TALKEETNA'S TASTER
This past week the A.P.R. staff felt the need to get out on at least a short pack trip, in the waning days of our ephemeral sub-arctic summer, in a somewhat lesser-traveled area. Namely, in the Talkeetna mountains, north of the Matanuska Valley. These mountains cover a large area, and are completely roadless, and hence, as close to true wilderness, as we have here south of the Alaska Range. They range in elevation from 1800 to 2700 metres (6000-8870 ft), with some glaciers on the highest peaks. On our trip though, in the eastern part of the Talkeetna range, from the Hicks Lake trail, they are sheltered to the south by the 3000-4017 metre (10000-13176 ft) highest peaks of the Chugach Range, and so are completely unglaciated, even up to elevations of 2140 metres (7020 ft).
We fled the urban madness of Los Anchorage, as we call it, early last Tuesday afternoon, and arrived at the trailhead around 1700, it was a 160 km drive from the Chugach Front Research Centre. We quickly realised that this “trail”, which is really a 4-wheeler route for hunters going in here, was going to be a mess. Full of huge holes filled with water and very slippery mud.
It’s only about 6.5 km (4.1 miles), from the trailhead, to a 960 metre (3150 ft) pass. So it’s a little steep after the first couple km in.
We fled the urban madness of Los Anchorage, as we call it, early last Tuesday afternoon, and arrived at the trailhead around 1700, it was a 160 km drive from the Chugach Front Research Centre. We quickly realised that this “trail”, which is really a 4-wheeler route for hunters going in here, was going to be a mess. Full of huge holes filled with water and very slippery mud.
It’s only about 6.5 km (4.1 miles), from the trailhead, to a 960 metre (3150 ft) pass. So it’s a little steep after the first couple km in.
Looking back south, just before the pass though, the higher 2500+ metre peaks of the Chugach range come into view, with quite a bit of new snow on them, above about the 2000 metre level (not unusual for this time of year). That’s one thing people in the lower 48 need to realise about trekking in Alaska. 2000 metres here (6560 ft) is like 4000+ metres (13,100 ft) in the Rockies or Sierra, in terms of weather conditions and duration of snow cover, so caution and careful preparation is necessary any time we venture above even 1000 metres, in Alaska, all through the year.
We got in about 10 km in two hours, just over the pass, and decided to set up camp for the night. Even here, as you can see, at 980 metres, it’s essentially above tree-line, with just grass and small shrubs. The trail was even worse in this area, than from the start, since it’s north-facing, and hence, dries very slowly, if at all, from the rains of summer. The wettest time in this part of Alaska is from about mid-July through September, when weak low pressure systems from the Gulf of Alaska, or the Bering Sea, come inland, before the jet stream starts to drop a little further south during the fall. Our veteran research assistant Homer was completely at home here, enjoying his time free from the constraints of life at the urban edge, where the CFRC is perched.
One nice thing about mid-August though, which helps make up for the muddy, wet conditions, is that the mosquitoes and gnats are almost completely gone by this time. We were able to sit out comfortably in the evening, reading, and enjoying the scenery, without having to wear a head-net, or keep swatting.
The next day, Wednesday, we broke camp, and were on the trail by 1000. We noticed though, that the skies were darkening to our south, and some weather would soon be moving in. However, we also knew that the higher peaks of the Chugach, to our south, would block much of the worst of the incoming system.
By 1200, we had gone in about another 6.5 km, and reached the south end of Hicks Lake. The trail from last night’s camp to this point was even worse, if that were possible. Endless dodging around huge water-holes in jello-like mud, with three stream-crossings to boot. But there was a nice dry flat spot, near the lake, which had good water for cooking/drinking, so we wanted to set up a base camp here, then hit the high country with just a lighter pack containing all the food and water, and do some ridge-hopping. But first, we waited for the weather to come through. Just about an hour, of rain and wind, and then skies cleared, and it became quite nice. I was able to dry out all my sweaty clothes from the day before after setting up camp. By 1400, we headed up an old 4-wheeler track that went straight up a ridge to almost the 1830 metre (6000 ft) level, in nice gentle sunshine, with a temperature near 15C (60F). 
From down below at the 950 metre valley level, the 2000 metre summit of Chitna peak beckoned, and was our objective. We didn’t quite make it though, just about 100 metres shy of the summit. A steep rocky gulch separated us from the ridge we were on, to it, and Homer was still recovering from his leg surgery, so I didn’t want him to overdo it.
