This poses an interesting question. What would happen if this ever came to fruition? It looks like it would involve Canaan Valley and plenty of surrounding area.

What would it do skiing? How would it effect the area? Anyone care to chime in?

http://www.wvgazette.com/Outdoors/201111280116

Mixed feelings... Overall positive. But there are some strong minuses as well as strong pluses...

Pluses:
1. Perpetual ban on strip mining, fracking, gas mining and mountain-top removal.
2. Vastly increased tourism.
3. Increased awareness of eco-sensitive areas
4. With additional moneys created by increased tourism, ski and recreational areas could expand and improve.
5. Loss of state control over local resources, especially in a state that has been more than readily willing to sacrifice pristine wilderness for strip mining and other environmentally disastrous practices
6. Permanent ban on Wal Marts or McDonalds-type stores in the area to drive down property values...

Minuses:
1. Traffic jams and saturation in a road infrastructure not designed for the traffic generated by a national park
2. Additional permitting and red tape for environmentally conscious development
3. Loss of local control over locally managed resources...

Ive always said this..If WV as a ski state cannot develop its best Mountain(s) in the very best way due to red tape ect... & will never see the full potential the state has to offer then..Turn the whole fricken place into a park!..bring back the Wolf,Bisen,Elk & the Mountain Lion!!!...Do it right..one way or the other!!!!

Yeh David...I saw that on the whitegrass site & was wundering how that would affect canaan as well.

This has been looked at before, not sure why it didn't happen. Now that Manchin has a more influential position maybe he can push it through. I certainly would like to see it happen for the reasons that it might bring some more people volume to the area for local businesses, ski areas, etc. I don't see it making any real big difference though....although, I hope it would prevent them from littering the horizon with those horrible wind mills and power lines.

Any increase in future traffic, from an addition of a National Park or just general increase in traffic from Corridor H, is going to be an issue with the current road infrastructure...they might even have put up a second stop light in the county and finally do something about the front street in Davis. The mountain lions have already started to come back. Right now the biggest improvement to Canaan Valley would be to have a Zoning Ordinance with some actuall "teeth" that would force the owners of Tuckers pick up their huge collapsed sign that has been laying broken on the ground for the last few months and force Doc to take down all those cheap, trashy T-line signs at the intersection of timberline road/32. I support paying the Canaan Valley Zoning Officer an actuall Salary/Wage and hiring building inspectors.

Hear hear..on the Windmills!...They are way more of an eyesore than the occasionaal Oil/gas rig here & there that some of us would stop. The rig towers are not as tall as a windmill & would be few & far between. dont get me wrong, I don't want any rigs up in the pristine areas either!..but I love em down low ( got my 1st royalty ck a few days ago....American oil/Gas,American jobs,& more money for folks like me to spend to help the economy here in the good ole U..S..of A!!)

As far as the mountain lions go..I have been hearing about them coming back for over 20 years now..still waiting..

Very mixed emotions. I know the consultant quoted in the article and will chat with him.

I don't see the "attraction" in the Highlands for the general public (e.g. Skyline Drive, Old Faithful, etc.), but I know others will rightly disagree. A very special place.

It will certainly increase visitation but to what degree is unknown. I disagree on the zoning issues. Of course there is Gatlinburg, but also take a look at Front Royal, Bar Harbor, etc. A Ripleys in Davis?

The fees are not an insignificant issue, particularly for the locals.

Perhaps and ADK approach is a better model, but WV ain't NY.

With a National Park comes lots of regulations and fees.

Here's a few:

- You'd have to pay a fee to the Federal Govt. to visit favorite vista.
- No Mtn. biking
- No Hunting = More Deer = Lyme disease. Even if the wolves & Mt. Lions, made a come back to take maintain the deer population, do you think the Park Rangers would allow a wolf or Mt. Lion to even growl at the tourists?
- Backcountry camping - Lots of restrictions on where you can actually camp in the backcountry, plus you need a permit and you can't have a fire.
- Camping - You'd have to make reservations and pay a fee to camp at the designate campgrounds. Also, if the Federal Govt. has budget problems, they will close and chain the entrance to the campgrounds, like they did on Hatteras Island.

