The headline on the British news website, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park, reads “US national park faces sale.” The story talks about school section land the state of Wyoming owns within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and the Wyoming Governor’s threat to sell the land to the highest bidder if the federal government will not swap the land for a minerals estate of equal value or other compensation. Headlines like this are used by some organizations to suggest that our national parks are threatened and not adequately protected or funded.
A little Grant Teton history is warranted here. According to the National Park Service history of the park, “The birth of present-day Grand Teton National Park involved controversy and a struggle that lasted several decades. Animosity toward expanding governmental control and a perceived loss of individual freedoms fueled anti-park sentiments in Jackson Hole that nearly derailed establishment of the park.” A large portion of Grand Teton was carved out of private land that had been bought up by John D. Rockefeller and later donated to the National Park Service. Unlike nearby Yellowstone National Park, the nation’s first, that was 100% federal land when it was established in 1872, Grand Teton to this day continues to have substantial tracts of privately owned land within the park boundaries.
The tension between private land owners and the park system and the animosity generated by carving a park out of privately-held lands are very similar to what occurred in Virginia during the establishment of Shenandoah National Park and in North Carolina and Tennessee when Great Smokey National Park was established.
Back to the fire sale in Grand Teton, because the land in Jackson Hole that became Grand Teton National Park was private property, there are also state school lands in the park that were set aside when Wyoming was granted statehood in 1890. Under the Wyoming Constitution the state is required to manage those school lands to maximize return to the school trust for education in Wyoming.
In Grand Teton, Wyoming owns two full sections (a section is one mile square or 640 acres) of land plus one smaller 85 acre parcel. With land values in Jackson Hole at about $200,000 per acre, it is easy to see why Wyoming may be tempted to sell their land. Especially when you consider that the state currently receives about $3,000 per year in grazing lease revenue on land that may be worth more than $250 million.
Back in 2002, Congress passed a law directing the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management to work out an exchange with Wyoming for the state lands inside the park. At the time, Wyoming wanted undeveloped minerals of equal value to the land, but valuation of undeveloped minerals is challenging and other matters of law caused that deal to bog down. Moreover, nobody really wants to have the state land sold into private ownership and that includes the residents of Wyoming who have long since realized that, despite a controversial beginning, Grand Teton is an economic engine that drives millions of dollars into Wyoming’s economy every year in the form of tourism. There is also the recognition in Wyoming that even though $250 million is not chump change, it would be quickly absorbed into the $1.4 billion per year school budget and $1.4 billion per year capital construction for schools.
So the questions are: Will Wyoming really sell their land inside Grand Teton National Park? Is it worth $250 million to a bankrupt federal treasury to make sure Wyoming does not sell the land?
In my opinion, the answer to the first question is “No.” I believe Wyoming’s governor is playing high stakes poker and attempting to leverage the national and international appeal of Grand Teton National Park to extract money from the feds. To answer the second question, let’s first take a look at the National Park Service annual budget and what they should be doing with the funds they are appropriated.
As a general principle the National Park Service has enjoyed increasing budgets when other agencies have been cut. They spend more dollars per acre of land managed than any other federal land management agency. There is the perennial complaint that there is a maintenance backlog that ranges from $4-6 billion. Ironically, no matter how much more money Congress gives the park service, there seems to be no end to the backlog. You may have heard recent radio advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston decrying the failure of the federal government to address the maintenance backlog and telling us that your national parks are falling into complete disrepair.
A scan of annual NPS budgets over the last 10 years is illustrative. In 2000, the year George W. Bush was elected President, the NPS budget was about $2.1 billion. When Bush left office in 2009, the NPS budget was $2.9 billion. On top of those annual appropriations, over the years the Bush Administration spent more than $4 billion in additional money on the maintenance backlog. Soon after Barack Obama took office, the so-called stimulus bill allocated an additional $750 million to the National Park Service presumably to address the backlog. How many of you have seen a nearly 50% increase in your income over the last decade and were given about two years’ worth of salary to improve your home and property to boot? Most likely none of you saw that kind of boost in your personal budget, but nonetheless, I would wager that your home has been maintained and is in as good or better condition than when you bought it.
