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.
now proposing "reform" legislation that would, in effect, gut the LWCF, the group said.
Which is an absolute lie? It would have no such effect. The vast majority of the funds would continue to go toward the original targets of LWCF.
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!
I'm working on a book of "repeat photography" of historic photo sites in 25 National Parks. In 2015 I had the privilege of visiting 13 Parks (see list at end). Quick impressions, maybe a tip or two and a rant.
My highlights this year:
- Ebey's Landing National Historic Preserve - one of those NPS units you rarely hear of. But of course it is a little gem, great coastal landscape, fantastic vistas across the Puget Sound into the Olympics and even to Mt Rainier, a lot of history
- Glacier NP: finally made it to Iceberg Lake on a glorious summer day. A-ma-zing.
Nov 11th - 10:54am |
We had a tremendous family trip in July. Took the Airstream trailer from California around the Great Basin. We went to Zion, Bryce, Arches, Canyonlands, and ended back at Yosemite. The crowds were plentiful and we sensed that critical mass was being approached.
Nov 11th - 09:20am |
Just returned from a 6700 mile driving tour of the usa in a truck camper (October 7 - October 30).
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.
Would hate to see a reservation system. Part of the beauty of the parks is not having to stick to a schedule. Don't mind the shuttle idea -as an option, not mandatory. Zion's valley has a very unique layout that is conducive to the shuttle. At many other parks (i.e. Yellowstone) a shuttle would be much harder (more expensive) to implement.
Nov 11th - 13:58pm |
F. Owen Hoffman
Unfortunately, the private car is here to stay, as far as I can see. However, perhaps the most straight forward solution to over crowding in our most frequented parks is a reservation system, based on the ecological and aesthetic carrying capacity of the landscape, without contructing more parking lots .....
The solution is railroads back to West Yellowstone and Gardiner, and public transportation entirely from there. Visitation will drop by half--and what remains will be the serious visitor. And even if visitation should increase, it will not require bigger roads and parking lots. Am I dreaming? Well, we had that system once, and threw it all away.
Anon - I would wager your county pols have a higher approval rating than Congress.
Nov 10th - 14:00pm |
I think it would be a huge mistake to transfer ownership or control of Federal lands to the states. I simply don't trust local elected people to do what is best for ALL of us. I've seen it on a smaller scale as a volunteer land use participant in my own county.
Sure there's a reason. It's called the Constitution, and the constitution of whatever state you likely live in.
What in the Constituion, federal or state, forbids the transfer of federal lands to the states?
bureacracies aren't "unaccountable" they are accountable to the body public
Nov 9th - 11:46am |
Sure there's a reason. It's called the Constitution, and the constitution of whatever state you likely live in. And the bureacracies aren't "unaccountable" they are accountable to the body public instead of the local consumer.
Nov 7th - 22:13pm |
Public lands are better off under local control than in the hands of an unaccountable Federal bureaucracy headquartered thousands of miles away in DC. I'd much rather have Mom and Pop recreational users influencing policies through their state representatives than Big Enviro lobbyists wining and dining Congresscritters in the Washingtonian echo chamber.
Ah, now I see the problem. Dr. Lemons wants to start the history with the National Park Service. Well, so does the NPS, and hence my article. By the time the NPS came around, the national park idea was well advanced, both legally and culturally, although no historian would deny that the Organic Act was a critical moment.
First, am I reading this right? Dr. Lemons is asserting the following: "The railroads' views about national parks never have amounted to much in the record of historical works, archives from the National Park Service (NPS), Congressional legislative history, individual parks' management policies, legislative archives, case law, or academic scholarship.
Was back in Dirty Coal Country at West Virginia University when I was promoting Frome's NEW national forest book,
Whose Woods These Are to Jim Fazio and years later while at the University of Idaho, Fazio
invited Michael to be part of the "Green Journalism" rage. Where does the Time Go ?
This is an unfunded proposal. Best the NPS focus on their present "unfunded" projects and leave the big pie in the sky things alone. If you can't manage what you have, the last thing is to grow the bureaucracy.
I'm just curious if the plan for this showcase facility will include a full complement of archivists and curators for ongoing resource managment into the future. All too often, similar to funding of the VA when we're in a war, curatorial funding is an afterthought.