AS a candidate W. condemned Clinton on his stewardship of the national parks, and guess what? He's been far worse!

Bush team gets D- on protection of national parks



[ June 11, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

That is ok, Mr Bush want's to turn over the managment of the national parks to the private sector anyway....

this reminds me of the "stay ouf of the parks thread"

I wonder what an adult ticket (or maybe a different pricing structure is relevant) would cost if the Parks went private?

[ June 12, 2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

This is very very true. In the latest edition of Frommers "Budget Travel" magazine the Editor talked about how he recently visited a couple of our national parks, incuding Yosemite, and Yellowstone, and talked about the sorry state of conditions at our national parks. In short they are falling apart, and he even mentioned housing conditions for Park employees as "rickity". This is shameful. In closing remarks he urged people to contact their elected officals and demand that funding be restored or increased.

I want to make a serious point about Bruce Babbitt, but I know this discussion will degenerate into another "I hate Dubya so he must be destroying whatever" discussion. But I'm going to try.

When Babbitt was Interior Secretary, he had this whole campaign to convince people NOT to visit the National Parks. He had this scare campaign that the Parks were too crowded and could not be enjoyed. While I don't know if he was right about the Eastern Parks (Smokey Mountains, Shenandoah), I knew he was off the mark on the western parks. The only traffic jam I ever saw at the Grand Canyon was at the entry gate ... the park otherwise was wide open. And, besides, if you wanted to see the Grand Canyon in solitude, there was always the North Rim.

My thought was that Babbitt's campaign to depress attendance at the National Parks would backfire. By discouraging visitors and making the parks more "inaccessible" to your typical tourist ... as opposed to a back country hiker ... the public's interest in visiting the parks would be depressed and the political support to keep them properly maintained would be destroyed.

My question: are these chickens coming home to roost? Does the public in general care less about the national parks because they've been told over the years that they're not welcome? (I'm picking out Babbitt but he was not the only voice making this point.)

Another problem is that over the last 20 years or so, Congress has loved to appropriate money to build Taj Majal "Visitor Centers" at each national park, national monument, national whatever. Congress has seemed unwilling to spend money on paying (and housing) rangers, or on road maintenance. That is a problem.

Ooops, my bad. I thought the article linked at the top of this thread was going to question President Bush's stewardship of the national parks. It's just your basic, garden variety attack on President Bush's political agenda that really has nothing to do with the national park system.

E.g., the claim that outsourcing park service jobs is going to threaten the "diversity" of the workforce. What the hell is that based on? And what the hell does that have to do with the visitor experience anywhere?

You know, I understand criticizing Bush for ANWR drilling, but keep the criticisms to matters pertaining to life here on planet earth.

I would say that overcrowding is a serious problem at many of the major National Parks--especially in the West. I don't see a problem with trying to curb attendence a bit, and I don't see why a lessening of attenance would justify spending less money on already greatly underfunded parks. Not that I don't want people to visit the parks, but when you try to shove several million people into them each year, serious damage is done to the very thing that makes them worth visiting.

I don't know what parks you, CITT, have been to recently, but I think calling the visitor centers I've been to "Taj Mahals" is a gross mischaracterization.

There are so precious few places on this earth that aren't seriously disturbed by man. I would hope that we would try to save a few of them while we still can. One of my biggest problems with the current administration is that they seem to be doing all they can to see that these remaining wild places (such as the spectacular redrock canyons of Southern Utah) be turned over to oil, gas, mining, timber, and agricultural interests. (A case in point is the recent Utah wilderness deal between Sec. Gayle Norton and Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt.)

[ June 13, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: shawnq ]

A group of us try to camp/ backpack at least 1 once every other month. I would the parks on the west coast are in dire need of attention, and are very over crowded. Not not sure what parks you have been to CITT. We now opt for state parks.
Also I do not understand the concept of private business will always do a better job. Not everything works as a for profit.
Last its not a I hate Bush rag, but I do think he cares far less about the enviroment than most. If htat is import to you then its an issue, if not then it is not.

the parks are in dire need and its very obvious in my opinion that they will not get any attention from bush.
its a real shame, but the environment means nothing to this president

My point was that actions to suppress attendance at national parks would diminish popular support for properly funding the national park system. I'm not saying it \"justifies\" it -- just that it is a possible, foreseeable and direct consequence of that sort of agenda.

The misanthropic environmental elite who hold disproportional influence over Democratic administrations (I've now switched into political harangue mode) thinks that the national parks should be for back country hikers and not for regular folks who want to see the sights from a motor vehicle and don't want to hike for hours off trails. Bruce Babbitt's whole point about people being entitled to \"quiet solitude\" was an example of that. You want solitude? Go to the North Rim instead of the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. Go to Lassen instead of Yosemite. Go to Capitol Reef instead of Zion. Don't restrict the public's access to the most popular sites.

My point about the Taj Mahal visitor centers was different. Over the last 20 years or so, Congress has been willing to spend money only on constructing (relatively) lavish visitor centers at various national parks, national monuments, national historic sites. Even if the rest of the facilities are a disaster and disgrace, the visitor centers tend to be plush and comfortable. That's a systemic failure: spending the money (PORK) on new construction while not properly funding basic operations and maintenance. \"Taj Mahal\" may be an exaggeration in some instances, although the absolutely beautiful gem of a Visitors Center that was built about 5 years ago at Hoover Dam south of Las Vegas clearly qualifies as a Taj Mahal. But, somehow, funding for visitors centers goes through as pork, while somehow paying rangers sufficiently, and providing them with decent housing, does not.

Well, if you're going to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon on Fourth of July weekend, of course it's going to be overcrowded. There are absolutely gems of national parks that are still uncrowded. Yeah, it's always rush hour at Yellowstone or the Yosemite Valley, but people are entitled to see our national treasures. I'd enjoy the National Gallery of Art more if there weren't so many damn people blocking my views of the paintings, but it's not my right to keep them out.

I know some environmentalists that were concerned when Clinton designated Grand Staircase/Escalante as a national monument simply bacause the "national" designation would attract more tourists and some of their favorite secret hiking trails would be discovered. So you're probably better off keeping your favorite state parks secret. But, then again, I voted for George W. Bush, so you probably think I want to see strip mining in the Grand Canyon and oil wells peppering Yosemite Valley.

[ June 13, 2003, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I hope his father, the "environmental president" doesnt hear about this.

CITT,
I do not assume that because you voted for Bush you would want to rape the enviroment, How about you grant me the same level of respect?
I do question the idea of snowmobiles in the parks, esp the ones with 2 cycle/stroke engines.
Also I have a bit of a different view point on the use of the parks or the consumption of natural resources. That being that just because we have access to it, we do not have an automatic right to use/consume it. One of the things ( in my mind/opinion)that made our culture and nation great was the willingness to do without so our children and childrens children would either have it better or have"it" Again I feel we have lost that sense of looking forward. In this regard I think the current admin is too willing to put short term profits ahead of other considerations.
One other note, I am sorry about the second grade level post I did this morning, I should have finnished my coffee before I logged on.

I agree with your basic premise. One of my key points in this thread, though, is if you do more to restrict access, then you decrease pressure to properly fund the existing national park system. That's the political trade-off. I'm guessing that we're not too far apart on the issue of what constitutes "proper" funding. I just think we get to that goal by making the parks more accessible and useable.

There's got to be room for compromise. I don't know enough about snowmobile technology to know if certain engines should be permitted, while others banned. At the Grand Canyon, is banning all helicopter overflight a good thing? Clearly banning below-the-rim helicoptering is a good thing. Maybe restricting overflights to certain hours -- rather than an outright ban -- would benefit the most people the most.

Just thinking out loud here.

[ June 13, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT,
2 cycle engines are the ones that you mix oil in the gas, so they are much damaging to the air, water etc...
Regarding access, I think there is alot to be said for limiting access by cars, using shuttles etc. I understand that cars are wonderful, but there is a trade off- in my mind. Part of the reason for the national parks is to leave them intact for the future.
Regarding the level of funding, yes I am enough of a left winger that figures any activity that stress the enviroment should be taxed and that should be a part of the revenue stream.
I also think that some land should be set aside, without easy access. I have long argued to my fellow tree huggers that we need to put our money where our mouths are. Instead of a plot to be buried, we should take that money to buy wetlands etc and have our ashes spread there. the money would be better spent, and part of it could be used to either buy more land or maintain the open ranges that are left.
I too am just thinking out loud

Part of the problem with more park attendance though is that it creates the need for more park maintenance. If there was some sort of evidence showing that funding levels increased or decreased based on how people felt "welcomed" at parks (whatever that means) then I might agree with your point, but I don't think people are thinking that way. The NPS has been underfunded for decades. National parks are one of the goverment's most popular programs, but it's not a high priority item for most people.

A few years back Zion National Park instituted a shuttle system through Zion Canyon. No cars, except the park's natural gas powered buses, are allowed in the canyon from roughly April through October. This change has been a nearly unmitigated success. Instead of people fighting for the few parking spaces at trailheads and viewpoints there is fresh air and silence. Standing on the high cliffs and ledges above the valley floor there there is blue sky and only the sound of the wind. There are still a very few people who are upset that they can't drive their cars anywhere in the park, but these people are selfish. For the vast majority of visitors, less congestion in Zion has greatly enhanced park experience and attendance has still been strong.

BTW, Zion, as well as Bryce, have recently built new visitor centers. They are both nice, but not extravagant or lavish. Visitor's centers are often the most visited parts of the park. I guess I don't understand your definition of lavish or maybe even pork.