Recent comments

  • Sierra Club Caught Standing Atop Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park   6 years 28 weeks ago

    I agree we should keep as many signs as possible out of wilderness areas, but in national parks, especially at the head of the very short trail to Mesa Arch, signs in appropriate places are absolutely warranted. Ya gotta inform the masses in high-traffic areas somehow.

  • Vets To Determine Whether Bear That Attacked Father and Son in Great Smoky Mountains National Park Had Rabies   6 years 28 weeks ago

    I agree People should learn to read signs most attacks are because people ignore the rules. Thats why are country in whole is in the shape we are in

  • Collapse of "Wall Arch" Proves Gravity Does Work at Arches National Park   6 years 28 weeks ago

    As I recall there are signs and postings notifying visitors to not walk on any of the arches. Unfortunately many park visitors ignore these postings or just don't care. Most of the offenders aren't even American(from my experience) and in places where there are fines, its not steep enough. On a recent trip through Capital Reef NP there were signs posted with $100 fines for walking off the trail. Whos that gonna scare??

    Come on guys, I know its nearly impossible to catch these offenders but when you do...MAKE IT HURT!! We need to send a message to people that it is NOT acceptable to trample wherever in these places.

  • Commission Formed To Explore Future of National Parks   6 years 28 weeks ago


    First of all, the distinction is blurry. Almost every national park unit had a human component to it, that is an indigenous component. There always was human interaction and effect on the environment. When the first parks were created, those people were ignored, derided, kicked out, and then forced out of the history books. So, that goes to a bit of my point that the parks were never public creations or "for the benefit and enjoyment of people."

    Secondly, the distinction is blurry. Every park unit is managed by humans in a kind of editing process that upholds certain values. So, it's never been a question of use - all parks have been used, and use necessarily has an effect on the condition of the place. They have been used toward preserving certain values at the expense of others. So, roads are built some places and not others. Some animals are managed a certain way at one time, another way at another time, and some are not managed at all. That goes for everything that exists in any park.

    Thirdly, the distinction is blurry. Parks are almost never intact ecosystems; they are most often parts of ecosystems that exist beyond park boundaries, and those ecosystems in turn are open to the changes in other ecosystems (like pollution in China can reach Greater Yellowstone). However, if they are managed as if they are to be conserved as found, that actually means intensive management to work against the effects of the ecosystem changes around it not managed in the same way. So, the human component inside and outside is altogether different, but what happens outside has an effect on what happens inside and vice versa.

    So, I think your categorical distinction is one I would have to reject, though not categorically (there's also something truly distinct between different types of park units - but we'd have to go at this question more). But, even if I were to accept the premise, it doesn't matter. If park units are not primarily public units - as you suggest - but that some are units that are specifically to be preserved (by the public - or not, as some others suggest) against the tendency of the public to destroy the parks, then who gets to make the value distinctions? It would be nice if those value distinctions simply existed in a neoplatonic heaven apart from the individuals that are affected by the decisions such that a keen eye could simply see them, but the fact is that these values in particular don't exist apart from the feedback of the beings who exist within it. So, it's a tad presumptuous for any human to determine what an ecosystem or its populations wants, but we do the best we can with that. What we can't do is presume that of other humans with whom we can certainly communicate.

    I think you are right to worry that the net result of a sound process might end up destroying what we love in absence of other changes in society. If public is changed to mean the loudest voices in the room, or the loudest and most organized lobbying groups, then yeah, I think that is a problem to consider - something whose consequences we shouldn't shy from (a society too large with too many large toys whose land is so easy for us to destroy - perhaps, saving parks means changing some things about society at large). However, if we are to be honest and rational (values that are objective and accessible to us because they are notions upon which all other values depend), we cannot conduct a process for saving parks that is incoherent. We cannot get around the idea that the values that make parks public also depends upon the public being at the table as part of the process of their preservation. That we are so scared of the consequences of doing that only suggests that there are other things wrong - not that my argument is unsound.

