Recent comments

Ohhhhhhh, Bart! Oh, Oh, we can't wait! *dripping with sarcasm*
Do you have an inflated sense of self-importance (aka Michael Moore), perhaps?

I commented earlier specifically to an anonymous supporter of this so-called "hunt."
I was very upset by his/her careless attitude.
He/She seemed almost proud of what was happening and it sickened me.
I still can't figure out if he/she is so for this slaughter, and feels that happy about it,, why wouldn't they gladly put their name up there for all of us to see?
I visit Alaska for the month of June every year.
This June,I spent a week in Katmai, and a week at Lake Clark.
ALL for bear viewing only.
I can't understand how the state would allow myself and thousands of others to do these types of trips,
and then let others come in later, to kill these SAME bears!
These particular bears don't know how to fear us because for months they basically find us non-threatening,
only the shutter of a camera lens is what they seem to be curious and anxious of.
Sometimes on this trip I did get a little aggrevated because our guides seemed to bring us in too close for that perfect picture, the "perfect shot."
I brought no fancy camera, I just wanted to be amongst them.
It was a lifechanging trip for me.
But to think these same bears that didn't know the difference between harmless me,
or a harmfull, life ending bullet, were killed, just ruins me.
We need a middle ground here.
If Alaska is going to continue bear viewing, profit, and basically habituate these bears, then they shouldn't turn around and allow this slaughter of the SAME bears, after all the tourists have left for the summer.
We can't have this both ways.
I love my Alaska trips,, but if this continues,I will no longer visit or spend any of my hard earned money, to make a bear tolerant by my summer presence,, only later to be slaughtered.
Because, in a way, then I am somehow responcible.
And I couldn't handle that.
Either view them or kill them,,you can't do both. It is TOO CRUEL!
I stand for the bears. They deserve a fair chance.
PLEASE give them that.
I'm absolutely sure Alaska's bears are worth more alive then they are dead.
It's 2007, please wake up America.
Once Alaska is done letting all the bears and wolves be killed,, who's gonna travel there?
Oh yeah,, rich fishermen.

Beamis- I have worked both seasonally for TNC and NPS and frankly, I don't see eye to eye with you on TNC's ability to effectively manage a large and/or small but heavily used unit of the NPS system. They aren't an organization that manages for recreation, they manage as a private property owner that gets TONS AND TONS of donations (READ: CORPORATE MARKETING BY ASSOCIATION! DONATIONS AS TAX BREAKS!) from major sponsors and grants from.... from... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT along with state and county entities as well. In my experience, regarding access to their lands, it wasn't the public that got to see some prairie chickens on a lek, it was rich donors. So while I love TNC, I don't see them as a replacement. Also, specific anomaly examples aside, they don't manage for people using the wilderness/resource... they don't need to clean toilets, staff info centers, etc. on the scale that NPS does. Do you KNOW how hard that is to get privately funded? Additionally, given TNC's focus on nonpolitical approaches to operations, I doubt they could handle the middle position that the the NPS must take, or attempts, I should say. Politics are reality and I have yet to see any suggestion that would replace the "broken" NPS. Please don't take this as TNC bashing, but come on, they and/or a similar model can't replace the NPS.

Kurt, following this line of discussion, it'd be interesting for the hard working staff of NPT to investigate how the park in New Mexico, Valles Caldera or something, is faring under a non traditional, non-federal land management agency approach.

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?