So why can’t the National Park Service maintain our national parks on an ever increasing appropriation? First and foremost, maintenance is not very exciting, but acquiring land and building new facilities is the stuff that pads a park superintendent’s resume. Secondly, Congress keeps adding new parks to the system. Not only do new parks rarely come with new money, the added units often have ready-made maintenance backlogs as well as future commitments for construction and land acquisition.
We are witness to this latter phenomena right here in Southside Virginia. Congressman Perriello has asked the National Park Service to study the feasibility of adding the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford to the national park system. I have seen dozens of these kinds of studies by the park service during my tenure at the Department of the Interior, and in almost every instance, the NPS will present a wonderful case for why the particular site is of national significance and should be added to the list of national parks. Buried in the conclusion of the study, you will find small and weak argument about why the system cannot afford the new unit. Few Congressmen can resist the lure and glory of adding a new park to their district and they usually ignore the fact that the system cannot afford to take on the burden of new units. But, for the good of the whole national park system, somebody in Congress should stand up and say enough.
And by the way, until the Bush Administration made the NPS develop a system that established and validated an inventory of their assets and each asset’s condition, nobody could ever give an accurate estimate of any maintenance backlog. But that matters little to the groups, like the National Parks Conservation Association who use celebrities like Sam Waterston to bemoan the degradation of our parks, because they are more interested in whipping up a crisis and selling memberships than actually doing anything that would benefit or conserve the national park system.
Be careful which environmental groups you support. Do your homework. Research the fact base around each issue and behind each headline. And most of all, understand the motives and tactics of the group to whom you are giving your hard-earned money. Some organizations are actually doing conservation work on the ground and others are just doing it to you.
Showing posts with label National Parks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Parks. Show all posts
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Sunday, October 18, 2009
National Parks—America’s Best Idea
Many people are enjoying the long-awaited recent release of the Ken Burns documentary, “National Parks—America’s Best Idea.” This production is a highly acclaimed, not just for its imagery, but for detailing the history of parks, the sense of place, and the role of National Parks in our culture.
At the outset, one of the documentary’s historians notes that “National Parks—America’s Best Idea” is an expression usually attributed to Wallace Stegner, although it is a paraphrase of what he once said about National Parks. The historian goes on to correctly make the point that National Parks are not “America’s Best Idea.” He says, and I paraphrase, that America’s best idea is expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
While his point is well taken, one certainly cannot argue that National Parks are one of America’s best ideas. America’s National Parks were the world’s first large, intact, unspoiled, natural landscapes to be legally set aside for conservation and enjoyment. Later, these large natural areas were followed by historic sites, cultural icons, battlefields, and intangible concepts of the American experience. The National Park System has been admired and emulated around the world. So much so, that the United States was encouraged to take the lead in drafting the World Heritage Convention which took the National Park idea to the world.
The link between Jefferson’s words and National Parks is more than a debate about which is America’s best idea. I contend that one of the things that makes National Parks one of America’s best ideas is that National Parks are uniquely democratic in the way they are set aside. Inscribed on a magnificent arch over the North Entrance to Yellowstone National Park are the words “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.” These words are from the legislation that established Yellowstone in 1872 and the National Parks Service Organic Act of 1916 subsequently set out the core mission of the newly established National Park Service. “…which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life [sic] therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
In the late 1800s, the concept of setting aside large natural landscapes for both conservation and the enjoyment of the people was new. And the idea has its roots in the origins of the American conservation movement that had begun earlier in the 19th Century. Following the decimation of wildlife populations throughout much of the eastern United States and then extending into the once thought of as limitless West, Americans began to rethink the role of hunting. People realized that there had to be limits on harvesting wild animals or we would face more extinctions.
