Recent comments

binions gambling hall and casino

So, Kurt, when you read that the parks are simply a marketable commodity defined in terms of their use, it makes you write some of the essays you have about romanticism, eh? I would just like to remind you that though the parks have inspired us all to a poetry we could scarcely think possible, their being as "parks" has always been a reality based on something like what Matt talks about here. So, the question becomes one of economics and the ethics of economics...Matt should be writing propaganda for the World Bank with this rhetoric (perhaps, we should also charge tolls for the sidewalks as well)...and yet his view is the one from which the parks arose. The very word "park" suggests a utilitarian (that is, use) notion. And, use...well, comes with a cost, but who collects, and who pays, and how is it paid for and collected, and on and on...how dreary, but that's all we're talking about here. This view can be challenged, but I think the harsh truth is that it means confronting those people that are hallowed among parks advocates. Perhaps, it's a form of patricide, but I can't see how we deal with this view of land and use without daring ourselves to go all the way. Jim

So how do you balance all of this? Reduced improvements in the parks result in less accomodations resulting in higher prices thus eliteism. If you were to increase Yosemites visitation to 6 million then you must have infrastructure to support that i.e. bathrooms,eating establishments etc. Otherwise you limit visitation to no more than X number of people per day. Try sitting in the entrance station and telling the Station wagon loaded with the family from New York they can't get in today. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

i strongly agree with the article that we must not allow polictical satire or any private groups or indviduals to take away the protection act that has enabled a specfic species such as the grizzlies and other related bears to come back to life at such a critical point that has taken several generations(bears)to re populate.their lost to nature and the eco system would even yet be yet our extinctions.

"If the market determines that $25 is fair value for the benefits and experiences achieved by one's visit, than $25 should be the cost. If demand goes down, so will the price." Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Demand HAS gone done, but fees are going up. Visitation has slumped at many "premier" parks. The news has been full recently of parks complaining about declining visitation. If that's the case, they should be lowering fees to attract more visitors, not raising them. The market is not determining the fees. The government is setting them, and rather arbitrarily in my opinion.

If we hadn't messed up the ecosystem in the 1st place, we wouldn't be having this debate. So instead of messing it up more, we should be restoring it (i.e. reintroducing wolves). If the ranchers want to complain - let 'em. They are taking a risk by ranching near a national park with real, live animals - just as if they ranched near a place prone to hurricanes, floods, droughts, or what have you. I put $20 on Great Smokies (there's no deer left in Cades Cove, remember....it's as if people say 'there's too many deer' A couple years later, 'oops - we lied there's not enough deer')

I think another question to ask, is whether the entrance fees are fulfilling there original purpose, which was in-part, to help parks fund projects outside of the scope of the NPS budget. These were supposed to be projects like more wayside interpretive signs, and even to help with the maintenance backlogs. A lot of people stood behind the fees for this reason, including the NPCA - http://www.npca.org/media_center/testimonies/testimony061902.html But today, park fees are being assigned based on a perception of a recreational value, the logic of which says a visit to Grand Canyon is worth more than a visit to Chaco and should be priced accordingly. As visitors, we are no longer asked to pay this extra tax to cover the extra services we will receive, we are now being asked to cover the shortcomings of the federal budget for core park operations. At some point, we have to say, this is not how you fund a federal agency. Imagine if we funded public schools this way, and every week students had to pay a fee to enter the classroom. Education from the most popular teachers would cost more than the lesser known ones. A sub-class of student would emerge who could afford the popular teachers, the rest would just have to consider themselves lucky to have any education at all. Then there would be some kids who would never come to school, because having to spend any additional tax for a public service was beyond their means. The wealthy would accept this model because they could afford it, but the silent majority wouldn't know they had a voice. The Grand Canyon is now $25 a car. Are there tax paying families which cannot afford this? If the price keeps going up, at what point would you not be able to afford your own visit? I agree with Kurt, why not speak now rather than wait until you too are priced out, when it might be too late to speak.

I wrote about this and the week's voluminous news in Yellowstone at: http://www.yellowstone-online.com/2007/03/yellowstone-grizzly-truth.html It's called: Yellowstone: A grizzly truth? I mentioned Kurt's piece on romance in the parks as well. You'll also see there a link to a discussion on another blog inspired by Kurt's piece above.