    In any event, the reverse of this plays out all the time. I belong with a buffalo advocacy group in the Yellowstone area; we who would want to stop the slaughter and hazing of wild bison are pretty much shut out of the process by the partners of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (who represent the five agencies - including NPS - who manage bison). Values are pre-determined by the government agencies and argued about within the parameters of that document; there is no place for indigenous voice, no place for buffalo advocates, for any other members of the public. They are already presuming values on buffalo, land, and livestock; yet, these decisions are only made by the stakeholders that have been determined to matter (those who control the resources). We don't have transparency, accountability, or a voice. Should fear that we might be outnumbered be reason to shut us out of the process? I don't think so.

    And, I think the same holds for the parks. So, again, I hope the commission recognizes early on that it cannot be a substitute for direct public participation in the process. If it does that, then whatever else it comes up with can be useful - so long as that critical recommendation is made and is taken with urgent seriousness.

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

  • Commission Formed To Explore Future of National Parks   6 years 28 weeks ago

    I thought the parks were to be preserved in their original condition, not conserved or used up wisely?

    I make a categorical distinction between the found world and the made world. Places like Yosemite and Rocky Mtn. Nat'l. Park are part of the found world. Places like Gettysburg are what they are because of human created history, and thus part of the made world.

    An order of values follows from this distinction. The found world is vital to human survival in a way that the made world is not. That is, regardless of social distinctions, we all need clean air, water and other natural resources.

    As human creations, aspects of the made world are also often vital to human survival, for example, few of us can survive long without shelter. But the crucial difference is that, again for example, shelter can take many forms while elements of the found world are constant.

    My opinion is that found world and made world parks should be separate entities. Made world parks can be under the Nat'l. Archives or Smithsonian, while found world parks can remain under the Interior (which by the way is also Executive branch), or possibly the EPA.

    There is far too much material above to respond to point by point, but I actually favor the idea of elite commissions because if the Parks are subject to popular whim I believe they would be quickly deforested, overrun with ATVs and commercialized even more than now. Most people are simply too desperate to make a buck to take the long view.

    Mr. Smith's questions in that regard express my views closely enough that I will not elaborate.

  • Black Bear Attacks Child at Great Smoky Mountains National Park   6 years 28 weeks ago

    why did they feel the need to kill this black bear? They people were in the bear's territory, he was just being protective. They are always so quick to kill wildlife instead of trapping and relocating. I feel they were wrong in what they did, because they are saying they are going to do a necropsy to see if this is the bear that attacked the boy?? Well how will they tell that? I would love to know. After all this, they may have killed the wrong bear, How very Sad.

  • Vets To Determine Whether Bear That Attacked Father and Son in Great Smoky Mountains National Park Had Rabies   6 years 28 weeks ago

    It is always sad when wildlife is destroyed because we humans have not heeded advice regarding not feeding, leaving food at the creatures access or just using known precautions when entering the animals territory. Just as with ocean predators, we are encroaching on them: they are usually only defending what they may perceive as a threat. We suffer physical and emotional scarring, and the world loses another wonderful creature.

  • Commission Formed To Explore Future of National Parks   6 years 28 weeks ago

    All good questions, but my point is one of process. Can an answer to these or any questions be as substantive as they need to be without recognizing the fundamental disconnect between those who are considered experts in parks issues, between those of us who are not considered experts but take the issues seriously, and everyone else? I would suggest that the answers, however well formed they are - if they miss and don't consider it - won't be enough of an answer, and secondly, they won't mean as much as they could to the public at large. So, process also drives the substance of the answers just as much as implication of any good ideas need good process.

    We have just as much reason to look for these answers for the collective of people posting on this Web site (and that's not good enough either) as we do to a commission with such esteemed individuals. My point isn't to suggest anything other than commissions - whatever they answer - are set up with a process in mind. There's nothing magical about being a commission, which makes it seem more likely that they'll come up with the right answers. They are there because someone thinks its good process for making changes - whatever those be. I don't think so. Some of the questions you have in mind, Rick, may lead a smart group of people to the sort of fundamental thing I'm talking about. However, the process of setting up the commission suggests that those setting it up weren't smart enough to see the fundamental implication of it.

