Recent comments

  • UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Case Of Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Company   1 week 6 days ago

    Sad. This historic site is far more deserving of protection then many of the existing and proposed NPS historic sites. Its negative impact on "wilderness" was negligible.

  • Rocky Mountain National Park Seeking Input On Proposal To Open Short Trail To Mountain Bikes   1 week 6 days ago

    So, what was the outcome?

  • UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Case Of Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Company   1 week 6 days ago

    The interesting question is who will pay to remove the oyster farm. My understanding is that it would a significant sum of money to get rid of everything, and I'm not sure that the Lunny family has that kind of dough, and frankly, why they would want to do so. If the farm is a corporation, it might not have enough assets for the NPS to go after. I'm guessing that the NPS will take that on.

  • UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Case Of Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Company   1 week 6 days ago

    Well, my commenting on this will probably mean the thread gets closed. But that's awesome. The NPS already owned the land, and the lease expired. Now let wilderness reign, even if it's just a small small portion of the Pacific coast that is protected as such.

  • UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Case Of Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Company   1 week 6 days ago

    " In order to acheive wilderness status, will the NPS bull doze all remants of the farm? Is there any operation or business that is compatible a wilderness designation? Will the NPS acknowledge the history of the farm or pretend it didn't exist?"

    Surprisingly enough, not bad questions, beachdumb. And time will answer them. In the meantime, sour grapes make for lousy wine.

  • UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Case Of Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Company   1 week 6 days ago

    100 year old farm forced to close because the NPS wants the land. In order to acheive wilderness status, will the NPS bull doze all remants of the farm? Is there any operation or business that is compatible a wilderness designation? Will the NPS acknowledge the history of the farm or pretend it didn't exist?

  • UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Case Of Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Company   1 week 6 days ago

    Wilderness lovers everywhere rejoice. A new dawn is about to appear on the Drake estrero. People will flock from around the world to gaze at the wonder of the water now bereft of that ugly farm. :)

    Seals will multiply. Birds will flock. Oysters will die, and all that was wrong with the world will be right again.

    Hallelujah

  • 150 Years Of Preservation: Yosemite And The Constitutionality Of National Parks   1 week 6 days ago

    Thank you, Dr. Runte. Stories like this one should serve as reminders to all of us that our parks are not universally accepted as valuable places that need and deserve our protection.

    I'm currently reading National Parks and the Woman's Voice by Polly Welts Kaufman. That book and your article here reminded me that nothing much seems to change except the actors in the play. From the very beginning our parks have been constantly faced with surviving the struggle between those who can see only short-term gains that might benefit just them or a small group and those who are able to envision and seek a farther goal that will benefit not just a few.

    Reading this book made me realize that without the efforts of thousands of women around the country, our national parks would probably be a paltry fraction of the wondrous places they are today. The author points out that when men were involved in deciding what to do with potential park lands, they tended to see "practical" things. Things like resources or possible opportunities for profit. Women, on the other hand, saw those places for their beauty and as places to help people of all kinds to "become better people."

    It struck me that even the words used by those who support and those who oppose efforts to maintain our current parks and to establish new ones are almost exactly the same. A century or more of contention doesn't seem to have changed in anything but the small details of whatever the current argument may be.

  • Exploring The Parks: Rendezvous at Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site   1 week 6 days ago

    Thanks, David and Kay. Ft. Union is truly a gem of a place to visit. The rendezvous has to be something we all need to add to our lists of must-do things.

  • Search-And-Rescue Missions Cost National Park Service Nearly $4 Million In 2013   1 week 6 days ago

    CPI is national, not regional, so should we expect all NPS fees to be adjusted?

  • Search-And-Rescue Missions Cost National Park Service Nearly $4 Million In 2013   1 week 6 days ago

    My point is that here in the Smokies and elsewhere, the NPS has used search and rescue as a justification for backcountry fees. Yet the majority of rescues don't involve backcountry campers. They are dayhikers who are exempt from backcountry usage fees. Backcountry campers are typically more saavy and wouldn't think of hiking to Mt. Leconte, for example, in cotton shorts and no rain gear.

