Recent comments

  • Pruning the Parks: Shoshone Cavern National Monument (1909-1954) Would Have Cost Too Much to Develop   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Imagine all the "minor" national parks waiting to be decommissioned if the Nixon administration had gone through with its idea of creating a new national park for each of the 50 states during the Bicentennial. Some folks in South Dakota were recently reminiscining online about it:

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    It may be, the first item in exploring a possible reform of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, is to ask what the context or 'provocation' of such a process might be.

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002, for example, took advantage of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to consolidate & reform the legislation & status of a number of Federal agencies & Acts, many of which had long been eye-balled as targets of redress or reform.

    The Organic Act of 1916 was approved in the midst of World War I, which is well-known for the unusual impact it had on the psyche of modern nations. Was this Act connected in some way to the events of the time, or was it more like 'left over business' just happened to percolate up the priority queue ... within the midst of the worst & most-shocking War of modern times?

    Our body of environmental law, of which the Organic Act 1916 is simply one component, is a mish-mash & hodge-podge of odds & ends, overlapping & ill-fitting jurisdictions & agencies the overall effect of which acquired it's current form & (mal)function basically in the same way that a junkyard acquires its form & function. As an on-going accident of circumstance, context, and usage.

    Legislators (who contrary of common evidence are capable of professional pride) could put a nice feather in their hat, by consolidating, rationalizing and updating the U.S. body of environmental law. They most likely, though, would need some context or 'provocation' to justify the investment of time, budget & political capital to do so.

    Unlike the relatively obscure & indifferent 'political reality' of the 'junkyard' of disparate resources that were rationalized under the Homeland Security Act, our environmental law is the object of intense professional & emotional attention by certain constituencies of the general public. Other constituencies might be somewhere between amusedly & smolderingly indifferent. Or available at the right price.

    Environmentalism-concerns watch Congress closely, to make sure nothing happens to 'their baby', without their approval. In other words, the status quo with respect to our environmental law is set & guarded by the presence & force of environmentalism, on the national stage. Not unlike the status of firearms law & regulation, which is monitored & hovered-over by well-known interest groups.

    Rhetorically, that appears to be why we have logging & grazing in the National Parks today: because environmentalism resists opening the body of environmental law to reform. They are safer striving to ignore the unfavorable clauses in the law, and appeal instead directly to the public to create & maintain de facto standards & practices. If they expose the body of environmental law to the full process of legislative reform, they lose control of the topic and many other interest groups can intervene with legislators.

    For something significant to happen with environmental law, something significant probably has to first happen with environmentalism. It is they who primarily create & keep the situation as it is and has long been.

    That could theoretically be either positive or negative. Events elevating the stature of environmentalism could lead them to become so secure & powerful, that they could open the can o' worms of environmental law with a high degree of confidence that the process could be controlled and the outcome aligned with their preferences.

    However, to wield this kind of power would make them challengers to the Federal Government itself. If NGOs become too powerful, it is expected that Congress etc will take steps to protect themselves from the upstart. Thus, in practice, any putative significant change in the status of environmentalism that would permit reform of environmental law, would more likely be negative.

    Eco-terrorism could do the trick. It would not take a very high level of destructive activism to alienate the public and broadly discredit environmentalism.

    Severe economic distress could so alter the priorities of many, that environmental issues could simply fall by the wayside. As the Organic Act of 1916 itself was enacted from within the depths of World War I, another crisis could simply sideline enviro-forces and open a window for Congress to 'clean house'.

    The phenomenal degree to which environmentalism has gambled its reputation & credility on climate change, and the putative human causes thereof, may have placed the movement in peril. They have talked themselves so far out onto the climate-limb, that for global climate trends to now unfold in any way different from their highly dramatic projections could pose a severe socio-political problem for them.

    Global warming peaked around 1998, flat-lined, started cooling, then dove dramatically last year. Next year could very well be even more dramatic - to the extent it begins to dominate 'mainstream media', which so far is abetting its environmentalism-ally by minimizing cooling-trend reports.

    We are now reading articles that "Arctic Icepack is the Second-Lowest Ever Recorded!". What really happened is, Arctic icepack rebounded dramatically this summer, due to pronounced global cooling last year, but it's being spun as though it's part of greenhouse warming. It's not.

    Loss of control of the climate-change narrative, and the attendant loss of public stature, could materially change the role of environmentalism on the national stage ... and could even facilitate environmental law reform in Congress.

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Ted (and others),

    I believe one thing that hasn't been emphasized in this discussion is that of increasing use of mechanical devices such as snowmobiles (and ATVs elsewhere). The popularity of these vehicles has exploded in recent decades and is now being seen by many as overwhelming. I believe that many beyond those typically categorized as subscribing to environmentalism would agree as to the increasing numbers (and impacts) that are plainly seen by their popularity and use.

    Don't forget the importance that a deep pocketed industry has in creating this situation. We are flooded with ads by snowmobile and ATV manufacturers telling us how much fun it would be to have one of these toys. These ad campaigns are paying off and sales of these machines are exploding.

    As a final note, you may want to catch up on the current state of electric vehicle technology. It has progressed quite a bit recently. Look up "Tesla" when you get a chance.

  • Blue Ridge Parkway Revising General Management Plan, Might Close Campground   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I believe the National Park Service and Roanoke need to think big regarding the Roanoke Mountain Campground. As they say, accentuate the positive. This campground is surrounded by miles of very nice trails. Open the Chestnut Ridge Loop to mountain bikers (yep, I’m one) and install showers. I believe that would fill the campground up on many weekends, especially since there is no camping at Carvins Cove (a very popular mountain biking destination). Add another 10 miles of new trails on Mill Mountain and another 15 at Carvins Cove and some more multi-use trails along the parkway (paved or not). With that, we will have one of the best trail systems in the country. Also, Roanoke city should make a connection from the Mill Mountain trails to the Roanoke River Greenway maybe near the 9th Street bridge so visitors could explore other parts of the city. Roanoke is great – let’s make it better.

  • Pruning the Parks: Shoshone Cavern National Monument (1909-1954) Would Have Cost Too Much to Develop   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Wyoming in particular has as part of the deal (see ) that added Jackson Hole to Grand Teton NP a rule that stops presidents from creating monuments in Wyoming without the consent of Congress (i.e., in essence, without making them national parks). This was because FDR with one fell swoop created Jackson Hole National Monument, protecting the area, despite years of congressional efforts to block the expansion of Grand Teton NP. So, the deal in the end was that Jackson Hole National Monument would be added to Grand Teton if this limit on presidential power was in place for Wyoming.

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

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    > Those truly "crown jewels" should designated for maximum preservation. Yellostone, Yosemite, Sequoia, Crater Lake, Glacier, Grand Canyon, so on.

    Those parks, you dub crown jewels, are anything but. They are hot spots of the global tourism industry and accordingly managed that way. If you run Yosemite with the focus on protection, you would have to tear down each and any installation in the valley.

    The editors and the readership of the Traveller assume, that the National Parks are the most protected areas in the nation. They are not. Real protection is done in wilderness areas, of which some are inside National Parks but most are not.

    There are a number of National Wildlife Refuges (run by the Fish and Wildlife Service), that are simply closed to humans, in order to protect the wildlife. Huge tracts of Hanford Reach National Monument (FWS) in Washington State are closed to visitors because they are reserved for ecological research and visitors might disturb that. The recovery areas in the main blast zone of Mount St. Helens can be seen only from a handful of established foot trails, no visitor may leave those trails. And some sensitive parts simply have no trails running in their vicinity. Mount St. Helens is run by the Forest Service.

    The National Park System was invented for tourism ('as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people') and tourism is an important factor in management. If you want real protection, don't give the area to the NPS. On the other hand, this does not mean National Parks should be Disneyland. But the balance between protection and tourism is much more complicated than some here assume.

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Kurt Repanashek wrote:

    But where would you start? Should each application of "conservation" be replaced with "preservation" in the Act? Should the sections Ted referred to earlier regarding livestock grazing and logging be struck? While it's already clear that the Organic Act places preservation of park resources above enjoyment of those resources, does that section need to be clarified or strengthened?

    How far would you go with a revision?

    All good questions with a broad spectrum of answers, depending largely on your political affiliation. And that's part of the problem. The modern Liberal sentiment might be status quo. No revision--maybe some patch work--and throw more money at the problems. The Neoconservative approach might increase corporate/governmental collusion "cooperation" and label it "reform" or "privatization". The classical liberal (or libertarian) approach would localize management of individual units under conservation trusts.