But as we ascended up the steep old route, and then struck out on our own across the tundra, above 1524 metres (5000 ft), we saw some caribou, and lots of other interesting sights. Our favourite, by far, time of this whole trip, was our few hours spent up on the 1830 metre (6000 ft) ridge, where we had incredible views, which were not possible, from down below.
Up around 1700 metres (5576 ft), we came across the biggest marmot, I have ever seen. Fortunately Mattie didn’t see it before I did, so I could get a few pictures. She was off after it though, as soon as she saw it. It just did it’s unique long one-note whistle to warn it’s compadres around, then dove underground. Mattie has some hunting instincts, but she’s never yet caught anything.
The ridgetop we made it up to at 1890 metres (6200 ft.) was beautiful, high and exposed on three sides. We spent about 30 minutes up here enjoying the view, before another shot of showers and cold wind approached.
The view to the east was our favourite, the following ridges over had colors reminiscent of areas in Denali NP like Polychrome Pass, with the nice green velvet tundra below and clear alpine ponds. Even better, was that we could just barely see sheep in the bottom of that beautiful little valley, 150 metres below us.
But when I zoomed all the way in on my camera to 16X, they all came clearly into view. There were about 20 of them scattered around different areas.
But when I zoomed all the way in on my camera to 16X, they all came clearly into view. There were about 20 of them scattered around different areas.
It's very safe in there for them. No one can even see this valley unless you get on these ridges, or come in from it’s north entrance, which requires negotiating about 30 km of muddy, wet trail from the Glenn Highway.
Looking north, you can see how this little valley’s entrance is in that direction. And how vast this treeless terrain stretches. Other than just a few lower drainages with shrubs and black spruce in them, it’s mostly tundra or rock all the way north to the Alaska Range. With no roads, visitors are scarce in this large area, since access would be very difficult and time-consuming, unless they were flown in.
Another band of showers was approaching by 1630 in the afternoon, so we decided to head back. It was getting quite chilly there, probably around 6-7C (43-45F), with a good 30-40 kph breeze. It was raining by the time we descended a few hundred metres. 
We got back to camp in a light rain around 1800, and had our dinner. Unfortunately, it was too cold and windy and showery to stay out that night, so I was mostly in my tiny ultra-light Big Agnes SL-1 tent, it only weighs 0.9 kg packed! Yet is big enough for a full-sized person, and their pack. It kept me dry in gale force winds and moderate rain all night last year, in our pack trip up into the Chugach mtns. behind the CFRC.
The next day though, the weather dawned dry and mostly sunny. So we had a nice leisurely morning packing up, and then heading back out. This time, I remembered all the worst areas along that sloppy, muddy trail, and was able to find some shortcuts and remember what to do. So it went faster, and easier, than on the way in. We saw a few moose in the distance, but no bears, that day, or the previous two. We see more in our neighbourhood! We just had in fact, our favourite running trail from the CFRC, up to Konoya point, closed last week due to a brown bear charging hikers near a moose kill. That was on our regular, daily running route. Now we have to use an alternate for a few weeks.
It only took us about 4 ½ hours to negotiate the 13 km back to the trailhead. The route down from the pass on the south side was quite steep, so it was a lot faster, than on the way in. All in all, we certainly got what we needed on this trip, and the wet, muddy, slippery trail in and out, while difficult, was worth the effort. Because once you can get on the drier ridges, the views are incredible, and the conditions much easier. It might be worth coming in much earlier in summer, before the heavier rains, say June to early July. The bugs would be much worse, and some snow on the ridges could be a problem, but the going on the main Hicks Lake trail, would likely be much easier.
WHO KNEW?
We sure didn’t here at the A.P.R. About this really interesting article, which saws essentially that the U.S. government is breaking the law, by not guaranteeing full employment! Give this fascinating article a read, you’ll be amazed, as we were.
Lost in the Debt Ceiling Debate: The Legal Duty to Create Jobs
By Jeanne Mirer and Marjorie Cohn
The debate about the debt ceiling should have been a conversation
about how to create jobs. It is time for progressives to remind the
government that it has a legal duty to create jobs, and must act
immediately – if not through Congress, then through the Federal
Reserve.
With official unemployment reaching over 9%, the unofficial rate in
double digits, and the unemployment rate for people of color more than
double that of whites, it is nerve wracking to hear right wing
political pundits say the government cannot create jobs. Do people
really believe this canard? On “Real Time with Bill Maher” a few weeks
ago, Chris Hayes of The Nation stated that the government should
create and has in the past created jobs, but he was put down by that
intellectual giant Ann Coulter who said, ”but they (WPA jobs) were
only temporary jobs.” No one challenged her.
