All Recent Comments
Sep 20th - 00:50am | Rick B.
I think it is great that the NPS reached outside themselves and hired an Inupiat who, per this article, seems to have the education and experience to truly connect responsibly with the lands she will be managing. She is already quite experienced in the issues of the land, although she will have a steep learning curve of the climate within her new agency.
Sep 19th - 22:51pm | RD Payne
Those interested in reading "Animal Life as an Asset of National Parks" a copy is available at: https://archive.org/details/jstor-1643783
Sep 19th - 20:47pm | SmokiesBackpacker
I was there for 10 days in June. It does seem a little bit scattered management wise. We were down in Tortuguerra and up in Arenal. Beautiful.
Sep 19th - 18:03pm | Rick Smith
CR has some beatiful parks, but I am a bit worried about the management of those areas. Many CR rangers on Spanish language forums complain about the lack of attention the government pays to them.
Sep 19th - 20:32pm | J. Randall
Just a question for the adventurers that choose to go into griz territory. That is thier backyard why go in it? Bragging rights? Too many people crawling all over this planets' remote wilderness areas like ants. Just stay out and no harm to wildlife and your selfish selfs. Unless of course you need to boast about it in the bar and impress people that don't care anyway.
Sep 17th - 11:27am | Tim M.
calling someone a "stupid tree hugger" is a very convincing argument. Discussions on NPT have really gone to crap.
Sep 15th - 16:43pm | Ronda
If a bear charges at 35 mph at me or my family time is critical...you can't over think. Sometimes common sense screams self preservation. I've been mauled before. Don't think I'll say oh nice Mr. Bear while he snacks on me. Split judgement split reaction. Human before animals.
Information Sought By Park Users, And That Provided By The National Park Service, Can Be Miles Apart
Sep 19th - 11:08am | Ethical Retired...
"Public comments do not constitute a vote". That is true, the merits of a plan are what's important. However, when 85% of respondents oppose the plan, that indicates that there is some kind of problem that needs to be addressed. As noted above, too often the public involvement process is merely a formality rather than being substantive.
Sep 18th - 20:47pm | SmokiesBackpacker
"Public comments do not constitute a vote." Superintendent Dale Ditmanson, 2012 following the inconvenient disclosure that 85% of respondents opposed the backcountry camping fee in GRSM. And they marched on in defiance of the bothersome taxpayers.
Sep 18th - 20:37pm | trailadvocate
Kurt, you have to know yourself after I provided you all of the public comments to an issue at Grand Canyon National Park that it is as BAhiker stated. Just another formality then proceed to their preferred alternative. You do remember don't you? Where NPS released a statement that public comments supported their decision when they clearly did not?
Sep 15th - 18:57pm | SmokiesBackpacker
We lowly taxpayers are too stupid to understand the complicated matrix that is the NPS. Thank you Dana Soehn for making us feel like the doormats we are to you. And you wonder why locals are fed up with the Smokies "cognoscenti". Everything you bureaucrats do is to suit yourselves.
Sep 14th - 11:54am | redstate guy
The Roman Empire all over again.
Sep 14th - 10:44am | Jim Casada
This unfolding fee saga is nothing new, and what is particularly exasperating is that spokeswoman Dana Soehn, whether intentionally or not, comes across as singularly condescending. Many who follow NPS matters closely have ample reason to think that an attitude of "we know what is good for you" or "we have the expertise" is their standard mindset.
Sep 14th - 10:05am | tahoma
Besides hills and curves, that "information highway between park managers and park users..." also contains some notable dead-ends in my experience. NPS management whines constantly for more money, but good luck getting them to disclose how they spent the last batch.
Sep 14th - 09:59am | NoEditButton
*grateful *Southern Forest Watch #proofread
Sep 14th - 09:38am | ecbuck
Unfortunately this is just a minor example of what is terribly wrong with our federal government today. Spinning information, avoiding transparency and providing minimal information in order to gain support for a predetermined outcome (and often unrelated agenda) is par for the course. At least for the NPS it is a Constitutionally granted power.
Sep 14th - 07:16am | BAhiker
This has been happening for years in our national park system. I thought everyone knew by now that the "public comment" thing is just some extra red tape that the bureaucrats have to jump through. It almost never really changes the outcome of what the government wants to do.
Sep 14th - 07:15am | A Deal's a Deal!
'no toll or license fee shall ever be imposed...' - No spinning it. That is the agreement. No 'if', 'ands' or 'buts'. Our park and our way of life is under attack. The efforts of the Great Southern Forest Watch has brought this to my attention very clearly. I am greatful for Kurt Repanshek for telling it like it is in this article.
Sep 14th - 06:49am | SmokiesBackpacker
It's gonna be hard for Cash to spin this one. The NPS own is criticizing the process. What Kurt didn't mention is that over half of respondents OPPOSE this fee increase. So here is what Ca$h will do. Instead of a 25%, he will modify to %20 and act like he is doing everyone a favor. The public comments are nothing more than a checked box on FLREA.
Sep 18th - 15:22pm | Millie P. Schaf...
Once again, the NPS failed to manage deer humanely. Killing fixes nothing and this curelty will never end. I hope the people rise up and fight this aggressively. There are humane options - that work!
Sep 18th - 11:53am | Carol White
I also visited Big Bend National Part in late March -April 2016. The Claret Cup cactus were blooming everywhere along the Window Trail and as you mentioned the Ocotillo were all blooming throughout the park.
Sep 13th - 07:27am | Anonymous
Love the heart shaped cactus!