    At the very least, the National Park Service should be exempt from the whims of politicians, so we can avoid the situation as FrankN describes it: "It may have more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese, but depending on the political climate (the current one for example) you could make things a whole lot worse."

    So the first step in revising or rewriting the Organic Act is to remove the National Park Service from the Department of the Interior if not the federal government itself. If it is to remain under federal purview, it must be insulated from politics to the maximum extent possible. We must reign in Congress's pork barrel parks and increase the standards for what should be considered a national park. To further insulate parks from Congressional politics, a stable funding source must be found. Perhaps a one-time 10-year allocation of funds can get the new National Park Service going. We've had the discussion on another thread about making parks more self-sufficient and trimming the fat from the nearly 400-unit system.

    Then, when adopting a new charter for this streamlined National Park Service, the emphasis should be placed on decentralization. The NPS currently spends more on system-wide administration than the operating costs of the 58 National Parks in the system. The revised or completely replaced charter should be simple and to the point. Like the federal system of government the United States used to enjoy, it should be limited in scope. It should set the standard for all National Park Service units. Individual park units should also create new charters, and those charters must follow the basic guidelines of the national charter. From there, however, individual parks would be able to more finely craft their charters to the specific needs of that individual park and locality.

    The national charter should set the standards for national park status. It could mandate protection at different tier levels. Those truly "crown jewels" should designated for maximum preservation. Yellostone, Yosemite, Sequoia, Crater Lake, Glacier, Grand Canyon, so on. Another tier of park units, if these units are even to be retained, could either focus more on preservation or conservation, depending on the individual unit.

    I've heard it said that rethinking the National Park Service is like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". But this is no baby. The Organic Act is a terminal patient. As Kurt mentioned, the Organic Act was written 92 years ago, before the auto took over, before rapid jet travel, before we sent people to the moon, before the establishment of modern scientific fields of wildlife biology, the theory of plate tectonics, massive extinctions, and on and on. The Organic Act is from a world that no longer exists, and it's not fair to bind the current generation to the outmoded, unscientific, and uninformed views of those who lived a century ago. The future preservation of our national parks cannot be found in a bygone era's relic. The future preservation of our national parks can only be found in the present.

  • Federal Government to Back Off on Wolf Delisting In Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem   6 years 30 weeks ago

    This is pretty big news. And, until Wyoming ever gets its act together, things won't change. Wyoming, through its draconian wolf management, has become the best friend of the wolf by keeping them under federal control, even though the population is very strong.

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

  • Mount Rainier National Park Proposing to Reroute Section of Wonderland Trail   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I will be very interested in what they decide to do. I am most interested in what those who hike that trail would want done out of all of the options. I've never had the chance to hike it, and although it is on my 'must do' list, whatever option they decide will be long in place before I get out that way again.

  • Greening the National Parks: Environmental Achievement Awards Highlight Sustainable Design, Energy-Efficiency, and Recycling   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Ted, Xanterra has the in-park concessions in several national parks. I have stayed in their Old Faithful SnowLodge and Mammoth cabins in Yellowstone and eaten at several of their restaurants & snack shops in that park. They do an exceptional job on recycling and low-energy use. They not only practice what they preach but also do educational work in the process.

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago


    I agree with much of what you say here, though West Yellowstone is growing more and more culturally complicated, which adds to the angst that many of the old timers feel. Cody is still a bastion for the sort of person you are talking about; West Yellowstone is larger and more diverse.

    But, I'm vexed by everyone. I often find myself understanding quite well what drives a lot of the old timers nuts; there's plenty of intellectual dishonesty on all sides.

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

  • Is Climate Change Driving A New Forest Regimen in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem?   6 years 30 weeks ago


    Thanks for your kind words. I am indeed planning more climate change pieces. I've several work-related projects tied to climate change, and you'll see the results on the Traveler at the appropriate time.

  • Mountain Pine Beetles Chewing into Grand Teton National Park Forests   6 years 30 weeks ago


    Having been gone for a week, I'm a bit late in responding to your questions. From my understanding, what's going on in Colorado is the same as what's transpiring in Wyoming and Montana. As I've been told, the lack of normal thinning does heighten the likelihood and impact of beetle attacks. Also, trees 8" and above in circumference are preferred by the beetles; apparently smaller trees don't pack the nutritional resources sufficient to maintain an infestation. That's been seen in whitebark pine infestations as well.