Most of the jobs created under the Works Progress Administration
(WPA) - and there were millions of them - lasted for many years, or
until those employed found other gainful employment. They provided a
high enough income to allow the worker’s family to meet basic needs,
and they created demand for goods in an economy that was suffering,
like today’s economy, from lack of demand. The WPA program succeeded
in sustaining and creating many more jobs in the private sector due to
the demand for goods that more people with incomes generated.
The most galling thing about pundits stating with such certainty that
the government cannot create jobs is the implication that the
government has no business employing people. In actuality, however,
the law requires the government, in particular the President and the
Federal Reserve, to create jobs. This legal duty comes from three
sources: (1) full employment legislation including the Humphrey
Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978, (2) the 1977 Federal Reserve Act,
and (3) the global consensus based on customary international law that
all people have a right to a job with favorable remuneration to
provide an adequate standard of living.
1. Full Employment Legislation
The first full employment law in the United States was passed in 1946.
It required the country to make its goal one of full employment. It
was motivated in part by the fear that after World War II, returning
veterans would not find work, and this would provoke further economic
dislocation. With the Keynesian consensus that government spending was
necessary to stimulate the economy and the depression still fresh in
the nation’s mind, this legislation contained a firm statement that
full employment was the policy of the country. As originally written,
the bill required the federal government do everything in its
authority to achieve full employment, which was established as a right
guaranteed to the American people. Pushback by conservative business
interests, however, watered down the bill. While it created the
Council of Economic Advisors to the President and the Joint Economic
Committee as a Congressional standing committee to advise the
government on economic policy, the guarantee of full employment was
removed from the bill.
In the aftermath of the rise in unemployment which followed the “oil
crisis” of 1975, Congress addressed the weaknesses of the 1946 act
through the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of
1978. The purpose of this bill as described in its title is:
"An Act to translate into practical reality the right of all Americans
who are able, willing, and seeking to work to full opportunity for
useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation; to assert the
responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable
programs and policies to promote full employment, production, and real
income, balanced growth, adequate productivity growth, proper
attention to national priorities."
The Act sets goals for the President. By 1983, unemployment rates
should be not more than 3% for persons age 20 or over and not more
than 4% for persons age 16 or over, and inflation rates should not be
over 4%. By 1988, inflation rates should be 0%. The Act allows
Congress to revise these goals over time.
If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act
expressly calls for the government to create a "reservoir of public
employment." These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of
skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector.
The Act directly prohibits discrimination on account of gender,
religion, race, age or national origin in any program created under
the Act.
Humphey-Hawkins has not been repealed. Both the language and the spirit of this law require the government to bring unemployment down to 3% from over 9%. The time for action is now. 2. Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve has among its mandates to "promote maximum employment.” The origin of this mandate is the Full Employment Act of 1946, which committed the federal government to pursue the goals of "maximum employment, production and purchasing power." This mandate was reinforced in the 1977 reforms which called on the Fed to conduct monetary policy so as to "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long term interest rates." These goals are substantially equivalent to the long-standing goals contained in the 1946 Full Employment Act. The goals of the 1977 act were further affirmed in the Humphrey-Hawkins Act the following year. 3. The global consensus based on customary international law that all people have a right to a job with favorable remuneration and an adequate standard of living In the aftermath of World War II, and for the short time between the end of the war and the beginning of the Cold War, there was an international consensus that one of the causes of the Second World War was the failure of governments to address the major unemployment crisis in the late 20’s and early 30’s, and that massive worldwide unemployment led to the rise of Nazism/facism. The United Nations Charter was created specifically to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
To do so the drafters stated that promoting
social progress and better standards of life were the necessary
conditions “under which justice and respect for obligations arising
under treaties and respect for international law can be maintained.”
It is no accident that one of the first actions of the UN was to draft
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (UDHR or the Declaration).
The Declaration was ratified by all then members of the United Nations
on December 10, 1948. It is an extremely important document because it
not only recognized the connection between the respect for human
dignity and rights, and conditions necessary to maintain peace and
security. The Declaration is the first international document to
recognize the indivisibility between civil and political rights (like
those enshrined in the Bill of Rights) on the one hand, and economic,
social and cultural rights on the other. The UDHR is the first
document to acknowledge that both civil and political rights are
necessary to create conditions under which human dignity is respected
and through which a person’s full potential may be realized. Stated
another way, without political and civil rights, there is no real
ability for people to demand full realization of their economic
rights. And without economic rights, peoples’ ability to exercise
their civil rights and express their political will is replaced by the
daily struggle for survival.
will fight for scraps of low-paying jobs, so their profits will be maximised,
eds.]