At that time in history, the only example of conservation Americans could learn from was the European model. Europeans had long before learned that wildlife was finite, but European conservation was conducted by the nobility. There were private reserves established and hunting was not just limited; it was exclusively available to the wealthy and elite classes. The peasants were not allowed to hunt or even gain access to these hunting preserves. Only those with the right connections and credentials, the worthy and privileged, were given the honor of enjoying these natural landscapes and the bounty within their boundaries.
Americans bristled at the idea of conservation if it meant wildlife would only be conserved for a certain class of people. That would be un-American and anti-democratic. Indeed, at that time, democratic principles such as freedom and manifest destiny trumped regulation and restrictions. Accordingly, to some, the very idea of conservation through a system of game laws, hunting seasons, and bag limits was considered to be undemocratic.
In response, the conservationists of the 19th Century proposed public ownership of fish and wildlife. Hunting and fishing seasons and licenses would be managed by States and generally available and affordable to the largest cross-section of the population. Revenues from hunting licenses would be used to manage fish and wildlife and to further conservation efforts. Large tracts of federal lands previously open to homesteading and commercial development were reserved to be conserved for the public in the form of National Forests and National Parks. It was in this unique American atmosphere of democratic principles that the idea of setting aside National Parks for both conservation and enjoyment was conceived.
This history is important because it is instructive today. There is a concerted and well-funded movement in the United States that would have conservation of National Parks trump enjoyment. This is a dangerous precedent and an undemocratic shift in policy. The drafters of the National Park Service Organic Act were very clear; the purpose of the Service was both conservation and enjoyment. Conservation of the resources is to “…leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Enjoyment is the heartbeat of National Parks that increases the understanding and appreciation for conserving these unique resources. Conservation and enjoyment are not in conflict. Indeed, they go together like a horse and carriage. Horace Albright, the second Director of the National Park Service said, “The National Parks are more than the storehouses of Nature's rarest treasures. They are the playlands of the people, wonderlands easily accessible to the rich and humble alike. They are great out-of-doors recreation grounds, where men, women, and children can forget the cares and the sounds of the cities for a few days.” Former Director of the National Park Service, Conrad Wirth, is attributed with saying (and I paraphrase), “…to manage parks emphasizing either conservation or enjoyment to the exclusion of the other is detrimental to the whole concept of National Parks.”
National Parks can be called “America’s Best Idea” because hundreds of millions of visitors enjoy National Parks every year. Visitors fiercely speak out in favor of conservation, but I suspect that they would never consider that “conservation” might mean they could not visit and enjoy their National Parks. But, that is exactly what certain non-profit organizations want to do. While Americans are trying to get back outdoors and get children engaged in nature, some environmental groups would restrict access by targeting commonly used modes of transportation. Their actions have the effect of shutting many classes of people out of National Parks, including the young, the elderly, and the disabled. Other groups favor severe limits to all forms of visitation through area closures and/or strict limits on the number of visitors allowed into a park at any given time. And the most elitist of all these organizations would go so far as to restrict access to parks to only those who are strong, healthy, enlightened in their philosophy of nature, and who agree with the premise that the biggest threat to mother earth is humankind. This is a dangerous kind of class warfare that would exclude many people from National Parks because of the way they think, their age, or their physical abilities. If implemented, National Parks would no doubt soon become known as “America’s Worst Idea.”
“America’s Best Idea” will only remain a best idea if National Parks are both conserved and enjoyed. Enjoyment should embrace the broadest cross-section of people, provide for diverse types of enjoyment, and accommodate appropriate modes of transportation in such manner and by such means as will leave resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This requires an inclusive and democratic approach to park management. Management must be innovative, adaptive, and informed by the best available science. It means park managers should shun the elitists who want to keep America’s Best Idea as their exclusive domain, under lock and key if you will, while relegating the rest of America to peering in from the outside.
