Editing out wilderness in National Parks

[Jim]

Sorry for the long post. I received this from a friend in the National Park Service. Please voice your concerns if you have them after reading this.

 

As many of you know, our national parks are under a serious threat from the Bushies. The Department of Interior (DOI) is re-writing the rules that govern how national parks are administered and changes the very mission of the National Park Service (NPS). High Country News has had a couple of articles on this, mostly focusing on the "financial sustainability" language that would allow much higher and more intensive use of the parks for profit (think rock concerts and jet skis). Since DOI has made the comment process on this issue incredibly difficult (no executive summary, no redline-strikeout of the new changes, 250+ pages of bureaucratic stuff to read), it is hard to tell the exact nature of what is going on without reading the whole thing.

 

So, that's what I set out to do this weekend. As Eric drove us to Pocatello for Thanksgiving with the folks, I read the new rules. I'm not done yet--four more chapters to go--but I can tell you that this is one of the most sneaky, underhanded, and generally misguided policy rewrites in the history of democracy. To illustrate, I'd like to tell you about Chapter 6, which deals with wilderness within NPS boundaries. Instead of calling "wilderness" simply "wilderness," it's redefined as "NPS Wilderness" and made subservient to the NPS directive from the Organic Act to not only "protect and preserve for future generations," but also for "the enjoyment of the people." Under these rules, it is suddenly okay to allow motorized vehicle access and temporary roads for various purposes, including administrative uses, grazing (even if there was not road access before the area was added to NPS or designated as wilderness), construction of safety equipment (cell phone towers are an example of "safety equipment" provided in the rules), and for needs relating to "homeland security."

 

I think we all know what that last bit means. This administration is determined to continue to use fear as a tactic to strip away our rights, including our right to a wilderness "untrammeled by man...a visitor who does not remain."

 

Here's the really creepy part. If you read Section 6.4.3.3, "Use of Motorized Equipment", there is no mention of these potential motorized uses. It says, "any form of mechanical transport will be prohibited in wilderness except as provided for in specific wilderness legislation." You have to read all of the other sections to see that in nearly every one, there is some provision for motorized use or access. To be honest and disclose the truth, all that is needed in this section is a sentence like this: "Motorized use may be allowed in NPS Wilderness in certain circumstances, as described in sections blah, blah, blah, blah, so, and so." But no. It's hidden in all the other sections. I wish I could believe that this is just really crappy technical writing, but alas, WMD, Iraq, and dismantling of environmental protections across the board have turned me a bit cynical. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to undermine protections in National Parks in the name of short-term profit, and that it is written deliberately to keep the truth of it from the public. This type of writing plagues the remaining chapters as well, including Chapter 4, Natural Resources Management. I can hardly wait to read Chapter 7, Interpretation and Education. I sure hope they provide some guidance on allowing discussion of intelligent design in the creation of the Grand Canyon. Hoo-weee!

 

Ahem. Deep breath. Back to the subject at hand.

 

Fortunately, there is a voice of reason out there that is trying to help people make intelligent comments that (hopefully) won't just be blown off. The National Parks Conservation Association has a portion of their web site dedicated to this, including a brief management analysis detailing the worst of the changes. They also have an index of what's going on in the media, and ways that you can take action. Check it out at http://www.npca.org/policyrewrites/. From that page, you can link to Dennis Galvin's excellent testimony before the Senate (http://www.npca.org/media_center/testimonies/testimony110105.asp). The Coalition of NPS Retirees are also pretty upset about this (http://www.npsretirees.org/). Coalition director Don Castleberry said:

 

"The proposed changes to National Park Management Policies provide one of the clearest examples of why this coalition, which never seemed necessary until two and a half years ago, has come together. Believe me, there are few among us who would not prefer to be writing our books, tending our roses, enjoying grandchildren, or volunteering at a National Park. We have coalesced because this is a critical time for the treasures to which we devoted our careers. It is a time when this nation may decide whether to retain the benefits of victories painfully won over 130 years of National Park history or to risk losing them to narrow, short-term, and private interests."

 

This re-write of the rules requires more than just a postcard campaign. It requires all of us who care to take the time to tell them specifically what is wrong. To bog them down in more paperwork than they can handle. To out-write the bastards (which, trust me, won't take much--even for those of you who don't think you're great writers).

 

As you know, I disagree with darn near everything that has gone on nationally since Bush took over. So, you might ask "why now?" With so much to get fired up over, why rant on this issue? Growing up, most of our summer vacations were spent in Yellowstone. I worked there for a summer in college. In the same way that the cast of South Park sings "Blame Canada" for things gone wrong with their youth, I sing "Blame Yellowstone" for turning me into the nature-loving, outdoorsy, eco-freak you all know. This time, it's personal.

 

The deadline for comment has been extended to February 18, 2006. Even if all you do is send a one-line letter saying, "Cease and desist this silly rule re-write" and don't prepare a similar obsessive-compulsive tome to what I am writing, I want you to know I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. Thanks for taking action on this.

[catbirdseat]

[Stefan]

I will have to play a little devils advocate here.

 

I have always been in favor of motorized use to maintain trails. For example if it takes 6 people to clear 20 logs in 3 days becuase they have to use a hand type saw and walk in, I would rather have 1 person on a motorbike with a chainsaw do the same work over 1 or 2 days.

 

Chainsaws should be allowed to maintain work on trails.

[DirtyHarry]

But that's different than designated Wilderness Areas which are part of the Dept. of Ag. - Forest Service.

[Jim]

I will have to play a little devils advocate here.

 

I have always been in favor of motorized use to maintain trails. For example if it takes 6 people to clear 20 logs in 3 days becuase they have to use a hand type saw and walk in, I would rather have 1 person on a motorbike with a chainsaw do the same work over 1 or 2 days.

 

Chainsaws should be allowed to maintain work on trails.

 

That's not an issue here. The National Parks interpret the Wilderness Act to allow chainsaws for trail clearing, which is ok. USFS interprets it to only allow hand tools. This rule writing opens the door to vehicle use on trails, and other idiotic ideas.

[catbirdseat]

This rules rewrite is not about trails maintenance. It's about commercial exploitation of the wilderness by off-road vehicle manufacturers. It's about money.

[Stefan]

Okay. So I don't read carefully! Jump all over me whydontcha?

[catbirdseat]

I don't disagree with you on chainsaws. There just isn't enough money to pay the large crews needed to do the work by hand. Trails are not being maintained as they should.

[Weekend_Climberz]

This rules rewrite is not about trails maintenance. It's about commercial exploitation of the wilderness by off-road vehicle manufacturers. It's about money.

 

Imagine the Bush family focusing on something that only benefits a small group of war mongering gluttons. Or course it's about the money, the same thing went for his grandfather when he didn't want to let go of all his Nazi steel investments that were taken away by the US Government under the Trading with the Enemy Act. That's right, if you didn't know it, the Bush family made their money from Adolph Hitler. Is it so much to think they made money off of Usama Bin Laden.

 

Oops, got another FBI email I need to respond to.

[downfall]

I don't disagree with you on chainsaws. There just isn't enough money to pay the large crews needed to do the work by hand. Trails are not being maintained as they should.

 

What kind of standard for tail maintence do you want? Like the sidewalk outside your house?

 

Not to derail the actual topic which needs discussion. Its kind of hard to find out exactly where to comment on this (I already called the guy in charge and gave him some suggestions on clarifying the location to input comments). Here is the link so you can go drop them a line (do it now, don't hesitate) and let them know you don't think the management policy needs to be updated or whatever else you think.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?projectID=13746&documentId=12825

Edited December 1, 2005 by downfall