Recent comments

Alaska public radio ran a piece on the bear hunt on Katmai. There were a number of people giving their take including, bear biologists and even a trophy hunter who unanimously feel the bear hunt out on Katmai was very unethical and really was not hunting , but killing or harvesting. you can listen to the piece by going to www.akradio.org/archive open the "Mixed Signals" 11/24/2007 segment and scroll to the (7) min. and that's where the story begins.

It should be noted that Mother Nature made the acquisition of Assateague Island possible. After the March 1962 nor'easter wiped out the development that had just recently started on Assateague Island, the Feds seized the opportunity to buy it up from the property owners who were pummeled in the storm. Opportunism? Sure. But stolen? Unless you can pull together a conspiracy theory that somehow conjures up a storm of historic proportions, I think that's a huge stretch.

Currently, the long jetty at the south end of Ocean City has caused a huge addition of sand there, while the northern end of Assateague Island (the Maryland State Park portion of the island) is eroding like gangbusters because of that same jetty across the inlet.

Assateague also has a "problem" with the non-native Sika deer, which has made inroads onto the mainland now as well. Another importation experiment gone awry.

Where do the National Lakeshores fit into the history of the National Seashores? Such as "Pictured Rocks" and "Apostle Islands" on Lake Superior, "Indiana Dunes" and "Sleeping Bear" on Lake Michigan.

Starve? Yeah, like Michael Moore is starving.

There's a misconception about neoconservatives and conservatives that some of us have who are neither neoconservative nor conservative. The neoconservatives are "neo" precisely because they support American nationalism through imperialism. They see promoting and advancing Americanism as the main thrust of American policy, and so they will gladly build up government when it serves what they perceive as American interests, especially the military industrial complex. They support globalization (there isn't a great deal of difference between a neoliberal and a neoconservative) so long as it promotes American sovereignty. Some have gone so far as to support the exploitation of space for militarization, figuring that American control of space will ultimately promote American interests.

Conservatives (paleo?-conservatives) by contrast in the United States have traditionally favored smaller government. Some are isolationist populist types (a la Pat Buchanan), some are free market global capitalists, but they all share in common the notion that the United States government should be de-centralized, that the role of government is to protect the homeland and to make sure that American business runs smoothly, and should leave the rest to market forces, churches, and charities. They otherwise aren't interested in American imperialism, nation-building, or anything that makes government larger, though they usually have little to say about large corporations, except (in the case of the populist types) those that hurt American small businesses by dealing overseas.

That's a crude distinction, and there are many shades in between, but Bush and his ilk are of the neoconservative strain. Many Bush allies were involved with the Project for the New American Century. They support American imperialism (the spread of freedom - as though freedom were a brand of butter) as the best way to protect and promote American interests. As a result, they don't necessarily have anything against large government expansion but would prefer to promote industries that support the imperial enterprise (and yes, many do use the word "empire" - a talk at the neoconservative-friendly American Enterprise Institute in the past couple years was titled "America is and should be an empire"). So, they talk smaller government when it helps them make the point that the money should be spent elsewhere. However, smaller government is not really their aim, just sometimes a means to an end. It is for these reasons that neoconservative Bill Kristol even suggested that Hillary Clinton might actually be closer to the neoconservative agenda than many of the Republicans running for president.

Now, many conservatives who are not of the libertarian variety still believe in protecting the national parks and fully funding them because they see them as iconic American places - to protect them isn't far different than protecting the flag or other great American institutions. They see them as a kind of national security interest because they are definitional places. For years, Republicans had the funding of national parks in their platform (don't know if they still do). So, it's a complicated question.

Still, on the whole, the playbook of conservatives has been to starve government programs like Welfare, then when they aren't working due to lack of funding, claim they aren't working because of government inefficiency (when in fact, the plan all along was to make them inefficient by taking away the resources they needed to run smoothly). As much as I have my own philosophical bent against the systemic exercise of power from anyone - whether they be governments, corporations, or individuals - it's not hard to see the dirty trick played by savvy conservative politicians to promote a conservative worldview. Unfortunately, people's lives (in the case of welfare, the lives of the poor) and the land, plants, and animals (in the case of the parks) are collateral damage in this war. While I don't believe more funding for the parks is the answer over the long haul, I also think people who think like I do should be very wary of supporting those who are shrinking the funding. If people aren't ready to organize and mobilize from corporate greed taking over the vacuum left by a shrinking government, then the parks will only be worse off. It suggests the need again for grassroots organizing on behalf of places we love (much like we see with Buffalo Field Campaign out in Yellowstone, but only on a greater scale). We can't be left with this devil's choice of bigger and bigger government versus non-transparent NGOs and corporations, whether we are talking about foreign or domestic policy, or the parks in particular.

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

First, no development threatens the Otis Pike Wilderness. All development in the wilderness was removed when the federal government evicted squatters. So you've set up a false dichotomy, a false conflict, between private property owners and the NPS where no such conflict exists (in regard to Otis Pike). Secondly, the private communities predate the national seashore by more than a century. I think we ought to respect the rights of those historical communities that exist on the island. Without them, the island would be just another tick-infested, poison-ivy-covered sand spit. Finally, if you want to look at threats to preserving the Otis Pike Wilderness (which at 1363 acres is a complete joke), you should point a finger at the National Park Service. The beach is not included in the wilderness area, largely because the NPS wanted wheeled access to the seashore. Additionally, managers and interpretive rangers at both Watch Hill and Smith Point frequently write wilderness permits after quotas have been reached, which leads to an over crowded, over used, highly impacted wilderness area.

