Home ›

Recent comments

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Okay I will distill my

    Okay I will distill my point: the national parks will be better off when they are removed from direct governmental control. The Deprtment of Interior is not the best container for the administration and management of these areas, nor should tainted politicians vying for "park barrel" plums in their home districts be choosing and approving new parks commerating Eugene O'Neill and Women's Rights. There should be a new era of stewardship that does not include the federal government.

    I am clear?

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Frank, Hopefully, my

    Frank,

    Hopefully, my discussion wasn't about labels. My argument was that free enterprise actually does produce coercive realities, that there are a lot of people coerced into new realities by the free trade of others, that we are all connected by the acts of each other.

    I agree with Beamis about the evils of government, would probably even go much further than Beamis on the ineptitude and evils of government. What I don't agree with is that private enterprise is actually an alternative. He derides this as "clear as mud." Well, I kind of like that, but I would argue to the bitter end that I am being coherent; my premise has been that the presumed rights of governments and the presumed rights of private property are actually based in the same fallacies. If we will allow ourselves to consider the force of that argument, a new world opens up to us - one that's muddy, one where we still suffer, where we still die, where people still hurt each other, but one that's better than these hopelessly abstract notions of things that don't exist.

    I don't want to see McDonald's subsidized to market chicken nuggets in Latin America or in Yellowstone National Park; I also don't want to see the Park Police arrest homeless people in DC's city parks. I also don't want to see tenants forced out in the streets because someone decided to convert their home into a shopping mall. At the very least, we can work for a society where our voices and participation can happen, and where free associations really do exist. That those free associations have been equated with market capitalism is one of the most amazing sleights of hand that has ever happened. Somehow, the quasi-governmental corporations have been embraced as actual alternatives to government.

    Okay, that's enough from me for a couple days.

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

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    The argue shouldn't be about

    The argue shouldn't be about libertarianism vs. socialism or conservative vs. liberal. These cliched lables have become utterly meaningless. The fact is that government is not responsive to its citizens, as so many things recently continue to demonstrate. It's unresponsive to its citizens because of interest groups that impose a government monopoly. Competition is good; it's how we all evolved and got to this point. Competition in the government will allow us to shrink the bureaucracy and allow government to solve real problems again. The core issue is the question: "What should government's role be?"

    I think the government shouldn't give McDonalds half a billion dollars to market chicken nuggets in Latin America. I don't think the government should invade another country. I think the government should provide for the safety and security of its people. This means managing defense, health care, utilities, transportation, infrastructure and encouraging innovation. When government is given less to do, it performs at a higher level. Government should be flexible and responsive to its people.

    Those are the issues as I see them.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    I've been going through a

    I've been going through a rough personal spell, but as I sit in my brother's home waiting to go to a funeral home, I can't help mentioning that this is turning into a re-run of a past conversation, one where I don't see where the force of my criticisms against libertarianism were actually answered. So, for those going down the lines of the so called free enterprise that gives us the wonders of automobiles, digital cameras, washing machines, and a number of other things that the privileged now consume and have identified as freedom and progress (let's throw in skewering laptops as well - for us who have them), look at this thread http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2007/07/you-want-how-much-campsite .

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

  • Protecting Grand Teton from Drilling Projects   5 years 42 weeks ago
    This country knows not the

    This country knows not the definition of "exhausted resources", but can well define "easy profits at the expense of the environment". Once the remote Alaska refuge was opened to "prospecting", out of sight and mostly out of mind of the would-be torrent of public scrutiny and outrage, did anyone believe, even for a fleeting moment, that the environment of lower 48 would remain exempt from corporate (government) defilement? Please tell me the American people weren't ignorant enough to fall for that one!

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    "Pvt enterprise seems only

    "Pvt enterprise seems only to be good at making huge salaries for the CEO's. There certainly isn't much evidence that they are in it for the public good." This type of thinking is the real problem. The idea that self-interested action is a bad thing is drilled into the skulls of children everyday in the government run schools. The fact that the government achieves its results through coercion is not something that gets much air time or critical thought by the powers that be for a good reason. It is the underpinning of their ill gotten power.

    Is Mr. Allen saying that he doesn't get anything "good" out of his automobile, digital camera, washing machine, home computer or the clean underwear he's now wearing? When he uses these things does he only visualize the greedy CEO who is making a profit from his voluntary purchase of these products? Does he really think that private enterprise does the not benefit the public good?

    The government, on the other hand, acheives all of its results through coercion. If I don't like bloody tyrannical war, the lazy bums at the post office, the billions ladled out to sugar and tobacco farmers or the idea of a Eugene O'Neill national park well too bad. Pay up or go to jail. That is the government paradigm. There is nothing volutary or free will about what they do.