If these areas are already designated as National Forests, why can't they change the regulations and not allow mining & the wind mills? WV has been trying to attract tourists for a very long time, do you think charging people to visit will increase tourism?

I am *not* a fan of seeing what land we have left in WV go under more federal control and regulations. Even though the land is already national forest, I personally disagree with that considering where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government authority over states to take land in the states for it's own federal purposes?

If we want jobs and money to return to the state of WV, decreasing federal ownership of land is the first major step to take. Return much of the federal land to private ownership of private citizens and businesses and let them utilize it to the best and jobs and hence money will return.

Lot of folks are still pissed off about the "land grab" that happened in the past.

I believe that this is in a study stage and rightly so. There are some areas and vistas which should be protected through special designation. If left to individuals and corporate, it won't be done. Land grabs with new areas are not as invasive as before. I've traveled extensively throughout the US and have visited the majority of National Parks, Monuments, and similar areas. Some have fees some do not. Go to http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/List+of+National+Parks+and+Monuments
This is a listing of all Parks, Monuments and other designated areas, some of which you were not aware of. Personally, I favor the designation in some form or another.

Blackwater Falls and canyon should have been designated NSP way back! I guess AWP owning surrounding land is a factor. I would prefer NSP designation for some of the named places, since the wilderness folks have been trying to get their hands on it already, which would ridiculously restrict some recreational user groups and I don't think a wilderness area is as good for tourism as NSP designation.



how bout the old collapsed lodge building by the sawmill in davis? and the building on the corner of front street and 219 that collapsed 2yrs ago that's finally starting to be picked up i guess. hate to say it, but sometimes i feel like i'm in a redneck ghetto when i drive thru the towns. but there is a good reason for that i suppose...

I would be in favor if I were convinced that it would benefit the majority of the hard working folks who live there. Much less so if I thought the major beneficiaries would be the Yuppies who live in DC, even though by most definitions I am one of them. (Well, not young perhaps.) I'd have to know a whole lot more before taking a position.

Last year I visited and skied in Cuyahoga Valley National Park in eastern Ohio at the start of my long ski road trip to UT and CA. Most of the land was donated by several wealthy families. There are grassy hillsides where I skied and quiet woods. A friend who went to grad school in Cleveland recalls going to outdoor summertime concerts at those hillsides. The present status is very pleasant and leaves one wondering and intrigued about non wilderness National Parks. BTW what is the official status of Wolf Trap? The irony of it all is that the Cayuhoga River section far downstream in Cleveland is famous for catching fire in the 1960s. It was full of oil and other pollutants.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to buy or condemn land for its own purposes when it is in the support of the general welfare for roads, bridges, parks, military bases etc., and the use the right of eminent domain... And it was reinforced by the "Takings" and "Just Compensation" clause of the Fifth Amendment. As a matter of fact, every writ of certiorary or subsequent decision by the Supreme Court on this respect has enhanced the constitutionality of the right of (Federal or otherwise) governments to take land, latest being a landmark decision in Kelo v. New London.

In the case of National Parks, our first National Park, Yellowstone, was created in March 1872 to promote the general welfare under an act of Congress. It has repeatedly passed constitutional muster. This was followed by the Organic Act of 1916 that further consolidated legislation on the establishment of national parks. The law under the Antiquities Act of 1906, also allows the President unilaterally to proclaim national monuments on lands already under Federal jurisdiction.

On this right of establishing national lands, the "portly lady" has sung again and again...

Wolftrap is THE designated US National Park for the Performing Arts by Congressional legislation (Public Law 89-671, dated October 15, 1966 and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson). The property was the private estate of Catherine Filene Shouse, a native New Englander (from Boston) and Wheaton and Harvard graduate. The park honors the memory of Catherine Filene. Her life of both public service, women's rights and both national and international philanthropy garnered her both the Medal of Freedom (presented by President Gerald Ford, 1977) and the award of Grand Dame of the Order of the British Empire from Queen Elizabeth. She was the chair of the Democratic National Committee for many years. In 1956, she organized the humanitarian relief to Hungary after the Soviet invasion. In 1966, Catherine Filene donated her private estate near Vienna VA, to the American people with the stipulation and understanding that it would become a National Park dedicated to the arts. Wolftrap is an amazing place.

