You are here

Traveler's View: Wilderness Hanging In Balance At Big Cypress National Preserve

Share

Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida seems to be at a crossroads over preservation and use/NPS

Fewer than 100 miles separate Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida from Biscayne National Park, yet when it comes to views on preservation the two parks appear light-years apart.

It's a conundrum that shouldn't exist within an agency -- the National Park Service -- that has operated under a unique, and specific, charter handed it in 1916. That charter, the National Park Service Organic Act, clearly placed preservation above all else as the Park Service's mission, a position federal courts time and again have upheld.

That mission was further buttressed in 1978 when Congress expanded Redwoods National Park and attached to the legislation an amendment that stated that all units of the National Park System should be managed and protected "in light of the high public value and integrity of the national park system."

That seems to be the goal being pursued at Biscayne, where the Park Service recently released a plan, championed by Superintendent Brian Carlstrom and approved by agency Director Jon Jarvis, to create a marine reserve zone to improve the health of its fisheries and help recover and protect a key part the Florida Reef, the only living coral barrier reef in the United States.

While the zone -- which some members of Florida's congressional delegation are trying to block -- would ban fishing on 6 percent of the 172,924-acre park, the designation would not stand in the way for snorkelers, scuba divers, or glass-bottom boats to experience and enjoy the reserve.

But at Big Cypress, the agency seems to be turning a blind eye on preservation as it works to develop a backcountry access plan in conjunction with a formal wilderness designation plan. The puzzler is that, at present, it appears the Preserve staff wants to roll back court-upheld limits on where off-road vehicles can travel in Big Cypress.

How the National Park Service has approached wilderness eligibility and designation at Big Cypress, as well as ORV access, have been contentious issues almost from the time the preserve was established in the mid-1970s. Since an off-road vehicle plan was approved in 2000, the issue of ORV use has led to a regular parade to courts by organizations that think too much of Big Cypress is being given over to motorized recreation.

There's no question that the preserve's enabling legislation permits ORV use:

In administering the preserve, the Secretary (of the Interior) shall develop and publish in the Federal Register such rules and regulations as he deems necessary and appropriate (emphasis added) to limit or control the use of Federal lands and waters with respect to:

(1) motorized vehicles,

(2) exploration for and extraction or oil, gas, and other minerals,

(3) grazing,

(4) draining or constructing of works or structures which alter the natural water courses,

(5) agriculture,

(6) hunting, fishing, and trapping,

(7) new construction of any kind, and

(8) such other uses as the Secretary determines must be limited or controlled in order to carry out the purposes of this Act...

Key to that section are the words "necessary and appropriate." It's particularly worth noting that this section immediately follows the overall preservation mandate for Big Cypress: "Such lands shall be administered by the Secretary as a unit of the National Park System in a manner which will assure their natural and ecological integrity, in perpetuity, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916."

ORV trail at Big Cypress National Preserve/NPS

How many miles of ORV trails are "necessary and appropriate" at Big Cypress National Preserve/NPS

When, as part of a legal settlement, he approved the 2000 ORV plan, former Superintendent John Donahue (now superintendent of Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area) based his decision on biological information and suitability studies indicating that ORVs were damaging ecosystems and disturbing the Florida panther, an endangered species. That plan cut 23,300 miles of dispersed ORV trails in the preserve down to just 400 miles of designated trails. In Big Cypress's so-called Bear Island Unit, that plan called for a reduction of 55 miles of primary trails to just about 30 miles of primary trails and an unspecified amount of secondary routes.

Yet in Big Cypress's recently released "Wilderness Eligibility Assessment," a key document for use in crafting the Preserve's backcountry access plan, planners decided not to include as wilderness worthy some areas that were placed off-limits to ORVs by the 2000 plan, along with some areas that previously had been deemed suitable for wilderness designation.

While Bill Reynolds, regional public affairs officer for the Park Service's Southeast Region, said the plan could be further altered during a more formal wilderness study, the agency could have avoided any controversy by underscoring the 2000 ORV plan. Instead, they left the door open to further motorized encroachment on valuable flora and fauna habitat.