    The beauty of free enterprise is that I DON'T have to buy a Toyota, shop at Wal-Mart, use an Apple computer or answer the door when the Avon lady comes knocking. IT IS ALL VOLUNTARY! I can pick and choose as my wants and desires dictate. I can use my principles and morality when I decide what to purchase in the free market. With the IRS I have one choice, "pay me now slave or suffer the consequences." That's a wide gap in legitimacy Mr. Allen.

    "The honest among us realize that the resort to coercion is a tacit confession of imbecility. If he who employs force against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would."

    -------Carl Watner

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    You're right; between the

    You're right; between the 1950s and 1990s the ratio of citizens who said government wastes "a lot" of their tax money rose from under 50% to 75%; Washington's "golden age", stretching from the New Deal to the lunar landing, is over. Citizens began asking the government to do a million things through a million programs which were defended by countless constituencies, all when Washington's ability to adapt had been diminished by so many interest groups. Government now lacks the adaptability to solve problems, and its citizens (most of whom belong to interest groups and benefit greatly from a transfer economy) are pissed off.

    Parks can still be owned by the public (public trusts), but managed by either state, local, or non-government organization (none of which are exactly the same as "private enterprise").

    But to answer your question:

    1. First, 391 is too high a number. Look at the parks in the San Francisco Bay Area. Who the heck was Eugene O'Neill, and why is there a park for him? Oh, guess he was a play write of some sort, although I've never heard of him, nor had my lit degree holding fiance (national significance?). And Port Chicago Naval Magazine? And the 500-acre Muir Woods? Surely, these could be managed by California State Parks or a trust. Congressional representatives pushed for most of these to please their constituencies to get re-elected.

    But, no, you don't need a huge bureaucracy, just a legal charter (I'm not sure the legal charter even needs be the same for each national park--think how varied state constitutions are) and some type of oversight (preferably locally--maybe non-governmental "watchdog" groups). And why should all parks abide by the same policies? No boats on Crater Lake doesn't mean no boats on any bodies of water in national parks. And no dogs on trails in natural parks should not automatically mean no dogs in Washington DC parks. For an example, read the news story, "Wake up, National Park Service!" ( http://thehill.com/hillscape/wake-up-national-park-service-2007-05-30.html ) which states in part:

    Most of the parks where people take their mutts, particularly on Capitol Hill, are federal property. And the National Park Service has a broad "no dog parks" policy — highly sensible for preserving the integrity of a national treasure like Yellowstone. But how much majesty is at stake when we're talking about little old Stanton Park?

    "They [the NPS] need to be more responsive to the constituents of the urban area in which they’re located," an advisory neighborhood commissioner said.

    The NPS and the Feds are too calcified in red tape to be responsive. Decentrilization provides the flexibility to adapt to local conditions and needs.

    So, I think IF there were to be a "cohesive system", it should be very basic, something along the lines of the Organic Act--updated for the 21st century--but without establishing a national, political bureaucracy.

    2. After the passage of the Air Cargo Deregulation Act of 1977 and the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, airfares fell by more than 20%, the number of passengers doubled, and air accident rates fell by almost half (with more non-stop service). The railroad deregulation of 1980 saved shippers $5 billion a year, with lower accident rates. Charter and private schools typically outperform public schools, and they typically do it with less money. Again, the authors of "Reinventing Government" cite studies that claim on average "public service delivery is 35 to 95 percent more expensive than contracting, even when the cost of administering the contracts is included."

    I'm reminded of the Schonchin Butte rehabilitation where maintenance workers worked for an hour, then declared break time, which lasted 30 or more minutes and consisted of smoking, coffee drinking, swearing, and repeating the phrase "good enough for government work!" When you consider the NPS maintenance backlog, how much of that figure is inflated due to inefficiency? What if contractors were allowed to bid on the work? How much could parks save by introducing competition?

    Food for thought. I don't have all the answers. Just some ideas.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Continuing the

    Continuing the thread...

    The discontent in this country is humongous. Never before in my 75 years have I witnessed anger, disgust, and disdain for just about everything. What Frank and Beamis are suggesting is on the minds of many of the taxpayers: "the answer is Private Enterprise". Judging from the talking heads in the media and their many polls, the public is disenchanted with the President (me too), the legislature, the justice system, health care, education system, national security...... hell, you name it and the US citizens hate it. Not without cause, that's for sure.

    Two questions:

    1. If NGO's ran 391 parks, wouldn't they have to have a bureaucracy to insure all park areas abide by the same policies and keep the individual parks within a cohesive system?

    2. What evidence shows that privatizing any part of government operations makes it better. Pvt enterprise seems only to be good at making huge salaries for the CEO's. There certainly isn't much evidence that they are in it for the public good.

    Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong, as Dennis Miller likes to say!

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Frank you're becoming quite

    Frank you're becoming quite the spokesperson for libertarian thought and the local control of natural areas. If Ron Paul is elected President I will suggest that he make you the new NPS Director with the specific task of de-commissioning the parks from federal to local administration. There are many fine foundations and trusts out there that could begin the task of park administration immediately and I know that many more would spring up to lovingly care for many more areas.

    Having had a ten-year career in the NPS I agree that the problems are deeply rooted and systemic and definitely transcend the mere presence of a so-called "friendly" administration in the White House or a particular majority in Congress. I saw the same blatant incompetence and self-advancing careerism during both Democrat and Republican administrations. The parks were always trotted out at election time to be touted or clucked over, depending on the crowd or contributor base, and then kicked around the political football field with wild abandon. After all was said and done the same lame brains were still in charge at park HQ after Inauguration Day regardless of who marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to polish a chair with his butt in the Oval Office.

    As for Art's question: "Where would the managers, maintenance specialists, cultural and resource managers, architects, landscape architects, planners, Law Enforcement, Interpreters, administrators that are working in the parks come from?" I would answer from the private sector. There are many talented people out there in this big wide world of ours that can do all of the things mentioned above and probably, in most cases, much more efficiently than is being done at present. With no federal work rules personnel can be hired and fired as managers see fit.

    At the present time in our history government monopolies are fast losing favor with the public due to poor service, rising fees and a perception of arrogance due to a lack of market accountability. I don't think the majority of Americans would be sad to see the current park system replaced with something new and better. As much as the NPS brass would disagree most visitors come to see the wonders of the Grand Canyon or Yosemite and not the people dressed in WW I era uniforms skinning them for $25 to experience outdated and run down infrastructure. The old days of Soviet style park management is quickly drawing to a close and a new era of free market local will soon be dawning. Mark my words. The current regime is BROKE! They will have no choice.

  • Blue Angels Fly By Grand Tetons   5 years 42 weeks ago
    | "...consider that the

    | "...consider that the Navy's budget (not including the Marines) for the Blue Angels (about $20 million a year) and the cost of the planes themselves ($22 million EACH) are used for "recruitment" purposes. That money could fund several Yosemites and Grand Canyons."

    *******

    Have you stopped to consider that without our military, we wouldn't have any Yosemites or Grand Canyons to enjoy? What is your freedom worth? How much do you think it should cost? At any rate, national parks like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon have become so commercialized that I doubt one could walk more than a mile in solitude without bumping into someone else along the trail.
    When you take hikes in the wilderness, you like to take pictures saying "I was here"... why shouldn't the military have the same right? Last time I checked, the people serving in the military are citizens too.

    Don't tell me that there are people out there that DON'T bend the law every once in awhile to suit their needs or purpose. For example... late for an appointment, speeding, stopped by a law enforcement officer... "but officer! "... : )

    Don't tell me that's different... the LAW is the LAW.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Art, I just re-read an

    Art,

    I just re-read an article by John A. Baden, Ph.D. who wrote "National Parks' Future Lies in Trusts".
    You can read the full article here: http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=479

    Baden argues that "A public treasure does not inherently require governmental management" and gives specific details on how we can eliminate government (mis)management.

    Endowment boards, like those running museums, hospitals, and private schools, would operate under a legal charter to steward individual parks. After receiving a one-time Congressional endowment, each park’s individual trust would be "on its own." The board, established by local environmental groups, business leaders, and citizens, would promote ecologically sensitive economic activities as part of their trustee responsibility.

    Creative mechanisms such as a "Friends of Old Faithful" program could entice membership, dues, and democratic feedback from park lovers everywhere. Park trusts would free our parks from their precarious dependency on national politics, encourage long-term planning, and reintroduce accountability in management.

    Perhaps Hoffman’s [DOI deputy assistant secretary] recent assault is an aberration we can ignore. More likely, the dangers to our parks will become more obvious as the threat of commercialization looms larger. Should this occur, those who care most deeply will look for alternatives to political management. Think trusts.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Art, First, I wouldn't

    Art,
    First, I wouldn't compare apples and oranges.

    Secondly, cooperative associations are NGOs, and they have a good track record in national parks.