At the outset, one of the documentary’s historians notes that “National Parks—America’s Best Idea” is an expression usually attributed to Wallace Stegner, although it is a paraphrase of what he once said about National Parks. The historian goes on to correctly make the point that National Parks are not “America’s Best Idea.” He says, and I paraphrase, that America’s best idea is expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
While his point is well taken, one certainly cannot argue that National Parks are one of America’s best ideas. America’s National Parks were the world’s first large, intact, unspoiled, natural landscapes to be legally set aside for conservation and enjoyment. Later, these large natural areas were followed by historic sites, cultural icons, battlefields, and intangible concepts of the American experience. The National Park System has been admired and emulated around the world. So much so, that the United States was encouraged to take the lead in drafting the World Heritage Convention which took the National Park idea to the world.
The link between Jefferson’s words and National Parks is more than a debate about which is America’s best idea. I contend that one of the things that makes National Parks one of America’s best ideas is that National Parks are uniquely democratic in the way they are set aside. Inscribed on a magnificent arch over the North Entrance to Yellowstone National Park are the words “For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.” These words are from the legislation that established Yellowstone in 1872 and the National Parks Service Organic Act of 1916 subsequently set out the core mission of the newly established National Park Service. “…which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life [sic] therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
In the late 1800s, the concept of setting aside large natural landscapes for both conservation and the enjoyment of the people was new. And the idea has its roots in the origins of the American conservation movement that had begun earlier in the 19th Century. Following the decimation of wildlife populations throughout much of the eastern United States and then extending into the once thought of as limitless West, Americans began to rethink the role of hunting. People realized that there had to be limits on harvesting wild animals or we would face more extinctions.
At that time in history, the only example of conservation Americans could learn from was the European model. Europeans had long before learned that wildlife was finite, but European conservation was conducted by the nobility. There were private reserves established and hunting was not just limited; it was exclusively available to the wealthy and elite classes. The peasants were not allowed to hunt or even gain access to these hunting preserves. Only those with the right connections and credentials, the worthy and privileged, were given the honor of enjoying these natural landscapes and the bounty within their boundaries.
Americans bristled at the idea of conservation if it meant wildlife would only be conserved for a certain class of people. That would be un-American and anti-democratic. Indeed, at that time, democratic principles such as freedom and manifest destiny trumped regulation and restrictions. Accordingly, to some, the very idea of conservation through a system of game laws, hunting seasons, and bag limits was considered to be undemocratic.
In response, the conservationists of the 19th Century proposed public ownership of fish and wildlife. Hunting and fishing seasons and licenses would be managed by States and generally available and affordable to the largest cross-section of the population. Revenues from hunting licenses would be used to manage fish and wildlife and to further conservation efforts. Large tracts of federal lands previously open to homesteading and commercial development were reserved to be conserved for the public in the form of National Forests and National Parks. It was in this unique American atmosphere of democratic principles that the idea of setting aside National Parks for both conservation and enjoyment was conceived.
This history is important because it is instructive today. There is a concerted and well-funded movement in the United States that would have conservation of National Parks trump enjoyment. This is a dangerous precedent and an undemocratic shift in policy. The drafters of the National Park Service Organic Act were very clear; the purpose of the Service was both conservation and enjoyment. Conservation of the resources is to “…leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Enjoyment is the heartbeat of National Parks that increases the understanding and appreciation for conserving these unique resources. Conservation and enjoyment are not in conflict. Indeed, they go together like a horse and carriage. Horace Albright, the second Director of the National Park Service said, “The National Parks are more than the storehouses of Nature's rarest treasures. They are the playlands of the people, wonderlands easily accessible to the rich and humble alike. They are great out-of-doors recreation grounds, where men, women, and children can forget the cares and the sounds of the cities for a few days.” Former Director of the National Park Service, Conrad Wirth, is attributed with saying (and I paraphrase), “…to manage parks emphasizing either conservation or enjoyment to the exclusion of the other is detrimental to the whole concept of National Parks.”
