The latest chapter in the battle against marijuana farms in national parks led to the closure of Crystal Cave in Sequoia National Park while rangers swooped in on a growing operation with an estimated street value of $20 million.
The operation was within a half-mile of the cave, according to park officials. Situated in a steep area of Sequoia, one rife with rattlesnakes and black bears, the pot farm is just the latest to be found within the National Park System. While Sequoia used to be the only park with such growing operations, in recent years they've been spotted in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, North Cascades, Redwoods, Whiskeytown National Recreation Area, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, said Scott Wanek, chief ranger for the National Park Service's Pacific West Region.
“Every year we seem to be adding parks that are used for this activity," he said Thursday.
As the operations have sprouted in more and more areas, they've also become more sophisticated, the chief ranger said. No longer restricted to lower altitudes in chaparral, growing operations now can be found in conifer forests in the parks, he said. Plus, from the horticultural side advances have enabled the growers to produce not one but two crops a year, said Chief Ranger Wanek.
The associated impacts on the parks' landscape can be tremendous, he said. Often a one-acre growing plot will translate to 10 acres of disturbance when the growers' camps are taken into consideration, the trails they cut through the landscape, the dumpsites they create, and the intricate irrigation lines they install.
"Now it’s not a big deal to route water miles away from the source to a growing location," said Chief Ranger Wanek. "You can run a lot of that lightweight irrigation tubing in a very short time.”
Then, too, there's the impact on the wildlife. Chemicals and fertilizers used in the operations contaminate streams and enter the food chain by poisoning animals that are they fed upon by scavengers. Small mammals and rodents are targeted by the growers so they don't eat the marijuana plants. Larger animals are killed for food.
“We’ve found piles of deer hooves and bear paws. I’ve gotten photos off of these guys posing with dead bears," said the chief ranger. "It’s the worst of everything we’d expect to see in the backcountry all happening in one area here."
Those behind the operations are Mexican drug cartels, not "your basic summer-of-love kids," said Holly Bundock, a public affairs specialist the West Region office.
Comments
Barky, in all do respect...why? Even if it's a temporary stop gap, it's better then letting the parks run wild with these lawless renegade pot growers. At least bring in the National Guard to get a better control of the situation until the lackadaisical courts decide what to do next...in regards to legalizing weed. It's getting pretty late in the game in stopping wildlife poaching and illegal pot growing in the national parks. In the meanwhile, wildlife and are precious natural resources are taking a severe beating from these illegal activities. Again, why wait?
The pot industry is dangerous and profitable simply because it's illegal. If pot were decriminalized it would instantly take the profit away from organized crime, my tax dollars would not go to support people in prisons, and it would cut the personal risk for law enforcement and anyone else involved. Legal growers could have their own plantations and wouldn't need to use national parks. Too bad the powers that be don't see the logic of this; but then again maybe they would lose too much money if it were legal? ;)
P.S. The new captchas are hilarious! I just got "86 Grandma"!
The other major impact of this large-scale organized (cartel) pot growing in National Parks (and National Forests, too) is that the growers are well-armed to defend their substantial investments, which makes it very dangerous to hike in the wrong place and stumble on growing operations. I haven't been willing to hike the backcountry around Mineral King for over a decade, although few hikers have been shot at and I don't think that any have been killed.
Next spring when guns are legal in parks, it will be even harder for rangers and law enforcement officers to fight the cartels, as their guns and fertilizer and camping equipment will all be legal if they are stopped at roadblocks.
I hope that folks who want to carry in parks will avoid areas with growing operations: experiences with armed hikers might change the behavior of the growers from non-lethal warning shots to shoot first, and in encounters between groups of armed growers and armed hikers, the growers will have all of the advantages.
Sounds like a few are rather meek on thee issue of going after these SOB's (that are ripping up our national parks with their illegal pot growing). Damn right it's dangerous business going after these low life individuals that are literally tearing are parks away from us. Are we going to be intimidated and do nothing and allow this illegal activity to go on? We got poachers, meth labs and pot growers all in the business of drugging are youth, destroying families and taking care of a few pot heads...plus destroying are national parks all in the same process. What in the hell are we fearful of or waiting for!? No more small token forces to rid the noxious weed and low life scum that's keeping all of us from enjoying the WHOLE national park atmosphere and experience. And, plus not having to worry about being shot in the back for taking that extra step into the backcountry.
Frank,
Your pretentious pontificating isn't necessary and, frankly, is belittling. Should I take you up on your recent request to be deleted from the Traveler?
Frank, what do you advocate in resolving the pot issue in our national parks? You seem to slam government at every twist and turn, and NEVER offer any concrete ideas or solutions...except mock and criticize.
Of course it is possible to be civil and not be condescending; but if everyone agreed with everyone else there would be no point to having a forum. Some are better at being tactful than others. I for one do enjoy the articles and occasionally have an opinion to offer. This is your site and it is up to you to decide if our comments will be welcome.
Bat, you're absolutely right about being civil and not condescending. And at the Traveler the last thing we expect is for everyone to be in agreement. We encourage and welcome debate and discussion ... as long as it's conducted with civility. That's harder for some than others. We try to be judicious in monitoring comments.
Over the years we've exhibited a wide latitude. Frankly, we've got better things to do than serve as hall monitors. But after individuals have been cautioned -- in some cases repeatedly -- about the tenor and pointedness of their comments, comments that are directed at a specific individual rather than made in a more general nature, we feel there's little recourse but to rein things in.