    I guess we'll see. I see my sister's former boss, Howard Baker, on the list. She worked for his law firm for a short while. I guess seeing some of the names on the list, seeing where they come from, I don't have a lot of confidence that we're going to get at the crux of things - that you must have a ground up approach even in considering the nuts and bolts of the problem with parks because of the very nature of what parks are. However, I'm a little disingenuous here; I don't believe the parks ever were actually publicly-constructed places. Still, if we take the notion seriously that they are, then it's imperative that we treat them as such, even down to the very process of figuring out what's next.

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

  • Commission Formed To Explore Future of National Parks   6 years 28 weeks ago

    I have a little different take on the Commission than Jim does, primarily because I hope that it can address some questions that I have in mind about the future of the National Park Service. The questions below were part of a paper I wrote for the Coalition of NPS Retirees. I quote them here only to suggest that a Commission could, in my mind, examine issues such as these and recommend appropriate legal, policy, and regulatory changes.

    Is the current governance model appropriate? The National Park Service is a bureau within the Department of the Interior. Since its conservation mission is unlike the other agencies in the Department, would it make more sense for the agency to operate as an independent agency within the Executive Branch, much like the National Archives, another agency that preserves and protects significant portions of the nation’s heritage.

    Should the Director of the National Park Service serve a longer term than one driven by the 4-year election cycle? Managing cultural and natural resources requires long-term planning. The NPS Director is unlikely to be able to manage a long-term planning process given that he/she is appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. No NPS Director since 1980 has survived a change of administrations. A longer term would perhaps also free the Director from some of the push and pull of partisan politics that is becoming increasingly common.

    Should funding for the National Park Service be exempt from the annual appropriations cycle? Just as sustained leadership is important for the management of our nation’s natural and cultural heritage, so too is sustained funding. The problem with the current funding cycle is that it does not provide continuity for the multi-year inventory and monitoring programs and trend analyses that are so crucial for natural and cultural resources management. Nor does is provide assured funding for an adaptive resources management strategy that allows park managers to modify components of agreed-upon processes that are not producing desired results.

    What level of funding is necessary to assure the long term operational sustainability of the National Park System? While everyone agrees that the NPS is underfunded and that visitor services in the parks have been curtailed or eliminated due to lack of operational dollars, no one has a real fix on what the shortfall is. Perhaps the most credible figure comes from the National Parks Conservation Association who arrived at the figure of $800 million extrapolating from the park business plans that were developed several years ago.

    How can the Federal Government deal with the backlog of deferred maintenance in the parks of the system? Most observers agree that there is at least $4.9 billion dollars of deferred maintenance of park infrastructure, although this is a figure that is difficult to state with precision. The GAO has one figure, the NPS maintenance management program another, and the National Parks Conservation Association yet a different one. . The periodic initiatives from various administrations have done little to reduce the backlog. The recently-announced Centennial Challenge projects, moreover, would add still more facilities to be maintained if any are ever completed. Today’s deferred maintenance is tomorrow’s backlog.

    What level of entrance fees is appropriate for visiting National Park Service areas? The cost of visiting areas of the System has increased rapidly over the last decade. The Federal annual pass, now called the America the Beautiful Pass, costs $80. Larger parks like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon and Yosemite, charge $25 per vehicle. There are annual fee rates established for individual parks. Some have argued that entrance fees should be eliminated altogether since parks are already supported by the taxes that Americans pay. Others say that modest entrance fees are appropriate to let people know that they are entering a special place, one which the Congress has said deserves preservation and protection in perpetuity.

    How can NPS regulations, management policies, and administrative procedures be protected from politically-motivated meddling and interference? For example, the NPS management policies had evolved over the 91 years that the NPS has managed the nation’s National Park System. They were incrementally modified to reflect advances in understanding natural and cultural resources management strategies and evolving social and environmental conditions. The 2006 attempt to substantially alter the management policies to achieve narrow partisan goals demonstrates that these policies, as well as other administrative procedures and regulations, are vulnerable to ideological attacks.