Sep 18th - 08:15am | SmokiesBackpacker
Colby Coombs is an Alaska legend. AMS is probably the most dialed in guide service in the Range. They would be foolish to discontinue their contract at any point although I know this is just window dressing for the sake of avoiding impropriety.
Sep 16th - 15:55pm | Kurt Repanshek
Right you are, gentlemen! I was fortunate to be there earlier this week and enjoy the mountains.
Sep 16th - 15:52pm | Jim Gramann
I agree. Shenandoah National Park.
Sep 15th - 10:15am | Brandon Strohl
Big Meadows Entrance Road in Shenandoah National Park.
Sep 16th - 15:03pm | Rick B.
Great images to go along with the article.
Sep 16th - 06:47am | Gustopher
My wife and I visited Jasper only one month ago. We marveled at the majestic beauty all about, and were especially excited to come across a black bear with two cubs during a hike one day. We'll not soon forget this trip.
Sep 15th - 18:33pm | Ed Pomphrey
Keep in mind afternoon heat and chance tunderstorm (lightning). Otherwise go for it and have fun. Ed Pomphrey Rumosn, N.J.
Sep 14th - 21:42pm | Lynn M Cates
About time. Can't wait to see.
National Park Mystery Photo 13 Revealed: Listening Chairs at Yellowstone's Grant Village Visitor Center
Sep 14th - 12:36pm | orville bach
I have worked as a seasonal ranger in Yellowstone for over 40 years and remember them well. In fact, I still have a copy of the wonderful 6 minute message that was played. It was about why we need wilderness. The message applies today even more so than it did in the 70s. If you are in Bozeman on Oct.
Sep 12th - 12:11pm | Rick B.
Sep 12th - 10:57am | ecbuck
CJ - As discussed earlier, the legislation I cited doesn't seem to require the NPS to get authorization. Yet, we have had many Congressional Authorizations in the past. Is there some other legislation that requires it? Perhpas Kurt could contact Bishop's office and ask where the requirement for Congressional Authorization is spelled out.
Sep 12th - 10:32am | CJDillon
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires land by purchase and donation as a regular course of business and does not need Congressional approval for adding to refuges or establishing new refuges. By contrast, the NPS cannot establish a new park on its own and is restricted by law (as identified in this discussion) as to how much and how it can acquire land.
Sep 11th - 18:01pm | ecbuck
Ethical, perhaps you are right. I was reading the limitations of Paragraph 2 as applying to all actions of Paragraph 1. On deeper inspection those limitations seem to only apply to the changes in (i) - minor boundary adjustments.
Sep 11th - 16:42pm | Ethical Retired...
With all of the inclusions, exceptions, etc in this statute, my take is that Section 2, which places these limitations, is mandatory for the purposes of clause (i) of Paragraph 1. This donation is covered under clause (ii), which is less restrictive. In other words, I think clause (i) applies, not clause (ii).
Sep 11th - 15:27pm | ecbuck
Ethical, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. The only authorization granted in the law cited above is for acquisitions that meet all the requirements of A through G. A says it has to be less than 200 acres, C says less than $750,000. The law does require publication in the Register and notification for these properties.
Sep 11th - 14:16pm | Ethical Retired...
My reading of this law is that the transfer is legal if the proposed acquistion was published in the Federal Register and the appropriate congressional committees were notified in writing. Was this done? Congressional approval does not seem to be needed here as Bishop alleges.
Sep 11th - 09:59am | ecbuck
(c) Boundary changes; donations; authority of Secretary
Sep 10th - 21:48pm | ecbuck
It is unfortunate that Congressman Bishop speaks out in such a negative and uniformed manner on this issue
Sep 10th - 21:41pm | rmackie
Thank you Rick B, the NPS policy stated by their officials is my understanding also. This is an important addition. Ackerson Meadow is one of the largest, if not the largest, meadows on the western boundary of the park. The Middle Fork of the Tuolumne Meadows flows through it, it is a beautiful place. Extremely important Great Gray Owl habitat along with other birds, animals etc.
Sep 10th - 21:23pm | ecbuck
So once again we have a baseless accusation from Lee. Glad you agree. only because he can't
Sep 10th - 21:06pm | Rick B.
Yeah. But only because he can't. He is still a bottom feeder.
Sep 10th - 20:11pm | ecbuck
Thanks Rick for confirming via the Chiicago Times that Bishop has no intention of forcing the transaction to be reversed.
Sep 10th - 20:09pm | ecbuck
she says he specifically stated several times in the broadcast that we was going to require cancellation of this plan
Sep 10th - 19:55pm | Rick B.
I too have not heard Bishop bloviate personally, however the Chicago Times report on his bloviating stated: Bishop said he does not want Yosemite to give back the land but wants answers. He said federal law requires approval of additions to a national park that are more than 200 acres and worth over $750,000.
Sep 10th - 18:03pm | Lee Dalton
As I said above, I heard that Bishop was on the radio blasting this. That information from a friend whose information is normally trustworthy.
Sep 10th - 17:59pm | ecbuck
Did you hear the broadcast? Nope, but I did see an independent third party's reporting of Bishop's comments which I cited. Nothing baseless about my comment. What is baseless is your hearsay report from a unidentified source which was obviously wrong.
Sep 11th - 15:53pm | Bob Krumenaker
Hi Kurt, Nice addition. Please include Apostle Islands on your list of Junior Ranger links: https://www.nps.gov/apis/learn/kidsyouth/index.htm
Sep 10th - 17:45pm | Dick
Beautiful video! We camped at Obed two years ago and loved the rural character of the park.