You are here

All Recent Comments

Op-Ed |National Park Service Undermines America's Best Idea

Mar 28th - 21:53pm | Ethical Retired...

Yes, Sad NPS'er.  For the Centennial of the National Park Service, we have a Director who wrote a book about NPS and American "Values" while bypassing mandatory approval from the Department's Ethics Office, then lied to the Secretary of Interior about whose idea it was to write the book.  His cronyism and coverups of Park Superintendent wrongdoing are legendary.

Mar 28th - 20:15pm | Sad NPS'er

Nudy, you have no idea how awful this is for the NPS. Maybe you do know what employees are going through under Director Jarvis' "leadership". For being a career NPS'er he sure hasn't done this agency any good. The Employee Viewpoint Survey keeps getting worse and worse. Does the Director care?  Absolutely not.

Mar 28th - 19:02pm | Gary Wilson

Somsai, those 17 elk were killed on a feedlot, which is the equivalent of raising domesticated animals that lose their natural ability to be alert and avoid being prey.  This is exactly how some want to treat our National Parks too.  Like feedlots and game farms.

Mar 28th - 15:53pm | Anonymous

It is relavent to note that the NPS is still pursuing funding to buy the remaining 1200 acres of state school land in Grand Teton.  The $85 million dollar price tag may seem unreasonable with all the talk of a maintenance backlog but its the best way to ensure that lands not owned by the NPS are managed according to NPS policy.

Mar 28th - 15:31pm | som sai

I support scientific wildlife management as establishde by Aldo Leopold and implemented by among others, our US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Wyoming Fish and Game. Scientific Wildlife Management uses hunting as one of it's primary tools.

Mar 28th - 14:39pm | Leslie Lund

I am appalled by the lack of concern for and long term care for wildlife. Traps have been banned in Europe for decades since the cruel and inhumane way in which they make animals is torture and animal abuse. The FBI now keeps a listing of animal abusers, any hunters using traps or snares should be added to this list. These people are more likely to become criminals and harm other humans.

Groups Sue National Park Service To Prevent Hunting Inside Grand Teton National Park

Mar 28th - 21:43pm | rmackie

Alfred, I am listening to the "old professor", nice posts, thanks. 

Mar 28th - 20:45pm | Rick B.

Guys. He's TEFLON. Nothing sticks. He has the same rejoinders, the same chinese-finger-trap conversations, for years, and he's getting a lot of us all stirred up. Before i retired I could have pointed at the page in DSM but I plan on staying retired.

Mar 28th - 20:37pm | Alfred Runte

EC, you're a gem (I will not say shrimp). Yes, wildlife generally falls under state law, but there are federal laws, as well. Tell you what. Go out and shoot an eagle and see what government takes your head off. Then there is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Certainly you have heard of that. And the Endangered Species Act, but yes, President Obama ignores that, too.

Mar 28th - 19:57pm | ecbuck

 I can't help you interpret the national park service organic act, 

Mar 28th - 19:24pm | Gary Wilson

Once again, you have the reading comprehension of a shrimp. I can't help you interpret the national park service organic act, 16 U.S.C.1.  It's evident the school systems you attended failed you, so I can't help you further along.  I'm just spinning my wheels here and this is now hit a level of pointlessness.  

Mar 28th - 19:18pm | ecbuck

 The mission is clear on that.  Killing the largest, biggest animals for trophy hunting defeats the mission of a sanctuary.  And I suppose the missionary statement to that effect is in the same place as the laws and Constitional powers that give NPS jurisdiction over private land. - i.e. nowhere.  

Mar 28th - 19:11pm | Gary Wilson

Of course you don't because you've never invested any time, effort or thought into what it means.  You have no skin in the game other than your misguided self trolling a national park site for years on end.  You're a realtor with little comprehension of what a National Park is about.

Mar 28th - 18:56pm | ecbuck

 It is protecting the NPS mission, something I firmly trust in. And I see nothing necesarily in conflict between hunting and the NPS mission.  If there is a conflict in a certain situation, it should be banned.  If their is no conflict, it shouldn't.

