Not yet, Bob. I haven't had a chance to look at the website yet. But just noticed that Kurt (who I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time at the press conference) has added a map to the top of this article.
I attended the meeting at the Capitol this morning. Simply listening to Bishop and Chafetz, the whole thing sounded wonderful. Then some people started asking questions and Bishop responded with some attacks on "environmentalists." He specifically pointed a claim that "some of them have been using an old draft version of the bill" and that their concerns were not valid because
If the trade mark names are proven to belong to DNC it still is only worth what the market will bear. rmackie brings up a possibility that this was not transfered could be proven in court. All interesting. But you cannot just petition away someones ownership of a trademark.
Oh, please, EC. "Corporations are more heavily regulated today than they have ever been before." That's their spin, but it's not good history. Look at all of the crap the airlines have been pulling since the elimination of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Same with the railroads and the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
"Was" a time when they were heavily regulated? Corporations are more heavily regulated today than they ever have been before.
Jan 20th - 08:13am |
Changing the names was a smart move. It prevents DNC from making an argument in court that the parks and new concessionaire are illegally using the names startinbg 3/1. It also reduces the value of the names as a barganing chip for DNC. I don't think the name change will be in place forever and expect the NPS to evenually get the names back in a court settlement.
Jan 19th - 22:57pm |
Unfortunately Lee,I think it is more than a few. There was a time in this country when corporate entities where tightly regulated. Across most states ,they were prohibited from, among other things, making political contributions. That changed after the Civil War with the growth of railroad monopolies., industrialization, etc. and the wealth and power they obtained.
Unfortunately, there are more than just a few large corporations that have completely abandoned even a pretense of exercising ethical conduct or using honesty as their standard. But then again, I guess that's really nothing new.
EC has a point, many believe, and some state supreme courts have so stated, that the sole purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders/stakeholders.
Unless you are a socialist or a communist, I can't see on what basis anyone could come to any other conclusion.
I'd note that it is a little bit more complex because of when the trademarks were filed. I did a search and at least two were registered when Yosemite Park & Curry Company actually owned the Ahwahnee Hotel and operated the Bracebridge Dinner. Now whether or not the title of those trademarks were properly transferred to Delaware North is another matter.
Jan 19th - 12:35pm |
The historic names were there before the concessionaire was there. The names should remain with the park. If they don't, the concessionaire should not be allowed to use them. It's only a way to try to rip off the taxpayer.
Jan 19th - 11:56am |
Lee, I am certainly not an expert in any of this, but I do think that, among other legal arguments, the Historic Preservation Act prohibits trademarking sites listed on the National register. But you are right, with that much money on the table, who pays attention to reading the law. The issue will probably have to be litigated, the courts sorting it all out. It is a darn shame in my view.
DNC cares nothing for the law
Yeah, that's why they were using the legal process to keep what they thought was theirs. And of course they are seeking to pull more money into their coffers. That is the purpose of their existence.
Agreed, Comrade. DNC cares nothing for the law nor, apparently, for much of anything else involving anything that won't pull more money into their coffers. If they did, people wouldn't be upset about the situation.
@Forest Lover - No, more like a Forest Supervisor. Some national forests like San Bernandino are incredibly complex with hundreds and hundreds of employees, some are like the somewhat-tiny Sam Houston National Forest where the total acreage and staff is smaller than any one district in San Bernandino. Just like there is a big difference between Sitka NHP versus Yellowstone NP.
Jan 20th - 02:36am |
A National Park Service Superintendent is equivalent to a Forest Service District Ranger, both are responsible for managing public land acres and employees that do the work.
Jan 19th - 18:01pm |
Another Sitka P...
"The only thing the National Park Service did wrong was to take so long to remove her from office."
I FULLY agree with this response.
In the Juneau Empire article from 2010, I'd like to point out this excerpt:
On the one hand, the name change is great, as the conspicuous appearance of these strange names, and the historic signage not matching the names in the brochures will call attention to a very relevant theme in national park and American history.
I would like to see a story about the native American rock art in the Parks, especially the least accessible. It's getting almost impossible to get info from NPS employees. It seems like their assumption is that if the locations are made too easy to obtain, We The People will over run the site or vandalize it.
Jan 19th - 13:45pm |
How about a story about how much NPS spends on "planning" at the Ice Age National Scenic Trail" compared to similar parks around the country and compared to what was spent on planning the AT? About ten years ago an NPS official from the east stated, "You are planning the Ice Age Trail to death" in a meeting with NPS IATR staff and partner organization officials.
Bear spray is great stuff, but it's a good idea to get a little training in using it. Distance, wind direction, bear escape options, presence of cubs, etc. all play a role in deciding when and how to employ pepper spray. When I was flying NPS aircraftI made it a policy to place bear spray in the floats.
A call to the capitol revealed that the "press conference" will be held a 9 a.m. in the Gold Room on the second floor of the main capitol building. Attending should be an interesting experience. I hope some other Traveler buffs from Utah will be there, too.
I doubt flash bang devices or fully automatic weapons would have prevented Ranger Margaret Anderson's murder. A WA fugitive alert had been issued the day before for her killer, but news reports at the time said the park was not connected to the alert system, so she never knew she was dealing with violent criminal on the run rather than a tire-chain scofflaw.
I would only be in known bear country with a firearm. I wish to use all my resources to preserve my life. I would hate to need to use deadly force, I'm a human with the option to defend myself with a firearm, and feel if I want to be in the wild, prepare for it best I know how, and preservation of life is 1# in my book.
Jan 18th - 21:53pm |
It's impossilbe to make a valid comparison of the studies on bear spray and firearms. The majority of bear-human encounters in the 2 studies on bear spray are about people--including wildlife professionals--using bear spray to haze curious or non-aggressive bears.
Interesting, Dave Smith. In reports I read, Bear Spray was effective in 92% of brown bear close encounters, 90% of black bear close encounters, and 100% of polar bear encounters (there were only two). Further, 98% of people, in bear/human encounters, came out with only minor, if any, injuries.
Ed Abbey said it very well. "If humans insist on invading grizzly bear territory, they shouldn't object when a bear occasionally harvests a trespasser."
Jan 18th - 10:02am |
Yellowstone is a lot of fun and beautiful too, but lets face it it's just a zoo for city folks, playground, like Central Park. People want to see wildlife and pretend they are wild. Some are going to get eaten. Bears do eat people.
Jan 18th - 09:26am |
I am not a true believer in bear spray, however, the question I would ask to people who choose not to carry bear spray or a firearm for self-defense while hiking in grizzly country is, "What are your options during a worst-case scenario?" Running is not a option. Running for a climbable tree and then climbing until your feet are a minimum of 10 ft.
I think the time would be better spent training the humans to be afraid of bears. Or at least a little less stupid. I spent more than a month this summer in Montana and Wyoming and I always carried bear spray. Hiking alone in known bear territory - he knew better but went anyway. He wanted to use his "vigilance?" I guess it works, until it doesn't.
Before anyone gets too confident about these eagles, you should know that the environs of the Lake Mead National Recreation just east of Searchlight, Nevada, have been targeted for a massive wind farm. A poor environmental impact statement has temporarily stalled it, but you know what they say about patience and money. Here is the latest from the Desert Protective Council: