For someone who spent more than three decades in the NPS, I find his lack of understanding about how the NPS is funded queer, if not shocking. Congress does not simply throw a bag of money containing a fixed amount at the NPS and tell them to figure out how to allocate it (oh, if only!)
The supposed National Park Service $11.5 maintenance "backlog," and its temporarily less-than-optimal operating budget represent a phony "crisis," manufactured by anti-park and public land members of Congress.
Jul 8th - 13:05pm |
A number of high dollar urban locations could easily be removed from the national park lists with little harm to the areas. The parks in NYC, San Fransisco, Akron could easily be managed by local park authorities with little loss to either the areas or the allure if the national park system.
-- TO ecbuck: ecbuck is right that neither Democrats nor Republicans have stepped up very well recently.
Although, to generalize, Republicans a little worse, occasional a lot worse, but once in a while Republicans are much better than Democrats. Obviously McCain had a much stronger "National Park Platform" when he ran than Obama did.
A point of order is necessary in light of D-2's comment. The above article is clearly marked as an Op-Ed, not a position taken by the Traveler.
Jul 7th - 10:42am |
D2 is obviously an NPS King and the arrows have hit into his lair. Or should I say liar. How do we know this? Because discrediting individuals instead of addressing issues is the Jarvis model. You folks bring it on yourselves.
This is indeed a thought-provoking article worthy of a serious discussion. Thanks to Kurt and NPT and the author for having the courage to publish it! D-2's angry, semi-coherent reply is a good example of why NPS senior management will probably never take such a discussion seriously. They are too obsessed with More, at any price, to care about sustainability. This attitude that the
d-2, you may have your disagreements with Harry (most of which seem to be based on self-preservation of the sources) but I for one appreciate the discussion. As is typically the case the "science" isn't settled and shutting down dissent is not the way to get to the solution. I thank Kurt presenting diverse views.
'Your disagreement does nothing to invalidate them"
But the facts do. When dems where in control, the funding for the Parks did not grow materially. It isn't a political issue as you try to make it. But it is no wonder that budgets and fiscal discipline are alien to you.
I understand your attempt to defend your extremist politics, including transference or saying that only I politicize the conversation and also the patronizing manner you attempt to ever so gently correct me.
That said, I'll go ahead and stand by my opinions. Your disagreement does nothing to invalidate them, but it does remind me why I try not to interact with you. Bye.
"I can't help but to think that if responsible budgeting by Congress was to be ripped from the claws of the parsimonious tea partiers and their ilk, and restored to the true needs of the mandate of the parks, then this debate would fade"
Jul 6th - 22:36pm |
Thank you d-2, I agree. I do not think Dr. Butowsky has this right, you pointed it out very well. There are some excellent books on these issues, Dwight Rettie, "Our National Parks" has an excellent discussion on why we do not want to decommission units of our park system. A book coming out on July 15th, "Your Yosemite", by Bob Binnewies is just excellent, addresses Dr.
Jul 6th - 20:42pm |
Fair enough, D-2. I am a discredit to the parks. But at least I sign my name. Why have you not done so? I'll tell you why, and it's what I have been driving at. Park Service management does not want this debate. It rather wants to assure Congress and the American people that the only debate needed is from within.
I can't help but to think that if responsible budgeting by Congress was to be ripped from the claws of the parsimonious tea partiers and their ilk, and restored to the true needs of the mandate of the parks, then this debate would fade. The parks have an intangible value, and I believe they should not be put into a profit-making dollarization.
"have that discussion?" These articles by Dr. Butowsky are so depressing. Partly because they are never "a discussion." Factual refutations that remove the substance to these articles make no difference to him, they are just repeated over and over.
As someone familiar with the several efforts to delist Saguaro National Monument (which each seemed like good ideas at the time), I'm cautious about blanket recommendations for reducing the number of parks.
zrf brings up some excellent points -- and once again greed rears its ugly head. There are a lot of developers in this state who are constantly drooling in hopes that they might someday be able to get their paws on some choice land so they slap up a few mega-mansion vacation homes for those who can afford them. One such parcel sits just outside the Needles Unit of Canyonlands.
I run the website you linked about new National Park proposals, undiscoveredamerica.org/proposed-national-parks/. I'm a pragmatist above all things, and while I hope for a large expansion of the NPS in the future, I'd also be very happy to see some lands transferred to different agencies, as well as some NPS sites decommissioned. I think this is a reasoned approach.
A serious and thought-provoking article. I've often wondered at presidential sites. How many are there for Clinton alone? Three?
How many of our current parks (using the term very broadly) are direct results of some Congress critter seeking a load of bacon to haul home to impress the folks?
Great article, Mr. B. I would like to see new administration that values visitation and the wishes of stakeholding communities instead of increasing their fiefdom and ruling like Kings and Queens. A guy I know cornered Jarvis the other day to express concerns and Jarvis couldn't answer any of the guys' questions.
Thanks for a thought-provoking article. I certainly agree about the role of other organizations in running presidential homes, especially those of recent, current and future presidents, where there are other organizations capable of running them.
Definitely a discussion worth having. Perhaps the 100th anniversary would be a good time to revisit the scope of the NPS. A great combo would be reduced units and expanded funding. Meanwhile, I'm on my way to my favorite, Yellowstone, today.
Springtime in Acadia National Park appears the best time to see wildflowers there, based on our interviews and research for a recent blog post. The rhodora in Great Meadow in particular are spectacular, and have been the subject of park commentaries for nearly 100 years.
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is 'Ridiculous' & 'Dead Wrong' on 'Global Warming'
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'
'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.'
'Global warming really has become a new religion.'
Nice job Kurt on a very complex issue. Some thoughts. The first litigation in the Big Cypress on the off-road vehicle issue was launched in 1995 by the Florida Biodiversity Project. At that time, there were no limitations on the number of vehicles accessing the preserve - or where they could go.
Jul 7th - 19:56pm |
There's nothing in the original enabling legislation for the Preserve or the Addition Lands that speaks to former Superintendent Ramos' assertion that the NPS is to "balance preservation and traditional access into the preserve." He misreads the law and, unfortunately so did the judge in the recent case, which I expect will be overturned upon appeal.
What a shame. Earlier, I stayed in the wing that they are going to tear down. Yes, they're small but I couldn't detect any smell. And you can't beat the location.Why tear down perfectly good lodging?Danny Bernsteinwww.hikertohiker.com
I do not know SmokiesBackpacker, I do think Sally Jewel is well qualified for the job, she is also an avid mountaineer, very fit, quite experienced. Is she committed to the serious threats our parks face, we will see, perhaps I am wrong but I think that is your point and I think it is a valid question.