View Full Version : "Our National Parks in Peril?"
halftime
10-20-2006, 23:46
Link below is is to an interesting article in September issue of "National Geographic".
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0610/feature2/index.html
The following paragraph cptured my attention:
Campaigning for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush pledged that, if elected, he would wipe out the huge 4.9-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance of the national parks' crumbling infrastructure. Given the fallout from 9/11, among other things, it was not to be. This year, in its budget request for fiscal 2007, the White House proposed cutting the Park Service's budget by 5 percent, or a hundred million dollars. Most of those missing dollars would come off the top of the service's construction and major maintenance funds, prompting the New York Times to suggest in a lead editorial that such deliberate cuts "could create the necessary cover for opening the parks to more commercial activity."
No surprise here.... Welcome to Halliburton/Yellowstone Natural Gas & Mineral National Park. Internet Bison, Bear and Elk hunting coming soon...
Rain Man
10-21-2006, 01:09
... prompting the New York Times to suggest in a lead editorial that such deliberate cuts "could create the necessary cover for opening the parks to more commercial activity."
Hmmmmm ... makes me think of No Child Left Behind, designed to provide necessary cover for butchering public education to switch funds to religious schools.
Rain:sunMan
.
Well since engineering and management are what's necessary to keep the backcountry somewhat preserved, well managed, money generating commercial ventures may be a boon by generating cash to pay for it.
fiddlehead
10-21-2006, 02:49
No surprise here.... Welcome to Halliburton/Yellowstone Natural Gas & Mineral National Park. Internet Bison, Bear and Elk hunting coming soon...
With all the profits (of course) going to their Bahamas home office.
yeah, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Just another way for the present regime to show how to lose all the credibility America has built up.
One thing i've been told over and over: you may have some screwed up politics in your country but you sure have nice national parks. (well these clowns will show you how to screw that up too)
halftime
10-21-2006, 14:01
[quote=halftime;258951]Link below is is to an interesting article in September issue of "National Geographic".
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0610/feature2/index.html
Additional Links pertaining to the feature article: Both are videos interviews with the journalists. Once linked click launch video to view each of 5 parts.
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0610/feature2/video1.html
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0610/feature2/video2.html
Interestingly the photo illustration in the Michael Melford interview (video 2)is if of Clingman's Dome area of SMNP. This photo can also be viewed in the photo gallery page along with others. This particular photo illustrates the devestation of the forest area by insect infestation. I have not been there to see this but many of you may be familiar with this situation.
Well since engineering and management are what's necessary to keep the backcountry somewhat preserved, well managed, money generating commercial ventures may be a boon by generating cash to pay for it.
Squawk, Polly wanna cracker! :rolleyes:
hopefulhiker
10-22-2006, 05:39
I have seen the serious demise of whole areas of eco systems, especially at the salt marshes of the barrier islands of NC. I agree with the author of this article that Enjoyment of our National Parks does not equal the preservation of the Parks. The Smokey Mountains have become one of the most polluted areas in the country now. The old time Park Rangers blame the Secretary of the Interior and the current administration for outsourcing the park maintenance to the lowest bidder, cutting the budget in the face of huge maintenance demands, and opening the parks up to destructive types of recreation. The only reason the old time park rangers are hanging on, he says, is the hope that the coming elections will bring a change of leadership at the federal level.
Rain Man
10-22-2006, 10:20
... The Smokey Mountains have become one of the most polluted areas in the country now. The old time Park Rangers blame the Secretary of the Interior and the current administration for outsourcing the park maintenance to the lowest bidder, cutting the budget in the face of huge maintenance demands, and opening the parks up to destructive types of recreation. ...
Hopeful, I agree with what you said, except that I think most of the pollution and damage in the GSMNP comes from outside the park in the form of air pollution, acid rain, smog, etc. The problem can't be solved in the park alone.
The Kyoto Treaty would have (does for other civilized nations) addressed some of those insidious trans-border types of pollution in a meaningful manner. But alas, Thank You, Mr. Bush.
Rain:sunMan
.
BlackCloud
10-23-2006, 11:49
So I guess the next Democrat in the White House will sign the Kyoto Treaty (Clinton refused b/c he read it - have you?), up NPS funding to full levels, and will rekove all timber, oil and gas mining permits on public lands, just like every other Democratic President of the 20th Century has.
You people act as if the NPS was doing just fine before 1994 when the god aweful Republicans took the Congress and then the White House. The maintenance backlog has been materially reduced, albeit at the Interpretation Division's expense.
So go ahead, blast me away......
vipahman
10-23-2006, 12:37
You are right to a large extent BlackCloud. Neither Democrats nor Republicans give 2 hoots for the NPS. Clinton passed a lot of the NPS specific laws on his last day in office. But the Bush presidency just seems extraordinarily incompetent.
