Politics stalked the national park system throughout 2007. From snowmobiles in Yellowstone to off-road vehicles in Big Cypress, it seemed natural resources and careful stewardship were trumped too often.
We heard both National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne promise that science and careful stewardship would rule the national parks, and yet it seemed those promises fell short.
Not all the news surrounding the parks was negative, though. Congress approved President Bush's hefty funding increase for the parks, the National Park Foundation held a summit to explore partnership and philanthropy in the parks, and the Centennial Challenge was launched.
That said, here's a look at some of the top stories that rippled across the national park system in 2007:
-
Yellowstone snowmobiles. Despite scientific reports that detailed how snow coaches were the best alternative for Yellowstone's environment, wildlife, employees and visitors, park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis approved a plan to allow as many as 540 snowmobiles per day into Yellowstone. That decision, which conservation groups have promised to test in court, could have consequences far beyond Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks as I noted back in November.
Rick Smith, of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, speaks of decision (1:00)
Get the Flash Player to heard this audio. -
Fran Mainella points finger at Interior Department. A year after leaving her job as director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella told the Traveler that Interior Department officials, not her office, called the shots on allowing snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.
Fran Mainella talks to the 'Traveler' (4:34)
Get the Flash Player to see hear the audio. -
Jet skis. Conservation groups asked the Park Service to reinstate bans against personal watercraft in Gulf Islands and Cape Lookout national seashores as well as Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. If the agency balks, the groups say they'll take it to court over the matter.
-
ORVs in Big Cypress National Preserve. A decision by Big Cypress Superintendent Karen Gustin to reopen 20 miles of off-road vehicle routes was greeted by a lawsuit just before Christmas when a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit to overturn that decision.
-
Katmai Bear Hunt. A groundswell of public outrage greeted the annual hunt of brown bears in Katmai National Preserve. Though hunting technically is allowed in the preserve, the seeming habituation of bears to humans created the impression that the bear hunt was akin to "shooting fish in a barrel" and prompted calls for the Park Service to end the hunt. Watch Video
-
Park Service budget. President Bush proposed, and Congress approved, a hefty funding increase for the National Park Service. True, the $2.39 billion FY08 budget cannibalizes some sections of the agency's budget so its base operations funding will rise $153.4 million. But an increase is an increase.
-
Centennial Challenge. In his fiscal 2008 budget request, President Bush proposed a Centennial Challenge with visions of infusing $3 billion, in a mix of public and private funding, into the park system as the National Park Service moves towards its centennial in 2016. Though controversial on several fronts, and falling short of his 2000 campaign promise to spend $5 billion to wipe out the Park Service's maintenance backlog, the initiative gained congressional approval, though not exactly as the president requested it.
Kempthorne Announces Centennial Projects; Podcast (10:50)
Get the Flash Player to see hear the audio. -
National Park Foundation Leadership Summit on Partnership and Philanthropy. Private philanthropy long has played a crucial role in the construction and health of the national park system. To explore how philanthropy and partnerships can bolster the parks as they head to the National Park Service's centennial in 2016, the National Park Foundation in October convened a summit in Austin, Texas, to examine the possibilities.
NPS Director Mary Bomar addresses Leadership Summit (1:45)
Get the Flash Player to hear this audio. -
The Demise of the National Parks Pass. This much-loved $50 pass, which got its holder into as many parks as they wanted for a year, died on January 1 when the $80 America the Beautiful Pass came to be. However, congressional efforts towards the end of 2007 could spur the return of the National Parks Pass.
-
Climate Change. In a telling report, the Government Accountability Office said the Interior Department has failed to provide the National Park Service with the tools it needs to cope with climate change and its impacts on the national park system.
Comments
Conservatives good. Progressives bad. Hulk smash.
By definition - Justin.
The original legislation actually says nothing about the fate of the oyster farm. There were in fact house reports where it was discussed, but nothing was specifically placed in the legislation or the supplemental larger wilderness bill that passed a couple of days after the Point Reyes Wilderness Act.
There was no clarity in the legislation either way, and it's frankly silly to insist that. This was a policy decision, pure and simple.
y_p_w, I'm really curious by your position that there was no clarity in the legislation. The wilderness legislation passed in 1976 clearly referenced not only the 25,370 acres that would automatically become officially designated as wilderness once the president signed the bill, but also referred to the 8,003 acres, which included Drakes Estero, that were labeled as potential wilderness.
DOI Inspector General Devaney read the House report that accompanied the legislation, and it stated that, "it is the intent that those lands and waters designated as potential wilderness will be essentially managed as wilderness, to the extent possible, with efforts to steadily continue to remove all obstacles to the eventual conversion of these lands and waters to wilderness status."
What's not clear?
The "house report" does not accompany the legislation. It is not written by the bills sponsor nor incorporated as part of the legislation. It is a staffers write up based on his opinion and carries no weight of law. YPW's point is that the legislation - i.e. that which is voted on by Congress makes no mention of the Oyster Company and itself does not require its removal. The fact the sponsor had no intent to remove the Oyster Company is probably why it isn't mention or required in the actual legislation.
With all due respect, EC, you're grasping at straws. The report was written and approved by the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee specifically to accompany the legislation. The report is an analysis of the debate that occurred over the legislation, and represents both the minority and majority views.
You would expect that when Congress establishes a "potential wilderness" that it is the intent that the nonconforming uses be removed as soon as possible, and in this case the Johnson's lease provided 40 years of continued use, which ended November 30. Why would they bestow that designation if they didn't intend one day to remove the "potential."
What member of Congress votes on a bill understanding the entire background? The PRWA was only about 1 page long. It seems really simple if you read it.
As far as "potential wilderness" goes - there are several camps in the Sierra placed under the "potential wilderness" category. They remain potential wilderness to this day even though there would seem to have been several times when a removal could have been done. I believe there's been at least one Yosemite wilderness management plan since the California Wilderness Act where a management decision could have been made that it was their chance to remove them. Recently several of these camps required repairs to the septic systems and grease traps. I understand not repairing them and allowing them to revert to fully designated wilderness was an option. In the end Don Neubacher (yes - the former Point Reyes Superintendent) approved a call for bids and is willing to spend park funds to keep these facilities operating and delaying their conversion to fully designated wilderness. When it came time to renew the concessionaire's contract, they put the operation of the Yosemite High Sierra Camps in the bid. They've had ample opportunities to remove these camps but have chosen not to as a policy choice.
I don't even sense that they remain because the concessionaire wants them. They don't make a whole lot of money for Delaware North, and every year they have to worry about opening dates. I sense that they remain there because higher ups in NPS want them even though their continued presence precludes their conversion to fully designated wilderness.
Sadly enough, there are plenty of people who buy into that specious argument. I find more wilderness in seeing human living in harmony with nature than in the modern day museum pretend wilderness that the NPS is selling us. I suspect that the pull of the wilderness argument is stronger with all the city folks that have never lived on a farm and idealize nature.