Recent comments

Wait a sec! I don't the CEOs of Kawasaki, Yamaha, Polaris, Ski-Do, etc. on the guest list. What gives? And how about those guys at Cabela's, the outdoors retailer that can't seem to build a new store these days without first getting a plethora of tax breaks?

Ellis, I guess for me it comes down to the simple aesthetics of national parks, being able to enjoy nature and the natural quiet of the landscape. There are many times when I've come upon moose or bison or elk or deer in the parks while hiking thanks to the quiet nature of hiking. Would that still be the case if trails were opened to mountain bikers, many who head to single tracks for speed and thrills they can't seem to find on dirt roads? Regarding thrills, there are plenty of places to get an adrenalin rush in national parks: Climbing the Grand Teton or Mount Rainier, caving in Mammoth Cave, paddling Yellowstone's lakes, sea kayaking Acadia. Why do we have to introduce mechanical thrills? Beyond that question, how would you propose that mountain bikes be managed in national parks? Would you opt for an even-odd rotation with hikers on existing trails? Perhaps something similar to what they're testing at Big South River? If so, should that also be the rule of the land across Forest Service and BLM trails? How would you keep mountain bikers out of wilderness areas? Would we have to put rangers on bikes to patrol? Would you prefer that a whole new series of mountain-bike only trails be cut throughout the national park system? Where do you draw the line? If mountain bikers can have trail access in the parks, why not snowmobiles? After all, the folks in Yellowstone seem to think snowmobiles are compatible with the park. Why not give them more places to play than simply the Grand Loop? Why not expand personal watercraft use in the parks? Sure, you and I might consider them polluting, obnoxious machines, but some park and seashore officials have allowed them in. I've heard of the studies that mountain bikers cause no more damage to trails than equestrians and hikers. And that may be so. But national parks carry a very different management mandate than national forest and BLM lands, which as I'm sure you know are more focused on multiple-use thrills than parks are. Too, as I noted in the post that started this thread, there are already hundreds, if not thousands, of dirt roads open to mountain bikers in the parks, and many times that many miles of two- and single-track trails in national forests and BLM lands. Why must we introduce more trails in the parks? More than likely we'll never see quite eye-to-eye on this issue. But when you take the existing opportunities into consideration, and the management mandates, I just don't see why there's a need to expand mountain biking throughout the parks.

The NPS can't take care of what it has...why take more land and lock it up for envirowackos & bad-science scientists?????

Well of course the focus should be on conservation. That's why the finished product will emphasize recreation.

Kurt, before we focus on Idaho, let's try to make the National Park Service truly national and get a beach, river, historical site, something, for Delaware.

"Old Faithful" on an automobile could turn out to be false advertising and not a name designed to appeal to men who don't want to be either old or .... Bad jokes, aside...you forgot to list the Toyota Sequoia, the Buick Rainier, and the Ford Ranger.

My husband and I are in our 60s and hardly hippies, commies or any of those other nice terms. We eat beef, and we have cell phones and iPods. But you won't see those devices when we're up in the Rocky Mountains or in the Grand Canyon. And we don't mind some unpaved trails. You want restaurants and concession stands and tons of paving? Go to Disneyworld or Six Flags or whatever. I cannot figure out why so many people think that our national parks need every modern convenience and fixture when the whole point of many of the parks is to go see something like the mountains or the canyons or the geysers. NATURAL!!! Look it up in the dictionary. I don't think it says anything about politics or food preferences.

I guess Mr. Gore (you know, the guy that used to be the next President of the United States?) is one of us "far-left greenies/envirowhackos" that want to leave a better, cleaner world for our children. The "Challenge" is starting to sound an awful like a fancy way to pander to the developers. BTW - how many hundreds of millions of BLM and Forest Service lands are open to OHVs, and just about whatever else you want to do? How many NPS lands are closed? Uh, 90 million

Don't you need utensils to eat gruel or couscous?

...School of the Environment and Earth Sciences... Uh, seems that her little "project" is somewhat tainted and biased...now I wonder what kind of questions she asked, and how did she ask them? I wonder what an ECONOMICS or BUSINESS major would find with the questions THEY could ask?

Your poll is far from scientific in that the majority of your readership is far-left greenies/envirowhackos...so I take it with a grain of salt...or couscous....

"... Why are the tourism/recreation/concession interests being given an additional opportunity to provide their additional ideas and influence the way conclusions will be made?... DUH! MAYBE, Mr. Wade, it's because that is what the AMERICAN PUBLIC as TOURISTS/RECREATIONISTS/USERS OF CONCESSIONS want...not more areas being closed for the far-left greenies/envirowhackos/treehuggers to keep for themselves and their little money-wasting "grants" and "studies." People on their annual family vacations want TOILETS, VISITOR CENTERS, RANGERS, and GOOD ROADS AND CAMPGROUNDS, not more closed-off areas and crowded POS shuttles with stenchy hippie-folk. They want their parks back...and we will take them back!