You are here

All Recent Comments

Higher Entrance, Camping Fees Coming To Olympic National Park

May 26th - 19:15pm | Jim Burnett

Requested dollars are of course meaningless, enacted is what counts. Since we are discussing Olympic, my question is what that park's budget trend for operating dollars has been the past 3 years. I'd be very surprised if they've made up the $640,000 they lost to the sequester in 2013.

May 26th - 18:48pm | ecbuck

2013  2.214 billion2014  2.236 billon2015  2.283 bil2016 a request of $3.0 bil

May 26th - 18:33pm | Rick B.

Strange, since the tea partiers specifically want to slash the federal budget. Why they start with the agency that has 1/14th of 1% of the federal budget instead of the biggies, like the pentagon, amazes me.

May 26th - 17:58pm | Jim Burnett

Yep, slashed. In 2013, for one example, the park budget at Olympic was cut 5% due to the infamous sequester. Given already lean operating dollars, that was significant. Ec seems to think that park's budget hasn't been cut in recent years, so perhaps he could document that  fact.

May 26th - 17:34pm | ecbuck

Yes, the post was a duplicate and I deleted it.  Unfortunately you can't delete totally, there has to be some text.  Dupe stands for "duplicate". 

May 26th - 17:16pm | Lee Dalton


May 26th - 15:46pm | ecbuck


May 26th - 15:46pm | ecbuck

With Congress continuing to slash park budgetsSlash budgets?

May 26th - 15:02pm | Tim McNulty

Park managers have made the best of a bad situation here.  With Congress continuing to slash park budgets, entrance and user fees have to pick up a larger share of park operations.  Local conservation groups asked the park to phase in the fee increases, and for the most park managers have done that.

Reimagining Maine’s North Woods: Is A National Park Hidden Among The Trees?

May 26th - 17:23pm | Lee Dalton

Some excellent observations by Dr. Runte.  Unfortunately, he's right.

May 26th - 13:31pm | Alfred Runte

Actually, the Park Service said "no" to Olympic National Park--and got it anyway. Nor were they "happy" to have it. Read Carsten Lien's book, OLYMPIC BATTLEGROUND.

May 26th - 12:16pm | ecbuck

Today, according to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, your government and mine is backing the bankie wankies to the tune of 26 TRILLION.

May 26th - 12:06pm | ecbuck

How things transpired after the NPS said 'no' I can't say,

May 26th - 11:10am | Alfred Runte

Just for the record, the Park Service has said "no" to scores of potential units, especially in the 1920s under Stephen T. Mather. The point is: He was a millionaire and didn't give a damn what Congress happened to "think." Under Mather, the National Parks Association (which he formed) attacked so-called inferior units. As president of NPA, Robert Sterling Yard was good at it, too.

May 26th - 10:55am | Kurt Repanshek

EC, you wanted an example and I provided it.How things transpired after the NPS said 'no' I can't say, just as with more than 400 units of the park system, and who knows how many studies, I can't immediately point to any other examples where the agency opposed a designation.

May 26th - 09:48am | ecbuck

The NPS initially opposedOne example out of 400 plus units.  I see you used the term "initially".  Did they change their stance?  Did the unit get approved after that change?Oh, and I kind of like the irony of your position then and now.

May 26th - 09:47am | ecbuck

. It's hard to say NO to the nine thousand pound gorilla.No it is not.  The Pentagon did just that.  They may have not gotten their way, but at least they said "no". 

May 26th - 08:11am | Kurt Repanshek

The NPS initially opposed addition of Patterson Great Falls in New Jersey.

May 25th - 22:29pm | Lee Dalton

Exactly my point.  It's hard to say NO to the nine thousand pound gorilla.  Which is probably why no one can come up with an example. Yup.  But talk about messed up priorities . . . . . .

May 25th - 21:52pm | ecbuck

And just how, pray tell, does the NPS say "NO" to Congress?Well Lee, since none of you have come up with an example of where they said no and Congress went ahead and approved a park, I guess the answer is, the NPS can't say no.Oh, and while there might be legitimate reasons to not want the F-35.  Congress approved and FUNDED it. 

May 25th - 20:49pm | Lee Dalton

And just how, pray tell, does the NPS say "NO" to Congress?The Department of Defense, which is the darling of at least one side of Congress, tried to say NO to something called the F-35.  What happened?

May 25th - 19:08pm | ecbuck

However, the National Park System is full of places that first were advocated by people like you and meYes it is, but there are many places advocated by "people like you and me" that aren't in the system.  Just because people like you and me advocate for them, doesn't mean they should automatically be included.

May 25th - 15:20pm | Rick Smith

ec--   That isn't how our Constitution works. And you should be thankful for that.No, it is not how our Constitution works.  You and I don't have a vote in Congress.  However, the National Park System is full of places that first were advocated by people like you and me and then established by the Congress.

May 25th - 08:37am | ecbuck

Lee, I don't dismiss the contribution of the "workers" but they "did not build it themselves" either. Its a symbiotic relationship.  We wouldn't have the great nation we have without both. 

May 25th - 08:29am | Lee Dalton

Unfortunately, Dr. Runte is exactly correct.

May 24th - 22:53pm | rmackie

Thank you Kurt and Dr Runte. Actually a great blueprint for new parks after the railroad era of Directors Mather and Allbright was DOI Secretary Harold Ickes and his plan for Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon National Park. Except for campgrounds, concession facilities were extremely modest, nothing has changed.