    Another thing I would like to see added to this article is what percentage of those rescues occured in places like Rainier and Denali. Denali has a 350 dollar climbing fee. Speaking of that look what the NPS put on their website with regard to that newly raised fee: NOTE: Effective January 1, 2014, the mountaineering special use fee will increase based on Consumer Price Index changes. For climbers who register January 1 or thereafter, the inflation-adjusted fee for 2014 will be $360 U.S. currency. Accordingly, the reduced fee for climbers aged 24 or younger will be $260.

  • Search-And-Rescue Missions Cost National Park Service Nearly $4 Million In 2013   1 week 6 days ago

    And your point?

  • Search-And-Rescue Missions Cost National Park Service Nearly $4 Million In 2013   1 week 6 days ago

    "Which activity is most likely to lead to a SAR? Day-hiking"

  • Applicants Sought For 2014 @American_Latino Expedition   2 weeks 20 min ago

    What a great opportunity for young latinos and latinas.

  • Applicants Sought For 2014 @American_Latino Expedition   2 weeks 1 hour ago

    Interesting!

  • 150 Years Of Preservation: Yosemite And The Constitutionality Of National Parks   2 weeks 8 hours ago

    Another great read from Alfred Runte--thanks.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 8 hours ago

    Folks, we're going to shut this thread down. At the same time, I would have to agree that comments -- on both sides of this issue -- have gotten away from civil discourse, a disturbing development of late.

    There are several ways we can handle this sort of problem in the future: simply do away with comments; ban those who can't discuss issues surrounding the parks constructively and without demeaning or disparaging others; require folks to use their real, full, names with hopes that will persuade them to be civil.

    For those who haven't taken the time to read Traveler's Code of Conduct, here it is:

    The blogosphere is a pretty free-wheeling place. As a result, it has developed a persona, right or wrong, of playing fast and loose with facts, with running roughshod over some posters, with allowing anonymity to serve as a shield for attackers. Some bloggers have called for a code of conduct for the blogosphere, and we at the Traveler support that movement.

    As I mentioned recently, we view the Traveler as more of a web magazine than a blog. But that doesn't lessen the need for a code of conduct, both to guide the Traveler's writers and to let those who desire to comment on our articles to know there are limits as to what is appropriate.

    For those who might immediately jump to the conclusion that we're implementing a measure of censorship, that's not the case at all. Rather, just as there are accepted norms for what can be broadcast and printed in mainstream media, there are accepted norms for the interchange of ideas on the Traveler. All we expect from you is a measure of civility. Here's how Colin Rule, director of the Center for Internet and Society, addresses the expectation of civil discourse:

    So is it true that civility and politeness should go out the window when confronted with deep and intense feelings? Well, not to sound too much like "Mr. Manners," but I think it's at that point that civility and politeness come to matter more. When emotions get the better of someone, and that person uses language intended to incite and shock rather than reason, it creates an easy target for the other side; the most likely response becomes a similar provocative statement, and then the exchange becomes focused on the excesses of each statement rather than the issues at hand.

    Beyond an expectation of civility there are times when, quite frankly, just as radio and television moderators feel a need to redirect their guests back to the subject at hand, it might be appropriate for us to steer the flurry of comments back to the topic at hand. And we won't hesitate to do that, as we have a very well specified mission statement that guides this patch of cyberspace.

    With that said, here are some general guidelines that will guide the code of conduct for the Traveler (with the understanding that they could continue to evolve):

    * The authors of posts take responsibility for their words.

    * Abusive comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

    * Those behind abusive comments and personal attacks will be contacted privately and asked to be more constructive in their comments. If the comments and attacks persist, the author will be blocked from the site.

    * Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.

    * If a subject of a post feels they have been wronged or simply wishes to respond in a post as opposed to a comment, that will be allowed.

    In general, we at the Traveler have been pretty tolerant of comments. That's been evidenced most recently by some made this past weekend that were allowed to stand. We do not want to sanitize this forum, nor do we want to create the impression that it tilts one way or the other politically or philosophically. Yet there is a line, one that should not be crossed, in the common decency of civil discourse. If all you can do is throw stones and slurs, take it elsewhere.

