Seems like if the total request was for $433 million and $150 is infrastructure that leaves alot for personnel.
Another question, are the "fees" outside the budgeted amount and how much did they total in 2014?
With an increase in 2015, a 33% additional increase requested in 2016 and substantial increases in entrance fees, why does that one superintendent think the NPS will have less money next year?
PS Tell us more about the trip. More pictures.
A few days ago in Grant Teton, I heard a thought provoking comment from a ranger. She pointed to the Enabling Act inscribed above the information desk at the new VC in Moose and asked, "Are we missing the boat in this Centennial year by urging more people to visit our parks, but failing to try to educate them on why these places are here and what we all must do to try to protect them?"
I agree with EC and don't believe that congress should micromanage the NPS (or any other agency). However, when constituents complain loud enough about being denied or restricted access by an agency for dubious reasons not supported by science certain members of congress, apparently, believe they now must get involved.
ec, you need to run for Congress. You're really good at dodging around and covering tracks.
How do you fail to see the irony in your comment: "Meanwhile you have consistently made unsubstantiated claims regarding funding even while admitting that "Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall"
The fact she worked with packrafters to craft the amendments in no way implies she has taken her position only because of money. It is common sense that if one believes that packrafting is appropriate that they would consult with packrafting companies in drafting the legislation.
Thank you, Kurt. Trying to discover exactly where political contributions come from is about as easy as nailing Jello to the wall in this age of funding hidden behind walls of secrecy and funneled through various PACs.
Our lawmakers are experts at hiding their tracks within that maze of secrecy.
And nary a packrafter outfit on the lists. I don't agree with her bill but there is no evidence that she is doing anything other than earnestly representing the interest of her constituents - i.e. her job. That makes your claims pure empty accusations.
Yes, Kurt, you really know better than trying to use the old "carrying water" bit. Certainly you know it should have read, "Carrying pocketsful of money from packrafters businesses seeking access to rivers and streams."
Shame upon you!
While I believe it is in Congress's perview to broadly define the role of the NPS including requesting studies, I am totally against the micro management that this bill mandates. What is the purpose of a "study" if it is already determined that certain waters must be opened?
Missing from this report is a list of people or organizations that are pushing the Congresswoman to shove this bill through. Are they a small group of individuals? A large group of individuals? Are they mainly outfitters who would be able to open new opportunities to make money using Yellowstone's rivers?
I was hiking to iceberg lake in September and encountered this same bear. The Rangers had to set off flashbacks to chase her off because she was doing false changes on hikers. I'm glad they aren't going to punish her for being a good mother. Way way to many 60 year old plus hikers in the back country. If you need a break every 100 yards maybe you shouldn't hike 10 miles in the mountains.
Just back from a week in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. In YELL, I happened upon a ranger demonstration of using an inert bear spray. He explained exactly when and how to use it and gave any interested visitors a chance to try it for themselves.
Oct 6th - 15:26pm |
The incident discussed here is one reason bogus "research" shows bear spray is more effective than a firearm. If the hiker had a gun, this would be a firearms failure. During 27% percent of the incidents in Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska, people were injured before they could shoot.
The use of pepper spray can have a potentially negative impact on bear/human encounters. Obviously, a bear that charges a person is a prime candidate for spraying at close quarters. However, automatically spraying a bear that you happen to encounter on a trail and which shows no aggressive behavior may do more harm than good.
Oct 6th - 13:54pm |
If at first it doesn't succeed...
Oct 5th - 13:52pm |
Short burst due not always work if it is a preditory or combative charge you may need to spray much longer. If the bear returnes or recharges you may have to spray a second or third time. DURATION & DISTANCE COUNT
It has been very difficult to find a map showing the location of this project. But using descriptions in this and some other articles, I found that it is to the northwest of Mojave Preserve between the towns of Baker and Zzyzx. While we certainly need to develop alternative energy sources, I hope we will always seek the best balance between energy needs and wise conservation of othe
"A true drone, one flown by remote camera, are currently illegal everywhere."
Here's a link to an FAA website about RC and drone aircraft limitations:
And another interesting article:
There was a police log item in this past week's issue of Mount Desert Islander, about Acadia National Park issuing summons to Mass. man for operating drone. No other details or explanation, just this paragraph:
Oct 6th - 10:57am |
There are rules and have been rules for years about radio controlled (RC) aircraft, which is what these drones fall under the control of. You can't fly them in populated areas and they are not as one commented free to fly anywhere. A true drone, one flown by remote camera, are currently illegal everywhere. These are RC aircrafts and must follow the rules for them.
Philly, the gentleman in the photo did indeed launch his drone in the park, even after I pointed out that he was in a national park and that drones were banned in national parks. There are other cases, as well -- are you familiar with the drone laying at the bottom of Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park, or the buzzing of wildlife in Zion National Park?
Oct 6th - 01:16am |
How can someone be a "scofflaw" when he is doing something that is perfectly legal?
National Park Service is in charge of National Park lands. They do not have the authority to control airspace far above their parks. That's what FAA does - and FAA is perfectly fine with recreational 'drone' flying. (with a few restricted areas.)
The plight of elephants and rhinos in Africa due to poaching, and Africa's wildlife in general due to an array of factors, is truly heartbreaking. Thank you for an excellent article. Prince William of the UK also recently published an excellent article in the London Financial Times on this topic.
Your articles are always enjoyable to read, Lee. I was there eons ago before my move to Texas (which I still consider a temporary move). Younger then, I didn't notice half as much as I would now (I hope). This article reminds me to go there again.
Bobbie was a cousin that I never got to know. I'm so glad that you did and shared it with us.
Your last paragraph about energy resonated with me to the core because I've always believed that after death our energy lives on. Lives on in others as well as the universe. Our energy is what keeps the universe in perspective......and real.....and alive.