Why are honest, law-abiding private property owners viewed with such disdain? Why are they painted as cardboard cutouts, merely obstacles ("thorns") to the "greater good" that the NPS in its infinite, paternalistic wisdom wants to bring to all? I've lived and worked with the residents of Fire Island, and they're good people. They are not "thorns" in anyone's "side", and they care just as much, if not more, about the preservation of Fire Island than does the federal government.

Something doesn't add up in my simplistic mind. If the neo-cons are starving the beast then why are many of the budgets still going up? Not only are base budgets going up, but program budgets are growing astronomically. Add in the monies that are contributed through non-profit puppet partners. Somebody out there an't tellin the truth.

Granted it's a different world we live in. Years ago a Superintendent saw a need...and took action. Nowadays he must conduct studies, do public scoping, more studies, fight environmental groups in court, do more studies, then accomplish nothing when a new administration changes priorities.

Parks are spending more money than ever. I would guess that payroll budgets are soaring (gotta add in all those positions being paid for with program money) but the entry level positions are drying up in favor of researchers and mid level managers who spend their day trying to figure out how to get even more money.

In a sense "starve the beast" may have its benefits. Tell the guys in charge to get things done with the money they have or we will find someone who can. For every job the NPS advertises there are many highly qualified applicants...there are people who are willing to do the job.

I think the Administration, whoever may control things at any given time, should focus on rewarding more funding to those who do a good job with their current funding. Lets face it the Government is not well known for its business sense

First, I ain't no "huggie".

Second, I don't worry about perosnla contact with these chemicals due to my extensive education and training in the proper methodology of handling corrosive, toxic, and otherwise harmful subtance. You don't do my type of work if your a careless intellectual midget.

Finally, genetics and personal biochemistry play a larger role in longevity and resistance to disease than you can possibly imagine. What are perceived to be "small, insignificant" exposure levels to one group are measured as toxic levels to others. Some people have aren't effected by a "normal" dose of Tylenol and eat them by the handful. Others pass out after taking a dose of Vick's Ni-Quil. That specific cause / effect ratio is one of the pet projects in my lab. Sequencing and understanding a mammalian genome is a walk in the park relative to decoding personal biochemistry and the related immunological factors that they influence. That your relatives enjoyed extended lifespans is enviable. But it's hardly worth betting your own life on a similar time frame unless you're willing to copy their lifestyle as well as their genes. Fatty foods and alcohol can to some degree be countered with exercise and an otherwise active lifestyle. They weren't exposed to the barrage of organic waste, microwaves, and other radiation, along with food "preservatives" and additives, including high levels of salt in most all the crap you ingest made outside your own kitchens, that we are forced to endure as part of our highly "advanced" society.

For what it's worth, I'm not even worried about you. You control your own destiny, not me brother. So live fast or slow, party hard or hardly, eat whatever you want, and you'll die anyway. The only choice you have is a slow, painful death or a relatively quick one. But in either case I'm not concerned. Why worry about things you can't control, like lifespans? (Insert refernece to Jim Fixx and Ule Gibbons here.) But it's possible that some education into the cause and effect scenarios might be useful to you in planning your next big whatever you do.

Richard, I mentioned the Shoshone Geyser Basin down in the 12th paragraph, although there are no hot springs there that you can bathe in. To find those, you have to head down to "Cascade Corner" in the southwestern corner of the park. There you'll find some stretches of river where hot springs discharge into the river waters, allowing for bathing. There also are some spots along the Gardner River near Mammoth Hot Springs where you can soak in warm waters.

The 1st paragraph mentions hot springs, but never mentions them further. Are there hot springs you can bathe in? Why mention them and fail to describe them?

The recording and processing end of the audio technology certainly has changed rapidly. But what hasn't changed nearly as fast are microphones, and those are the most important tools. Just as lenses didn't make much if any technological change between film and digital cameras, microphones have made little if any changes in the transition from analog tape to digital flash card.

The trouble is, teaching microphone technique is pretty difficult. You can teach someone a lot about the physics of microphones, but that might not help them intuitively to make the best use of a microphone. Likewise, you can teach someone about the physics and mechanics of lenses, but that doesn't teach them to take a great picture. Ultimately, and in either case, it's a process of experience, trial and error, and developing an appreciation for what's good art within the medium.

A student once asked me, "What's the best placement of a microphone to record a piano?" I answered, "What's the best placement of a camera to photograph a mountain?"

Thanks again for recognizing our work.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The WildeBeat "The audio journal about getting into the wilderness"
Download the MP3 programs or subscribe to the podcast at...
www.wildebeat.net

Many park inholdings are very nice sections of scenic property that are well kept (often in much better shape than the surrounding park land) with a special sense of pride and personal attachment that is generally missing from government management.

When I was a ranger I learned a lot about the history and nature of my park from inholding landowners whom I actively sought out to meet and greet. My bosses in the agency took a very dim view of my association with these backward "redneck hicks" because they were generally viewed as the enemy whose time in the park would eventually end and the "pristine" precincts of this "sacredly invoilable" preserve would be complete.

If they could only convince the powers that be in DC to send 'em the cash to rid the park of this local-yokel vermin once and for all the park's brilliantly conceived management plan could at last be realized! Well at least they could finalize the draft.......

The more inholdings the better. They help to keep a balance and add a link to local historical roots lost once the bureaucrats tear down the last cabin and replace it with a maintenance yard.