    Anonymous comments will continue to be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for. That said, we encourage those who do not fall under those situations to be up front with who they are and not rely on what's been termed "drive by anonymity" to attack someone.

    Regardless of how you decide to identify yourself, you are expected to adhere to the points above.

    Please take this to heart and think twice before you hit that "post" button.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 8 hours ago

    And if you paid any attention, Gary, instead of just casting apertions, you would have noted that I have not supported either side in this argument other than asking for substantiation of facts. In fact, I was the only one to ask Beach to substantiate his claim Fish and Wildlife had found the management plan ineffective and when he produced a document, I pointed out it fell short of saying the plan was ineffective.

    People here have a difference of visions. Some believe the parks need to be more wilderness others believe recreation is a valid component. That doesn't mean either side is "bad" or that sexual slurs need to be used. Grow up. Respect people and maybe they will give your arguments more respect.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 8 hours ago

    ECBuck, maybe they can make you head realtor at Teabaggistan National Park. You can help initiate the sale of the public land and naming rights to Cabellas, and they can rename it Camoland National Corporate Amusement Park.

    In all seriousness, and sadly, even if this is just a poor attempt at satire, this exact scenario is playing out with the Cape Hatteras National Seashore with these ORV groups. You guys can stick your heads in the sand and deny it, but these ORV groups are attempting to undermine the Park, and its overall mission.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 9 hours ago

    I second Buxton's motion. All in favor?

    Ignoring the Tea Party and the harm their proposals will cause if they come to pass would be disastrous. The foolishness and potential harm of it all needs to be exposed lest it actually come to pass. Satire is an often effective means of exposing foolishness.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 9 hours ago

    Thank you Rambler. I'm amazed Kurt lets that filth stand.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 10 hours ago

    I remember reading in the administrative history of CHNSRA how they struggled with naming and designation of the area because the island was so heavily modified by the CCC. I think I'll read it again today..

    "The DOI, NPS and environmental groups led the public to believe that the purpose of the ORV rule was to bring CHSNRA into compliance with two executive orders from the 1970s. In fact, the purpose was to institute far-reaching restrictions on public access by using ORVs as the scapegoat."

    This is the unfortunate truth of what has happened.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 12 hours ago

    Rambler,

    I try to keep my personal politics out of the fray and hesitate to make assumptions about other's comments and political persuasions. But sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire. I think Gary's comments are spot on and witty. It is cost Beachdumb and his ilk should experience.

    I am glad Beachdumb is so forthright, he makes my case stronger and I listen very carefully to what he is saying.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 21 hours ago

    Gary Wilson, as a fellow liberal, I ask that you please stop posting rude comments regarding the teaparty. Your's are played out, generalized, not witty at all, and make us look bad.

    Regarding this topic, If you want to see what a true wilderness area looks like and if ORV activity has an impact on the flora and fauna, look to Anza Borrego State Park and Ocotillo Wells ORV area. They share a border and are a good case study. I dont think many people could objectivley say that the ORV activity has had no significant impact on the area. You simply cannot compare the pristine wilderness of Anza Borrego with Ocotillo Wells. The impact is just too evident in the ORV area.

    Is that a data driven statement? No, but it is realistic. In my opinion, ORV activity and the culture is simply in contradiction to the accepted and legal definiton of wilderness.

  • Cape Hatteras, Where The 'National Seashore' Concept Was Born   2 weeks 1 day ago

    Congress has come up with some very creative labels for new parks lately.

    And Gary, your Teabaggistan National Park idea is great. No facility maintenance either. When the sewers back up, they call it a lake. Perhaps Lake Notreadonme. Then those folks who love to buzz others on their personal watercraft can have a blast splashing yellow water on all the people fishing for crappie from their big houseboats.

    (Sorry, I just came in from the big air show at Hill Air Force Base and may be experiencing a small dose of sunstroke.)