Mountain/Malheur Wildlife Refuge/Alvord Dry Lake/etc. area in Southeast Oregon? If you want unspoiled, go there.

There was a time when there was a movement to turn this area into a National Monument or even a National Park. The locals and environmentalists knew that the resulting influx of people would ruin it so they fought it. Instead, the Steens Mountain BLM Cooperative Management and Protection Area was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steens...tal_protection

I couldn't agree with you more! Honestly, I don't feel like National Parks preserve an area. Just head to Yosemite or Yellowstone if you don't believe me! Traffic jams, smog and trash everywhere. I'm fine with the USFS managing these lands, whether it's managed as wilderness or mutli-use. They both have their values.

[Fiddlehead]

I agree with the thrust of this thread. The Blue Mountains should not be a national park. They are too valuable. The Wallowas, in particular, are already heavily used, national park designation would result in much heavier impacts. The rest of the Blues are less well known and used, but protected from extreme exploitation. That is a sensible middle ground for the near future.