The property has now two performing centers, the Barns and the Filene Center, with an intensive performing arts schedule. I've seen everything from the National Symphony Orchestra, to Peter, Paul and Mary, to Crosby, Stills, and Nash, to the Temptations and the Four Tops, among many others. It also has an education center and finally, the Theater-in-the-Woods.

Over the years, I've been there at least three times a year...

How much protection comes with National Monument status?

A lot. According to the Act of 1906, you can't "appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated"...

However, please note that a National Monument and a National Park and a National Forest are three completely different things. The purpose of a National Monument is preservation at all costs for the sole purpose of preservation. The purpose of a National Park is to preserve a site for the enjoyment of future generations. Cases in point: The Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty are National Monuments to honor our First President or the nation itself. Access to visitors is subsequent to the need for preservation. On the other hand, Wolftrap, or Meridian Hill Park in Washington DC (a block from my former residence) are there for the purpose of both present and future generations to enjoy. There is a strong preservation component, but the site can be developed to ensure the enjoyment of people. Both National Parks and National Monuments belong to the People and are administered by the Department of Interior's National Park Service. There has been little debate on the purposes of National Parks and National Forests since Teddy Roosevelt's time.

National Forests, however, are administered not by the Department of Interior BUT by the Department of Agriculture. The purpose of a National Forest has a convoluted history; first originated by the chaos brought on national land through indiscriminate private land ownership and exploitation and the resulting poisoning of national aquifers and watersheds, and then subsequently being modified throughout the years. National Forests were created by the National Forest Organic Act of 1897 for the purpose of conservation. It has been altered and today, it stands as its purpose that the Department of Agriculture manages national forests for multiple use and sustainable yield, with additional caveats brought about by the National Environmental Protection Act and others. As a result, and to bring it closer to home, the Secretary of Agriculture can protect a place like Dolly Sods or Cranberry Glades, and at the same time, grant logging permits or wind mill generator sites in the Monongahela National Forest or the George Washington National Forests, which would otherwise NOT be permitted in a National Park. Likewise, Snowshoe is a reservation within the boundaries of a national forest (I don't know the time lease or other details, but they are public domain information) and it has a reservation secured with the Department of Agriculture allowing them to exploit the resources as allowed by law.

There are many, many caveats with that. For example, take two Intrawest Resorts in the East, Snowshoe and Stratton. One of the interesting (yet normally unnoticed) differences is that Snowshoe is on National Forest land that is owned by you and I and the rest of our fellow Americans. As a result, while Snowshoe is a privately owned resort and they can charge you for the use of the trails which they develop, they must do that in an equitable manner. Stratton, on the other hand, is NOT on National Forest land. And as such, they can have an exclusive Stratton Club where, for about $20K a year, you can cut in lines, have exclusive use of some lifts, dining rooms, ad nauseam.

National Forest is good enough for me.
I see nothing but negatives for my rec interests.
This seems no different than W to me.

Lou, why do you attack fracking? There is uranium four times closer to the surface in VA than where the fracking fluid is used and it doesn't contaminate the water? I'm soooooo tired of hearing what if's from people about the Marcellus Shale

If you wouln't mind me expressing an opinion....

The energy has got to come from somewhere! There are tradeoffs for all of the forms of energy we use:
- nobody wants to look at windmills
- nobody wants mountain top coal mining
- no body wants us to drill for oil off the coast
- nobody wants vast areas of solar panels to look at
- no body wants a coal power plant in their back yard

Some of these are impacts are worse than others, but we need energy and it has got to come from somewhere. I think the risks from fracking are much less than say mountain top coal mining. We make up 5% of the worlds population and use 25% of the worlds energy, mostly for personal tranportations (i.e. our gas guzzlin' cars). There is no free lunch.

As far as a national park in the WV highlands, I think it can be accommodated without encroaching on the things we like to do (skiing, hiking, etc). NP's attrack tourists, which create jobs. Something the area sorely needs. I think it should be up the WV people. But it is my opinion that our National Parks our the true jewels of our country. If this current anti-government attitude was applied to all of our NP decisions over the past 100 years, we wouldn't have any national parks. I have been to many National Parks and I can only say positive things about them.

They're making a fracking mess around here is what they're doing. Tearing up people's property left and right. A couple months ago they let off a large amount of God knows what into our neighboring town's municipal water source.

Then there's the whole 'bringing jobs to wv' lies that they've got going on. I see more and more LA, OK, & TX license plates every day.

It will certainly encroach on mountain biking.

local news sources are saying that it would not effect any current existing recreational usages...

That's all nice and cute, but I wouldn't believe that about bicycles. The article is most likely talking about hunting. Next to "W", NPs are mountain bikers least friends.

In response to everyone but nobody in particular.

http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/ Inspirational

That is a great series. Enjoyed it all

If it was just water used in fracking, it would be one thing. Please note the following report: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.go...t%204.18.11.pdf

And even if one doesn't wish to believe a report made for the minority, here's another one: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_final_fact_sheet.pdf


And as well, if energy companies were totally clean and transparent in what they put in the ground, it would be one thing. But they don't. There is no requirement for disclosure whatsoever. And time and time again, groundwater contamination has been the result of fracking. With carcinogens and poisons that may have a long, long impact in groundwater quality. The fact that fracking is exempt from the requirements of the Clean Water Act is of serious concern. Especially when the watershed from the Marcellus shell provides drinking water for over 100 million people. Anything other than full disclosure is unacceptable.

Let them frack in Nevada, Arizona or out West. We've got too much to lose up here.

lbotta, the actual report is here:


http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/upload/cbm_report_2011.pdf


Please have a look at sections 4-1 through 4-4 and notice that the documented 'carcinogens and poisons' reaching the environment are from /release/ of produced water (water coming up from the shale) and not from the chemicals injected during the fracturing process itself. Please also notice that the bicarbonate levels, elevated soil salt levels and selenium levels are linked to use of produced water /for irrigation/. We happen to have seen those same problems with irrigation with regular groundwater in places like southern California (the Imperial valley frex).



About the only thing that report says to me is "Hey, look, irrigation with water that comes up from that deep underground is probably a bad idea, mmmkay? And dumping it into a stream is pretty much the same thing, the fishes really don't like the bicarbonate of soda."

No sense enhancing environmental problems, whether from fracking, mountain top removal or whatever. I'll pay a dollar a gallon more before I drink benzine-laden water.

folks have been Lighting the fumes coming up out of the Spicket for many years before fracking.. & beaches in Ca (& elsewhere) have been polluted by Tar Balls seeping up from the Ground offshore.
Methane Boils up from deep in the Arctic giving us the worst type of global warming effect..

Maybe we can use up some of these Gifts from Earth to the point of relieving "Natures pollution"..

The Liquids that are sent down during the Fracking process..& most will say are harmless..Are sent way down below the water table used for human consumtion. + The stuff would sink not rise to the surface anyway..There is so much Scare facter rhetoric coming from..You know the sources..that some folks are led to believe them.

How can we clean up the pollution that mother nature spews into our air & ground...Maybe harvest it?..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/scienc...ge-worries.html

We need Jobs & and a strong economy..Let the Private Secter build the Keystone Pipeline Mr Obama & get out of the Way of Domestic Energy production that could Surpass Saudi Arabia's output in just a few years.
Time to push the weenies aside & get America & ..YES..our Ski Industry back on track!!..We might even have a 1st class area built in WV if certain folks see that there is a future of great economics ahead of us.
I am SICK of stagnation!!!!..Git-er-DONE!!

PS.. Quote from Above.."& if you don't trust a report from the minority..maybe you can trust the one from the...EPA!???!!!

Now if only Scott had a "Like" button on here, I'd be breaking my mouse over liking that last post andy!

Long live Bawalker!!

You can hate but if you say fracking has caused groundwater contamination in WV you are a liar. Call the DEP, quit promoting fear because you are not benefitting from the O&G profits. Personally I know over 50 native West Virginians employeed in the industry, that all do things properly. If you bought property without minerals, you got it for a lower price. Deal with it!

That's a genuinely disingenuous statement. Of course there are no records to prove underground water contamination when fracking is explicitly exempt from both, disclosure and reporting of watershed contamination requirements of the Clean Water Act of 2005 and neither DEP nor EPA can force disclosure... In the same way, you can say that anyone who believes that Israel has a nuclear weapon is a "liar".

And where are the deep injection sites for contaminated water disposal which are in both, Ohio and WV? Again, no disclosure necessary. Can we trust a disclosure-protected private enterprise in the same way we trusted Massey Energy with the lives of 29 people?

in my very humble opinion the MSHA (federal agency) is as much as fault if not moreso for those 29 lost souls as Massey:



Qouted from

Sweet honey & sugar..MMMmmmmmmmmmm!..butterlies & flowers..& beautiful deeds...Heavy Snow clouds on the horizon!

hoa! This discussion has a bit of an edge to it. Gentlemen, if I may... 38 years ago I worked in the coal mining industry for a company who had both surface and deep mines in Pennsylvania, WV, Ohio, and eventually other states. The discussion of what is now the MSHA and the finger pointing at the operator and regualtory commission is probably right on. We won't know everything for certain. A lot of stuff is glazed over when it comes down to safety vrs production. That's one of the main reasons I got out of the industry. Too much crap being done by operators and heads being turned by the regualtors to not see and I'm sure, a few dollars being exhanged. I had real issues relating to what I knew then and still know now.

You have a very valid point. The BP mega-disaster in the Gulf was also the product of lax federal oversight if not downright collusion with companies. Heads should be rolling in the mine safety administration and both federal oversight regulators and company officials should be sharing dining space at the Big House.

Still, that doesn't absolve the issue at hand which is the non-disclosure requirements.

A federal officer's duties is to serve the public. And although being congenial, never, ever, ever, to be in bed with the same corporations that he/she is supposed to be watching.

kwillg6, you're on point. The losers are the taxpayers and the people, many of whom do not have the resources to pick up and go somewhere.

I witnessed corruption in my early life as a federal official, when I was too inexperienced and low in the totem pole to do anything about it and swore that should I be in a position to do something about it, that I would do everything in my toolbox to throw the book at corrupt officials. And I am quite proud that later on as a senior official, I discovered shenanigans in a project and was quite instrumental in placing the entire county board, the executive and financial people of a certain Virginia county behind bars for up to 18 years. To see the former county executive in a ball and chain in front of a federal judge was not a pleasure, but it was a statement that justice was done.

In case Scott is listening and getting an itchy delete finger, Telemark Tips has an off topic forum. I think it is a good idea;

Way Off Topic Discussion
http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=11
This is the place to debate politics, global warming, and yes, even the origin of man, whatever. Simply put, if you want to argue about off topic stuff, you've found the right board. Have fun!

Yeah, thread drift, sorry, back on topic, eh?

This pretty much sums up my feelings:

Look back a couple of posts..how ya like me now?

Still looking forward to having that beer together.

Well that would bring something to WV. Are you going on tour this year?

*Like for Andy*!

What if there was a provable benefit, on the scale of $1500 per household heating cost savings over a 5 year period.

2 pairs of skis or 1 pair of really, really nice skis. 5 years.

Would you still be in favor?

For my own part, I find that scale of "benefit" to be very credible numbers. Whether it is worth it... I am not sure. I'm not drooling after new Kastles /that/ much.

Interesting news: http://www.wboy.com/story/17136641/senator-manchin-requests-national-parks-study-to-be-discontinued

**And no, the Dave at the bottom isn't me (although it seems we think a lot alike)**