May 24th - 17:40pm | ecbuck

if the people decide a landscape should be included in the National Park System, Congress should acknowledge that and see that the Park Service has the funds to provide for that new site.That isn't how our Constitution works.  And you should be thankful for that. 

May 24th - 16:35pm | Alfred Runte

The discussion here points to a deeper problem--the vanishing American worker. I sympathize that tourism may save northern Maine; then again, what if the new park only dilutes the market and the Park Service budget besides? Is tourism what we need to "save" America, or an economy that makes sense for everyone? The Maine woods? Why can't Maine save them, just as New York saved the Adirondacks?

May 24th - 15:33pm | Kurt Repanshek

I would like to think, Eric, that if the people decide a landscape should be included in the National Park System, Congress should acknowledge that and see that the Park Service has the funds to provide for that new site.

May 24th - 15:03pm | Gary Wilson

But, certain land trusts do have a tendancy to shut off access to land.  It's quite common actually.  I support what the Nature Conservancy does at times, but many times they don't open the lands in their trust to the public, or it's very limited access.  At least with a National Park this usually isn't the case.

May 24th - 13:09pm | ecbuck

That's Congress's faultNo - when you ask for and take on obligations beyond your budget - its your fault.particularly when trusts shut off public access.Another strawman.  There is no reason the land trust would have to "shut off public access".  The access could be equal or even greater than it is now. 

May 24th - 11:41am | Gary Wilson

I definitely understand what EC is saying, and I tend to agree with some of his statements, but I still support seeing another large scale National Park on the scale of some of the western parks being created in the Eastern US.  This is one of the last best areas this can be done, and it should be done.

May 24th - 10:01am | Kurt Repanshek

Well, it would be a burden on the NPS, granted. That's Congress's fault.But I think it could be a rich resource for science, introducing generations to a unique ecosystem, and encouraging healthy outdoor activities. Parks have the unique ability to do all three. I'm not sure lands in trusts do...particularly when trusts shut off public access.

May 24th - 09:00am | ecbuck

Because the alternative isn't to log and develop.  She could put it into a land trust and let it sit as it is.  Creating a magnet to draw more people with more infrastructure would not be good for the Woods.  Admittedly this is a small area but the natural tendency would be to attempt to expand. Not to mention the additional burden on the NPS system. 

May 24th - 08:48am | Kurt Repanshek

So perhaps you could explain why turning private property, which could in theory be sold for logging or development, into a national park, would not be good for the North Woods?

May 24th - 08:45am | ecbuck

Kurt,Didn't say she didn't have the right to give her property or money away.  Just saying it wouldn't be good for the North Woods to make it a National Park. 

May 24th - 08:42am | Matt Hartley

Curious to see some elaboration from EC as well. The article seemed to suggest the opposite. I am not familiar with the local politics of Maine. Looking forward to a more thorogh response.

May 24th - 08:38am | Kurt Repanshek

What about private property rights, EC? As I understand it, all the land for the proposed park would come from Ms. Quimby.

May 24th - 08:10am | ecbuck

Making the North Woods a National Park might bolster some towns' local economies but it wouldn't be good for the North Woods.

Savoring Rocky Mountain National Park’s Past While Looking To The Future

May 26th - 08:29am | Jim Burnett

A wonderful park that offers a range of great resources and experiences. All of us who get to enjoy the park today can be thankful for those who worked to establish the park a century ago.

Burros Inadvertently Save Life Of Hiker Lost In Death Valley National Park

May 26th - 02:53am | Louie C

Our Wild Burros are Federally Protected, and unless we all fight to keep them on Public Lands, there will be no more.  Forever is a long time.Last of Wild Burros

May 25th - 17:50pm | Louie C

Wild Burros of the Black Mountains CBS  

May 25th - 17:44pm | Louie C

 The burros have never had it easy with our government agencies. They are symbols of our culture and living natural icons of our pioneering history.  Because of this important connection to our past, is cavalierly managing them to extinction without remorse.

Musings From A Very Busy Zion National Park

May 25th - 14:00pm | ecbuck

The first commentor on that article seems to have a pretty good idea.  Could plant quite a number of sizable cottonwoods for $7 million.  The deer hunt idea sounds good too - though I must say, I didn't see any deer while I was there.  Don't know if they are really an issue or not. 

May 25th - 10:35am | Lee Dalton

Here's a link to an article from today's Deseret News in Salt Lake:

Lots To Do At Cape Hatteras National Seashore This Summer

May 24th - 08:26am | Kurt Repanshek

Ok, we've gone down this road before, let's not go any further. 

May 24th - 06:08am | beachdumb

Junk science is a liberal conspiracy. Climate change scam is the latest example of that. Why is it that all the organizations that seek to deny recreational access to parks like Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area lean hard left? Why do these leftist organizations think it's okay to deceive and spew misinformation to favor their agenda?

May 23rd - 21:15pm | Gary Wilson

Those nasty scientist are all products of the hitler youth!  Science is just a libral' conpsiracy!

May 23rd - 12:49pm | Rick B.

I never knew when I volunteered for the Audubon bird count that I was showing I hated America.

150 Years Of Preservation: Yosemite And The Constitutionality Of National Parks

May 24th - 05:25am | m13cli

On the significance of National Park Founders,  compare Yosemite withCrater Lake:

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide