This is not an ordinary book review. The only reason I know about this book is because I read in the news that National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis had been disciplined for writing it, so this review will also discuss that context.
As readers of National Parks Traveler know, the book was the subject of an Office of Inspector General investigation that found Mr. Jarvis had intentionally skirted the Interior Department's Ethics Office to write it, and that the director lied to Interior Secretary Jewell about some of the details.
The IG report tells us that Interior Department officials are concerned that the book looks like a government publication, which it is not. Indeed it does look like one, with a huge NPS arrowhead logo on the front cover containing the book’s title and the name of its author (Jonathan B. Jarvis), and a bison that overlaps with the arrowhead; the effect is of the NPS logo come to life.
The IG report tells us that some of the DOI officials interviewed were concerned that the use of Mr. Jarvis’s job title in the book is inappropriate, creating the appearance of government endorsement.
The report says, “Two areas in the book reference Jarvis’ government title: his biography in the back, which highlights various positions that he has held at NPS, and the book’s preface, written by writer and producer Dayton Duncan.”
In fact, there is another place Director Jarvis’s title is used, and used very prominently: the blurb on the back cover. The purpose of the blurb is, of course, to explain to people who are considering purchasing the book what the book is about. Here’s the blurb, in its entirety:
As it celebrates its centennial, the National Park Service now manages more than 400 special places. In these pages, Jonathan Jarvis, the 18th director of the National Park Service, adds a new chapter in the evolution of the national park idea. National parks, he asserts, are expressions of our values. What unites this increasingly diverse system of natural wonderlands and historic sites, in an increasingly diverse nation, are the values we share in common--and Jarvis provides an impressive list of parks and the values they illuminate. –Dayton Duncan
According to the IG report, “Jarvis stated that he purposely tried to downplay his government position in the book by limiting the use of his title and using a photo of himself not wearing his NPS uniform.”
This is disingenuous at best. Director Jarvis’s position is not downplayed, it is a central feature of the book’s narrative. That’s clear from what he said to the IG: “Jarvis said that the book ‘wasn’t about’ him; it was about what he was trying to accomplish in his tenure as Director.” But that is a distinction without a difference.
This is not just a book about American values, or a book about the relationship between those values and the national parks; it is very clearly a book about Director Jarvis’s vision of those two things—a very active vision, in which he himself “adds a new chapter in the evolution of the national park idea.”
The spotlight on Director Jarvis goes beyond the blurb and the preface. The book’s Epilogue -- which, like the blurb, is not mentioned in the IG report -- is not only written by Director Jarvis, it is written in the first person, about his experiences in the NPS. It begins: "As a young ranger during the winter of 1976-1977, I spent many a cold, windy day in the marble chamber of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. On the coldest days, hours would pass without a single visitor, so I was alone with Mr. Jefferson. His writings, carved into the porticos, became familiar verse...."
There is a very real sense in which this is a book “about” Director Jarvis. That alone seems unbecoming.
The values discussed in the book are not in themselves controversial. They include such universal values as Integrity, Honesty, Respect, Conservation, Restoration, and Science. What’s painful here is that Director Jarvis’s career reflects a marked lack of adherence to such values.
Many National Parks Traveler readers made this point in their comments on Traveler's story about the OIG investigation, saying Director Jarvis’s ethics lapse is “evidence of a culture of arrogance and abuse of power.” Readers have provided a long list of investigations and complaints that show a pattern of “gross mismanagement” and “cover-ups” under Director Jarvis, and have pointed out that “Violating agency policy and then justifying it to the Inspector General as ‘risk taking’ demonstrates he neither understands nor appreciates the burden of leadership responsibility.”
My own experience with Director Jarvis supports this perception. For almost a decade, I watched as Mr. Jarvis, first as Western Regional Director and then as National Park Service director, supported Point Reyes National Seashore in leveling serious false charges against a third-generation Point Reyes rancher who restored the historic Drakes Bay Oyster Farm only to have it snatched from the community and destroyed to create an artificial “wilderness.” There is a grotesque contrast between the actions taken against Drakes Bay Oyster Company and the values Director Jarvis claims he embraces: Enterprise, Entrepreneurship, Hard Work, Ingenuity, Science, and Working Lands.
To represent the value “Working Lands,” Director Jarvis profiles Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site in Montana. The passage reads in part: “From the family farm, forest, and ranch, Americans have formed a working-class of people tied to the lands that encompass the green pastures of the Shenandoah, to the Great Plains of the Midwest, and the fertile valleys of California. At times romanticized, Americans today are still working their lands as a family garden, or a manicured lawn, or as multigenerational farmers and ranchers. The National Park Service keeps this value alive through a variety of sites.”
Grant-Kohrs Ranch is a historic site only. It commemorates the cattle ranching of the past. Does Mr. Jarvis really think that Working Land that is no longer working “keeps this value alive”? How does Mr. Jarvis square his claim to admire Enterprise and Entrepreneurship with his agency’s ruthless and entirely unprincipled fight against a family farm that exemplified those virtues? How can Mr. Jarvis claim to believe in Science as a value when his agency has been caught red-handed committing scientific fraud?
The Guidebook to American Values and Our National Parks, by Jonathan B. Jarvis is, as Mr. Jarvis suspected, a book that should never have been published.
