Recent comments

No. Simply defending my writing from your attack. By the way, language evolves. Government should evolve, too, but clearly your conservative leaning (everything should stay the same), exposed by your view toward language, is also reflected in your view toward government.

Hey, not sure if you ever took a logic class, but here's a lesson right out of Philosophy 001:

Arguers also often link the slippery slope fallacy to the straw man fallacy in order to attack the initial position:

1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)

A=Government no longer (mis)manages national parks
B="it [will be] more expensive for everyone as these companies attempt to raise enough cash to pay their exhorbitant [sic] contractor salaries."

The slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A. Otherwise the slippery slope scheme merely serves as a device of sophistry.

Nice spelling by the way.

Hmmm, critiquing my critique -- an appallingly low blow to divert attention away from your argument's weakness... I'm shocked! :-) "Modern standard English practice" can be used to explain away just about any misuse of the English language. Gnome sane? Ah, but I digress. I just thought it was funny, that's all.

Yes, most supporters of the parks don't actually work for NPS. That will always be a true statement, so what's the point? That only the precious few who have been part of the problem are entitled to an opinion? Curious - why is that bailing out of the organization seems a better way to institute change about something you seem to care so much about? I've served this country in the Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard but that doesn't make me a guru on strategy in Iraq or VA hospital services to reserve soldiers or anything else outside of my job while I was in the military. Speaking of which, so long as we're spending a billion a week in places like Iraq (and have simply misplaced or can't account for more money and goods than the past two decades of NPS budget figures combined) methinks your priorities are a tad off... feud for thought...

Sure let's break up the parks into a zillion baby bells, watch many of them fail miserably, and watch the new behemoths grow as greedy bastards everywhere profit from the commercialization of our national treasures. Sounds like a plan.

-- Jon

Most of the supporters of the parks don't actually work for the NPS but are sincere individuals that harbor romantic notions about a "sacred mission" to protect America's "crown jewels". Sort of like the people who sincerely believe that the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country is something that "protects our freedom" and promotes "truth, justice and the American Way."

I'm glad to hear your two cents PT. Frank and I were beginning to get a little hoarse from all of our howling in the wilderness. I hope you stick around and contribute to the dialogue. We need to hear more from people on the inside. Change will never come from the top down in an organization as corrupt and incompetent as the DOI. Believe me, I know what you're talking about from actual experience.

I don't know if PT is really a 15-year veteran of the NPS but I had a 10-year career and agree with his sentiments 100%.

Unfortunately most supporters of continued federal control of the national parks are just like the folks who blindly support the warlords in the military, corrupting agricultural subsidies and welfare dependency of every kind. They cynically believe in their hearts that without the use of force the mostly ignorant mass of common folk would not act in the best interests of humankind or the environment. They seek redress through the iron hand of government to wield the power neccesary to do the things that would not occur through voluntary free choice and cooperation.

If PT is truly who he says he is his words should ring in all of our ears "WE (the NPS) are the biggest threat to most of these national treasures." Sad but VERY tue.

Just FYI, she is an experienced hiker and in great shape.

Jon, your really on a roll tonight. Keep florishing!

Maybe she just wanted to be alone and doesn't want to be "found"...

Kinda interesting -- her name translates to "Prosperous, good attempt"

-- Jon

Again, selective numbers to bolster your argument. I didn't visit EUON last year or the year before. I still find it worthwhile. If I remember correctly, they had recent (meaning the past ten years) earthquake damage to repair yet didn't receive a budget increase to specifically deal with that issue. Why is acreage an important number to bring up as though that's some measure of a place's worth, value, or bang for the buck? Let's see the acreage numbers for Ford's Theatre as a comparison. Acreage is meaningless unless you're just trying to sensationalize to make some sort of point. If you want to go down that road, let's give back all the useless acreage at Yosemite where people don't actually hike. All they do is look at it, why should the feds own that land, eh? How much is a view worth anyway? Heck let's just replace all the National Parks wth Imax theatres... Why should we keep all that land in the national trust just so people can stand there and look at it? Sure sounds like a waste of money and lost business opportunity to me. I'm all for consolidating positions and marrying up nearby parks with a single superintendent and other roles as well. That's a good idea. Those North Carolina outer banks seashores could easily be one big park under a single name (U.S. Grant and Truman in Missouri, Fort Raleigh and Wright Brothers in North Carolina, Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt sites in New York -- the possibilities are endless).

Interior IS experimenting with new arrangements for ownership and upkeep of new park entities (Chesapeake in MD/VA, Pinelands in NJ, Valles Caldera in NM to name a few). Once places like that are evaluated for efficiency, effectiveness, accessibility, and any other criterion you wish to examine, then perhaps it's time to consider changing the formula for existing parks. You don't jump into that sort of thing just because it feels right or props up your political leanings, because once you go down that road it's very difficult to undo.

Your $133 dollar question is a bogus question. The park has no admission fee and the shuttle is also free. Now factor in the same figures for Yosemite or another park with high entrance fees and your extreme example isn't so extreme any more. Again, selective numbers and an incomplete picture to support your argument. And as Eugene O'Neill probably would have pointed out to you if given the opportunity, it's 40 fewer employees, not less.

-- Jon Merryman

Last summer when I was up in Tuolumne, I heard hikers tell about an 85 year old woman doing the High Sierra Camp loop by herself. It's not your age, it's your condition. Some 25 year olds aren't in good enough shape to be at that altitude doing that kind of exertion.

Why Not ? Because they come up Missing !!!

Why was an 80 year old woman way up at Vogelsang High Sierra Camp?

Your anecdotes and numbers are fascinating but don't begin to present the whole picture. The idea that Yosemite entrance fees are funding a war in the Middle East is ridiculous. That war funding will likely be taxed from your great grandchildren who aren't even born yet. And the fat you'd want to trim to make visiting Yosemite cheaper would wipe an existing historic site from the map so you could save a penny or two, if that. EUON is difficult to visit because there's no parking next to the house, and that's as it should be. We don't need to keep adding asphalt so we can get the $133 number down and make it so much more convenient for people to see the place. At EUON you make a reservation, in advance, you park elsewhere in Danville, and get a shuttle up to the house. Controlled visitation -- what a concept. It's what you do sometimes when preservation is a high priority. The park is also closed two days a week, and many parks that found themselves in the position of having to make maintenance the highest priority (thanks to this administration) have been forced to cut back their hours. You don't find the park worthwhile while thousands and thousands of others do.

-- Jon