Editor's note: Maureen Finnerty, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's Parks, maintains that it would be a mistake to prevent presidents from using the Antiquities Act as they see fit.
We have dedicated ourselves to this cause because we know that our parks and public lands represent the very best of America; they are the places that preserve our wondrous natural and cultural heritage and truly allow us to know and appreciate our nation's unique and diverse story.
For example, a provision in the pending House Interior appropriations legislation would bar any president from using the Antiquities Act for all time, in large swaths of the scenic West. Also in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), has declared the Antiquities Act evil in the flesh, and promises to enact legislation soon to cripple this key tool we rely on to protect our nation's natural and cultural heritage.
Through exaggerated rhetoric and short-sighted proposals, some members of Congress like Bishop are trying to convince Americans that we need solutions for problems that don't exist. The truth is that the Antiquities Act has been instrumental in protecting many of our country's most important places and is one of our very best tools for preserving our outdoor heritage for future generations. Lets keep it that way.
Since 1906, almost every president has used the Antiquities Act to protect nationally significant areas on federal lands, places already owned by the people of this country. This Act, which was signed by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, has been used by Republican and Democratic presidents. Seven Republican presidents have established 63 national monuments, and eight Democratic presidents have established 73 national monuments.
The Antiquities Act has been of fundamental importance in the creation of the National Park system. It has provided for immediate action to preserve such iconic landscapes as Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, Death Valley National Park, and millions of acres in Alaska until Congress could act. The Act has also provided for preservation of historically significant landmarks, such as the Statue of Liberty National Monument.
As a result, we now have a National Park System enjoyed by almost 300 million visitors every year. Our national parks and monuments are the economic engine that contributes more than $27 billion annually to local economies. That's a ratio of almost a $10 return for every $1 spent to operate the National Park System. These jobs and economic benefits created are sustainable and help local communities grow and prosper.
As we begin celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016, we urge Congress to focus its attention and efforts on providing the funds so critically needed to meet the true needs of the National Park System, so that it may continue to provide inspiration and enjoyment for the next 100 years.
Comments
Just got home a few minutes ago from a wonderful week in Mesa Verde and Arches. While talking with a ranger at ARCH, the thought hit me that the Park Service is really missing a big time opportunity to educate the public regarding both the Antiquities Act and the eternal conflict inherent in the NPS Enabling Act during this Centennial Year.
It hit me that NOT ONCE in any of my visits to any of many parks in the last few years (with the notable exception of Colorado National Monument) have I heard ANY even passing mention of either of those subjects. Every interpreter should be encouraged to include some of that in as many interpretive offerings as possible. I'm sure that most Americans are blissfully unaware of the conflicts currently besieging our parks and other public lands -- and threatening the future of conservation.
I hope this lack of any mention of these subjects is simply due to oversight and not any orders from on high due to political pressrues. In any event, even though it is politically touchy, good interpreters should be able to knit an explanation of the history of the Antiquities Act and to outline the conflict between "conservation" and "enjoyment" and then let their listeners draw their own conclusions.
We shouldn't just be encouraging more and more people to visit -- trample? -- our parks without making serious efforts to teach them basic facts of life that can go a long, long way toward protecting those still to come future generations.
From today's Deseret News, the conservative Utah paper:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865643606/Where-is-Rob-Bishops-promis...
As a federal agency, the NPS and its rangers are banned from discussing political issues of their organic act with the public. So it should not surprise you, that you haven't seen any posters, leaflets or other material on the issue.
So is Jewel breaking the law when she talks climate change or Jarvis when he opposed Yellowstone paddling? There is so much other propaganda that comes out of the federal agencies I can't believe discussing the Organic Act would be illegal. Campaigning for a candidate or other ballot item on "company" time yes. Discussing an issue, no.
Marc, I know that. But it is entirely possible to introduce the Act and the delicate balancing act it requires without becoming political. (Although some people might feel that ANYTHING said would be political.) The tactic used in a couple of very memorable patio talks at Colorado NM a few years ago was to simply read the Act, point out the contradiction it contains and then ask visitors to comment. Down at Organ Pipe Cactus, the superintendent met visitors at the amphitheater one morning a week for "Coffee with the Superintendent." I have to hand it to Lee Baisz (spelling?), in that he didn't shy away from tough questions. But that might be why Rob Bishop called Baisz a "jerk" in a couple of town meetings when I challenged him on his plan to cancel any environmental regulations within 100 miles of the Mexican border.
Bringing the challenges facing the parks to public attention does not have to be political. There are many ways to open a discussion and stimulate thinking in one's listeners. When I wore the uniform, we did spend time on questions about visitors' experiences in the park. I recall several times in Zion back before the shuttles when visitors brought up the terrible congestion in the park (nothing compared to today, by the way) and before long one of them asked why buses couldn't be used to keep cars out.
It CAN be done. Do we simply lack the desire to do it? Are we afraid? Are we trying to be too politically correct? If not the NPS, then what about NPCA or National Park Foundation or various cooperating associations?
It could be as simple as what volunteers said at Ft. Clatsop last summer. They simply repeated that "This is YOUR park. Treasure it! Protect it! And if you value it, write to your Congressmen."
I certainly think the idea of helping the public understand threats to THIER parks and the fine line park managers must walk is something that simply must be done somehow.
Most Americans (well, some, at least) are common sense folks. If something they've never even heard of is brought to their attention, they can draw their own conclusions. But until they've heard of the contradiction between "conserve" and "enjoy" it's as if they've never had a chance to taste something new at their favorite restaurant because it wasn't on the menu.
What charges were cited when Jewel was arrested for breaking which law?
Far as I know, she never was charged or arrested because in fact she didn't break any law. That was the point.
ecbuck's yearning is only to play gotcha, without regard to merit or appropriate occasion.
It is hopeless to try to engage in reasoned debate of intellectual or policy difference, when the only point is to play malign games.
It breaks no law for the Secretary of the Interior, a cabinet officer appointed by the President of the United States, not a General Service employee of the government, to advocate for the Antiquities Act. It is her job to articulate the program of the President.
Alexander Hamilton would not have stood a chance under the ignoble system proposed by ecbuck.
Although it is true that normal employes, including national park interpretive rangers, may not under the Hatch Act lobby the Congress, there is more latitude in the law than in NPS policy. Through long experience NPS has learned it does not help advance needed legislation if interpretive ranger launch a didactic speech on their policy preferences. Rangers may certainly and effectively speak to the National Parks that were established using the Antiquities Act. Rangers may discuss the history of the Antiquities Act. And Rangers certainly may respond to questions concerning the functioning of the Act. But Rangers are most effective when they open the way to an understanding of parks by engaging the curiosity of the Visitor.
We had a few examples in the early 1970s of Rangers directly advocating policy around the time of the first Earth Day. It tends to undermine the reliability of a Ranger's message when it includes policy preference.