    How should we determine “success” for our National Park System? There is much talk today about parks failing because visitation is declining. Is a visitor count the way to measure success? Others have claimed that parks are not relevant to a population that travels in huge motor homes and gets most of its information on the internet. There are those who look at parks to provide “thrill-seeking recreation” involving all manner of motorized gadgets. Are the parks appropriate for this kind of use? Should every park offer virtual tours and podcasts to attract more people? Some have suggested that parks do not compare favorably with Disney World. There will always be people who prefer Disney World to a national park just as there are those who prefer parks because they are real, not contrived. Should the NPS worry about that?

    Should the Congress pass legislation that contains a “federal consistency clause?” Such a clause would require that projects undertaken by other Federal agencies or financed by Federal dollars that have potential adverse effects on nearby park areas must contain mitigating measures to offset the effects. If the effects cannot be mitigated, the project would be scrapped. This would allow the NPS to be more assertive in protecting the components of park ecosystems—air, water, wildlife populations—or park-related cultural or historical associations that lie outside established boundaries.

    Should the national monuments currently managed by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management be brought into the National Park System? As multi-use agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM do not have the personnel infrastructure in interpretation, education, resources protection, and management experience to adequately preserve and protect the national monuments assigned to them. Would it make sense to incorporate those areas into the National Park System?

    Would it make sense to simplify the categories of areas the NPS manages? There are some 15 different designations currently in use as names of areas—national parks, historic sites, national preserves, reserves, seashores, lakeshores etc. This causes confusion among the visiting public; this confusion complicates the management of these areas.

    How can the National Park Service manage better its statutory responsibilities beyond park boundaries related to historic preservation, recreation, and conservation assistance to state, tribal, and local governments? The Congress has charged the National Park Service with significant responsibilities beyond management of the National Park System. Working in conjunction with state, tribal, and local governments and the private sector, these efforts have made enormous contributions to America's quality of life from inner cities, to rural America, to the nation's wild and scenic areas. Yet by their very nature, these programs are oftentimes at odds with the mindset of a land-managing agency. It has oftentimes proven difficult to get adequate attention from NPS, the Department of the Interior, the Administration and the Congress to manage these programs to their best advantage - for both the parks and the nation in its entirety. How can the Service manage these better to provide their intended outcomes? What changes can and should be made?

    How can we assure that the National Park Service planning and decision-making processes are based on sound research and resources management? Every day, it seems, new stories appear in the paper about how research results are ignored or even altered to serve narrow partisan interests. The classic example in the National Park Service is the ignoring or misinterpreting of research results to justify continued snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Reliance on a vigorous research and science program will be especially important as climate change influences and modifies park resources.

    How can the National Park Service regain its reputation as a leader in the worldwide conservation movement? Unwise travel restrictions and lack of political leadership have crippled the National Park Service’s once-vigorous international assistance program. Some 150 nations have emulated the US and established national protected area systems. NPS employees have a wealth of knowledge to share with their colleagues in other countries and much to learn from them also. This exchange is almost non-existent now and urgently needs to be reenergized.

    How can the National Park Service manage its personnel resources more effectively? The National Park Service has just ended a period when it referred to its employees by the demeaning term, “human capital.” The National Park Service needs to overhaul its personnel policies, beginning at the recruitment stage so that its workforce is as diverse as the public it serves. It also needs to refocus its training and professional growth program, establish an understandable succession policy for career enhancement for those whose knowledge, skills and abilities are appropriate for senior leadership positions; and create a supervisory system that employees respond positively to and respect.

    How can the National Park Service restore the reputation of the “ranger?” In recent years, accentuated by Homeland Security challenges and fears, park rangers are seen (and sometimes behave) more and more as “cops.” The traditional image of the helpful, knowledgeable, flat hat-wearing ranger may be rapidly disappearing.

    What steps can the National Park Service take to assure that the areas it administers maintain the uniqueness that the previous generations of Americans envisioned when they, speaking through their elected representatives, added them to the National Park System? These areas were meant to be special. The National Park Service must guard against efforts to pare away their uniqueness and make them just public lands.