Mar 28th - 18:52pm | ecbuck

The government can tell you what to do with wildlife, because wildlife has always been identified as "mobile."  Yes - the state government can tell you.  The federal government has no jurisdiction. You keep saying:  Show me where hunting is detrimental to the national parks.  

Mar 28th - 18:51pm | Gary Wilson

I gave you that answer many miles back.  You have a terrible reading comprehension problems, so of course, I don't expect you to comprehend most of what is said on this site when people respond to your useless, but always annoying trolling. And that has nothing to do with emotions.  It is protecting the NPS mission, something I firmly trust in.

Mar 28th - 18:39pm | Alfred Runte

Listen, guys, to the Old Professor. You just can't make this up as you go along. Private property or government property, wildlife is governed by laws that go back hundreds of years. If a deer is sitting in my front yard, I just don't have the right to shoot it. I can if the deer is in season, but again, not without the proper permit. You bet, EC.

Mar 28th - 18:35pm | ecbuck

The NPS should be held at a higher standard of not allowing resource extraction in their park boundaries.   So you finally have (kind of) given an answer.  There is no valid reason other than your personal emotions.

Mar 28th - 18:28pm | Gary Wilson

Once again, you seem to think that National Parks < State lands.  Not the case.  National Parks are and shall be our highest level of land protection within the entire public lands system.   This act is a inroad to eroding the system.

Mar 28th - 17:37pm | ecbuck

Still can't (won't) answer the question.  I don't need to write a disertation to ask it.  There are culling kills that take place all over the country supported by "scientific" analysis that has determined they are beneficial to their environments.  Clearly not every elk, deer, python...... kill is a detriment.

Mar 28th - 17:22pm | ecbuck

 "the federal government and the state government had agreed that federal law applied to prohibit killing wildlife  Here is the enabling legislation.  Not a peep about the feds controlling hunting on state or public land.

Mar 28th - 17:13pm | Gary Wilson

Really, a higher level?  The guy that can't write more than 2 sentances in a comment to express his thoughts.  Please.  When something is removed from a system, it does have consequences.  Define "negative impact" in this case, please?

Mar 28th - 16:53pm | ecbuck

 In many cases, the NPS has told inholders they can live on their lands for X number of years, and then the property goes over to federal ownership.

Mar 28th - 16:35pm | Kurt Repanshek

I guess that depends on what you agree to. In many cases, the NPS has told inholders they can live on their lands for X number of years, and then the property goes over to federal ownership.

Mar 28th - 16:30pm | ecbuck

..and then there's this: Which means nothing regarding authority over private property.  Do you really think the US Government can buy property surrounding my home and then tell me what I can do in my front yard?

Mar 28th - 16:16pm | Kurt Repanshek

...and then there's this:All provisions of law inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. 

Mar 28th - 16:08pm | ecbuck

Gary, you keep talking about consequences - which may or may not be valid.  I am trying to address this at a higher level.  My questions have been prefaced with "if there is no negative impact".  If you can't agree its OK if there is in fact no negative impact then your argument is totally an emotional one.

Mar 28th - 16:02pm | ecbuck

Nowhere in the enabling legislation does it allow for hunting on either federal, state, or private lands within the park's boundaries outside of the annual elk culling. It has no jurisdiction over those lands to allow or prevent hunting as acknowledge by "The park shall comprise, subject to valid existing rights,...."

Mar 28th - 15:57pm | Gary Wilson

Because, the consequences is carnivore species are mostly minimized in the process, and that goes against the National Park Service mission because it creates an impariment of cultural resources. 

Mar 28th - 15:57pm | Kurt Repanshek

Having an ecosystem in balance should be the goal, no? A natural, not artificial, balance. But that's a pretty lofty goal in this crowded world.As for som sai's comments, that interpretation was not part of the enabling legislation for Grand Teton:

Mar 28th - 15:44pm | ecbuck

As Gary notes, too often it is designed to bolster prey for hunters, and not predators to naturally manage prey.

Mar 28th - 15:39pm | Kurt Repanshek

Well, that's a discussion that could go in many directions. Personally, I have no objections to hunting. But the feeding grounds have been identified as a source of disease, and some would say artificially inflate elk numbers beyond carrying capacity.

