Haven't had any conversations lately, or seen any terribly recent studies. Here's what I have seen:"Only about one in five visitors to a national park site is nonwhite, according to a 2011 University of Wyoming report commissioned by the Park Service, and only about 1 in 10 is Hispanic" -- from a NYTimes story in 2011.
Kurt, have you talked with senior NPS employees about what they think about the agency's demographic future? This is not a rhetorical question but a sincere one. I'd be interested to get their perspective, if you have talked with them and ascertained it. Thanks.
You're probably right, imtnbke. What's the harm?While most riders probably stay on slickrock, those who veer off onto cryptobiotic soils aren't doing that much damage. Heck, in some cases it only takes cryptobiotic soils five to seven years to start rebuilding their veneers, and after that only about five more decades for the underlying soils and nutrients to return.
I'll let the mountain bikers respond in detail but two observations. First, if you endorse equestrian use, then concern for trail conditions can't be a legitimate objection to bikers. Horeses do far more damage to the trails than do bikes. Second, the parks are wildlife habitat, but not exclusively wildlife habitat. If they were, there would be no human intrusion at all.
"Mountain bikers cavorting." That sounds seriously worrisome!
But, being serious in turn, what's the harm? And what's the benefit?
Oct 16th - 23:30pm |
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes.
Oct 16th - 09:15am |
There will be a Ranger lurking behind a rock to give you a ticket!
The funding issues will only get more challenging. Surveys say Americans value parks, but we seem unwilling to pay for them. Another issue is handling the numbers of visitors, traffic, parking, and air quality issues. Too many people on the planet!
The Bonita camground is pretty but has rules that are enforced by the ranger. We stayed 2 nights. The host will give advice on how to avoid issues & stay safe. The ranger arrives around 8 am & has no problem inspecting your campsite & issueing citations to any rule breakers.
Trains, per se, didn't change the parks, but the railroads' push for development to serve the passengers they delivered to the parks certainly did. My thought was that, had the railroads reached Olympic in the early days, we might well have had the lodges, highways and other developments they successfully sought to have built in other parks.
Right, Kurt. Besides, I was going to have to go change from my barn boots to hip waders . . . . .
A thought, however. Thinking back to my visit to Olympic, I'm certainly thankful the railroads never got their tracks laid to that great place. If they had, it might have become an entirely different place than it is now.
Now, now, ec, no baseless accusations please. I've never suggested that we ban media coverage. In fact, we need far more. And as you suggest, it needs to be balanced. You've touched on one of the most alarming trends in America today; the consolidation of media empires in the hands of just a few corporations. Thank goodness we still have PBS.
Found the article and disagree with him 100%. The party hasn't " abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism". Rather the party has abandoned traditional conservatism and moved to the left. The Tea Party et al is only trying to bring them back. Its no wonder Brooks writes for the NYT and PBS.
So Lee, do you propose a ban on the media reporting on politics? Afterall, they spend far more and more often than all the Citizen Uniteds combined.
Also you indicate that there need to be counter arguments. The reality is that those that speak under Citizens United represent all sides of the issues. I wish there was as much balance in the media.
Being loud may not make it any more convincing, but if the same propaganda is repeated often enough and in enough TV commercials or other media, it will have an effect. Especially on that segment of the public who already lean toward a certain belief or who lack the intelligence or education or whatever it takes to discriminate. Those who may try to oppose them are stifled if they c
EC, not related to the current discussion, but an opinion piece in the New York Times, 0ct 13th, might interest you, agree or not, written by Davis Brooks. Mr. Brooks lays out his definition of a conservative, he being a noted conservative commentator, I found it was quite interesting.
Perhaps the best analogy I've read about Citizens United went something like this:
"Citizens United did not take away any of my rights to speak as a citizen. But it gave those with money a huge megaphone to use when they speak."
They certainly don't influence my vote and I am guessing not yours. I can rest assurred that I have influenced/educated more in my sphere than either Goldman Sachs or GE. The answer is not to forego Constitutional rights but rather to excercise your responsibilities as a citizen and learn the issues yourself and help educate others.
No I do not agree. Elections are won by votes, not dollars. Noone was disenfranchised. G.E and Goldman Sachs don't have a single vote. Further, I don't see where Citizens United provided any detriment to the poor or benefit to the rich - other than perhaps the rich encumbants.
EC, you do not agree that Citizens United effectively disfranchised a wide swath of the U.S. population by giving corporations the right to pour their dollars into political campaigns? How can you or I compete for political sway against a G.E. or a Goldman Sachs?
"As to Citizens United, that was not an act of deregulation but one of upholding the Constitution. And once again I don't see any direct link between it and any hurt to the poor or help to the rich. "
At this point it doesn't really matter if the comment is dishonest or blind; further discussion is futile.
Ron - the Sherman Trust Act was sheved? The only major change I am aware of to that act was the Clayton Act which exempted unions from Sherman provisions. As to Glass Steagal, specifically what provision was dropped that hurt the poor and helped the rich? As to Citizens United, that was not an act of deregulation but one of upholding the Constitution.
I agree argalite, deregulation beginning with shelving the Sherman Anti-trust Act (President Reagan), eliminating Glass/Steigel (under President Clinton), well, just two glaring examples. But perhaps the most corruptive of recent deregulation scams, this done by the Robert's Supreme Court, is the Citizens United v.
It's very ineresting that in most cases our most heavily developed parks are also among our oldest -- and those that had railroads involved in that development.
Thank goodness some like Olympic, North Cascade, Great Basin and a few others escaped being ravaged by railroads.
Oh, Lordy! Gotta run get my barn boots. The bull pucky just got awfully deep in here.
Oct 14th - 21:03pm |
ec--If you can explain PERC's mission of "free market environmentalism", I would appreciate it. I have asked them and get responses that make little sense to me. "Running a park like a business" has long been a mantra of neo-liberalism. I am surprised that Dr. Runte, long a revered environmental historian, brings it up.
Yes Argalite, just join the troops that like to make unsubstantiated claims and then run when they have no way to defend them. And as usual, Rick totally mischaracterizes my stance to create his strawman. Did Wall Street have anything to do with the last recession. Sure, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted and even demanded.
Don't do it, Argalite. Just walk away and don't stick your finger into the finger trap. You're talking with a former Wall Street staffer who denies that deregulation of Wall Street had anything to do with Wall Street collapsing our economy. Just walk away.
Once again, Park Service management's double-standard is on display. Every ol' boys' club needs a clubhouse, I guess. The NP$ couldn't be bothered charging bigshots, but has no problem raising fees on the public who pay for this federal dude ranch.
Oct 15th - 11:01am |
I was detailed twice to GRTE to be part of the security detail when Presidents Reagan and Carter stayed at this place. I wasn't upset then and I am not upset now when Presidents or Vice Presidents get away for a short time from the pressures of their jobs. I am sure the IG is correct but it seems to me to be hardly worth the effort.