Recent comments

Kurt, I have attempted to provide alternatives, and people generally don't respond or create strawmen arguments or distort what I'm proposing. This isn't about privatization of public lands. Public lands should remain public. I agree with the suggestions Beamis has made. I've also pointed out that parks, like art museums, could be run as a trust, although this would be a public trust. I've provided a link, and I'll do so again, outlining how parks could be managed
as public trusts: http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=479

Here's the bulk for those who refuse to click and read:

That's what I'm advocating.

How can something that is wild (self-willed) be managed? Doesn't the management of something make it by definition unwild? Civilized? I think we need to completely rethink the paradigm of wilderness "management". Wilderness ought to be places set aside FOREVER as blank spots on the map, left to nature, without management, without trails, without anything. In a word, wild. (I'm reminded how as an NPS ranger, I was instructed to tell visitors concerned about dying wildlife that the NPS "lets nature take its course". I can cite plenty of examples of how the NPS really does the opposite, but isn't that what it and we SHOULD be doing?) Access? Access would be provided right to the edge of the wilderness and then it's up to wilderness visitors to provide their own access in the form of hiking boots. Education should be provided for those who don't know how to behave in the wilderness. This can be part of the parks' mission carried out by management trusts.

So my slingshot is down. When anticipating your response to the previous posts, I wondered if you'd use the well-worn phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Now I urge a move beyond over-used expressions to encapsulate a complex concept and move toward explicit and accurate language and dicsussion.

Thank you, Kurt, for allowing me to participate in this discussion. My motives come not from bitterness, but from a genuine concern for the protection of our public lands and my perception that the current political system has failed--and continues to fail--to protect them.

My wife and I were planning a trip to Isle Royale, but then she was in a car accident and didn't feel up to carrying a pack for a week. We "settled" for a trip to Yellowstone. One of the most enjoyable parts was a hike up to some petrified tree trunks. It is not on the trail map, but the rangers gave us a photocopy of a hand drawn map. We spent the entire day up in the mountains and did not see a single other person. While the trees themselves were fascinating, the views and the solitude were even better.

Are you suggesting the free market would have banned snowmobiles from Yellowstone? And how would a private owner of a wilderness benefit if they didn't sell access?

Let's not delude ourselves with the "wonders" of the free market. There are many instances of corruption and taking advantage of the public. Remember Enron? Here's a snippet from a story that ran a few years back in the Guardian of London that might be of interest.The author? Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics and Professor of Finance and Economics at Columbia University. I would venture his thoughts are just as true today as they were then.

Think the snowmobile and personal watercraft manufacturers would be so concerned about the special places known today as national parks and seashores that they wouldn't place rental shops within their borders at a moment's notice?

And do you really believe that the struggling state park systems across the country are up to the task of managing national parks? How would they go about funding that endeavor? Boost their state's taxes or build bigger entrance stations with higher entrance fees?

That said, I agree there should be a close look at all those places that constitute the national park system and perhaps some spinning off of units that could fit better someplace else. And much good also could be arrived at by overhauling the civil service system. But gutting the Park Service as you and Frank propose would be akin to tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Frank and I have made solid suggestions in the past but these generally get ignored because it is much easier to castigate us for our "anti" stance on federal governance of the national parks.

Just for the record I will go over a few tangible steps that could be taken to begin to improve things (which, if you review my past comments, I have already stated in this forum).

A good first step would be to have a non-partisan commission convene to examine the current inventory of national park units and determine if all of them are worthy of national park status, much like the military base closing commissions of the late 80's and early 90's. Since many areas have been created by pork barrel politicians it would be wise to take stock and see what fits and what could be transferred, eliminated or sold off. This would save money for the more important and truly unique areas that very few of us would argue belong in the system.

