More information will be available soon, but concessioners across the nation are embracing Every Kid in a Park and its efforts to help every 4th graders discovering learning and fun in the outdoors. Concessioner efforts will include support for school visits, for visits by 4th graders with their families and visits to parks by youth organizations with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Thanks, Wild. One thing that struck me about Glacier Bay was that many visitors seemed ready and eager to partake of interpretive programs. (After all, there's no TV) I think my solo trip with Amy Brodbeck was really due to rain. When I left the lodge and headed down toward the ranger station at the boat dock, there were five or six others with me. But it was raini
Thanks for bringing back some good memories Lee. And unlike most parks you cannot do a drive through in Glacier Bay nor do you have to worry about crowds. It really is an amazing place. I also highly suggest you go back to see the whales. While I also appreciate your love and support of the parks but forgive me if I point out your conflicting statements.
The park is a dead zone. The real attraction to inner city adultd & children were seeing the deer not your grasses.
It's so sad driving through the park knowing its a killing zone of wildlife
Why do you have to kill living creaures that can't defend themselves so your grass looks.
My past requests for financial information from NPS management were almost completely ignored here at Mount Rainier. Their favorite press release excuse for the accelerating public closures here in recent years is "insufficient staff'', despite an almost 50% increase in FTE's (personnel funding).
you have to dig into it to see where the money is allocated.
Unfortunately "transparancy" is a word unfamiliar to the parks. In 1998 legislation was passed that required them to publish their budget. I would like to know if, when and why that was dropped as few if any parks comply.
No hard answer without calling NPS, EC, but don't forget the sequester knocked funding levels back a bit, and so while there might be a percentage increase, has it made up for that completely and actually moved budgets forward from before the sequester? And if so, how much?
Some readers may find this article interesting. It's from the Kane County newspaper in Kanab, one of the gateway towns to Zion and a hotbed of anti-federal lands folks.
But it sounds as if this meeting was quite amicable.
Rick, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I present the facts with citations. I have opinions but if I am wrong, I admit it (cost of grazing for example). I don't make baseless accusations. I don't engage in personal attacks - at least not as initiator. I don't dismiss an argument based solely on its author.
What's it like to live in a world where, as long as anyone here can recall, you exhibit zero self doubt and absolutely zero admission of error? All the same time lecturing one and all - fellow adults with education and experience and stuff - lecture one and all about their own errors.
What a special world.
Alfred, I generally agree with you other than I don't think Bishop is gutting the LWCF. However, dispite some conservative credentials, you are a Federal lands guy at heart so I can see how you would feel that way.
Why is anyone in the least surprised that Congress is all about backroom deals? Take Obamacare; take green energy. All began as backroom deals, as well. To visit Congress is not to find them debating the merits of ideas on the floor. That C-Span speech is just for the constituents. If the camera panned the room, the seats would be empty.
EC, while we have yet to see amendments, any thoughts on how the PILT program found a home in LWCF? Someone might "infer" it was a backroom deal.But here's the larger problem: This revision chips away at the original intention/mission of the LWCF, just as Congress chips away at the Social Security program by diverting funds elsewhere. No doubt, there are other examples.
"PS, what is a contradiction is your constant ranting about Congress but wanting to give them more power at the same time."
And when even Paul Ryan cites backroom deals and amendments unrelated to bills to which they are attached as one cause of American lack of confidence in Congress, it would seem I'm on pretty firm ground with that.
It's those sneaky backroom legislation by amendment deals that have given so many Americans so little confidence in Congress
Legislation by amendment has nothing to do with allocation of the $900 mil. No contradiction on my part just more empty accusations on yours.
Ol' Lester Dethloff
And your other mentor Alinsky told you, when you know you are wrong, change the subject or personally attack your opponent. When you can contribute more than empty accusations or personal attacks. Let us know.
Kurt, as to your intentions, I can only infer based on your statements (current and previous). There is minimal reduction in actual land acquisition. The by far larger changes this bill implements is a shift from fed to state land acquisition and from "other" to education and innovation in the offshore drilling business.