    Rick Smith

  • Sierra Club Regrets Use of Mesa Arch Photo   6 years 29 weeks ago

    The recent collapse of "Wall Arch" appears to have primed us to notice Sierra Club's use of the Mesa Arch image. The collapse raised questions about the safety of arches, and more pointedly, the regulations pertaining to clamoring on them. But restrictions, it seems, pertain to technical climbing activities, and it is evidently legal to "walk" across the arches.

    I can't say I really 'feel' for Sierra Club getting a tender part of their anatomy caught in the wringer, but in this case it was mostly 'circumstance' that made them look crass.

  • Sierra Club Caught Standing Atop Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    It has been a while since I have spent time in Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, though my recollection is that there is a lot of information (in all the guides and pamphlets) and the Rangers even told me to stay off Mesa and the other arches.
    It is possible that this sticks in my mind because when viewing any of the many arches in these parks I experience an irresistible urge to walk them.
    Anyway, no more signs in Our National Parks! Please, there are too many all ready..

  • Black Bear Attacks Child at Great Smoky Mountains National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    I agree with Bob. I live at the Foothills of the N. Ga. Mountains. While I've never came in close contact with a bear, we do have deer that visit our home. People that visit with nature need to understand it's not like walking around in the city. The animals are in their "home" territory. Stay alert of your surroundings, not only with your eyes, but with smell. Most wild animals have their own scent that you can smell if you are alert. I know the boy is just a child, but they should be educated also.

    It is unfortunate the "alledged bear" was killed. I'm sure, and hope, the Rangers done what they thought was best. As a nature lover, I've learned to respect the animals and enjoy them at the same time. After all, what would the world be like without them.

  • Why You Should Not Store Food in Your Car at Great Smoky Mountains National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    Whoever left the car was a jackarse. One should know you do not leave uncovered food out; and secondly, you should not have left the window cracked to make it easier for the critters. That food should have been kept in proper storage containers to help keep the smell down and the windows should have been up.

    As for all the people standing around, that was really dumb and a huge risk to them and their loved ones. The general public is just plain ignorant....

  • Decisions on Controlling Elk in Theodore Roosevelt, Wind Cave National Parks Likely to Linger Into 2009   6 years 29 weeks ago


    That is correct: the hunting, trapping, fishing, firewood-cutting and other patterns of usage in Alaska Parks take place under formal subsistence regulations (by Act of Congress). However, that such usage was traditional in the territory of the new sub-arctic Parks, and was not traditional in the territories of temperate-zone Parks in the conterminous States, would be incorrect.

    Subsistence lifestyles were dominant in all rural regions of the early United States, and persisted strongly after the advent of Industrialization and cash economies, in many areas both remote and merely rural. Individuals & communities made a conscious effort to retain the independence and self-reliance of what were in reality subsistence practices directly comparable to those of Alaska.

    Hunting today all across the United States is primarily the informal continuation of subsistence lifestyles. That is, hunting is not "sport" for most practitioners (though they certainly enjoy it), but rather is the preservation of the lifestyle and philosophy of our grandparents - same as has been codified as subsistence-law, in Alaska.

    Indeed, the reason why Parks banned hunting & firearms, is substantially that Park-territories were the accustomed hunting-grounds of residents of the territory, practically none of whom were 'sportsmen'. They simply continued to hunt, as generations before them had, and came into conflict with the authorities.

    Take for example Olympic National Park, established in 1938. In recent months, fisher (a fur-bearer of the weasel family) have been reintroduced there. Pre-Park trapping pressure was sufficiently heavy & thorough, that fisher had been extirpated. The Olympic Mountains were not a rarely-visited, virtually untouched wilderness. It was a wilderness, but one under intensive subsistence use.

    No, it really is not the case that a unique & special pattern of usage in Alaska creates a justification for subsistence provisions that pertains only in their case, and that these patterns of usage and lifestyle-values were not present in the southern States when Parks were instituted. Actually, they were, and there remains a potent component of them even today.

    Gut-piles from hunting are rarely encountered, because they are consumed very rapidly. When a hunter removes the entrails, the animal is healthy and the offal is fresh and of peak value to wild animals. Conversely, when a large animal dies near the end of a hard winter (or more often, during the beautiful spring) or of old age, it is emaciated and the guts tend to spoil in the carcass, both of which reduce their value for scavenging.

    (Entrails are the choice component for predators, and are the first part eaten. Dominant wolves eat into the belly first, while lesser individuals chew on other parts (and shift to the guts at the earliest opportunity). Gut-piles are not after-thoughts, but are the prefered & best part, in the view of carnivores & omnivores.)

    Actually, in terms of distress to visitors & hikers, it is the 'natural' death that creates the greater visual impact, and remains conspicuous for a much longer period of time. When over-populated or over-aged elk expire, the carcass is of low value, may decompose too much before it is scavenged, and offers a visual and olfactory impact much larger than an excised gut-ball.

    Wolves would be the perfect solution for many wildlife problems, if the circumstances were different. But a wolf-pack will not stay put and focus on a specific excess population. Instead they disperse rapidly (and the greater the excess of prey-food, the faster the reproduction & subsequent (forced) dispersal), and worse - turn their attention to other animals.

    Wolf-proponents advertise that a standing offer is available, to compensate a rancher for the loss of livestock. However, across much of the region where wolves are now becoming reestablished, ranching-country is heavily interspersed with rural residences (long has been), and much of the livestock on these holdings is recreational, rather than purely commercial.

    A horse, for example, can be very attractive to wolves. Often, it is owned by a youngster, who loves it. The flight-reflex of a horse under wolf-attack will often lead to grave injuries, even if the aftermath does not indicate predation. To reassure horse-owners that they will receive fair market value for the meat of their animal is a serious public relations error.

    This is probably the greatest downfall of wolf-introduction - and a serious oversight of advocates - that predators come onto private residences and attack pets and hand-raised ... members of the household. This is where wolves really lose support.

  • Commission Formed To Explore Future of National Parks   6 years 29 weeks ago

    I'm so tired of these commissions. Someone appoints a range of experts, they get together, and they write a report. However, those who are using the commission for their own purposes make sure that the report will be used for setting the agenda and moving the levers of power based on the desires of the people setting up the commission. We are still quoting the Leopold Report, and so there's no doubt that these commissions can be highly influential. However, I would argue that commissions are by and large set up as a vehicle toward some other pre-determined end. While there are no doubt results that sometimes challenge or inform the conventional wisdom of the group that sets up the commission, these end up being mere adjustments in a larger campaign. Of course, occasionally, the commission comes up with the wrong answer (like Bush's commission on the Iraq war), and then they are safely shelved.

    I've worked in nonprofits in different fields, and I can tell you that my bosses intentionally had outcomes in mind; they knew the point of a commission was to get buy in from the larger world of elites and perhaps an ear to potential problems with the agenda. Unfortunately, while it's important to build consensus across a spectrum of people, it perpetuates the cynical view that we can't build a real public advocacy in the population at large. Instead, we use the elites to meld public opinion rather than understanding the fundamental disconnect between people and the strange and overpayed land of think tank consultant-dom that comes up with these ideas.

    That's not to say that a lot of these elites aren't very smart people and that some of them don't have some grasp on the larger social implications (many are quite brilliant and sensitive); it is to say that the process is incomplete. It's as if there's a world where consensus is important and a world where telling the public what the world of experts thinks (that is, top down) is more important than consensus. That wouldn't be a problem where the subject really requires only expertise - like in medicine or any other scientific or technological field. You don't get consensus from the public before you agree on what is cancer and what is not. However, when you talk about parks and policy, this is primarily an issue of values first - the parks are set aside primarily first because of a value. So, since you are talking about values about governance and power and control (that is policy and its execution), you have to involve the public as a primary vehicle. So, I strongly object to the process of such a commission as a vehicle for change. It's inconsistent to work for consensus like this; it's not a question for a range of experts - it's a question for all people. And, the only hope of the commission is that it realizes its own shortcoming in being able to come up with recommendations for the parks and encourages an aggressive plan for people to have the opportunity to become not only advocates for parks but also to have a real say in what they are and what they should be.