For example, I have suggested before that Canaveral National Seashore would make a wonderful Florida state park. There is nothing special about the beaches there, they certainly aren't even close to the most scenic or pristine in Florida. They are NOT of national significance, but would make a great addition to the Florida system or even a nice regional park. The interior marsh and river sections could be easily transferred to the Fish & Wildlife Service, which already maintains adjacent lands. At least it would be worth studying. See where I'm going with this?

That's just one example of starting a process to streamline the current inventory of parks and begin a prioritizing mechanism to maintain adequate funding for the "crown jewels".

I could easily see Civil War parks being run by private non-profit historical societies, trusts, universities, states & municipalities or a combination of entities. Do we really need park rangers leading cave tours in Carlsbad and Mammoth Cave? I can easily see these places being run by their respective states or non-profit trusts as well. Am I pricking raw nerves yet?

While we're in a questioning mood I'd like to ask why the citizens of greater New York (Gateway), San Francisco (Golden Gate) and Cleveland (Cuyahoga) can't run their own regional parks? Why should taxpayers in Alabama and North Dakota be on the hook to provide them with expensive federal parks that none of them will probably ever use? Should money that is needed in Glacier and Yosemite be funneled to urban parks that are definitely not in the category of "national treasures"? Just a thought for further reflection.

On the subject of the agency itself it vitally needs a good overhaul that would remove it from the same civil service malaise that is par for the course in the rest of the federal government. That, unfortunately, is only a wistful dream as long it remains tethered to the politics and ineptitude of the Department of the Interior. This will remain a central problem in achieving efficient operations and will plague the agency as long as it remains nearly impossible to fire incompetents and to easily hire people outside the cloistered green & gray convent that don't possess the coveted mantle of "permanent" status. Federal government work rules will remain the most compelling reason to privatize.

I've just gotten started but will stop and see if anyone has comments on what I've already said.

Remember most of the things you treasure in your everyday life are produced in the private sector economy of free choice and voluntary transactions. Your car, computer, home, food, leisure products and just about everything else. Why is it so hard for many of you to think that wild and historic lands could not also be cared for and shared with the public without the beneficent hand of Big Brother? Why just this week a harmful decision was made in Yellowstone concerning snowmobiles which vividly showed that federal politics are just as venal and corrupt as the so-called sins of the marketplace. I personally think that private owners of wilderness would be more concerned with preserving their product for future use than a career bureaucrat who retires fat and happy, oblivious to the long term long term consequences of a clearly political decision.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic of the free market but I know that voluntary works better than coerced. There is a lot of good will in the hearts of free people.

Support Ron Paul for President!

Frank, your intellectural wit slays me, but what do you advocate in fixing the NPS system...since you've been there? I can quote from great books (like you) and refute much in what Thoreau had to say about "Civil Disobedience", but that's not my bag...parks and kids are! So again, how do help the next generation to be more knowledgeable about one of our greatest resources called the National Parks? Sorry to pigeonhole you. Oh, you poor man!

"Doubling the number of snowmobiles that have been in the park the last four winters remains inconsistent with noise data, recommendations from wildlife mangers, and concerns from the EPA. The American public should be incredibly discouraged that the National Park Service is failing to make science-based decisions in Yellowstone," No, the American public has come to expect the worst, and thereby rarely are we disappointed, when it comes to environmental policy rendered by the bureaucracy and ignornance that is our federal government and it's related branches. Tell me, is this the same EPA who issued the national Clean Water Act, in response to the infamous ignition of the Cuyahoga River, mandating that all the nation's waterways be swimable (without fear of potentially fatal contact with fecal coliform bacteria and toxic waste discharge from manufacturing plants) and fishable (as in actually being able to eat the fish, not just catch and release) by the year 1985? Their concerns are truly touching. Ineffective, but touching.

"This has to be a sad day for all of the NPS employees who believe in their agency's conservation mandate and who were led to believe that conservation would be paramount in the parks when the NPS Management Policies were finalized in 2006." Ah, but they never did commit publically to specifically what they were conserving, did they? Such as retirement benefits, grade levels, the right to remain silent and slowly pass the buck around in circles so as to defeat the enemy via the ole' red-tape and eventual stagnation maneuver.