How I wish I could resurrect Teddy Roosevelt!
BlackCloud
10-24-2006, 09:17
How I wish I could resurrect Teddy Roosevelt!
What are you kidding? The U.S. media and their European lapdogs would tear him apart as an eccentric madman hellbent on unilaterally exerting his ego on the world.
I'd vote for him. His tricking Congress into designating millions of acres of forest land was classic...................
Hammerhead
10-24-2006, 10:27
Hmmmmm ... makes me think of No Child Left Behind, designed to provide necessary cover for butchering public education to switch funds to religious schools.
Rain:sunMan
.
Exactly! And my wife, who is a school teacher, agrees with you too.
Hmmmmm ... makes me think of No Child Left Behind, designed to provide necessary cover for butchering public education to switch funds to religious schools.
Rain:sunMan
.
You'll never guess who sells AV preparation equipment for standardized testing. Give up?
Neil Bush! I wonder where he got the answers!
Jack Tarlin
10-24-2006, 17:22
It was obvious that this was going to become yet another Republican-bashing thread, but I seem to remember hiking thru Great Smoky Mountain National Park every year but one between 1995 and 2003 (i.e. either during the Clinton-Gore years, or immediately after them, when their previous budgets/appropriations for NPS were still being spent) and you know what? It didn't look like NPS spent thirty cents on facilities in GSMNP during that time period, and in several cases, places deteriorated; forget about being improved.
Trimming the NPS and Dept. of the Interior budget is obviously bad for our National Parks, but this is not exactly a recent thing; nor does it only happen during Republican administrations.
halftime
10-24-2006, 22:28
It was obvious that this was going to become yet another Republican-bashing thread, but I seem to remember hiking thru Great Smoky Mountain National Park every year but one between 1995 and 2003 (i.e. either during the Clinton-Gore years, or immediately after them, when their previous budgets/appropriations for NPS were still being spent) and you know what? It didn't look like NPS spent thirty cents on facilities in GSMNP during that time period, and in several cases, places deteriorated; forget about being improved.
Trimming the NPS and Dept. of the Interior budget is obviously bad for our National Parks, but this is not exactly a recent thing; nor does it only happen during Republican administrations.
Point well made. However, do recall that a Republican Congress had much control over budgets during those Clinton years.
That said: I do aggree whole heartedly that party bashing solves nothing. We should hold all our political leaders accountable for the future of our National Parks and Public Wetlands irregardless of their party affiliation or political philosophy.
The National Geographic article in the original post does raise a big question regardless of one's political views. If the NPS bubget continues to shrink (possibly by as much as 5% in 07 as the article indicates) and services continue to get cut, the door will certianly be open for comercial (for profit) activities. The question then becomes: what will that do for us?
Rain Man
10-25-2006, 09:54
Point well made. However, do recall that a Republican Congress had much control over budgets during those Clinton years. ..?
It does seem that Republican apologists do have a problem with those nasty little FACTS, doesn't it? I say if the hiking boot fits, then wear it.
I wonder what party was in charge when the National Trails Act was passed, protecting and funding the AT?
Since the title of this thread is "Our National Parks in Peril," why should we be forced to wring our hands, rather than addressing the problem-- "conservatives"?
On a positive note... I see that Representative Charles Taylor (of the North Shore Road fame) is way behind in his re-election bid!
Rain:sunMan
.
It does seem that Republican apologists do have a problem with those nasty little FACTS, doesn't it? I say if the hiking boot fits, then wear it.
.
I'm sorry. I'm really really sorry. (<---- Republican Apologist)
hopefulhiker
11-03-2006, 09:58
I heard where there is a dispute between the state of North Carolina and the Tennesse Valley Authorithy( a federal program) about the air pollution that is affecting the GSNP. I think that the state of NC is bringing legal action against the TVA...
BlackCloud
11-03-2006, 12:03
I'll say it again. The NPS was not in a good condition when the Republicans took the Congress in 1994. Nixon, of all people, was integral in the passage of several key environmental laws. All politicians will pay attention to the issues WE MAKE THEM pay attention to. Look @ the immigration issue.
Concession laws seriously limit for-profit activities in National Parks. For example, Shenandoah NP blocked the PATC several years ago from raising its rental rates for cabins within the park. Concession laws only allow rates to be increased by small increments, while PATC weas trying to address a decade of backloged maintenance costs and rate hikes all at once.
P.S. Beleive me, the PATC rate increases were not astronomical. Cabin rental rates for PATC cabins may be the best value for lodging in any National Park.