National Parks can be called “America’s Best Idea” because hundreds of millions of visitors enjoy National Parks every year. Visitors fiercely speak out in favor of conservation, but I suspect that they would never consider that “conservation” might mean they could not visit and enjoy their National Parks. But, that is exactly what certain non-profit organizations want to do. While Americans are trying to get back outdoors and get children engaged in nature, some environmental groups would restrict access by targeting commonly used modes of transportation. Their actions have the effect of shutting many classes of people out of National Parks, including the young, the elderly, and the disabled. Other groups favor severe limits to all forms of visitation through area closures and/or strict limits on the number of visitors allowed into a park at any given time. And the most elitist of all these organizations would go so far as to restrict access to parks to only those who are strong, healthy, enlightened in their philosophy of nature, and who agree with the premise that the biggest threat to mother earth is humankind. This is a dangerous kind of class warfare that would exclude many people from National Parks because of the way they think, their age, or their physical abilities. If implemented, National Parks would no doubt soon become known as “America’s Worst Idea.”
“America’s Best Idea” will only remain a best idea if National Parks are both conserved and enjoyed. Enjoyment should embrace the broadest cross-section of people, provide for diverse types of enjoyment, and accommodate appropriate modes of transportation in such manner and by such means as will leave resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This requires an inclusive and democratic approach to park management. Management must be innovative, adaptive, and informed by the best available science. It means park managers should shun the elitists who want to keep America’s Best Idea as their exclusive domain, under lock and key if you will, while relegating the rest of America to peering in from the outside.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Support Concealed Weapon Carry in National Park and Wildlife Refuges
I support and urge you to tell Congress that you support legalized concealed weapon carry by lawfully permitted people in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. A recent Federal Regulation that allowed concealed weapons to be carried by people with permits in States where concealed weapon carry is legal was overturned by a Federal Judge in Washington, D.C. Now, two bills have been introduced in Congress to make it lawful for people with concealed weapon permits to carry their guns, just like you can on other public lands.
Virginia and other States allow concealed carry in State Parks and crime and/or shooting incidents has not increased and visitors are not threatened or scared.
Concealed Weapon Permit holders subject themselves to investigations and hold themselves to a higher standard of the law--they are not the problem, criminals are the problem.
The argument that Parks are safe places cannot be substantiated by the National Park Service and is wishful thinking. Parks have drugs, drug dealers, criminals on the lamb, domestic violence, and robberies--all the same crimes you find outside Parks. If Parks are so safe why are there so many armed Rangers, why are there robberies on the National Mall, and why does the NPS need to operate their own jails in some National Parks?
Law-abiding citizens have the Constitutional right to self defense and prohibiting concealed carry only in these limited areas, especially on National Parkways and Park roads that are regular commuter thoroughfares, makes it a "Gotcha" regulation for law-abiding citizens that is unfair and unconstitutional.
And don't be fooled into thinking criminals are not carrying weapons in Parks and Refuges. There are armed and dangerous criminals in nearly every Park and Refuge almost every day.
I urge you to contact your Senators and Congressperson and tell them to support S. 816 or H.R. 1684 and ask to hear their position on these bills. You are welcome to use any or all of this post in your correspondence.
Virginia and other States allow concealed carry in State Parks and crime and/or shooting incidents has not increased and visitors are not threatened or scared.
Concealed Weapon Permit holders subject themselves to investigations and hold themselves to a higher standard of the law--they are not the problem, criminals are the problem.
The argument that Parks are safe places cannot be substantiated by the National Park Service and is wishful thinking. Parks have drugs, drug dealers, criminals on the lamb, domestic violence, and robberies--all the same crimes you find outside Parks. If Parks are so safe why are there so many armed Rangers, why are there robberies on the National Mall, and why does the NPS need to operate their own jails in some National Parks?
Law-abiding citizens have the Constitutional right to self defense and prohibiting concealed carry only in these limited areas, especially on National Parkways and Park roads that are regular commuter thoroughfares, makes it a "Gotcha" regulation for law-abiding citizens that is unfair and unconstitutional.
And don't be fooled into thinking criminals are not carrying weapons in Parks and Refuges. There are armed and dangerous criminals in nearly every Park and Refuge almost every day.
I urge you to contact your Senators and Congressperson and tell them to support S. 816 or H.R. 1684 and ask to hear their position on these bills. You are welcome to use any or all of this post in your correspondence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
