Agree Lee, having had some extensive experience in the public sector as a public service employee, Dr. Runte has it right in my view. It is a complicated issue in some respects, but it must be remembered that not only does the majority party in Congress have great say in governmental decision making including all funding, but the elected President holds enormous influence as well.
Just for the record, the Park Service has said "no" to scores of potential units, especially in the 1920s under Stephen T. Mather. The point is: He was a millionaire and didn't give a damn what Congress happened to "think." Under Mather, the National Parks Association (which he formed) attacked so-called inferior units. As president of NPA, Robert Sterling Yard was good at it, too.
EC, you wanted an example and I provided it.How things transpired after the NPS said 'no' I can't say, just as with more than 400 units of the park system, and who knows how many studies, I can't immediately point to any other examples where the agency opposed a designation.
The NPS initially opposedOne example out of 400 plus units. I see you used the term "initially". Did they change their stance? Did the unit get approved after that change?Oh, and I kind of like the irony of your position then and now.
And just how, pray tell, does the NPS say "NO" to Congress?Well Lee, since none of you have come up with an example of where they said no and Congress went ahead and approved a park, I guess the answer is, the NPS can't say no.Oh, and while there might be legitimate reasons to not want the F-35. Congress approved and FUNDED it.
And just how, pray tell, does the NPS say "NO" to Congress?The Department of Defense, which is the darling of at least one side of Congress, tried to say NO to something called the F-35. What happened?
However, the National Park System is full of places that first were advocated by people like you and meYes it is, but there are many places advocated by "people like you and me" that aren't in the system. Just because people like you and me advocate for them, doesn't mean they should automatically be included.
ec-- That isn't how our Constitution works. And you should be thankful for that.No, it is not how our Constitution works. You and I don't have a vote in Congress. However, the National Park System is full of places that first were advocated by people like you and me and then established by the Congress.
Thank you Kurt and Dr Runte. Actually a great blueprint for new parks after the railroad era of Directors Mather and Allbright was DOI Secretary Harold Ickes and his plan for Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon National Park. Except for campgrounds, concession facilities were extremely modest, nothing has changed.
if the people decide a landscape should be included in the National Park System, Congress should acknowledge that and see that the Park Service has the funds to provide for that new site.That isn't how our Constitution works. And you should be thankful for that.
The discussion here points to a deeper problem--the vanishing American worker. I sympathize that tourism may save northern Maine; then again, what if the new park only dilutes the market and the Park Service budget besides? Is tourism what we need to "save" America, or an economy that makes sense for everyone? The Maine woods? Why can't Maine save them, just as New York saved the Adirondacks?
I would like to think, Eric, that if the people decide a landscape should be included in the National Park System, Congress should acknowledge that and see that the Park Service has the funds to provide for that new site.
But, certain land trusts do have a tendancy to shut off access to land. It's quite common actually. I support what the Nature Conservancy does at times, but many times they don't open the lands in their trust to the public, or it's very limited access. At least with a National Park this usually isn't the case.
That's Congress's faultNo - when you ask for and take on obligations beyond your budget - its your fault.particularly when trusts shut off public access.Another strawman. There is no reason the land trust would have to "shut off public access". The access could be equal or even greater than it is now.
I definitely understand what EC is saying, and I tend to agree with some of his statements, but I still support seeing another large scale National Park on the scale of some of the western parks being created in the Eastern US. This is one of the last best areas this can be done, and it should be done.
Well, it would be a burden on the NPS, granted. That's Congress's fault.But I think it could be a rich resource for science, introducing generations to a unique ecosystem, and encouraging healthy outdoor activities. Parks have the unique ability to do all three. I'm not sure lands in trusts do...particularly when trusts shut off public access.
Because the alternative isn't to log and develop. She could put it into a land trust and let it sit as it is. Creating a magnet to draw more people with more infrastructure would not be good for the Woods. Admittedly this is a small area but the natural tendency would be to attempt to expand. Not to mention the additional burden on the NPS system.
Numbers don't always tell the entire story.But they do tell that contrary to the assertion, budgets haven't been "slashed". Zion's weekend visitation the last several weekends have broken recordsWhich would mean that Zions entrance fee revenues (which are not included in the budget numbers) likely broke records as well.
But do those numbers account for inflation and vastly increased visitation in many (if not most) major parks? Numbers don't always tell the entire story.Someone told me today that there had been a report on Utah news that Zion's weekend visitation the last several weekends have broken records. (I'm trying to find that to document it.)And an English lesson for the evening:
Requested dollars are of course meaningless, enacted is what counts.And my numbers show that enacted over the last several years is up. In fact compared to 2000 when the number was $1.8 billion they are up dramatically.
Requested dollars are of course meaningless, enacted is what counts. Since we are discussing Olympic, my question is what that park's budget trend for operating dollars has been the past 3 years. I'd be very surprised if they've made up the $640,000 they lost to the sequester in 2013.
Strange, since the tea partiers specifically want to slash the federal budget. Why they start with the agency that has 1/14th of 1% of the federal budget instead of the biggies, like the pentagon, amazes me.
Yep, slashed. In 2013, for one example, the park budget at Olympic was cut 5% due to the infamous sequester. Given already lean operating dollars, that was significant. Ec seems to think that park's budget hasn't been cut in recent years, so perhaps he could document that fact.
Park managers have made the best of a bad situation here. With Congress continuing to slash park budgets, entrance and user fees have to pick up a larger share of park operations. Local conservation groups asked the park to phase in the fee increases, and for the most park managers have done that.
The burros have never had it easy with our government agencies. They are symbols of our culture and living natural icons of our pioneering history. Because of this important connection to our past, is cavalierly managing them to extinction without remorse.
The first commentor on that article seems to have a pretty good idea. Could plant quite a number of sizable cottonwoods for $7 million. The deer hunt idea sounds good too - though I must say, I didn't see any deer while I was there. Don't know if they are really an issue or not.