Jack Tarlin
11-03-2006, 16:32
Maybe if the PATC stopped building $30,000 shelters that look like yuppie condos with a wall missing, well maybe if they stopped spending their money on frivolous s*** like this, then they wouldn't have to raise the fees on their cabins. I mean, no kidding, a few of their shelters are very handsome indeed, but is this sort of extravagance necessary?
I don't think so.
Maybe if the PATC stopped building $30,000 shelters that look like yuppie condos with a wall missing, well maybe if they stopped spending their money on frivolous s*** like this, then they wouldn't have to raise the fees on their cabins.
The increase in PATC cabin rates has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with shelters. It also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with frivolous spending.
Lone Wolf
11-03-2006, 17:10
The increase in PATC cabin rates has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with shelters. It also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with frivolous spending.
Don't dare question Jack. His little watch dog Dew will come out of the woodwork and bite your azz.:)
Jack Tarlin
11-03-2006, 17:15
Don't get so agitated, Mowgli, it's unhealthy.
I was merely making the point that the PATC has a history of spending its money in interesting---and frequently unnecessary---ways.
Some of its facilities are showcases worthy of Architectural Digest, others are neglected dumps.
Guess which ones are the places the Club usually has its bar-b-ques, picnics, and private events? :-?
Don't get so agitated, Mowgli, it's unhealthy.
Well, I'm not agitated. Not a even a little bit. And I happen to agree with you about some of the PATC shelters. Look at the photo and my comment about the Ed Garvey Shelter in my gallery.
I just wanted correct a wildly speculative comment. I've come to expect no less of you. ;)
PATC does a lot of land acquisition to protect trail corridors. They do some really good stuff, and I hate to see it suggested that they're pissing away money.
Jack Tarlin
11-03-2006, 17:33
You agree with me about some of their shelters (presumably you're referring to the extravagance of their design and construction), but then you say that you resent the suggestion or implication that they piss away some of their money.
Am I the only one who sees a conflict here?
Seems to me if you're spending 30K on a Trail shelter, that is perhaps money that can be used for more important things. :-?
You agree with me about some of their shelters (presumably you're referring to the extravagance of their design and construction), but then you say that you resent the suggestion or implication that they piss away some of their money.
I supported the shelters before I voted against the shelters.
hopefulhiker
11-05-2006, 17:55
BioProspecting? What is this? Does anyone know anything about this change?
The National Park Service (NPS) has unveiled its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting in the National Parks. Under the plan, the Park Service will allow private corporations to extract and make money from organisms taken from the national parks, including millions of acres of wilderness areas.
The term that NPS uses to describe the new commercial arrangements is "Benefits-Sharing." The document NPS put out for comment, technically called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), follows a seven-year-old court order obtained by public interest advocates opposed to the "commercialization of the commons" forcing NPS to do an environmental review leading to the DEIS first published on September 22, 2006.
"This is, sadly, another step along the path of turning our national treasures into corporate booty," said Beth Burrows, Director of the Edmonds Institute (EI), one of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over this matter. "We support scientific research in the parks, but we are against commercializing the parks and their wildlife." "Legally the National Park System is not set up to be a commercial resource base, but the Administration seems dead set in favor of opening up the parks to commercial extraction," stated Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), another of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over bioprospecting in the Parks.
halftime
11-05-2006, 18:08
BioProspecting? What is this? Does anyone know anything about this change?
The National Park Service (NPS) has unveiled its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting in the National Parks.
The document NPS put out for comment, technically called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
Interesting. Is there a link to this publication?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2006, 19:19
NPS page on bioprospecting (http://www.nature.nps.gov/benefitssharing/whatis.cfm)
As for the info I read that was against this practice, the problem stems from the theft of local knowledge about healing plants by drug companies without compensation. None said anything about adverse effects on the area 'mined'.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-05-2006, 19:25
Interestingly the photo illustration in the Michael Melford interview (video 2)is if of Clingman's Dome area of SMNP. This photo can also be viewed in the photo gallery page along with others. This particular photo illustrates the devestation of the forest area by insect infestation. I have not been there to see this but many of you may be familiar with this situation.
I heard where there is a dispute between the state of North Carolina and the Tennesse Valley Authorithy( a federal program) about the air pollution that is affecting the GSNP. I think that the state of NC is bringing legal action against the TVA...The Clingman's Dome area was in trouble due to acid rain long before the pine bettle infestation.
TVA is an energy company that has many coal-fired facilities to generate electricity. The organization is one of the major polluters in the area and they are indeed being sued by NC - the state which receives the majority of the toxic by-products due to the way the jet stream works.
BioProspecting? What is this? Does anyone know anything about this change?