And a sad day for ex-NPS employees who once were filled with the corporate mantra involving high ideals and long-term conservation plans, only to see the real world come crashing down around and amidst them.

You would be well rewarded to visit this little piece of heaven Kurt. During my teenage years, while spending much time skiing nearby on the Upper Peninsula, I made frequent side trips to the Apostle Islands and surrounding area, even mistakenly driving my car onto frozen Lake Superior at one point, but that's another story. I had my first encounters with black bears, moose, wolves, wolverines, and badgers in this area, discovering and developing my appreciation of true wildlife from visiting these critters on their home turf. It remains to this day on of the few purely natural environs in the lower 48, mostly due to the fact that winters are absolutely brutally cold and snowy, and it's a LONG drive in through sparsely populated woodlands in the summer with weather conditions that change literally but the mintue. Must have something to do with this small landmass isolated in the middle of a BIG, cold lake. But the rewards SO justify the effort, as is usually the case. You can readily traverse the Isle over the course of just a few days, allowing time to stop and smell the roses along the way. Bring your rain gear, cameras, notebook, binoculars, along with many pair of dry socks and have yourself a great time! But leave the swimsuits home. I saw one fellow jump in the Big Lake, at it's peak summer temperature akin to the Colorado between the dams....well, let's just say his hair was still standing on end 4 days later, and his goosebumps looked like boils. Okay, maybe 4 hours later.

Taking this to my ever ignorant next level, I thought that the protection was accorded to any and all "national" designations, be they park, monument, battlefield, wildlife sanctuary, or whatever. At least in theory, this was the letter of the law (or more properly, the Act) as it was written. But as we all know, and have recently seen, especially out east, these once sacrosanct partitions of land have been subjected to rezoning in the name of the almighty Developer, and deemed too valuable to remain as open-spaces in the midst of our ever growing urban sprawl. This is a small but poignant commentary on the lack of reverence this country places on its' collective history, be it architecture demolished in the name of "urban renewal", poorly chronicled and factually inaccurate written historical documentation, preservation of historical sites of significance or their ilk. But I'm sorry to say Frank that little or nothing in this land comes under the heading of perpetual protection. It remains in it's protected state only until enough graft and profit can be arranged to justify it's demise. Such will be the case with the lands we love. When mining, oil and gas development, and God forbid even grazing, elevate their priority and status in the proper governmental eyes, and proceed to press the proper buttons long and hard enough, in the words of the poet.....

This is how the world ends, this is how the world ends,
This is how the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper

At least as the world pertains to the preservation of the parks, etc. But don't worry.....everything will be put back just as they found it, right?

MS BOMAR! I don't think that ILLINOIS was ever revealed to be home to the Simpson's Springfield. How you could you make such a stunning error? :P

I still am stunned that people (on this site and in general) have such overwhelming faith in the free market, which in all essence doesn't really exist (protectionism, tax breaks, etc.) and even if it did would still not protect natural treasures like National Parks from plundering. While I have no question that it's absolutely the best system around, I'm sorry, it's not perfect.

Also, I agree with Kurt, someone has to reach out to the nation's youth. Even if you think the NPS should follow it's old, calcified strictures mandated far in the past, I disagree. If people don't value the parks, they aren't going to speak up for them and that backlog that everyone thinks the NPS should be concentrating on is only going to get larger. Frank and Beamis, while I always love your input and passion (really!), it seems like you're missing the point. This isn't about the sinecurists holding their jobs and getting promotions to jobs they aren't qualified for, getting unjustified raises and not being held to any performance standards, this is about the parks themselves... this is about the landscapes, not the agency in charge.

Couldn't agree more Frank. I also really like the word sinecurists. I believe I shall add it it to my lexicon. Keep the fire under their chair bound butts burning my friend!