Mar 28th - 15:30pm | ecbuck

That perhaps is true Kurt, but what would be gained by that?  From what I can see, having the feeding grounds and a brief hunt does not harm while providing recreation and food for a good number.  

Mar 28th - 15:25pm | Gary Wilson

Mission:  The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

Mar 28th - 14:39pm | Kurt Repanshek

My guess is that if Wyoming's elk feeding grounds were closed, the elk problem would solve itself and there would be no need to cull/hunt elk inside Grand Teton. 

Mar 28th - 14:36pm | ecbuck

 Obviously, it didn't register Because once again it didn't provide an answer.  If it does no harm or even is beneficial, why ban it.

Mar 28th - 14:32pm | ecbuck

There is nothing scientific about the elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park Do you have any science to indicate it is detrimental?  Seems it was a pretty attractive trade, to get GTNP (or its predecessor) for a hunt that has no ill effects.  

Mar 28th - 14:16pm | Alfred Runte

So now we believe in science. But what if the scientists have a hidden agenda? What if, in working for a federal agency, they do exactly as they are told?

Mar 28th - 14:06pm | Gary Wilson

Once again, you asked and I gave you an answer.  Obviously, it didn't register.  Once again, in NPS lands, carnivores are usually a key component, and especially in the Yellowstone ecosystem they play a key role, which is usually not allowed to occur in other areas outside of the boundaries, because these state game agencies intentionally try and mininimize the role of grizzlies, wolv

Mar 28th - 14:05pm | ecbuck

Obviously, it didn't register, The only thing that has registered is your wild conspiracy theories about various wildlife agencies.  The question, which you continue to refuse to answer is "If the science says there will be no ill effects and maybe even a beneficial impact, why not allow hunting".  

Mar 28th - 13:57pm | Gary Wilson

delete post.. duplicate.

Mar 28th - 13:30pm | ecbuck

Gary the issue isn't ungulates versus carnivores.  The issue that was being discussed was hunting in general.  If the science shows there is no ill effects on the ecosystem, I see no logical reason to ban it.  

Mar 28th - 13:26pm | Gary Wilson

Because, ungulate species in the USFS and state game land are usually unnaturally inflated to keep the fish and game agencies in the state afloat because that's their bread and butter money when they sell tags.  Whereas in the NPS, that is not the case, and not a factor, and carnivore species are protected and not intentionally minimized so that the F&G agency can promote unnaturally l

Mar 28th - 13:00pm | ecbuck

So quit putting words in my mouth, What words did I put in your mouth? You have a problem with consumptive on NPS lands.  I don't - at least not if the science indicates they won't be destructive to the long term health of the ecosystem.  I will ask again, what makes an Elk in GTNP any more sacrosanct then one in a National Forest.  

Mar 28th - 12:35pm | Gary Wilson

I don't have a problem with consumptive use in USFS areas or state game lands.  Where I have a problem with it is in NPS lands.  So quit putting words in my mouth, overlord troll.

Appeals Court Rejects Bid To End Backcountry Fees At Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Mar 28th - 18:34pm | Gary Wilson

So if this is a "kings court" would that make SFW a mere court jester?  Seems like a logical conclusion.

Mar 28th - 18:17pm | redstate guy

Ever heard of the Roman Empire?

Mar 28th - 16:01pm | SmokiesBackpacker

The Divine Right of Kings.

Mar 28th - 14:10pm | Still Hiking

Having supported this cause from the outset, i finally saw the futility of continuing the fight against a corrupt federal government agency. Especially with a two bit pro bono lawyer at the helm.And furthermore washed my hands of Quillen after he turned vulgar towards former friends who dared not continue to go along with his vindictive ways.

Senators Request More Money For National Park Service To Work On Reducing Maintenance Backlog

Mar 28th - 17:49pm | May Lattanzio

Then save some money and stop the YNP bison herd culling.  That is brutal, and the only case of brucellosis was found to have jumped to another petri dish in a lab.  The brucellosis scare is a myth.  I suggest that the Senate also stop the wild horse and burro roundups at the BLM and DOI, USFS, etc.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide