Recent comments

JLongstreet, Thanks for sharing your critique and sense of the situation. While I do believe that anyone part of a bureaucratic hierarchy will ultimately prop it up, even where they have no decision-making power, simply by participating in it, I also recognize the point you are trying to make about the specifics of the NPS user fee issue and why the source is in policy coming from my fair city. If you gave the residents of this city a chance, we'd drive most of them out of here! (*laugh*) But, I guess that's why, say in terms of the colonialism that affects DC, that we can't. We live here, suffer under the burden of the federal government (they say we have Home Rule, but that's only very partially true), and yet have no say in what the federal government does to us. That decision belongs only to the Congress. Yet, though they are local to us, though we are local, we cannot seem to do anything about it (short of the one House vote shenanigans that are currently playing out, and that is highly unlikely to happen). The reason we cannot (and this goes far beyond a vote, anyhow) is because the congressional bureaucracy is insulated and expands across the entire country scattered across 435 congressional districts and 50 states. People who have no stake in us (just as they didn't in Iraq) don't care and do nothing for us, having their own local concerns, their own sense of being powerless, especially when they are just one voice in a system scattered in so many directions. So, I agree with you about the problem of user fees, the sense that the problem is elsewhere, the sense that people (even people of some power as yourself) cannot really do anything about it (just as our mayor can't wrest us from federal control and ends up enforcing federal demands on the city). User fees are localized problems with a national genesis; one person's issue isn't going to work in someone else's context. I also agree that people need to see the problem outside the local. What I have trouble with, though, is the sense that we can do much about it simply by appealing and organizing at a national level. That doesn't speak to what you are saying but to what others are saying or what I commonly read all over the internet. While local organizing on local issues is not enough, since people at that level must recognize the larger implications, the global connections, and the inter-relatedness of issues, it still has to be where it starts, no matter our job, no matter where we are in life. Perhaps, your way of helping is to throw out your insight into the cause of the user fee situation on public lands for organizers to use. All I'm suggesting is that people serious about activism on this issue need to meet in their towns, about this issue, and about the larger implications of it (single issue advocacy like advocacy of the DC vote won't get you anywhere unless you have big dollars). And, so, I hope that instead of working with Congress to change the bureaucratic mentality, that individuals will organize educational events in their home towns, connect this national issue with the plight of other people suffering under different kinds of user fees in their localities, connect that at a higher level to what is being done in other parts of the world, especially the Global South, and see the value at stake isn't that it costs you more to vacation, but that the ideas behind this actually cause real suffering in other circumstances. That could lead to demonstrating at the gates of your park, and a new challenge to you - hopefully a welcome challenge. Anyhow, it may sound almost dreamy, but people like me do this sort of organizing on other sorts of issues all the time. It's interesting that so few participate in that kind of organizing, and yet I hope it can be inspiring.

Speak Out! is a more general approach to voicing your concerns about the national park system. The people I've listed are committee chairs with direct oversight of the NPS. As such, they are the movers and shakers we should be reaching out to in general, while the Comment Now! fixture is to comment on specific park proposals.

Please protect the natural landscape - no ruts from ORV's! I support Preliminary Alternative F.

Kurt, my wife and I visited the Big Cypress VC in 2001 and sat through a showing of the preserve's intro film, which featured several minutes of swamp buggy footage. At the time, I was outraged but realized later that perhaps the Big Cypress managers were simply trying to tip off visitors to the damage caused by these ORVs without being overt about it. I still like to think that this was the case.

Unfortunately, JLongstreet, we as individuals are local and not national, and so the beginning of any response must be organized locally (even if we acknowledge that it is national - heck, I'd argue it's bigger than that - I don't believe that user fees are really the issue of concern so much as what they themselves represent; to me this is in fact a global issue, a pattern seen in countries all over the world where user fees almost always equate to more privatization). As people who live locally, not nationally or globally, we have to take responsibility, especially those of us who have not managed to hamstring ourselves into impotence. And, if a park superintendent is impotent to deal with government; I wonder again what hope there is for those of us who think we can equate activism by trying to exert a tiny bit of influence on one member of Congress. "Think global; act local" is kind of a cliche, but like it or not, that is the physics of our influence. Ultimately, the superintendents who are hamstrung will have to decide if dealing with local rabble rousers they sympathize with but cannot support at the expense of their own jobs is worth it as a career choice. Perhaps, that sounds harsh; it probably is. But, I have trouble seeing how it can be any other way.

Lisa Graumlich was, earlier in the week, the opening keynote speaker at the George Wright Society conference in St. Paul, attended by about 900 people, most of whom are national park resource managers, superintendents, rangers, or those deeply interested int eh parks, including academic and other agency researchers. She was eloquent and compelling on the topic of the impact of climate change on the national parks. The GWS is a terrific non-profit organization that does not call attention to itself but it deserves recognition. No other organization does as much for park resource management and protection; the conferences are the most intellectually stimulating meetings I ever attend.

I've written this before but I'll say it again. Good park managers have been caught between a rock (legislation) and a hard place (underfunded park operations) and have been all but forced by Washington to toe the line on entrance fees and to be creative with user fees. This isn't mindless adherence at the park level to dumb rules but a minefield that most superintendents are doing their best to navigate. Blame Congress and complain to Washington but please recognize that the problem is national, not local. JLongstreet a National Park superintendent

Jim, I don't think we are actually that far apart. While I encourage folks to contact their reps (I acknowledge DC gets hosed in that regard) it is equally important to mobilize their family, friends, neighbors, etc. There is definately strength in numbers and I believe you are correct in the overall effort requiring organization. I guess I'm taking a more issue by issue or even situation by situation perspective rather than trying to get rid of FLREA or stop the war or anything like that. Those are going to take a lot of work. Also, I'm sure there are a lot of reps who don't care about these issues and are going to follow the money (okay, probably most of them). You could have called Richard Pombo everyday to say how much you love the ESA but that wouldn't change him from trying to gut it. I guess I've been pretty fortunate to have some decent elected officials. I used to live in California and while I disagree with most of what Boxer and Feinstein stand for, they keep introducing the CA Wild Heritage Act (Boxer does) while Sen Feinstein and Rep. Schiff keep trying to expand the Santa Monica Mtns NRA to include most of the land surrounding the LA Basin (good luck with getting the USFS to yield to NPS on that one). There are officials out there who care about these issues and those are the people I suggest folks contact. If you live in Idaho and call the governor to tell him how much you love wolves, why yes, you are wasting your time as well as his. I've seen a particular rec site slated to be closed (or "decommissioned", as the USFS would call it) that was kept open because a member of the public called their congressperson to complain about it. They spoke to an aide who blew them off, one day that aide casually mentioned the call to another aide and the congressman overheard it and asked what they were talking about. Turns out that this Congressman's wife's parents met at that site, and miraculously it was removed from the closure list (the congressperson was a social friend of mine so I believe the story). Yes, this is an extreme example - very extreme - but it all started from one phone call to complain, and you never know when you might be lucky enough to make that call.

I live in the District of Columbia; we don't have anyone except an elected delegate to the House, who doesn't have a vote. The city has sold out on a Democratic plan to give the district one vote and Utah one more vote, but that's not likely to get anywhere (and isn't even constitutional). It did pass the House, but that's really not the point. For those of us who live in DC, which some call the last colony (which is stupid because there are a lot of other colonies like this), we become especially bitter about issues related to democracy and representation. We also see how things work firsthand and have a unique perspective on what actually goes on "inside the Beltway." People "outside the Beltway" think things inside of it are strange, but they don't know the extent of it. Anyhow, even if I move out of the District, I still won't trust that that's an effective tactic. Perhaps, it's not a step better than bitching about it because bitching at least doesn't give off the illusion that one is doing something when one is not. It might do something to have a 1,000 people call, but that's not terribly unusual. Those sorts of things have been organized before. "Virtual" marches on Washington, for instance, have been organized against the war. They haven't proven to be effective. I think it's actually better to bitch to your neighbor than your member of Congress. If their power really does depend upon us, then the only way that it can be challenged and influenced is by organizing. For various reasons, I'm not for "lobbying" as a tactic among even organized groups, but at least that actually would be a step in the right direction. Everything takes organization; organizing is most empowering where we can have the most direct influence, which is among our immediate social circles. From there, it can expand. Since most of us here aren't swimming in money, we can't buy those organizations. It takes a great deal of discipline and effort, but it's the best chance we have as individuals to make our voices relevant and to make a difference. I have seen too many people put their hopes in the congressional sinkhole, and when they get what they want, it was usually at the expense of something else that was important. I think what I'm saying is especially pertinent. If these moves by the government are leading to pricing people out, are perhaps helping to move toward privatization, then the best antidote to that is a public and collectivized response (not the private call for various private responses). It's important to build that kind of pressure so that it can't be ignored. Members of Congress supposedly are there to serve; however, they barely have to do that - we think it's some honor when they respond to us. I think it's quite the opposite. They should be honored to speak with us. Of course, it's not possible - they represent too many people. It's as if they represent no one person at all. They rule over public resources, but they have no connection with that public. It's not even their fault; it's a problem in the system itself (it's not physically possible for them to reach us). Yet, if we are to matter, we have to organize in communities that matter. The better we do that; the greater the possibility for profound change. So, maybe bitching isn't so bad so long as we are also listening and caring about what our friends, family, and neighbors are also bitching about. If we care, then we'll act. If we bitch to a member of Congress, we might get a response - but I'm not sure what that means. I suspect even if people wouldn't want to follow me to the extremes that I take it that they still suspect I'm right about our ability to influence government. It's not so much apathy that drives lack of participation in the political process; it's the true powerlessness of it. That's been known for generations, and that will produce aloofness, apathy, and people who live understandably in the pleasures they can derive from their immediate experience.

Kingsley, I've been up Angel's Landing a couple times, once when my youngest son was about 8 or 9, and each time has been incredible. Yes, you have to be careful and clear-headed, but if you are somewhat comfortable with exposures (personally, I hate heights), the trek is not insurmountable. There are places where you can easily call a halt and turn around if things become uncomfortable, and I don't think anyone would think lesser of you.

reading the posts and having seen pics of the hike- should i be terrified- i have lots of experience ridge scrambling in uk- devils ridge, crib goch, anoch eagach etc- i get married in sept and we set ourselves the challenge of angels landing but now i'm not sure- it looks awesome-maybe too awesome?