    Long story short, the experts are in agreement about what's going on.

  • Attendance Shortfalls at Steamtown National Historic Site Prompt Calls for Privatization   6 years 30 weeks ago


    to Chris BugsyShallFall, I would only observe that Oklahoma City should be no model of anything. The NPS has no real accountability over that site, because once again the money just comes from congressional initiative against any common sense or actual oversight. Again, unlike Steamtown and Cumberland Is, Oklahoma City has had all the money it needs for what it needed to do. Ditto, Cuyahoga.

    A better model is a heritage area in which the NPS should approve a plan based on what will be protected and interpreted and how it will be done (strategy), and should then fund the area based on performance. It should be part of a regional tourism strategy heavily leveraged by local governments, the private sector and the State.

    That is a much better Idea

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    "There is created in the Department of the Interior a service to be called the National Park Service, which shall be under the charge of a director. The Secretary of the Interior shall appoint the director, and there shall also be in said service such subordinate officers, clerks, and employees as may be appropriated for by Congress. The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified, except such as are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, as provided by law, by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
    I'm not sure that you would want to mess with the Organic Act. It may have more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese, but depending on the political climate (the current one for example) you could make things a whole lot worse. Kind of like people who want to "rewrite" the ESA. Once you open a can of worms, no telling what might crawl out! Someone might decide that there is oil under the Grand Canyon, and fickle constituants, weary of four or five dollar a gallon gasoline, might well cry, "Drill, drill, drill!!"
    "Road building? Who's talking about road building? Well ... you, mainly." No one is talking about road building. It's called sarcasm. They are called rhetorical questions and remarks.
    "Snowmobiles don't need roads, remember?" THAT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM! That is why current snowmobilers in Yellowstone are required to have a licensed guide, because too many folks either did not know, or did not care, that YES, IN YELLOWSTONE, SNOWMOBILES DO REQUIRE A ROAD!! By law, snowmobiles may only be operated in Yellowstone on the road. And then only on certain roads. (BTW, even licensed guides occasionally wonder where they shouldn't.)
    I have personally witnessed snowmobilers run wildlife off the road into deep snow. I have seen them chase coyotes down the road until they (the coyotes) were exhausted and dropped in their tracks. I have had snowmobiles blow exhaust (and snow) in my face. I have heard snowmobiles while snow shoeing miles from the road, as if they were just on the other side of a hill.
    Mr. Macdonald, excellent points regarding the cost of visiting Yellowstone in the winter. Either way, snowmobiles or snow coaches, you better be prepared to plunk down a pretty piece of change. Another example of a place I would like to go but can't because of my financial disability (deep into the interior in the winter). Reasonably priced shuttles summer and winter would go a long way toward making Yellowstone more accessible to all, including the physically challenged.

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I would be very hesitant to open the Organic Act to anendment There would be no end to the silliness that would ensue.

    Rick Smith

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago


    I did make a couple over-night/weekend visits to West Yellowstone from my military station at Idaho Falls, 1972-3. Seemed like a regular little backwater (or as we fondly say, 'dirt-bag') town. Snowmachines were still very early then ... but your description of the culture jibes with what my expectations would be, even from that far back.

    The 'culture-war' component that I pick up from your description, I would guess has probably intensified in many rural communities. Emboldened, too. Next time you drive through, I bet it's plastered wall-to-wall with signs for Gov. Palin & That Old Dude.

    Being obnoxious & rude, if I understand correctly, is what the locals use for ammo, in the Culture-War. And the Liberal factions return fire by defaming the Trogs in every way conceivable.

    "We need the fiction of pure places and evil machines that defile them."
    Verily, I think you capture the true spirit of it.

    The "process" that so vexes you, Jim, I think is intended to do that. It is intended to sweep up those who think they will engage & strive for honorable solutions. It's designed, IMO, to dissipate the honest impulses of principled folks. Why? It helps keep the many & small distraught & dissipated, and the few & big in relatively secure control.

    For example, to lead you to acknowledge that your car is no less an affront to Nature than some West Yellowstone redneck's blatting snowmachine, you are unwittingly manipulated into 'threatening' the 10s of millions who hear talk of eliminating automobiles, and sense instantly that the speaker is their enemy.

    "Watch David Suzuki on Thursday evening TV? Sure, fine. No more automobiles? That's crazy." Click - they turn you off.

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago


    My point about snowmobiles and their use for the poor has mostly to do with Arctic areas where they are the main means of transportation. I can't imagine that they are for too many people in these parts. But, there are a lot of indigenous people in the Arctic regions who depend on them to survive. I have absolutely no interest in supporting the snowmobile industry as it exists here in this country or any other industry for that matter.

    As for the attitude toward snowmobiles themselves, there's no doubt real hatred toward the machines. I hate them; I have a gut dislike for them. When I drive into West Yellowstone in the winter, the air is disgusting, many of those riding the machines are rude and obnoxious. It is a strong cultural feeling. I don't want them even in the National Forests. I don't want them in town. I don't want them anywhere. I really dislike them. But, I think I am smart enough to know that my dislike for these machines and my not quite so strong feelings about other machines - like my car - is not reason enough for me to fit a rationale ad hoc to fit my strong aversion. Even so, is there not a reason to wonder what we are doing to a place we love by allowing these things in - and be willing at the same time to follow it to its logical conclusion (even if that might sweep our cars under as well)?

    So, yes, I'll concede that there's a strong emotional hatred driving things as well, but at the same time it's not a hatred that is necessarily devoid of reason. People are driven to stronger emotional reactions because something rationally is off kilter. If someone really said that the scientists concluded that snowmobiles were not harmful to the environment, even those of us who hate the machines would at least say they are being consistent with themselves. We wouldn't be as angry. And, really, I'm not angry personally about snowmobiles - because I really think there is a pox on every house here - but I hate this process. I hate how meetings are organized, how decisions are made, how the EIS process is such a charade. I am angry that people don't sit down and consider the larger issues at stake, I am angry that this place is being held hostage by the fruits of industrialization (that grew things bigger and bigger to the point we have no idea how to care for them). Snowmobiles are but machines - they are beside the point - the problem is us and our attitude toward each other and toward the planet that leads to a world where we are honestly pissed off over freaking snow machines. What a messed up and bizarro world this is.

    And, I think at some level, some form of that realization drives people to find symbolic targets for their angst. We need the fiction of pure places and evil machines that defile them. Because, something truly is afoul, and beauty is possible, but the reduction is so easy. And, when something goes against it, when something hits to the core of what doesn't make sense, people go up in arms. The snowmobile enthusiasts hate the intrusion on freedom in a world that seems more and more restricted, the environmentalist hates the continued abuse to the world we inhabit - not by law, not by simple snowmobiles, not simply by an emotional drive - but by something truly and rationally afoul. If we would look at that seriously, we would get somewhere. It's too easy to point at laws, to point at scientific studies, to pretend as though we are working on a stable framework (the parks and forests systems, as one example) in which to explore these things. But, it's so much more than that, and if we truly care, then why don't we put our passions to good use, to look at these things seriously. How did we get here? Why are we here? What should we be doing? And, since we need specificity to those questions, let's talk about them in the context of the places that mean most to us, or the people or beings that touch us the most. There's no reason that the snowmobile issue - which hits people at some core - couldn't serve as the focal point for truly serious discussion.

    But, on and on we go ... so what will the next court decide? And, what will it matter? It won't. But, so much sweat and tears will go into it. These are the days of our lives.

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

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Anonymous, and Kurt;

    Ok, since my characterization of the 'mentality' or 'correct-thinking' issue embedded in main environmentalism themes is distracting from the actual discussion-points, I will set aside that 'device', and work to frame a more-palatable way of illustrating the point I'm making.

    True, Kurt, importantly true, there is a range of 'attitude' among environmental organizations ... though a dominant view has asserted itself in recent times (that environmentalism is properly "preservation" and that "conservation" is something else).

    My father taught me to shoot, from the prone position using Grandpa's (relatively low-powered) .30-40 scabbard-Krag, when I was about 5 or 6. It seemed the recoil would almost lift me off the ground. I value my firearms and hunting highly ... but I am not a member of the NRA. I have thought about joining: especially the recent reversal of the Parks' firearms regulation, and the dramatic advent of Gov. Palin and everything she represents, give me impulse to 'put my two-bits in' - but I haven't.

    A major part of the problem the NRA poses for myself, is indeed the mental & attitudinal liabilities ... that I've agreed to find other ways to express.