Please, Ms. Bomar, tell me you're not serious in your assertion that Lincoln's home town was Springfield, IL! He was a lawyer there, and twice elected State Representative, and was finally elected to the office of President while residing in Springfield, but by no means was it his home town. Born in Kentucky and raised mostly in Indiana, Springfield and the surrounding communities were indeed his adult home, and where he rose to national prominence. But even though the State of Illinois is proudly nicknamed the Land of Lincoln (just check the license plates), calling Springfield his home town is a bit of a stretch.

Fascinating repore you two have going. Beamis and Kurt that is...

I've spent a good portion of the past 4 years in the parks of Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, Colorado, and New Mexico. The connotation of "privileged rich kids" is straining the truth a wee bit. I've been accompanied by church groups, college groups from various states on summer class excursions, interns at various levels, volunteers, and WAY many kids on summer vacations, both the younger set with the folks and groups of teenagers trying to get away from the parents. Few of these qualified as "spoiled rich kids", although in reality some were indeed cut from that cloth. A small sampling, but there were some. It was my impression, or rather my personal experience, that not only were the "younger generation" missing, but domestics in general were the minority of people with whom I had encounters on the trails far removed from the main parking areas. Maybe the domestic tourists are the ones who tend to hit-and-run, and since my stays are typically a bit protracted, I missed seeing them and their cameras clinging to the overlooks and jumping back in the RV. But it's my impression that if you want the newer generations to become involved in park appreciation, you would be best served concentrating on having their guardians initiate them to the park system, and forget about the reliance on the parks themselves to sponsor concert night, or whatever other bastardization of the landscape would be required to bribe new visitation. It would amount to a colossal waste of time, effort and money that is already sorely lacking. Technological perks, such as pod-casts, electro-rangers, GPS route finders, tour-by-car, and the like would only enable service to a clientele already in attendence, not serve as a "hey let's jump in the car a take the virtual Mesa Verde Tour!" type of incentive to expand or generate interest among the "next generation". At least that's how I see it playing out..............

National park visitation yo-yos up and down for hard-to-pin-down reasons. Just a year ago there were some in Congress so worried over declining visitation that they held hearings into the trends. Of course, those making the most noise were those who make a buck off the parks -- concessionaires, gateway towns, etc.

This year trends seem to be reversing, as we're hearing about increases in places like Yosemite, Yellowstone, Olympic and elsewhere. Still, in recent years there's been a general concern about national park visitation. For instance, in 2003, a report on forecasting visitation to national parks noted that, "Since 1987, NPS visitation has been flat or decreasing."

That said, I'm not terribly worried about the current state of visitation. I love it when I can go to Arches or Canyonlands and have the place to myself. Or when I can head into Yellowstone's backcountry and not see another party.

The problem, though, is that I'm smack dab in the middle of the Baby Boom generation, which many believe is the generation best connected with nature and thus national parks. Here's a snippet I wrote in March 2006 when reviewing Richard Louv's book, Last Child in the Woods:

And then there's Mr. Louv's own research. "This new, symbolic demarcation line suggests that Baby Boomers -- Americans born between 1946 and 1964 -- may constitute the last generation of Americans to share an intimate, familial attachment to the land and water," he writes (on page 19 if you want to look it up).

As urban areas continue to spread, as iPods and iPhones and Wiis continue to dominate the minds of youth, where will the next generation of guardians for nature come from?

At the Leadership Summit I just returned from, the conference was concluded with a panel discussion involving University of Texas students. Sadly, many of those kids don't fully appreciate or understand the national park system. To lure college-age students to the parks they suggested staging concerts in the parks and that there be days when entrance fees to the parks are waived (Gee, isn't that already done?). They also suggested creating iPod tours of the parks (Gee, isn't THAT already being done?).

My concern, Beamis, is not with current visitation trends. My concern is who will be advocates for the parks when my generation is gone? And frankly, I think it's a very valid question, one that is quite legitimate for a director of the National Park Service to ask.