Recent comments

It makes no sense to allow equestrian use but not bikes in wilderness. The numbers of bikers in these areas would be small. The trails used by bikes are not much different than ones used by bikers. It's a dirt trail, not a paved path. Hiking creates "damage" too.

Hikers just want to keep the trails to themselves, it's selfishness pure and simple.

If your hope can be dashed by anonymous postings on web sites, then it is not hope, but an unreasonable wish caused by the perfectly appropriate stage of grief. It is on point with the story above that the park service - friends and coworkers of the missing - know what the score is and are not willing to risk the living to search for the dead, as sad as it is. This reward offered makes me sick with worry. Fools gold. We'll be searching again soon for another missing person or aircraft in the same area soon...someone with more need for money than sense.

"for the price of just *one person* to enter one major theme Park like Disney or Universal Studios for just *one day* you can get your entire family into every Federal Public Land in the United States for one year. Really, the most amazing thing is just how cheap the ATB Pass really is....."

True, but Disney doesn't tax me for revenues as well. I've always had a problem with paying to use my public federal lands when I pay taxes to the federal government to do things like... administer my public lands. Instead, my tax money goes to things like tax cuts for billionaires, bank bailouts and frivolous wars. This is the fundamental problem I have with paying $80 for a parks pass. I view it as just another tax to make up for budget cuts to these agencies.

The Aspen should be going gold in a week or two at the North Rim Grand Canyon National Park. I'm sure to post some great photos as soon as they come on.

The Pisgah Inn is wonderful. But I hope you made reservations last year for this October.

Danny
www.hikertohiker.com

Dan

You mean the 1978 Interim Draft ORV Plan. A plan that was not complet never finalized and not used. Different superintendents issued various Superintendent Orders that deviated from the plan when it resurfaced in 2002.

Your real turtle facts are in real dispute by real scientist.

"They don't care about the animals, just that they could be used to closed the park for all humans"

There in a nutshell is why there has not been any real dialogue with your side. You spout off emotional propaganda like you had a copy of some secrete environmental manifesto.

Matt,

" fact on that the LAWYERS only pick the low hanging fruit to partner up and file a suit"

What fact book does this come from? And remember your side has environmental lawyers also.

We environmentalists see a difference from continual nighttime driving year after year in, around and sometime over top of turtle nests for the entire season and natural disasters like a category 4 hurricanes. Unless you move all the turtle nests to the center of the maritime forest there is probably no safe place. It is a National Park not a commercial turtle hatchery.
There is room for compromise with driving restrictions and turtles, especially in the fall. Maybe now your side will actually try to compromise for a change. In any case driving a vehicle on the NP beach is not the only way to access the Park.

With resource protection concerning ESA birds I guess one shoe doesn't fit every situation. It also doesn't mean that tighter restriction is not needed in other places. The enabling legislation specifically mentions protecting unique flora and fauna over visitor’s convenience, which translates into tighter protection for Oystercatchers, Terns and Skimmers than on non-CHNS beaches.

Matt,
[Gratuitous remark deleted]

First, the NPS was allowed to, and did relocate nests in danger, that were 35 days into incubation. It doesn't matter what the "environmental movement" wanted, but is up to the state of North Carolina as to what could be relocated, or not.
Second, I don't know of any beaches were closed because of the nests in question. They just have four signs around them and allowed for plenty of access around the ones I observed. That said, by the looks of Earl, there wasn't a safe beach on which to relocate them.
Third, that's 200 meter buffers for pedestrians, not ORVs. There is a stipulation for private landowners to minimize buffers to prevent a taking (when the feds deprive a landowner the rights of their property), but it does not apply to federal lands.

Dan,
The "78 plan" was lost through lobbying by access "interests" to get it "lost". Superintendents who attempted to follow the letter of the plan anyway were also "lost" (read the history on Island Free Press). The only way left for persons concerned with protecting the species to compete with the DC influence was through the courts.
Protections prior to 2005 were token protections and did not actually protect anything.

Anonymous,
While it may seem "prudent" to the naive, there are many biological problems associated with nest relocation. Reduced hatch and emergence rates, distorted sex ratios and reduced fitness among them. The population is nowhere near the need for such actions (like the Kemps Ridley in the Gulf which was down to about 400 females).
The recovery plan calls for relocation as a management action of last resort. That requires certainty one cannot have, because in any given year, there's not a beach on Hatteras that cannot be productive.
The issues the recovery plan focuses on are those that can be controlled - ie human disturbance, fisheries interactions, etc.

we went to camp in cedar grove this week-end and this is the worst trip I made (and decision in my life) the stress to breath this carbon filled smoke made us seek shealter to Hum lake above kings canyon, at night we where going back down our campsite to breath that crap all night and in the morning.....I feel that the forest service where letting people come in the canyon because it was labor day and that they had to but by Monday morning the smoke was crazy as the fire burnt closer to the river making the air unbreathable, good thing we packed and run out of the canyon, there was smoke all the way to grant grove way up there....worst trip I had with my friends, couldn't hike couldn't do nothing.....I think that is irresponsible for the forest service to allow kids to breath that....

This is good, but I really like the new American Revolution Handbook by Savas and Dameron. I just bought one, and my son (13) loves it too. Great maps, and a lot of depth. Highly recommended.

I find it odd how so many people are appalled at the sight of a hunter with whatever animal it is that he has taken in the back of his truck. Then sit at home and watch a pack of wolves or lions on the discovery channel take down and eat some animal while its still alive, usually starting at the hind quarters first, while it balls and its eyes roll back in its head then slowly dieing while its being consumed. Whatever.

Great question. This kind of question keeps me on my toes.
Basically, the park got as close as they could get to the extinct species.

Here's what the Elk management plan http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=382&projectID=28732&documentID=35908 says:

All animals had to come from herds that originated from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, Canada because of their stringent disease monitoring protocols. On 2 April 2001, 25 (13 males (M):12 females (F)) elk from the Elk and Bison Prairie at Land between the Lakes National Recreation Area, in Kentucky and Tennessee, were released into Cataloochee Valley (elk were originally brought to Land Between the Lakes from the Elk Island herd). The following year, on 20 April 2002, 27 (8M:19F) elk originally from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, Canada, were released into Cataloochee Valley. These elk were thought to be the closest genetically to the extinct eastern species because of their geographic proximity and similar body characteristics (Murrow 2007) consistent with Management Policies (NPS 2006, Section4.4.2.2). Elk are extremely robust to inbreeding, so the same original source herd was not detrimental.

Murrow, J. L., J. D. Clark, and E. K. Delozier. 2009. Demographic analysis of an
experimentally released population of elk in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1261–1268.
Murrow, J. L. 2007. An experimental release of elk into Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.

For the policy statement, look at http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf.
Pg. 37 seems to be where the intent of your question would be answered.

Biological or physical processes altered in the past by human activities may need to be actively managed to restore them to a natural condition or to maintain the closest approximation of the natural condition when a truly natural system is no longer attainable. Prescribed burning and the control of ungulates when predators have been extirpated are two examples. Decisions about the extent and degree of management actions taken to protect or restore park ecosystems or their components will be based on clearly articulated, well-supported management objectives and the best scientific information available.