    Actually, I do not "disagree" categorically with environmentalism: but I do see & describe a serious weakness in what they are & how they work, a liability that could be so costly as to effectively remove them from the public stage in the future.

    The NRA would like to define me as an extension of my firearms ... and then take upon themselves the authority to define weapons. Environmental organizations likewise seek to define me in terms of my relationship with the environment ... which they then want to define.

    I have affiliations to both, but join neither.

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    I understand that you can only go through Yellowstone with a licensed guide. The snowmobile industry doesn't like it, but they have taken it rather than lose all snowmobiles. My point was economic; there are more guide industries, more ways to obtain snowmobiles, borrow snowmobiles, etc., and more varieties of guides. Still, it's not equitable access for those able to be there.

    It might not be anyone's responsibility to make sure that every sort of person can have access to every sort of terrain (speaking to Frank's point), but for those who can make it, it's stupid to make the barriers that much worse, i.e., to ensure that only people from a certain class can use the park. That certainly is a problem for a place that is supposed to be a public treasure. Even those who live near Yellowstone are forced to succumb to the class enforced, monopolized access. In some ways, making snowmobiles guided is a step backwards. Get rid of them all or do it right.

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

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago


    Your point is well taken.

    To succeed in court, the other side must have violated the law. If you use a lawsuit just as a weapon, you need very deep pockets, because if your claim is unfounded, you will lose the lawsuit and lots of money. Environmental organizations are not known for suing lightly. But if a government agency is acting in violation of the law, a lawsuit might be necessary to stop them.

    My point was probably too broad and unspecific. I was refering to our tendency to litigate rather than to negotiate over polarized issues. You are indeed correct that a sound legal basis must be present to make a lawsuit worthwhile. However, groups like Audobon Society have very deep pockets, and can easily steam-roller over smaller, less well-funded groups. I also agree that lawsuits may become necessary to stop even gov't. agency illegalities, but should only be used as a last resort, not as an SOP.

  • Attendance Shortfalls at Steamtown National Historic Site Prompt Calls for Privatization   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Dear RoadRanger

    -- thanks for clarifying the point about Baltimore. Yours is a very important point. Not enough is known about when a site or museum is self-sustainable, and why not when it is not. Baltimore is an interesting overall case, because it has more successful tourism than the much larger, and presumably higher-quality (re: # of nationally significant sites) Philadelphia. But the issues in Gettysburg and Valley Forge and many others will continue to plague --ASSUMING WE DEMAND SITES TO BE ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE RATHER THAN SEEING FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS -- until real and predictive feasibility studies can be done as a matter of course.

    -- yes, you are right about Cumberland Is Wilderness, and right about Carter. I think Reagan and the NPS should have made a better solution at Cumberland Is, in the same way NPS followed up on Ickies and FDR and made parks of the 30's and 40's work. And of course, the Alaska Lands Act by carter, and his national monuments is the largest conservation action by any American President.

    -- I don't think MLK site is his legacy, though, any more than other parks created during his time were his. Most were really established by Phil Burton.

    thanks for this dialog.

  • Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Frank C.,

    I did indeed misread the author-name, and attacked you for someone else's statements. I'm sorry.

    Frank C, a related issue/question I have been mulling and do not know how to approach, is the relationship between the Wilderness Act, and the Organic Act. Since some "wilderness" are lands covered by the Organic Act, how is the conflict between them resolved?

    I certainly agree - the Organic Act (often held aloft as some shining standard) is in reality not far shy of being an ordinary piece of pork.

  • How Did The National Park Service Err So Badly On the Yellowstone Winter-Use Plan?   6 years 30 weeks ago


    I don't think it's fair for you to characterize an entire group (or in this case groups, plural) as 'my-way-or-the-highway'. That could easily be said about the NRA, or any number of conservative groups. What would happen if, for instance, Sierra Club et al wins this court battle, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition or similar pro-snomobile group sued in a few years to allow the vehicles. Isn't that a 'my-way-or-the-hwy' approach to things? Environmental groups aren't the only ones with tightly-held, strong convictions.

    Such harsh words for people you don't agree with...

  • House Subcommittee Considers Bill to Relax ORV Rules for Cape Hatteras National Seashore   6 years 30 weeks ago

    Dapster, sorry got behind and missed your question on species held up to ridicule. Cannot be a surprise to anyone. Several examples, such as Snail Darter, liverwort, etc.