EC, no ideological objections to fossil fuels. You are quite handy at assuming what others think. That would be like me saying you're really pleased with Bishop's revision because it strips at least a third of the money away from conservation projects, which you support because you don't like conservation.
Ol' Lester Dethloff, the crusty, dusty old pilot who taught me to fly, gave his students some wonderful advice. "When ye get t' thinkin' ye absolutely know yer right, yer likely t'be dead pretty quick."
As directed by Congress and their lobbyists.
Nope. Congress writes the Executive executes. The only way Congress can direct is by rewriting the legislation.
Are you absolutely sure of that?
Until you provide evidence to the contrary - absolutely
Congress writes the laws.
The executive branch (and its unelected bureacracy) executes them.
As directed by Congress and their lobbyists.
Bishop will have no ability or slither space to game the system.
Are you absolutely sure of that?
That gives them all kinds of slither space to game the system.
Once again you have proven the failure of your civics teacher. Congress writes the laws. The executive branch (and its unelected bureacracy) executes them. Bishop will have no ability or slither space to game the system.
Furthmore Kurt, you noted the funding has actually been well short of the $900 mil. As I read the legislation, Congress can allocate to the fund and to the extent they don't, the offshore leasing fees automatically kick in to make up the difference. Obviously they have been short of the $900 million.
". . . except perhaps the attempts of those that are trying to game the system."
Now you're getting close. Any time Congress starts messing around with something that has been working well, it opens the door wide to all those gamers. Rob Bishop is one of the chief gamers, as Kurt has so ably pointed out.
Before Bishop's revised legislation, none of LWCF went to the energy industry, and yes, I think "education" falls under the energy industry when the funding would to fund "offshore energy education grants" and not some other general education sector.Why not conservation grants? Why not fund energy education through the Energy Department budget?
He would divert at least 20 percent to the oil industry for exploration, innovation, and yes, education (jobs for the oil industry, not the conservation industry). So will it be 20, or 25, or 50 percent? Hard to say at this point.
Also Kurt, I might note looking at your ring charts, it would appear that some 20% already goes to "other purposes" - that is other than land acquisition. So the drop is far less than inferred. And again from the ring charts, the most notable change is the relationship of state acquisitions versus federal acquisitions.
The bill would reauthorize LWCF for seven years and does NOT include any mandatory funding.
I don't see where this bill makes any changes to the funding mechanism. Perhaps you could point out where it says annual appropriations are required.
It's nice to see that there are still some in America who are able to see things that have values that simply cannot be measured in dollars and cents. And some who can see beyond the propaganda and lies of those who worship money.
Anon, your comments were very interesting. As a professional urban planner, perhaps you might have skills necessary to do much better job of looking carefully at reasons for things like the mess in Yosemite. I keep asking and seeking answers to just a couple of what should be simple questions: 1) How much of the NPS adoption of mismanagement plans that increase commercial deve
Nov 12th - 19:10pm |
I went to Mt. Rainier in a "shoulder" season. A few spots were terribly crowded (Paradise), but most of the park wasn't that bad. The air quality was dismal thanks to wildfires nearby. Truly dismal. It made the spectactular scenery somewhat less easy to appreciate. Still, I saw a lot of wildlife, which was awesome.
Nov 12th - 17:23pm |
After watching The National Parks: America's Best Idea, a 2009 documentary film by director/producer Ken Burns, I thought it would be a good time to one again visit Yosemite National Park.
I first visited Yosemite National Park 70 years ago when I was six years old. I've been returning to the park every few years ever since.
Rocky Mountain NP was terribly over-crowded. With overcrowding comes litter issues. We headed over to Indian Peaks Wilderness for a hike one day while we were there, just to avoid the congestion, and only saw one other person in the nine hours we out hiking. The areas are adjacent, but what a difference! Overcrowding is definitely an issue and this was past peak fall color viewing!
Veeerrry interesting, but not funny. When my husband and I spent the night at the Mt. Rainier Paradise Lodge on the occasion of our 50th wedding anniversay, ist cost us plenty, and the nattresses were so bad that after one night we decided to sleep at home in our own beds to avoid the back pains.