The National Park Service (NPS) has unveiled its plans to allow commercial bioprospecting in the National Parks. Under the plan, the Park Service will allow private corporations to extract and make money from organisms taken from the national parks, including millions of acres of wilderness areas.
The term that NPS uses to describe the new commercial arrangements is "Benefits-Sharing." The document NPS put out for comment, technically called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), follows a seven-year-old court order obtained by public interest advocates opposed to the "commercialization of the commons" forcing NPS to do an environmental review leading to the DEIS first published on September 22, 2006.
"This is, sadly, another step along the path of turning our national treasures into corporate booty," said Beth Burrows, Director of the Edmonds Institute (EI), one of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over this matter. "We support scientific research in the parks, but we are against commercializing the parks and their wildlife." "Legally the National Park System is not set up to be a commercial resource base, but the Administration seems dead set in favor of opening up the parks to commercial extraction," stated Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), another of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit over bioprospecting in the Parks.
If this type of program gets started ... you no longer really have a national park... just a national warehouse to steal "mother natures" hidden treasures. Alot of them help balance the ecosystem in that given area. Mind you I am not against research but not on land that has been set aside to be left alone in the first place like the Great Smoky Mtns. I would like to know more about this "BioProspecting" program. Sounds like another "Road to Nowhere". When will it ever end ? !! :(
hopefulhiker
11-05-2006, 20:40
The link for the Bioprospecting article is:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_43259.shtml
halftime
11-06-2006, 00:30
The link for the Bioprospecting article is:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_43259.shtml
Link below is to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published by NPS that the above article references.
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=442&projectId=12515&documentID=16763
According to the DEIS, comercial research of specimans extracted from national parks has been occurring legally for 100 years. Although the actual comercial use or sale of these specimans is prohibited, the comercial use of knowledge or intelectual property gained from the research is not. NPS is hoping to change this with this initiative and reep benefit from the comercial activities of the resulting research.
NO MISTAKE THAT THIS DRIVEN BY BIG BUSINESS.
According to statements in chapter one of DEIS, advances in technology, Intelectual Property Right Laws, and other scientific development now make it possible to generate substantial economic benefit from research initiatives that were not possible (or even dreamed of) in years past. According to the draft, there have been 45 patents issued between 1978 and 2003 that are direct results of research activities within NPS. One product (known as PCR) is reported to have produced over $300 million from patent rights alone with additional $100 million annual revenue.
The Draft is lengthy but is divided into parts with an exeutive summary that gives a broad view. The NPS website also provides a link for comments if anyone is interested. They are accepting public comments until December 15, 2006.
KirkMcquest
11-06-2006, 08:44
Link below is is to an interesting article in September issue of "National Geographic".
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0610/feature2/index.html
The following paragraph cptured my attention:
Campaigning for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush pledged that, if elected, he would wipe out the huge 4.9-billion-dollar backlog in deferred maintenance of the national parks' crumbling infrastructure. Given the fallout from 9/11, among other things, it was not to be. This year, in its budget request for fiscal 2007, the White House proposed cutting the Park Service's budget by 5 percent, or a hundred million dollars. Most of those missing dollars would come off the top of the service's construction and major maintenance funds, prompting the New York Times to suggest in a lead editorial that such deliberate cuts "could create the necessary cover for opening the parks to more commercial activity."
With any luck, the Dems will sweep the congress. With an axe to grind, they promise to stifle Bush's agenda.
BlackCloud
11-06-2006, 10:17
BioProspecting refers to the extraction of extremely rare microorganisms, fungi, etc for scientific research and the potential develoment of medications, among other potential applications. This program has been going on for a decade or more in Yellowstone where big bad businessmen from big bad corporations like Phiszer [sic] or Merk or someone like that have been extracting test tube quantities of bacteria from the Yellowstone pools.
This SOP for the NPS will in essence create standards for review and compensation. In Yellowstone for example, I seem to remember an article in National Parks magazine indicating that the contract called for the NPS to recieve 1% royalties for profits made as a result of extracted minerals, bacteria, or whatever else they take and exploit.
If a substance in a thermal pool helps to solve some catastrophic and/or terminal malady, so be it. I'm sure that more then one of you who don't want a thread of algae taken form a national park are more then willing to allow for stem cell research....
RockyTrail
11-06-2006, 13:22
It seems to me that the NPS is simply trying to make it legal for themselves to get royalties from commercial ventures arising out of already allowed bio-research. If this is true, then it can only be a net plus for the parks. I don't think you will see bulldozers in Cades Cove as a result of this. However I would be more worried about Congress re-allocating the funds if they ever do start flowing into the NPS.
Just think what they would be receiving today if the PCR discovery had been under this process.