    What I've said perhaps seems to be open to the criticism that leaving the public too much say and participation in the process will lead to the kind of mismanagement one would expect if for instance one let Cody and West Yellowstone determine Yellowstone snowmobile policy. However, first off, the public isn't really the owner of the processes even representing those towns; secondly, public isn't restricted to those towns. There's no reason why non-locals shouldn't have a say as well and be part of the process.

    Another objection is the sheer logistics of it all. That's no doubt an issue, but if we agree that it's the starting point, then the consequences of the mind-numbing logistics involved with true participatory involvement in considering parks issues should be met head on. If it's socially impossible to conceive of a coherent American parks system AND a truly participatory system in coming to terms with issues and management, then I'd argue that it's the former that needs to go, that the former must have been built on a fundamentally flawed process - and that we will be bound to be spinning in circles. And, really, that comes down to the main reason I'm so tired of these commissions. Because in the end, it's a lot of spinning. There are often some very good ideas, but ideas without the right process mean little. Since commissions are used in part to give process validation to the right ideas, it's all the more troubling in this case when we go down this route.

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

  • Sierra Club Caught Standing Atop Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    Mesa Arch is almost certainly the most accessible arch to walk across anywhere on the Colorado Plateau. It takes no effort at all, with the top of the arch only about 10 feet or so high, and, frankly, it isn't terribly intimidating. There are no conspicuous signs warning people to stay off the arch, no serious attempt at educating the public about the dangers of climbing the arch or what damage may occur to the arch from doing so. The alternative would be to fence off Mesa Arch, but that would deface the it nearly as much as anything else. The staff at Arches and Canyonlands (both under the same management umbrella) generally do a great job, but they really need to illustrate for the public that climbing Mesa Arch isn't just dangerous, but will potentialy deface one of the most beautiful arches in North America.

  • Decisions on Controlling Elk in Theodore Roosevelt, Wind Cave National Parks Likely to Linger Into 2009   6 years 29 weeks ago


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Alaska hunts you cite primarily are subsistence-based, no? It's been an ingrained way of life for long before the Park Service was even thought of, and many of those parks rose up in recent history around traditional hunting grounds for the locals, as opposed to parks in the Lower 48/conterminous states that long have existed and which long have been out-of-bounds for hunting.

    While I'm not so sure getting the general public to sign off on the hunts would be a big deal -- especially not in light of recent surveys that show 69% of those polled favor drilling for oil both in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off-shore -- I do wonder about the problems those gut piles you mention would create.

    Would hunters take their elk deep in the backcountry and leave the gut piles there, away from hiking trails? Doubtful, I'd think.

    As a result, would you have to close parks to the general public during and for a period of time following hunts to allow bears to clean up the gut piles? Or would they be largely inconsequential?

    I do wonder about the feasibility of returning wolves into some of these parks to control the ungulate populations. They've seemed to do a reasonable job in Yellowstone, although elk numbers are probably still too high.

  • Sierra Club Caught Standing Atop Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    My husband and I attended a photo workshop at Mesa Arch and have beautiful photos to prove it. All I can say is, "What were they thinking?" Isn't the beauty of the arch enough to encourage preservation? Who needs a human to mess up the scene?

  • Accidents Happen at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Usually Because People Break Commonsense Water Safety Rules   6 years 29 weeks ago

    Interesting question, Frank. The National Park Service considers LAME's birthday to be August 11, 1947, just as it is indicated in Wikipedia. If you'd like to see the NPS list of national park birthdays, see this site. The NPS considers the park birthdates to be the dates "... of the earliest legislative or executive actions authorizing or establishing the park areas." There are some inconsistencies here and there, mostly due to name-change redesignations.

  • Black Bear Attacks Child at Great Smoky Mountains National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    Hopefully the boy will mend fine and not be too traumatized by the attack. Unfortunately a bear – the assumed attacker - was destroyed.

    In May my son came home from his university for the weekend. As always, he came in to the house said hello, stretched, drank some water and went back out to get his bags. He came back in real quick telling me a young black bear was out on the driveway.

    I snuck out and snap a few pictures of a “curious” 18-24 month old black bear looking at me from around the corner. I then called our state game and fish people (no easy task though thanks to a professional 911 county operator we finally got hold of someone that night). Ultimately, the young bear was captured and relocated. We live in rural Washington State.

    With nearly 35 years in the NPS I only head one close encounter with black bears. I worked a bear jams in South Yellowstone NP in the early ‘70’s. A lot of the people exhibited some really strange and dangerous “behavior.” People, way too many people, lack a general awareness of what’s going on around them. The parks are not unfenced, open air zoos.

  • Sierra Club Caught Standing Atop Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    Frank, the Sierra Club is a nonprofit group, and though it's no longer a 501c3 (the club lost its charitable status during its battle to stop the Bureau of Reclamation from damning the Colorado and flooding the Grand Canyon), it still conducts many c3 activities and is supported by its sister 501c3 organization, the Sierra Club Foundation. It's definitely a grassroots group, local members hold much of the decision making power, for better or for worse. Of course, many National Parks might not be protected today without the efforts of the club; and no matter how you feel about the organization, it's clear that the National Park System has greatly benefited from the Sierra Club.

  • Decisions on Controlling Elk in Theodore Roosevelt, Wind Cave National Parks Likely to Linger Into 2009   6 years 29 weeks ago


    To look at hunting as a tool for Park-management is an intriguing if elusive proposition. It obviously has considerable potential, but thorny problems. It is laudable that you take on this challenging topic.

    I also read your previous somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion to charge high fees for in-Park hunts .

    To put the hunting-idea into action will take a change in the conditioning of the public, and it will take a similar change in Park officialdom. The first might be both the more important and the more practical. (The second can be done by fiat.)

    This might be the place to note, that rural residents in or near Parks in Alaska are allowed to hunt (and trap) Park animal populations. This is a base of experience that could serve as a valuable reference.

    It is noteworthy that we so readily look upon these two particular excess-elk situations, as a context to explore the question of hunting as a policy-consideration applicable to Parks in general.

    If the ice is broken in some places for certain reasons, then it should become easier to use hunting under other circumstances.

    Hunters dress the carcass and leave the high-quality "gut-ball" on the site. These are a bonanza for a variety of wildlife, but bears especially benefit. Wildlife populations quickly learn the timing of hunting seasons, and integrate the offal into their annual cycle.

    Few hunters in the conterminous States are accustomed to hunting in off-road situations. Large game is carefully brought down reasonably near a road. (Shooting a 500 pound animal in a location where it will have to be backpacked many miles is a mistake one rarely repeats.) To hunt the backcountry of our larger Parks will require other methods. Snowmobiles or ATVs might be recommended.

    It is common that 'Park animals' are actually partly Park-residents, and partly reside in State or Forest Service or Private lands. This is acknowledged in discussing the present elk-problems. Less directly acknowledged, is that combining the wildlife management agencies of the extra-Park component, with the Park management would be more ecologically valid that assigning animals to one or another based on an arbitrary (and usually invisible) line in the woods.

    I would be doubtful of the prospect for wider use of hunting in the Parks, but we do live in exciting times: changes are taking place, and it is possible that some of these could include the many hunters of our nation.

  • Sierra Club Caught Standing Atop Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    weird that they would even CONSIDER such a stunt. I'm headed to that area in November myself for a photo trip--did they not just see that an entire arch collapsed in Arches?

  • Accidents Happen at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Usually Because People Break Commonsense Water Safety Rules   6 years 29 weeks ago

    Trivial point of clarification requested:

    "On October 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the act that formally established the "Lake Mead National Recreation Area." This act redesignated the old Boulder Dam Recreation Area, whose boundaries had been substantially enlarged in 1947 to include the yet-to-be-filled Lake Mohave, in recognition of its equally significant recreational opportunities." Source:

    So is this the date it was first called Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LAME to use the NPS abbrev.)? Or is it the one listed at Wikipedia: "The name was changed to Lake Mead National Recreation Area on August 11, 1947."?

  • Collapse of "Wall Arch" Proves Gravity Does Work at Arches National Park   6 years 29 weeks ago

    I wanted to do that Fiery Furnace walk but was too chicken when they showed me the pics of it. Was it scary or fantastically worth it? I love that park so much. Wish I were there right now for the Perseid.