Under the Park Service's 2006 Management Policies (Section 6.2.1.2), the areas in question could be considered for wilderness designation. Wilderness Eligibility Assessments are supposed to be objective documents based on the characteristics of the lands involved and their potential to be managed as wilderness; if there are current or historical uses that wouldn't be permitted in designated wilderness (such as ORV trails), NPS policy says they should not be excluded from being considered "wilderness-eligible" if "their wilderness character could be … restored through appropriate management actions."

At stake at Big Cypress are not only the 33 animal and 120 plant species that are considered threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act that are holding on in the preserve, but the very landscape itself. When Congress established Big Cypress in 1974, the legislation specifically cited "the natural, scenic, floral, and faunal values of the preserve as being worthy of national recognition and protection on their own merit."

In the preserve's Business Plan, adopted in 2010, wildlife biologist Deborah Jansen of the park's resource management division said, "There are few places left where a panther can live its entire life without crossing a highway. Big Cypress is one of them. The wetlands of Big Cypress provide food; the uplands provide cover. As privately-owned lands are developed and become unsuitable for panthers to use, the public lands will remain their only refuge."

Big Cypress's approach toward ORV access is particularly confounding not only in light of the park's own legislation, the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 , and the Redwood Amendment, but also in light of the Revisiting Leopold: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks report that Director Jarvis approved in 2012. The core message contained within the 23-page report was that the Park Service should tread more carefully with its management decisions when they could impact the natural, and even cultural, worlds within the national parks.

Because ecological and cultural systems are complex, continuously changing and not fully understood, NPS managers and decision makers will need to embrace more fully the precautionary principle as an operating guide. Its standard is conservative in allowing actions and activities that may heighten impairment of park resources and consistent in avoiding actions and activities that may irreversibly impact park resources and systems. The precautionary principle requires that stewardship decisions reflect science-informed prudence and restraint. This principle should be integrated into NPS decision making at all levels.

While Big Cypress planners expressly cited the "precautionary principle" when they crafted the 2000 ORV plan (page 29), today's planners at the preserve seem to have both forgotten that and not read Revisiting Leopold.

At the same time, what should superintendents across the National Park System take away from Big Cypress's approach to preservation, as well as the message in Revisiting Leopold? Can the Park Service simultaneously employ the precautionary principle and actively work to open up ORV access in areas where the vehicles previously were banned?

Florida panther, Big Cypress National Preserve/NPS

Should the Park Service more strenuously apply the "precautionary principle" before allowing more ORV routes in Florida panther habitat?/NPS

In crafting a management plan several years ago for the 150,000-acre Addition Lands section of the preserve, Big Cypress managers decided it would be OK to open 100 miles of ORV trails through the sub-tropical landscape of freshwater sloughs and hardwood hammocks, of pinelands and prairies that are home to the panther.

True, a lawsuit produced a ruling that the Park Service was justified in placing recreation over preservation at Big Cypress, citing the multiple-use requirement specific to the act. That ruling will be appealed by conservationists. 

Another lawsuit could be in the offing over the most recent Wilderness Eligibility Assessment at Big Cypress. Officials with the National Parks Conservation Association and the South Florida Wildlands Association were surprised by the report, for it could be used to open up ORV areas placed off-limits by the preserve's 2000 ORV plan. 

While Bob DeGross, the preserve's chief of interpretation and public affairs, says the lands placed off-limits by the 2000 plan don't qualify as wilderness because there are old ORV tracks visible in places, two points should be noted:

1) The 2000 ORV plan called for a long-range restoration program to “remove the scars caused by vehicles and recover a sustainable, self-regulating, self-organizing ecosystem, by restoring to the extent possible the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the system” (page 55), and;

2) The Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 was passed by Congress with exactly these types of lands in mind.

Shenandoah National Park officials pointed that out in explaining how nearly 80,000 acres of their park in 1976 came to carry the official wilderness designation.

Before Shenandoah was established as a national park in 1935, the land had been privately owned and was inhabited, farmed, grazed, burned, logged, and mined by several generations of people. But, by the 1960s, Shenandoah's forest was able to naturally regenerate and significantly recover from prior human use. National Park Service officials recognized the value of Shenandoah's restored wilderness conditions, and believed that designated areas in the park possessed qualities described in the Wilderness Act. Fortunately, the Eastern Wilderness Act allowed Shenandoah to designate over 40% of the Park's land as Wilderness in 1976.

