Recent comments

  • How Bears Can Help Change Vegetative Landscapes In National Parks   12 hours 22 min ago

    The 'Butterfly Effect' [see the wiki for more].

  • How Bears Can Help Change Vegetative Landscapes In National Parks   14 hours 6 min ago

    As John Muir said long ago, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."

    Thanks for the reminder that things which may appear to be insignificant can have wider impacts.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   17 hours 42 min ago

    EC--

    "It may require permission and require certain actions to maintain listing but I am fairly certain it doesn't transfer ownership."

    Listing in the registry doesn't transfer ownership of the name; the listing in the registry transfers _with_ ownership of the property. The listing and its requirements on the property don't disappear when the property is sold or transferred. The simple example is a 100+ year old house in San Diego that had applied for and received (local) historic status, greatly reducing property taxes for many years. Someone wanted to buy the property, tear it down and build offices. They couldn't, because the historic status listing's preservation requirements transfer with the property: you can't take the tax break for years until you're ready to demolish, then sell to someone (at the developable value) to remove the preservation requirement.

    If HR 1068 is truely positive law codification and the "historic preservation of the place name" (which is how I see 302106) was somewhere in the law & regulations when these sites were added to the registry, then it was part of the contract that was signed and I don't think there's any taking. If it isn't codification and that section is new, then I agree that there are issues with retroactivity of the law.

  • Rare Fox Spotted In Yosemite National Park   18 hours 58 min ago

    June 19, 2012

    Contact: Teri Lysak, Cascadia Wild, (503) 235-9533Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713

    Newly Found Oregon Foxes May Be Unknown Populations of Rare Sierra Nevada Red Fox Species

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/red-fox-06-19-2012.html

    http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Threatened-California-fox-species-found-in-Oregon-3646317.php

    This image of a montane red fox were taken in the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area by Cascadia Wild and the Cascade Carnivore Project using remote cameras during spring 2012. They are the first confirmed detection of montane red fox in northern Oregon in decades, and are likely a newly discovered population of Sierra Nevada red fox Ñ a critically imperiled subspecies native to the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains south of the Columbia River.

    Scientists have discovered two new colonies of an elusive high-mountain fox that until recently was thought to be nearly extinct, an environmental group announced Tuesday.

    Using motion-sensor nighttime cameras, researchers captured photographs of theSierra Nevada red fox - for decades believed to exist only in California - near Mount Hood and Crater Lake in Oregon.

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   21 hours 49 min ago

    Poor guy..... definitely needs a serious psychiatric evaluation.

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   22 hours 46 min ago

    A severe case of "greenhorn" is strong in this one.

  • How Bears Can Help Change Vegetative Landscapes In National Parks   23 hours 18 min ago

    Fascinating.

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   1 day 6 hours ago

    Nuts. All those rangers and pilots and other volunteers being put in significant discomfort and risk, for one jackalope. I hope he gets billed for every penny of expense saving his sorry soul.

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   1 day 9 hours ago

    Thanks, beach. But I sure don't see how they could have collected anything from me that might indicate interest in some of that stuff.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 11 hours ago

    Several references for understanding Native Peoples and Their Sacred landscapes

    vs Selling/Owning The Land

    On Muir and the Yosemite:

    http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/johnmuir/

    Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks Paperback – November 2, 2000by Mark David Spence

    National parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier preserve some of this country's most cherished wilderness landscapes. While visions of pristine, uninhabited nature led to the creation of these parks, they also inspired policies of Indian removal. By contrasting the native histories of these places with the links between Indian policy developments and preservationist efforts, this work examines the complex origins of the national parks and the troubling consequences of the American wilderness ideal. The first study to place national park history within the context of the early reservation era, it details the ways that national parks developed into one of the most important arenas of contention between native peoples and non-Indians in the twentieth century.

    and

    http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1985/spring/chief-seattle.html

    Spring 1985, Vol. 18, No. 1

    "Thus Spoke Chief Seattle: The Story of An Undocumented Speech" By Jerry L. Clark

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   1 day 13 hours ago

    We sure are getting some very interesting looking ads on the margins of the website.

    Those ads are mostly unique for each visitor and are based on the data the advertiser has collected on you. Clear your browser cookies and you will get different ads.

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   1 day 15 hours ago

    We sure are getting some very interesting looking ads on the margins of the website.

  • UPDATE: New Yorker Who Thought He Could Hike Across Trail Ridge Road In Rocky Mountain National Park Missing   1 day 15 hours ago

    Unfortunately, it appears this poor fellow is trying actively to climb the Darwin incline.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 16 hours ago

    Did your country not give you enough?

    Don't know that I am mad, but do know my country didn't "give" me anything other than my inalienable rights and the protection there of. Beyond that, unlike many of the others here, I don't expect it to give me anything and I certainly don't expect it take things away.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 17 hours ago

    Exactly, EC. The court ruled against him on "a technicality." Now what do you suppose that "technicality" would be if the Supreme Court were to rule against Delaware North, et al., in this case? Perhaps that the people own the national parks--and have every right to determine their management? If you want to operate a hotel, that is allowed. You just can't extort the government by claiming ownership of something you never owned. Intangible property? Every park is a tangle of "intangibles" that still belong to the people. You want to separate yours out? Fine. Then the people get to separate theirs out. What among our "intangibles" contributed to your bottom line? Everything. You owe us the $51 million.

    EC, what are you so mad about? Did your country not give you enough? Mine did. Certainly, I have ten times more than my father or mother ever had. Would I be "happier" if it were 100 times? When these people stand before Saint Peter, will it matter how much they "got" or "had?" If I were advising them, I would advise they drop this now. We are sorry. We made a mistake. We let our lawyers advise us poorly.