The Declaration, although not a treaty, first articulated the norms to which all countries should aspire. It stated that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living. This includes the rights to: work for favorable remuneration, (including the right to form unions), health, food, clothing, housing, medical care, necessary social services, and social insurances in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability or old age.
There has been a conspiracy of silence surrounding these rights. In fact, most people have never heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, most Americans do not know that the UN drafted treaties which put flesh on the broad principles contained in the Declaration. One of the treaties enshrines Civil and Political Rights; the other guarantees Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These treaties were released for ratification in 1966. The United States ratified the treaty on civil and political rights and has signed but not ratified the economic, social and cultural rights treaty. The latter treaty requires the countries which have ratified it to take positive steps to “progressively realize” basic economic rights including the right to a job.
Almost all countries of the world have either signed or ratified this treaty. When most countries become party a treaty, they do so not because they think they are morally bound to follow it but because they know they are legally bound. Once an overwhelming number of countries agree to be legally bound, outliers cannot hide behind lack of ratification. The global consensus gives that particular norm the status of binding customary law, which requires even countries that have not ratified a treaty to comply with its mandate. The conspiracy of silence With the duty to create jobs required by U.S. legislation, monetary policy and customary law, why has the government allowed pundits to reframe the debate and state with certainty the government cannot do what it has a legal obligation to do?
We allow it because of the conspiracy of silence which has prevented most people from knowing that the full employment laws exist, that the Federal Reserve has a job-creating mandate, and that economic human rights law has become binding on the United States as customary international law.
Congressman John Conyers of Michigan knows about the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, and he has introduced legislation that would fund the job creation aspects of that Act in the “The Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act,” HR 870. It would create specific funds for job training and creation paid for almost exclusively by taxes on financial transactions, with the more speculative transactions paying a higher tax. If Congress refuses to enact this legislation, the President must demand that the Federal Reserve use all the tools relating to controlling the money supply at its disposal to create the funds called for by HR 870, and to start putting people back to work through direct funding of a reservoir of public jobs as Humphrey-Hawkins mandates.
There is nothing that would prevent the Federal Reserve from creating a fund for job training and a federal jobs program as HR 870 would require, and selling billions of treasury bonds for infrastructure improvement and jobs associated with it. The growth in jobs would stimulate the economy to the point that the interest on these bonds would be raised through increased revenue.
There is no reason the Fed on its own could not add a surcharge on inter-bank loans to fund these jobs. These actions could be done without Congressional approval and would represent a major boost to employment and grow the economy. If the Federal Reserve is going to abide by its mandate to promote maximum employment, and comply with the Humphrey Hawkins Act, and the global consensus it must take these steps.
Failure of the Fed and the President to take these affirmative steps is not only illegal, it is also economically unwise. The stock market losses after the debt ceiling deal is in part based on taking almost 2 million more jobs out of the economy and will only further depress demand creating further contraction in the economy. This is not an outcome any of us can afford.
Jeanne Mirer, who practices labor and employment law in New York, is president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild.
Of course, the corporate-controlled mainstream media does not want this information publicised, but it must be! Lawyers need to get involved to file legal actions against the government, to force it to comply to it’s own laws. And to do that, there needs to be pressure put on politicians by the public, to remind them. And to support ones who will agree to live up to the laws in place, that would greatly benefit this nation, by returning stability and hope, to millions of people. The US's crumbling infra-structurem needs repairing, and new and improved methods of transportation like high-speed and intra-city light rail systems could be developed. 
The WPA in the 1930s brought us these beautiful and enduring reminders of what this country can produce, when people are given the opportunity. These bridges, all up and down the west coast of the lower 48 are still in use today (though are probably in need of major rehabilitation by now!).
As well as structures like Timberline Lodge, on Mount Hood, east of Portland, OR, which has served as a destination ski resort and getaway since it's opening in 1938, bringing enjoyment and beauty to millions of people over the past 70+ years.
If the US government doesn’t comply with these employment laws, unemployment will continue to increase, and many serious problems will develop within five to ten years, at most. Overtly fascist politicians trying to take power, and great social unrest, with rioting in all major cities at least as bad as that which occurred between 1965-68.