The Park Service's approach to "wilderness" at Big Cypress has long been questionable. In 2002, a Wilderness Suitability study conducted under Superintendent Donahue concluded that 353,757 acres, 49 percent of the preserve, had wilderness qualities. That acreage is almost twice the landmass the Big Cypress staff most recently said possessed wilderness qualities.

Since that report (attached) was submitted to the Park Service's Southeast Regional Office, preserve superintendents have worked to reduce the footprint of potential wilderness.

Karen Gustin, who succeeded John Donahue as superintendent, in 2007 went beyond the 2000 ORV plan and opened an additional 22 miles of ORV trails in the Bear Island Unit in the preserve's northwestern corner. Four years later a federal judge reversed that decision, saying Superintendent Gustin failed to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, violated past Executive Orders pertaining to off-road vehicles, the Big Cypress Establishment Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Preserve's 2000 ORV Management Plan. She earned a promotion to Olympic National Park as superintendent.

Pedro Ramos, who succeeded Superintendent Gustin, also worked to expand ORV access to the preserve. In 2010, while overseeing a wilderness eligibility study of the Addition Lands, the superintendent discarded a finding in his 2009 Draft General Management Plan for the Addition that approximately 109,000 acres were “wilderness eligible." Instead, a “re-assessment” conducted outside of public view concluded that only 71,000 acres were eligible. Of that, Superintendent Ramos recommended just 47,000 acres be proposed to Congress as future wilderness. Mr. Ramos early this year was promoted to superintendent at Everglades National Park, which contains the largest designated wilderness area east of the Rockies.

"Forty-thousand acres were removed to allow for mile-wide ORV corridors through some of the most pristine wild lands in the East - the Mullet Slough," says Frank Buono, who the Park Service's wilderness office had sent to Big Cypress during Superintendent Gustin's stint there to survey the Additional Lands for wilderness suitability.

"The NPS's latest wilderness review for the original preserve is designed (as with the Addition) to keep many areas of the preserve open to future ORV trails - many miles of them," Mr. Buono, who also previously had surveyed the rest of Big Cypress for wilderness qualities, told the Traveler. "The NPS clearly has the intent to broaden the routes open to ORVs far beyond those designated in the 2000 ORV Plan.  They will call these 'secondary' routes and again bring the NPS nearly back to where it was BEFORE the 2000 plan. This is a case of the NPS trying to undo the good work, vindicated in court, of a past manager to accomodate the current management view."

That Director Jarvis signed off on Big Cypress's latest wilderness assessment, as well as its Addition Lands plan before then, is surprising. The director came to his job with a long Park Service career underscored by his natural resource background.

In an interview shortly after he had been confirmed, Director Jarvis told the Traveler that he had the mettle, and the scientific background, to separate the politics from the best interests of the parks. 

"I bring to the position a scientific background. I have always been an advocate for the procurement and application of excellent science to our decision-making process, that all of our decisions should be informed by and guided by good science, and I think that that is one reason that they asked me to serve," he said in October 2009.

During that conversation, he made a point of saying, "the National Park Service has not been particularly articulate about the economic benefits of parks in their preservation state. That there are all kinds of positive benefits, ecosystem services like water and air that are cleansed by our parks, wildlife that contribute to local economies, lifestyle in gateway communities, that are contributed to by the presence of the park, all those kinds of things.

“I think we have been over time not as articulate and as convincing of the economic values to sort of counter the desires of those that might have kind of short-term economic benefit desires for some form of development or recreational use or whatever."

Such comments, placed against the decisions made at Big Cypress, raise questions of whether the Park Service is bowing to political undercurrents in Florida to greatly expand ORV access in the preserve.

At this point we can only hope that Tamara “Tammy” Whittington, who comes to the preserve as its new superintendent from her most recent position as the Park Service's associate regional director of resource stewardship and science, hews more closely to the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 as well as the Revisiting Leopold report in guiding the preserve's backcountry access and wilderness plans forward.

