Recent comments

Or just maybe, since the NPS is so eager to spend money for the Jazz Museum in New Orleans, we can get the NPS Heritage Museum funded by the National Endowment for the Arts?

I've never been to the National Air and Space Museum, but how much floor space is devoted to the likes of the Apollo and Shuttle debacles? Although not a fair comparison because memorials for deceased astronauts are most proper versus exhibits to mismanagement and general incompetence, but hey, Trump has a tower, the Outfit has Vegas, Clinton has a library and Carter has Habitat for Humanity, so anything is possible. I hope they have the decency to show before and after pictures of what the lands were and what the NPS made them. Then the public could determine for themselves how effectively the NPS management public lands has been handled, and whether or not to maintain the status quo. Prior to inception of this undertaking, the sources for funding should be put forth for public consideration on a general election referendum, since we have one of those coming up in about a year. But that, like Beamis suggested simulation, ain't gonna happen, is it?

Guess the devil will be in the details on where the funds to purchase 15 parcels of land encompassing 564 acres will come from, and who will get what for it. The only named participants, “Concord Eastridge, a national player in putting together public-private partnerships [and] one of the company's affiliates, Stonewall Heights, LLC,” don't sound to me like “a non-profit solution” for Harpers Ferry. The concept expressed by Civil War Preservation Trust President Jim Lighthizer that you quote, "preservation and development are not mutually exclusive,” is valid. This was similarly expressed with regard to Fort Hancock by former Sandy Hook Superintendent Russel Wilson.

The core of Fort Hancock is approximately 140 acres of the 1,665 acres of Sandy Hook parklands otherwise protected as a natural and recreational environment. With more than 100 buildings, this area has been identified for adaptive reuse since the National Park Service first began administering Sandy Hook in the mid-1970s.
The concept of creating a "Gateway Village" for adaptive reuse was formalized in the 1979 General Management Plan for Gateway National Recreation Area. The 1990 General Management Plan Amendment for the Sandy Hook unit reaffirmed the adaptive reuse plan and identified a partnership between the National Park Service and private entities as the way to make it happen. Both planning efforts were the subject of extensive public review and comment.
The goal has always been to assure the long-term preservation of these historic military buildings by adapting them for a variety of compatible uses. The James J. Howard Marine Laboratory, Brookdale Community College Oceanographic Institute, the N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium and the Marine Academy of Science and Technology have been our partners in adaptive reuse for more than 20 years. This winter, the N.J. Audubon Society joins us following its rehabilitation of the historic hospital steward’s quarters as the Sandy Hook Bird Observatory.
We began an effort to further the adaptive reuse of Fort Hancock’s buildings through the National Park Service’s historic leasing authority in 1998. This authority allows for the leasing of excess historic properties in national parks for compatible uses to both public and private groups. http://honors.njit.edu/news/colloquium/previewf03/sandyhook.htm

I have followed this process for nearly 30 years. The present plan appears to be the best that can be accomplished. Fort Hancock covers less than 10% of Sandy Hook’s acreage. Of the more than 100 buildings within Fort Hancock, approximately 1/3 are used by the NPS, 1/3 by public “partners” as described above, and the remaining 1/3 subject to the proposed plan. Of that 1/3, 30% is required by the agreement to be used for educational purposes. This leaves about 22% of the buildings [let’s say 3% of Sandy hook] to be used for “commercial” purposes, many of which will support the existing NPS and public partners’ uses. With no new construction, and all rehabilitation conducted under the Department of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Reuse [and the even stricter ones of the NJ State Historic Preservation Office], this is a small price to pay for such an important cultural and historic resource.

It’s easy to criticize from a distance when you haven’t watched these buildings deteriorate more and more each year. From my up-close observation, I believe that public demand is just about satiated by the 60+ buildings in current use by the NPS and non-profit partners. I can’t agree with “principles” that would allow the remaining 36 buildings to fall down, or people who can’t suggest a viable alternative. What sort of non-profit solution would you propose for these 36? Should we take another 30 years to come up with one?

Water Witch, I guess I don't see the contradiction. In the case of Fort Hancock, you have the Park Service giving over to a commercial developer publicly owned historic buildings that he plans to transform into for-profit enterprises.

At Harper's Ferry, not only are no park facilities be turned over to private developers, but conservation easements are being purchased to protect Harpers Ferry National Historical Park from outside development. True, a museum, hotel and conference center are being proposed, but these will be built from the ground up on land outside the national park.

If there's a contradiction, I suppose it might be, "If a non-profit solution can be achieved on such a scale at Harper's Ferry, why can't a similar one be fashioned at Fort Hancock?"

Thanks Kurt, for picking up this story. The National Park Service is the first Agency in the world to attempt to preserve a Nation's legacy of natural and cultural resources. This project will be an attempt to communicate that 100 year long story.

We are convinced that this project will be very illuminating to the public and beneficial to the entire National Park Service, honoring its history, protecting its significant historical resources, recognizing the NPS organizational heritage, and paying tribute to those who have made "America's Best Idea" a reality.

"The further backward you look, the further forward you can see", Winston Churchill

I am a hunter and had actually booked a bearhunt in Katami for next year, and opted for the hyped bow and arrow option. Seen this video made me realize that this is no different than those people that kill game in fenced locations. I have canceled my booking and have will file legal actions for false advertisement. This is not a bear hunt, this is a bear kill which is very different.
To read that there is a clear decline in the beat population is also another reason for canceling.
I hope the NPS fixes this, or changes the way the bear are accessed.

"Roughing-it" doesn't have to be rough. It's mostly about your mindset and your expectations.

All of the most memorable backcountry experiences I've had were not when everything went smoothly, but rather were when there was some excitement that let us discover, gently, that we could be happy and feel even more alive in the face of some adversity.

A few years ago on one of the mailing lists for the long-distance hikers (I think it was the PCT list) they had a $300 challenge. The idea was to come up with a complete backpacking gear kit that someone could use to hike a significant portion of the trail, keeping their total gear weight under about 10 pounds, and be prepared for 3-season conditions, for under $300. While many of the highest-performance proposals included home-made gear, quite a few people were able to propose kits that were totally off the and met the requirements.

Perhaps NPT should have a similar contest for car-camping gear?
----------
The WildeBeat "The audio journal about getting into the wilderness"
Listen to the programs or subscribe to the podcast at...
www.wildebeat.net

Good or bad? How 'bout something in between?

In parks where deer, elk, and other critters have--due to lack of predation--out grown the ecosystem's carrying capacity, traditional hunting should be allowed. By traditional I mean hunting with primitive weapons like atlatls, spears, and bows, but not of the synthetic, compound variety. This should be done by experts, Native or otherwise, and not Joe-redneck-Schmoe. We could glean valuable data about how the Ancients lived, too. Any meat from such hunts could be donated to homeless shelters and non-profits that help the needy.

I am an avid mountain biker and sometimes racer. I am also an avid hiker and life-long advocate for the NPS and wilderness. I have hiked and ridden many Big Bend NP and region trails, and appreciate the arguments on both sides. Final disclosure: last year we wrote in support of the BBNP mountain bike trail proposal.

I will also admit that I do not know the terrane for the proposed trail around Lone Mountain. Having a trail head near Panther Junction would make management easier, but that should not be the only consideration. Both the trail design and the substrate need to take sustainability into account, especially as this trail will be a test case not just for BBNP but for all NPS units. And like some posters have suggested, this trail needs to emphasize the access to scenery and setting, rather than a thrill ride experience. But like good hiking trails, dealing with the natural terrane is part of the enjoyment, so a flat featureless bike trail would be a let down.

Now for some general discussion. Bikes have impact on trails, sometimes severe under poor conditions and with poor trail design. But so do feet, human and animal. At worst, it is a matter of degree and time. Just because hikers may take 10 years to wear a trail to the same state that bikers might reach in 3, does that make hikers more noble? If you really want to preserve the environment, then you have to outlaw all access--even hikers. As for existing access, as some above have written, bikes can legally ride the dirt roads in BBNP, including the Ore Road. I have ridden the Ore Road more than once, and while enjoyable, it is not the same as a twisting narrow trail. Imagine hiking the Ore Road instead of the existing trails. And anyone who thinks bikes can access 100's of miles of trails outside the park is just plain wrong. Big Bend Ranch State Park has opened some new trails to bikes that add up to about 10 miles, not counting dirt roads. The Lajitas resort allows access to the area around the airport that hosts another 20-30 miles of trail. And that's it.

The story is true for much of Texas and the US, and that's why bikers fight for access. I agree that bikes do not belong eerywhere, but we need to agree that some trails can accommodate both walkers and riders. By the way, I have seen far more bikers than hiker working to maintain trails, both in raising funds and in hands-on labor.

1) The Cape shouldn't be stocking the park with non-native species.
2) The National Park Service should be in the business of species preservation, not destruction.
3) I don't have any problem with people hunting animals that are not endangered or not at the top of the food chain, but not in a National Park.

Awwww Shucks.. you take all the fun out of it Kurt.

But your right. Neither side will probably ever agree so it is pointless to try and impose our own personal veiws on others.

Agree to disagree and we move on..

Thanks

OK folks, in light of the most recent series of give and take, this is where the moderator reluctantly steps in. I'm afraid this thread has deteriorated into a he-said, he-said monologue with some personal attacks tossed in.

While we certainly appreciate the spirited debate that's gone on the past three weeks, the most recent comments seem to have gone beyond constructive dialogue. While we don't want to completely shut off this discussion, we do ask that you get back on track with substance rather than attacks.

Comments that are little more than personal attacks will either be edited or deleted.

The editors.