    I think every park should be managed locally, not by the Soviet-style bureaucracy that the NPS has become. I think local NGOs, currently formed or yet to be created, could do a better job of managing local resources and responding quickly to changing needs than the bureaucrats thousands of miles away in the petrified government who have never even been to places like Crater Lake. Speaking of Crater Lake, I think the non-profit Crater Lake Institute could do a far better job than the current sinecurists entrenched in the park.

    Labor would come where labor comes from: the free market. Without federal red tape, local parks will be able to hire fairly according to the need of the individual park.

    When the adminstration (sic) changes over and new politically appointed leadership makes its way to the NPS, USFS, BLM, etc. is when things (hopefully) may change.

    Wishful thinking, Matt. The problem is systematic and not party-specific. Politicians, of any leaning, are beholden to the transfer-seeking parasitic economy. No reform will occur as long as every federal program is an entitlement, or at least behaves like it is. By removing parks management from the federal government, we can prevent or reduce interest groups' influence. By decentralizing park management, it becomes much more difficult and expensive for interest groups to operate (imagine the difficulty lobbies would face if they tried to get subsidies in each of the 50 states rather than from just DC).

    ---

    Consider physicist Freeman Dyson, who urged us to:

    "never sacrifice economies of speed to achieve economies of scale. . . . Judging by the experience of the last 50 years, it seems that major changes come roughly once in a decade. In this situation it makes an enormous difference whether we are able to react to change in three years or twelve. An industry which is able to react in three years will find the game stimulating and enjoyable, and the people who do the work will experience the pleasant sensation of being able to cope. An industry which takes twelve years to react will be perpetually too late, and the people running the industry will experience sensations of paralysis and demoralization (emphasis added).

    That last line seem familiar? It describes the latest survey on NPS job satisfaction, which if I remember correctly, was below that of prison workers.

    Finally, for those who take offense at the suggestion breaking up the NPS monopoly on park management, I quote David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, authors of "Reinventing Government":

    "It is one of the enduring paradoxes of American ideology that we attack private monopolies so fervently but embrace public monopolies so warmly."

  • Protecting Grand Teton from Drilling Projects   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Snowbird06 But, James who

    Snowbird06
    But, James who determines if these reserves, or resources are exhausted? I certainly hope not the Bush & Cheney administration! I see rape and pillage if this did occur!!

  • Protecting Grand Teton from Drilling Projects   5 years 42 weeks ago
    These reserves should held

    These reserves should held in reserve only to be used when or if other resourses have beed exhusted.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    The NPS (like all other

    The NPS (like all other federal agencies and bureaus) takes its marching orders from the top. The precedent is being set by the administration, not the NPS. They are simply doing as they are told - the same thing everyone else here would do if they were in that position. When the adminstration changes over and new politically appointed leadership makes its way to the NPS, USFS, BLM, etc. is when things (hopefully) may change.

    The NPS has it a lot better than the USFS, though - at least the Park Service doesn't have to answer to Mark Rey!

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    I have read several

    I have read several references to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) with the idea that somehow they could do better than the National Park Service. Do you compare their possible success with the abundance of NGO's operating in Iraq?

    OK, let's get specific.... Who are these NGO's that could move into the parks and do it better? Do you have an organization/ company in mind? Where would the managers, maintenance specialists, cultural and resource managers, architects, landscape architects, planners, Law Enforcement, Interpreters, administrators that are working in the parks come from?

    IMHO, the problems we all bemoan usually derive from folks without adequate background in the natural sciences or history or training in resources management. The NPS has been recruiting people from career fields far removed from park operations, and this lack of understanding is beginning to show up.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    There are parks, that put an

    There are parks, that put an application form for special events on their website.

    Redwood NP -> Plan Your Visit -> Fees & Reservations:

    http://www.nps.gov/redw/planyourvisit/upload/wedding%20permit%2006.pdf
    (contrary to the file name this is not only about weddings but also athletic and other events)

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Frank, you could not have

    Frank, you could not have stated the case any better. The sooner the parks are administered by non-governmental entities the better. I'll also answer your question: it's the parks that we love, not the dysfunctional self-perpetuating bureaucracy that pretends to be in charge of them. The days of the green and gray should be fast be coming to an end because there's a brighter vision for these lands just over the horizon. I have every reason to feel great optimism that a completely new era of management and stewardship will emerge from the old and outdated methods of top down incompetence emanating from Washington, DC.

    I await the coming evolution of the national parks with great anticipation.