Featured Article

Comments

Bad decision by all involved. I am certain this will end up in court.


I have to admit I'm disappointed in both my colleagues and in the inconsistencies in Washington. Kudos to Supt. Carlstrom and his staff at Biscayne for following the law and policy and doing what is possible to "conserve unimpaired." Unfortunately, the leaders of Big Cypress have succumbed to the pressure from the locals and the state. Admittedly, the job at Big Cypress is incredibly tough -- but the law says nothing about balance, and the job description for leadership includes having the courage to make hard decisions, and the wisdom to do your homework and build relationships so you can succeed. Former Supt. Ramos at Big Cypress had the reputation for getting along well with the state of Florida... no wonder. His reward by the NPS is Everglades. What are they thinking in the regional office and in Washington?

James Longstreet
A National Park Superintendent


I think saying the legislative purposes and statutory language of Big Cyprus National Preserve "permits" ORVs gets it about backward. It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it goes to the heart of what the idea was when Congress and the National Park Service were considering establishing two national preserves, the first two, for Big Thicket and Big Cypress. In addition to the good point you make about congress citing the Act of 1916 governing all parks, the language you cite is all about direction to the superintendent to eliminate adverse or inappropriate (impairing) uses.

These preserves emerged at a time of growing ecological awareness and recognition that representation of the System should include resources of ecological merit. So in a way similar to National Wildlife Refuges -- but not at all like the "multiple use" management system of the Bureau of Land Management public lands or the US Forest Service -- the ecological value takes the highest purpose. Other uses like recreation that are compatible with the ecological value and the Act of 1916 would be evaluated. It is not multiple use. There was no congressional intent to permit such a scandal as being fostered by the current National Preserve superintendent.

The national preserve standard does not waive other existing law. Not the Act of 1916 and not, as you point out, the Wilderness Act. Ecological integrity is the centerpiece to managing this Preserve, but existing law also prevails and must be followed, even by managers weak in consecutive reasoning or with a slovenly appreciation for the precision of the laws of the United States. When the park proposal to expand ORV use came through I happened to run into Mr. Clay Peters, a former congressional republican staffer from the subcommittee for national parks that guided the Big Cypress legislation through Congress. I told him what the proposal contained and the rationale used in support by the superintendent. He was immediately visibly alarmed. He said such an interpretation of the law was NEVER intended for Big Cypress. If anything, it was a higher standard of nuanced management, sensitive to the minute ecological needs of the area.

Some of the history here is distorted by some unfortunate things happening subsequently.

When George Bush's park director, Fran Mainella removed John Donahue it appeared to be because Superintendent Donahue was strong on ecological integrity. Donahue was known for that. Known when he was in the Washington Office fighting for good regulations, and strong on resource preservation in his prior superintendency. But Mainella's disapproval of so many superintendents gave off the impression that she thought she owned Florida, where she previously had managed a 100,000 acre state park system and seemed to have baggage with the higher management standard of federal parks. Some thought it personal. Some thought it a unique ability to focus on detail out of all context. In short, no one knew what motivated Mainella or why Donahue was removed, but everyone feared the worst, that one after the other (Everglades (twice sort of), Biscayne, Big Cypress) good people were being removed because they tried to protect their park.

Another nuance perhaps missed a bit here is a failure to understand the central role of the park superintendent. For ever, superintendents and the public have fought the make -- like a military commander -- the superintendent IN CHARGE of her/his park. The whole reorganization of the Clinton/Roger Kennedy years was built around this principle, and over and over again you can read people write that all they expect of the Regional or Washington people is for them to endorse (meaning: rubber stamp) the Park's decision and support it to their death.