Can we really think that we can set places aside based on values that are quite different from those practiced by the public at large and believe that those places can live in relative isolation from those values without over time being infected? I think we know the answer to that. Ecologically, these places aren't isolated from the areas around them. Economically, they aren't isolated. How nice it would be if we could slice up land like a pie and say, "This land is for this purpose, but this land is only for this purpose." We try, but there are a zillion reasons why that doesn't work over time. I think people should check out skyblu's blog this week on Yellowstone wildlife at http://skyblu.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/yellowstone-wildlife-hypocrisy-or-dilemma/ because it suggests many of the things we are often unwilling to consider. We might be able to figure out places for snowmobiles and mountain bikes to go and places for hikers to go. That in itself isn't too much, but that's not all that's driving this. They are simply a couple of the gopher holes that will continue to keep coming up. At some point, we have to face the enigma of our national parks, places set aside out of the same values that have destroyed everything else around it in the hopes that these few places might be spared because they are so special. Can't we see how foolish that sounds? The national parks will be destroyed BECAUSE everything else has been destroyed, and we had better think about restoring everything else if we are to save the parks. If we only hold up the special values of the special places, of course that will become its own commodity. It already is for those animals that have taken refuge within them outside of their natural habitats. I hope we think about that as we become nostalgic and wonder what has gone wrong. It's no wonder to me what has gone wrong; I just don't have a sense of what to do about it except to think about attacking the engine that drives this. That might blow up and be worse than we imagine, but given that we know where this train is headed, I don't see what choice we have but to take these risks. Jim

Kurt, I have the original copy of John Muir's book: Our National Parks (published in November 1901). Remembering a passage about the twin flower (Linnaea borealis) that once bloomed in the Eastern part of the Rocky Mountains..."The lovely Linnaea borealis hangs her twin bells over the brink of the cliffs, forest and gardens extend their treasures in smiling confidence on either side, nuts and berries ripen well whatever may be on below; blind fears vanish"...If I'm not mistaken, I believe the twin flower no longer exists in the Eastern side of the Rockie's. This is truly romance of enjoyment that is so eloquently expressed by Muir in his book "Our National Parks". This book should be required reading by all high school students before they stick a i-Pod in their ear. Good commentary Kurt!

Congratulations to the folks at Natural Bridges! I am so pleased to see the way the Service's appreciation of natural darkness as a resource worth preserving has evolved over the years.

Back in 1986, when Halley's Comet made its most recent visit, I was living year-round on Fire Island, one of the few places in the NY metro area one could get a decent, dark view of the southern horizon.

Just about then, the park installed urban-style street lights along the main boardwalk through Watch Hill: overkill in the visitor season, and absolutely senseless in the dead of winter, when the only pedestrians were us four iced-in NPS folks. The breakers and timers were all under the control of a very rigid maintenance foreman, unmoved by discussions of aesthetics or energy waste.

However, the great thing about being isolated was that no one ever found out that a certain ranger climbed the poles and removed the bulbs once the ferries stopped running and the marina closed.

(Until now, I suppose.)

And yes, we all did manage to see the disappointingly faint comet. Maybe in 2061 it will be brighter; I've got my fingers crossed.

An interesting quote from a Republican from Utah, Bob Bishop - "If that (the disease free herd) is not your greatest value, then there is something deeply wrong with the park service." What is interesting is that Bob Bishop, like me, agrees that the value choices in Greater Yellowstone in respect to bison are incompatible over the long run. We just happen to be on very different sides of the value judgment (which is one reason I wrote the very long series of essays on Locke that I did). Unfortunately, as I predicted soon after the Democratic takeover of Congress, the solutions being called for are not the radical winds needed to confront this issue. I'm all for moving the line for bison just that much further out...but that will not make any of this go away. As long as people believe that their property rights are at stake, (however we define them...whether they are our property rights as a public or the property rights of livestock owners or sportsmen or whatever), then the madness will twist and turn, take different forms, but it will continue. And, that goes for snowmobiles and the myriad issues facing Yellowstone. Jim