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    That Park Service officials,

    That Park Service officials, who work for the American people, refuse to disclose what should be public information is not shocking. It's symptomatic of the larger problem of the calcification of government under the pressure of transfer-seeking interest groups who permeate government. During the last decade, the NPS has been lobbied by 30-50 interest groups per year representing a plethora of interests waving the banner of altruism while they, like all of us, look to secure their individual interests. There's an association of museums, mountain bike and ATV groups, "hospitality" groups, and even hiking groups (who lobbied for and got a million dollars for an outhouse in Glacier's backcountry in the late 80s).

    To cut political interest, it is necessary to depoliticize national parks, and to do that, we need to overhaul or disband the NPS bureaucracy. The Organic Act, written almost 100 years ago, is anachronistic and was heavily altered by interest groups of the time (such as railroads, hotel owners, and the National Park Transportation Association, a government-sanctioned monopoly that promised no visitors to Yellowstone would be "subjected to the hazard and inconvenience of walking ... through the park"). Special interests shaped the Organic Act by forcing rhetorical changes from the word "preserve" to "conserve" and by redefining "unimpaired".

    We need a new charter for the management of our national parks, a charter that shuns interests groups and mandates preservation and scientific management of our national parks. Parks should remain public trusts but should be administered by non-government organizations.

    I understand this idea will upset many, especially those who have a financial interest in perpetuating the status quo. However, people should ask themselves what it really is that they love: national parks or the national park service?

  • Setting Precedents in the Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Kurt: Excellent article. I

    Kurt:

    Excellent article. I can think of one other major example of just what you are talking about.

    Rocky Mountain NP and Theodore Roosevelt NP both have an overpopulations of elk. Both are trying to survive public comment on how best to cutback on the overpopulation which is damaging the park.

    Around 40-50 years ago there was a huge controversy on who had the "right" to conduct wildlife management activities in National Park Areas. After a decade of fights with various state wildlife agencies, individuals, and numerous studies it was generally accepted that the NPS could and should control their wildlife populations.

    Recently we had the decision come under question when a NPS Regional Official suggested "the NPS will consider public hunting as a means to control wildlife". Immediately the media picked up on that statement and all hell broke loose. Now we have both Colorado and North Dakota legislators involved with trying to allow public hunting.

    Yes it is very true - Unlike Las Vegas, What happens in One Park doesn't stay there! It affects all the parks.

  • RS2477 And the National Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Amen indeed. As the owner

    Amen indeed.

    As the owner of a lightly modified Jeep who loves to explore established trails, the thought of seeing or hearing dirt bikes or any other kind of motorized vehicle roaring along any part of the Under-The-Rim trail in Bryce or anywhere inside Zion canyon makes me ill. I've never been to Surprise Canyon in Death Valley NP, but judging from the photo, I would love to visit, on foot and in silence.

    I know there are some off-highway vehicle enthusiasts who have little conscience or concern for the damage they cause or the trash they leave behind--essentially no concept of what "Tread Lightly" means. I have met many more, however, who do, and who feel as I do that we are guests in the backcountry and that the existing trails are kind of like a neighbor's driveway, to use a simple, kind of corny analogy. I wouldn't drive around a neighbor's yard admiring his house or park in his flower beds. When the trail ends, that's where I park my Jeep and start walking if I feel I need to go further.

  • RS2477 And the National Parks   5 years 42 weeks ago
    There are plenty of places

    There are plenty of places on America's public lands for motorized recreation, so many that there's no need to open up hiking trails in national parks to these vehicles.

    Amen!

  • New Movie for World Ranger Day Today (Jul 31)   5 years 42 weeks ago
    How can we get a copy of the

    How can we get a copy of the movie? Sounds like something to show in a Greens or SPEAK meeting..
    ---
    jr_ranger
    http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com
    http://picasaweb.google.com/north.cascades
    http://zinch.com/jr_ranger
    President, CHS SPEAK (CHS Students Promoting Environmental Action & Knowledge)
    Founder and President, CHS Campus Greens

  • Website Administrative Note about Comment Spam   5 years 42 weeks ago
    My, my such heated debate

    My, my such heated debate over something as simple as be nice and don't attack other people. There is a difference between cantankerousness and rudeness. Maybe we should learn that one.

    ---
    jr_ranger
    http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com
    http://picasaweb.google.com/north.cascades
    http://zinch.com/jr_ranger
    President, CHS SPEAK (CHS Students Promoting Environmental Action & Knowledge)
    Founder and President, CHS Campus Greens

  • Judge Tosses Surprise Canyon Lawsuit   5 years 42 weeks ago
    Get off the bike and hike!

    Get off the bike and hike! Can't we all just move around a little without the help of a motor?! With each generation, we become less healthy in terms of weight. Is it really that horrible to have to use our feet especially in the name of preservation?