Recent comments

Owen--My wife and I are 75. We plan to do the GC on April 5-7, 08. Going down S.Kaibab and returning via BA trail. We have duffel service both ways for us and our son(46) and his wife. Will be staying at the BA campground for two nites. Eating our meals at Phantom. Any advice for us "oldies"? Any suggestions? Thanks

If you wish to use a "scientific method" to determine "...how much access and use can be permitted without seriously reducing recreational quality or causing unacceptable damage to physical and cultural resources in the parks." It seems that we would need to answer a few questions. First, what do we mean by recreational quality and 2) what is "unacceptable damage." These are fraught with value laden questions that are not necessarily amenable to scientific inquiry.

Perhaps National Parks are not overused but underfunded.

Carrying capacity in range management is about maximizing the productivity of the range, not limiting it. Perhaps we should ask if there are ways that we could increase the capacity of parks in ways that reduce visitor's carbon footprints, promotes the conservation of the natural, cultural, and historic conservation.

Anon has a good point about unfair advantages that internationals might enjoy if they were to book their peak-season park visits through tour operators who get a permit allocations without being subject to the lottery. However, advocates of the lottery system might simply point out that international visitors already enjoy, at very modest prices, the use of national parks that American taxpayers have funded. And millions of Americans who helped to fund the very parks that the internationals are visiting cannot afford to visit the parks themselves. If I were in charge of tweaking the system, I would have the Park Service charge tour operators very hefty fees for their peak-season permit allocations, with modest surcharges imposed on permits used by internationals.

Marylander -- I personally think that Glen Canyon should be on the list of everyone's list of 100 places to see before you die. Oh that's right, no one can see Glen Canyon because it's under hundreds of feet of water. I say make Glen Canyon as accessible as possible -- bring back Hayduke and take down that dam!

Here's an idea. Any lottery should be open only to American citizens whose taxes pay for the parks. Seriously, if American citizens have difficulty getting access to the popular national parks that they pay for while tour operators catering to foreign visitors get preference, how much support will there be for funding for the parks?

I agree with JoeSF, why add to the existing problem? Why move wolves in? Why not move some Elk out? I lived in a remote part of Idaho for a few years and the Elk population was quite large. I personally had a herd of more than 100 that would winter in my front yard. Sometime in 1995 someone who had probably never been to this area of Idaho thought it would be a good idea to drop 25 or so wolves in to this area, not to cull the herd, only because there were no wolves in the area. When I left Idaho there were approximately 150. I don't know if these suit and tie people who come up with these ideas have ever had to live with wolves outside their front door, but I wish they would and maybe they would not be so fast to change the way things are in these places. Move 'em out, don't move 'em in. On a side note, I did witness the dropping of a Grizzly Bear in that same area of Idaho after a huge fight over wheather or not the bears should be introduced to the area. They were not there to begin with and should not be put there just because! I'm going to stop now before this comment becomes a novel! Thank You.

No, the parks should have the news stations broadcast overbooked conditions often during peak season. The information can steer people to underused parks so they can enjoy their holiday or at least alert them to the overcrowed conditon. I think many would opt to do something else if they knew in advance. This can be done at no cost since the federal government owns the air waves and it is a public service. The internet should be used as well.

This is the problem with going back to the NPS mandate. Glen Canyon is a national *recreation* area. Perhaps the recreation areas should be evaluated as to whether they belong under the park service's purview at all, so that recreational users can enjoy them uninhibited.

Ouch. Shoot the messenger why don't you?

The fact of the matter is that in the monument's past there have been efforts to see it renamed Dinosaur National Park, so that was an accurate statement. Would such a change have an overall impact on management of Dinosaur? Maybe, maybe not.

But you can be sure the surrounding communities would love to see the change in designation as it would bring in more tourists. That's exactly what's behind the move down at Cedar Breaks National Monument to have it renamed a "park."

My trust of the NPS's ability to use the "best available scientific methods" as the basis of any decision is non existent.

The shuttle busses will not work. No one will voluntarily give up their car for the bus. They will only work if mandatory like Zion.

The reason for the slaughter of bison officially has nothing to do with carrying capacity, though the IBMP sets an arbitrary number of 3,000 bison for the park, and rules regarding testing and slaughter change at that point. When I mentioned carrying capacity - which is not a reason for slaughter nor would it by mentioning it make an article more balanced - in my editorial response above, I actually used it to suggest the need for expansion of bison range. I have never read the National Park Service mention the word "carrying capacity"; that's a phrase associated with critics of park policies, (and especially the use of science to describe that policy) in respect to the Northern Range, not the Park Service itself. The National Park Service slaughters bison ostensibly because it's a partner in the IBMP, which has to do with transmission of brucellosis.

There is nothing shaky about the use of the word "slaughter"; as I said, that's in fact a word you'll find used by both sides. It is objectively true (which is actually a somewhat redundant adverb). However, if your complaint is that I did not adequately give the point of view of the partners in the IBMP for why they carry it out, and that that amounts to objectivity, I don't think you have shown how my own particular bias has made the story any less true. I pointed people to the NPS press release as well as the IBMP and quoted the major reason given for supporting the slaughter.

And, "regardless of my semantic take" is a flippant wave of the hand for your further charge that the word is "sensational." Again, I'd argue that it's no more sensational than the use of the word "landslide" or "rout" to express a political election; in fact, it's more accurate. While I certainly am an advocate sympathetic with Buffalo Field Campaign, nothing you have said suggests that the article itself is an advocacy piece. It's hardly different from the articles that have appeared in the local mainstream media in Montana, with the exception that it mentions the event, which is newsworthy (it's newsworthy on a national parks site when a group of people are out actively protesting the policy). The frustrating thing for me writing it, in all honesty, was that it wasn't an advocacy piece and that I took pains to make sure that it was not. If it were, I would have posted it on my own blog or in the comments section here (as I have - when I told Kurt and Jeremy that I would write articles from time to time, I made it clear that I was not likely to send them the opinionated pieces I reserve for my own Web site; they for their part set no limits on the sort of pieces I might write, as they put both kinds up, and I often have to decide whether an essay here - relevant to Yellowstone - belongs in the article or opinion section of my newspaper).

Bias always comes out in reporting based on what someone chooses to write about and how one chooses to focus an article. That bias does not make something in and of itself any less objective. And, I would be the last person to ever want to use the emotional response people get from the use of certain language to convince them to follow a cause. In this case, I'm confident that I'm on firm ground with my word choice.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World