This problem, if you believe decentralization and field-level flexibility is a problem, was vastly accelerated by the really stupid budget cuts the Regional Offices and the Washington Office have had over the past 20 years. This means there are few people available to second-guess a superintendent, and even if people with the proper such skills still remain in those offices, they probably have no time to read the material and do the work to really conduct an independent analysis of more than one or two things a year (on a good year). At very basic levels superintendents have almost always had the benefit of the doubt. If the Traveler or groups like PEER do not understand the capacity of the Park Service or the actual reach of the Director of the NPS into the management of the 400 parks, how can they appreciate such nuances? So by name they blame the Director, and do not name any of the names of the much more hands on roles of the more relevant people "below" in this decentralized agency. Hearing about PEER calling for Jarvis' head is exactly like the cry of despair of the Jews during the Russian Pogroms of the 18th or 19th Century: "If Only The Czar Knew!" Sad, and pathetic because it so misdiagnoses the problem, in both cases. The actual authority directing the superintendent is the Regional Director, and often Secretarial authorities conferred by congress are assigned ("delegated" down) to Regional Directors NOT the Director. It is one thing to reassign a superintendent to another state. It is quite another to do the line by line revisions from Washington of all proposed park activities at a time of straitened budgets. Particularly now when the Governor of Florida and the Florida Congressional delegation is MUCH more conservative than when the Big Cypress legislation passed. If you have not noticed, the congress in the last sessions has "created" wilderness meaning in case after case they removed the "potential wilderness" protections in order to open up lands long protected by the National Park Service. This is a direct rebuke to the NPS blocking trails and vehicles, or maybe you did not notice, and by the governing Congress of the United States. Many superintendents found themselves drawn into such negotiations amid massive pressure and consequent and continuous budget cuts. You can dismiss that with a flimsy word like "political" but when laws are passed, budgets are cut and people are transferred with none of the "whistleblower" hoopla PEER devotes to the NPS refusing to put the word "POLICE" in big letters on the side of ranger cars, and you begin to apprehend the mismanaged targets of NPS environmental 'advocates.'

But the second problem is lack of focus and confusion of congressional intent on National Preserves anyway. This is because of the way the NPS and the Congress totally muddied up the water in establishing the Preserves in Alaska right after the establishment of the TX and FL Preserves, but overwhelming them in number. For Alaska, it was a very unfortunate distortion by congress just to permit sport hunting in what otherwise would be parks. The Nixon-Morton park proposals in Alaska proposed sport hunting in almost every area proposed for national park designation. Canada and other places objected, and so did many national park service people who wanted to hold on to the "unhunted" national park standard. So under Jimmy Carter/ Cecil Andrus a park planner and NPS director proposed seizing on the "Preserve" standard NOT for ecological integrity, but for nothing other than sport hunting. That totally obscured the brave and imaginative purpose of the Preserve standard for Big Thicket and Big Cypress, meaning there is very little agency culture imprinted with the lofty goals of those two areas.

So it should not stretch the intellect to conclude from the excellence of the management of at Biscayne of a man imbued by NPS heritage having grown up in a park household, and the management of Cypress, that there is popular support for decentralized and flexible park management. Or, Grand Tetons. Or you could absolve the American people, congress and the park advocates and blame it all on Jarvis having good and bad days as the cause of it all.


D-2, you're correct that many superintendents have great latitude, but history has shown that directors insert themselves into park matters/politics (Grand Canyon and water bottles comes to mind; both the regional director at the time and superintendent were overruled) when it fits them.

The matter at Big Cypress was brought to Director Jarvis' office by the Traveler long ago, and he has continually declined to discuss it.


Let me add, on the issues of substance this is an excellent and important analysis of threats to Big Cypress.


Thank you for this excellent article stating clearly the problems that continue to exist at Big Cypress National Preserve after Superintendent John Donahue's excellent tenure. Both the article and the comments by d-2 accurately convey the priorities set forth in the original legislation for Big Cypress and the House and Senate legislative histories. In addition, it must be noted that the legislation for the Addition lands to the Preserve did not modify or lessen the mandates of the original legislation. All of the legislation and legislative history for the preserve provide outstanding support for managing those lands based primarily upon protection of the unique resources and scientific values. The various "pre-existing consumptive uses" were only to be allowed to the extent they were shown or proven to be compatible with protection of the resources. In many ways, this is a greater standard than the Redwoods Act which states the NPS must assure no derogation to the resources. Under the Redwoods act, the NPS must show derogation to the resources to stop an activity. Under the Big Cypress Legislation, the NPS must show compatibility with the resources before allowing the activity. This approach to management of the Preserve was clearly the basis of the original General Management Plan approved in 1991, it was the basis by which park management discontinued the taking of tree snails in the mid 1980's and it was the basis for the proposed removal of the Trespass Camps and Federal Judge's ruling in support of removal of the camps.

I also appreciated d-2's comments about Clay Peters. It reminded me of an informal memorandum from Mr. Peters to the NPS that was in the Big Cypress files when I was there. Basically his message was that the NPS should not dismiss consideration of Wilderness at Big Cypress because of the consumptive uses. The fact that the legislation acknowledged the consumptive uses but still required the NPS to evaluate the area for Wilderness meant that the NPS was expected to consider some innovative ways that Wilderness could be found and that Wilderness was not to be dismissed because of the consumptive uses.

It is unfortunate that recent superintendents have wasted the significant progress made by earlier superintendents such as John Donahue to assure that each decision at Big Cypress was made based first upon protection of the resources. Big Cypress superintendents need to remember the story or legend of Steven Mather and Glacier when he personally dynamited a sawmill that was supposed to have been removed. As I heard the story, he said then or subsequently something about Park Rangers (and I would add and emphasize Superintendents) needed to know the land on which they stand, and to stand fast. Yes, severe pressure can be brought to bear on Big Cypress superintendents but the legislation and legislative history is some of the strongest foundations found for any park and thus protections for superintendents. If they cannot "stand fast" for the resources, they should not be superintendents.


Those interventions are the exceptions that prove the rule. Just look at the delegations of authority before you go headhunting.

It is true different Directors focus on some key things, and this Director it is the "Call To Action," dealing with the alarming congress and its budget, and spending an inordinate amount of time having to follow the travels of his first Interior Secretary.

Do you really believe what drives the scheduling of the Director is the Traveler bringing issues to his attention? I am sure not, it would be unfair to imply that is what you are saying.

Did you notice during the recent government shut-down, when you really could see exactly how much span of control a Director in these days actually can individually exert? How complicated it was at the Washington level for him to deal with slight park-to-park differences in things like partnership contracting, sandwiched by having to deal with constant congressional attacks? And how often such supposedly little things hit the fan? Those exemplars, when no other staff is available, really show the weak reach of a director just in terms of amount of time in the day, not to mention distance from the issue on the ground.

Did you notice how the issue then -- and the issue now -- is whether all the major money-making parks should be taken over by state management? Think about that as a priority. You mention Grand Canyon but it is not Grand Canyon alone being threatened by state take over. And you might intuit that this issue is existential, a crisis going to the heart of the future of all the parks.

I imagine Rick Smith is about right about the law suit, which also means the Director has heard about this issue not just from the Traveler, from major park advocate organizations with lawyers.

[on whether the smart course is rolling a superintendent as you propose, in a swing-southern-state during a period of radical right populism just as elections are heating up, versus, staying out of the way of the courts, I am reminded of a classic story (true story, I was in the room):

-- The Director over 20 yrs ago had been in 8 hours of adversarial affidavit-taking by the Sierra Club over Death Valley and pending mining In the parks legislation the NPS officially was not allowed to support. I was in the meeting with him right after he'd been beaten up for those 8 hrs. He was storming back and forth in his office, and raging. He shouted at his assistant: "God damn it (lets call the assistant 'Bill') Bill ! MxxxFxxx Sierra Club ! Do they think we WANT to xxxx destroy the parks !!!" Bill said: ". . . .hmmmm. . well . . . uh-huh." Director rages for another 15 minutes. "God damn it Bill. When are you going to get me out of the MxxxxFxxxx mining business !!" '. . . . .ummmmm,' said Bill. "I wasn't aware that I got you into the mining business. . . .' In the end, after a few years, the NPS "won" (ie: lost) those law suits and a new law passed congress getting the NPS out of the MxxxFxxxx mining business.] Just some perspective.

-- I think the Traveler was wise, even perspicacious in noting the ambiguity created by adverse law suits. How would that affect all this?

Nothing would discourage intervention at the Washington level more than a dispute between the analysis of "your" Solicitors (they actually work for the Secretary) and the Justice Department. LOOK at what a mess the lawsuits made of what should have been clear decisions opposing motorized vehicles at Yellowstone and at Hatteras.

So, since you are journalists, eager and in good faith to uncover meaningful insight, and you do note for context ON aspect of what Jarvis has learned and embedded of his past (science and resource mgt): what study have you made of his lessons learned with such ambiguity?

If you read the Administrative History of Alaska Subsistence Use Management (you can look it up) you will see Mr. Jarvis coming to an Alaska superintendency at a time of similar pressure and confusion over the intent of congress.

Several careers had crashed and burned over strictly managing traditional use area access, which would thus also permit access by snowmachine for hunting. There was no clarity. Lots of ambiguity. The staff people who focused on this day-to-day (they had Regional staff people then devoted just to this, imagine !), deep in detail, were convinced congress was explicit that individuals could subsistence hunt only in their traditional use areas as defined with a line on a map.

Major congressional pressure. Solicitors and DOJ attorneys said they could never prosecute any such cases effectively (you probably have guessed lawyers are often less the philosophers-seeking-meaning than the mechanics who want a quick victory or nothing).

If you read between the lines of that on line administrative history, Mr. Jarvis arrived new to Alaska, appreciated the situation, gathered and met with other superintendents (that alone is impressive for a new superintendent), and decided this was not the fight that would achieve the most for the energy and resources available.

That is very telling story. And it can be considered extremely wise, or, craven. Depending. But it seemed at the time to have ended enormous public hostility at apparently next to no notable difference in actual impact on the resource. (hard of course to believe there will be no impact in Cypress, quite the opposite)

It is notable, isn't it, that in the case of Hatteras the past several years, the Director DID fight for quite a while, and took a brave stand against bipartisan critics (IE: raging hostility) in Congress.

I did not read paeans of praise for Jarvis in the Traveler for that fight. I might have missed it.

Then after several years Congress intervened and passed a law, and we should admire the way the NPS limited the damage. This is not the law park opponents wanted, although some were confused enough to think so. The law appeared to make strong decisions, but actually at critical moments: not really. Like holding a knife to your throat while telling you it is all up to you to do the right thing.

Now it appears NPS is lowering the profile, backing down a bit, probably hoping it can just make the minimal changes needed to prevent massive congressional re-writing of the rules. Is this wise, or craven?

The right use of the puny power actually remaining to the NPS in the absence of critical staff and weakness in the environmental movement, or masterful? What can we learn from these things as they apply to Cypress Preserve? Maybe it would improve your understanding of available levers in our miserable time. (a time when Congressmen call the President a liar on the floor of congress, or the Senate majority leader a liar on the Floor of congress)

This is not to say you are wrong on the merits and the NPS is right on the merits.

You are RIGHT on the merits. This Big Cypress thing is wrong. Just like the Grand Teton decisions are way wrong.

You would like to think if something like the Teton's hunting decision were made under Hartzog, it would never have come alive at all, much less become the park's policy. It would have disappeared faster than a cube of ice on a hot July sidewalk.

On the other hand, think of this:

George Hartzog of beloved memory had SEVEN park ranger divisions in Washington. Think of that.

He didn't have apparently ambiguous park designations like these unfamiliar Preserves

(please note I agree with you there is nothing that should be ambiguous about Big Cypress, but if a superintendent, a regional director, your lawyer and a court all tell you it is ambiguous, unless you are a subject matter expert or unless nothing else is going on, there is an enormous chance you will work on the things you know you can affect.

The Southeast Regional Office, everybody's favorite target now and the source of the Teton's superintendent, was probably much stronger in Hartzog's day. How did this Cypress decision get past the superintendent's ACTUAL supervisor, the Regional Director, you ask?)

So you can either appreciate what is really going on now and know what buttons to push, or, we can magically think the Director should decide the things to focus on are the issues the issues you send him, and ignore the issues you think ambiguous, such as fund raising to meet a yawning budget gap.

But you are just terrific when you focus on the merits of the issue and the resource integrity issue of the park system, you are almost always the gold standard of understanding of what matters for park preservation. Even if a little weak on how to actually drive the machine.


d-2, should we have pushed harder to eliminate at all motorized access at Hatteras? I suspect ORV impact is greater in Big Cypress but not having been there I couldn't make an informed comment.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.