    That is why John Muir stands head and shoulders above James Mason Hutchings even today. Muir did not file on the mountains he loved. Hutchings claimed to love them but still wanted to "own" them. We own things on this planet for a little while, and then we are gone. That is what makes me mad. Too many owners and not enough lovers, and yes, too many people saying that is THE MARKET.

  • 20 Years On, Yellowstone National Park's Experiment With Wolves Continues To Evolve   1 day 18 hours ago

    And I remember the first time I ever heard a wolf howl. I was sleeping in A-loop of Norris Campground. About two or three in the morning, I was awakened by some coyotes yipping when all of a sudden they were interrupted by a long, low, deep howl. Two howls, I think. Not far away. About as close as the coyotes. Sounded as if it came from near the picnic area or employee housing.

    The coyotes were completely silent for the rest of the night and it took a good fifteen minutes for the few hairs I have left on my head to settle back down.

    It was one of those almost indescribable experiences that we can have only in wild places and maybe only once or twice in a lifetime.

  • 20 Years On, Yellowstone National Park's Experiment With Wolves Continues To Evolve   1 day 18 hours ago

    A few years back I slept in while my wife took an early morning hike in Yellowstone, and came back to tease me with her story of seeing a young wolf playing - frolicking, per her description - in the dawn light in a meadow. I still envy her the sighting.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 20 hours ago

    Alfred - please cite from the decision any mention of National Parks or intangible assets. That is all in your imagination.

    The decision was based solely on whether Hutchings met the preemption requirements. The court ruled against him on what I would call a technicality that was totally in opposition of the spirit of the preemption laws. The preemption laws were made to encourage settlers to move into the unpopulated areas and guaranteed them, in essence, the right of first refusal to purchase settled land at a predetermined price when it was surveyed and made available to the public. (Yes I read that tedious book someone recommended earlier) Hutchings settled that land under that basis. He got screwed because the land wasn't sold but given away instead.

    You want to bet there won't be hundreds of people suing to protect their "memories" of the national parks?

    Yes. Or at least I'll bet they won't win their cases

  • 20 Years On, Yellowstone National Park's Experiment With Wolves Continues To Evolve   1 day 20 hours ago

    Funny reading about the part about the woman being so excited about seeing a wolf for the first time. My family laughs about a trip we made to Jasper Nat park last year -- I had my four grown son's with me and my oldest Alex was driving. We came around a corner and there was a huge wolf standing in the middle of the road. He kept yelling "Wa,Wa Wa..." he just couldn't get the word wolf out he was so excited.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 20 hours ago

    I am glad you did your homework, EC, and I see you are a narrow constructionist. So obviously is the National Park Service. But no, Hutchings v. Low was about far more than the preemption laws. It made the national parks constitutional, where they remain today. They are special places in which "business" America gets to practice only by obeying special rules. If there are any "intangible assets" gained by practicing in the national parks, those assets are because the people allowed those practices in the first place. That is what Hutchings tried to deny. He denied even the right of the people to establish the Yosemite Grant. Glad you did your homework, but you still don't get an A. You are supposed to read the entire chapter before reaching for Donald Trump.

    Yosemite is not just another shopping mall. But yes, by insisting on the practices typical of shopping-mall America, Delaware North and Xanterra are creating for themselves a public relations nightmare. Good. Let it be on the front page. Precedent is forever evolving in a democracy, and the Hutchings case is getting old. People don't even know what preemption means anymore, or how Hutchings tried to use it against the Yosemite Grant.

    As for my having "standing" in court, remember, two plus two is whatever I want it to be. In other words, two can play at this game. You want to bet there won't be hundreds of people suing to protect their "memories" of the national parks? Are memories not "intangible assets," too?

    I will say this, EC. You are consistent. You believe that the business of America indeed is business. I wish I could say you were wrong about that part. Still, there is a lesson here for everyone. When the railroads practiced business in the national parks, they at least had taste. Lately, thanks to franchising, taste is something found only in the mouth.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 21 hours ago

    Alfred, interesting post, I agree, imperfect men make imperfect laws, but thank goodness we now have imperfect women in the mix. What did it take for women to get the vote, ever since Abigail Adams wrote her husband, John Adams (our second President), " be sure to remember the ladies". Was it roughly 150 years? It in not a perfect system, but it is the system and has worked, more or less, for 240 plus years now. That is an accomplishment.

    Change can happen, the NPS, at least in Yosemite, is addressing the issue, but it is always difficult.

  • Rare Fox Spotted In Yosemite National Park   1 day 22 hours ago

    Agree justinh, great news, much thanks to the park biologists for their work on this.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   1 day 22 hours ago

    Alfred - I read Hutchings v. Low. You have quite the imagination. The ruling has nothing to do with National Parks or trademarks or conssesionaires. At issue was whether a settler had derived title to land via the preemption laws prior to Congress grantng the land to the State. The court found he had not met the preemption requirements. Trademarks, concessions (in the vending sense) and National Parks are never even mentioned in the ruling - not surprisingly as they had absolutely no relevance.

  • Rare Fox Spotted In Yosemite National Park   1 day 23 hours ago

    Finally, a bit of good news.

  • U.S. Code Might Allow National Park Service To Ignore Trademarks Of Lodge Names   2 days 9 hours ago

    . You know how our "forefathers," as you describe them, decided to deal with THAT.

    So you are calling for revolution?

    would go back to Hutchings v. Low (1872)

    Not familiar with that case but will investigate. But if " you were entitled to recoup your investment", investment that created intangible assets would certainly seem to qualify.

    In fact, I may file the suit myself.

    I'm guessing you would be wasting your money as the suit would be thrown out for lack of standing.