In taking three years to craft their blueprint for how public lands should be managed across a large portion of Utah, U.S. Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz have produced a smoke-and-mirrors view of conservation, one that uses the right language but disguises their true goals in obfuscation and fine print.
There are, in just about every nook and cranny of the National Park System, wonders to behold. From glacier-veiled mountains and sizzling mudpots to underground lakes and rare artifacts of the nation's founding history, the park system is an invaluable trove of U.S. history and prehistory set against majestic, soaring landscapes. These incalculable treasures are what most come to mind when the centennial of the National Park Service is broached.
Word that a Texas-based company owned by concert promoter Live Nation is trying to gain greater access to national parks as venues should raise eyebrows across the country.
U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop got it wrong when he titled his revision of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund the ‘‘Protecting America’s Recreation and Conservation Act," which he notes could be called the "PARC Act" for short. Judging from its provisions -- fortunately still in draft -- it would be more accurate to title it "Drilling The Continental Shelf And Ignoring The Federal Domain Act."
Fewer than 12 months separate the National Park Service's 99th birthday and its 100th. What happens over the course of the next year will go a far way to determining if it will be a happy birthday or not.
There has been lots of discussion and debate on the Traveler in recent months over the size of the National Park System as well as the propriety of some of the units in that system. Most recently, a reader took issue with a piece looking at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site that questioned what the goal of the historic site really was.
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 are light-years apart.bicy-donahue_wilderness_survey.pdf
Is that number, $2.5 million, accurate, Budweiser, or is there a zero missing? I mean, you get to be a proud partner of the world's most incredible national park system for two years, get to have your corporate logo on the same page as the National Park Service arrowhead, and all it costs you is $2.5 million?
On a day set aside to celebrate the Earth and the environmental movement, the Interior Department and National Park Service gave us dollars and cents.
There are at least 75 million reasons why the U.S. Senate should either fully fund the national park projects contained within the defense authorization bill, or strip them out.