Sarah Rolph has closely followed the case of the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. and its fight against the National Park Service to remain in business at the seashore. She is writing a book about its last steward, Kevin Lunny. Along with other Drakes Bay supporters, Sarah created and continues to maintain the advocacy website http://savedrakesbay.com/core/
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Sarah, I am fully sympathetic with Drakes Bay cause and believe that was terribly mishandled. Further, I am no appologist for Jarvis in other "management" matters as I don't know enought about them to opine. But, I must say, this is far from an objective book review and I think much has been made of little on the book deal.
He was writing about what he wanted to accomplish in the parks. He was doing it on his own time without compensation. There was no personal gain sought or obtained. Did you write about his "vision"? About the things he wanted to do? No you focused on "him" and activities totally outside the scope of the book and the fact he (actually the editor) used his title and Eastern National used the Arrowhead - as it had on previous occassions. This wasn't a book review, it was a personal attack. Perhaps warranted for other transgressions but not under the auspices of an objective literary piece.
Sarah I think your review is quite petty and amateurish. On the subject of the book you set yourself up as judge and jury. It's quite obvious what's driving your intent and agenda. Amatuerish is a kind chracterization for your abuse of this platform. Speaking of ethics. Using this as a forum for personal attacks certainly lacks any journalistic integrity and your vitriol is disgusting. You really should examine resentment, it is toxic personally, and it is toxic and undermining of this society.
Regarding the book I think it is a fine addition to the national celebration of the Centennial of the National Park Service. It will certainly cause folks to deeply and fondly remember their own personal connections, joy, and value experiences, and that of their loved ones, to the sites they have visited. It will ignite their passion to explore deeper "their National Treasures" and pass it on! The tenet "a more Perfect Union" comes to my mind. If you narrow mindedly purport the values attributed to the significance of each of these sites as a conclusion, you are way off beam. Appreciation is in the mind and spirit of the beholder. A point you entirely miss.
Concerning Drake's Bay Oyster Farm issues, when they entered the lease it clearly stated that upon expiration of the lease term the site would be reclaimed for its Congressional Wilderness Desigantion. It belongs to the people, not the lessee. Also as I recall, it was upheld in Federal Court and also given due consideration by the Secretary of the Interior, and I am sure in extensive consultation with many. Hardly a unilateral decision by Dirctor Jarvis. That premise is laughable.
Reagrding Director Jarvis, I personally appreciate his beginnings as a seasonal and his many accomplishments through his career that led to his Presidential and Congressional appointment to steward our National Treasures and Heritage. There are many accomplishments in his long public service dedication that niether you or I are aware of. I don't hear you complaining about the removal of the Elwah Dam and his long career in protecting, preserving, and restoring our natural resources and ecosystems. Director Jarvis in his tenure has turned the ship of the National Park System onto a directed course of forward thinking, progress, relevance, diversity and inclusiveness as core values. I thank Mr. Jarvis for his dedication and what he has had to endure for our greater good.
Back to journalism 101 for you. F
I learned nothing about the book, and it sounds like the author is using this premise to continue her personal vendetta. I don't have an oar in the water either way, but from this review I gain no clue about the book.
All three of the commenters above have said very well what I am thinking. I'll try to find a copy of the book so I may read it and draw my own conclusions. But for right now, I'm wondering exactly who Sarah Rolph is and why she has such an obvious axe to grind.
"Her upcoming book about Drakes Bay Oyster Farm tells the story of a historic oyster farm in Point Reyes, California that the Park Service is trying to remove for unstated reasons of its own."
This from her website. Tells you a bit about what oar she has in the water.
Having long experience with Ms. Rolph's on-going vendettas against those with whom she disagrees, I am not at all surprised about the attack-dog tone of her supposed "book review." But the more fundamental and interesting question is why the National Parks Traveler would stoop to publish such an obvious ad hominem attack on the Director of the National Parks? The National Parks Traveler bills itself as " the world’s premier national parks news and information website," but Ms Rolph's screed is neither news nor information. So what oar does the National Parks Traveler have in the water?
Gordon, I to found Ms. Rolph's review more of an opinion piece on the the NPS Director than on the book. In any case, I want to defend the Traveler for publishing it. It is important to read different viewpoints, as EC stated, lets not only have one oar in the water. I do think Ms. Rolph's comments, as an aside, on the issue of the Directors ethics violation concerning the "how" the book was conceived and published is fair game. The IG and DOI Secretary issued a reprimand on the subject. The Director has acknowledged it and regardless of anyone's opinion, it is a violation of the NPS approved ethical standards. As old retired ranger has pointed out (i also am one of those old retired rangers), the approved agency ethical guidelines are extremely important, no matter the justification for not following them.
Perhaps NPT is trying to have an oar on both sides of the boat. Keeps you from going around in circles. I applaud Kurt for presenting alternative points of view and leaving them open for discussion. Let the thoughts pass or fail on their merit, not on some editor's bias.
But if ecbuck's point about letting "thoughts pass of fail on their own merit, not on some editors bias" were actually the logic by which the National Parks Traveler publishes articles...then it is illogical and contradictory that our comments on those same articles are not published until "approved by a moderator."
Gordon, the reason some comments are moderated is to stop spammers from posting willy-nilly. Folks who sign up for accounts have their comments go live when they post them.
I find my comments go through immediately- no approval necessary. And Lord knows, Kurt and I are frequently on a different page. If there is "after the fact" editing it usually is because the responses have moved off topic or have become ad hominen.
But the entire Rolph article claiming to be a "book review" was off topic and ad hominem. If off-topic and ad hominen submissions are banned on the National Parks Traveler website, then the Rolph article should never have been published here. Rolph's article would have been entirely appropriate if published on her advocacy website. But being published on the National Parks Traveler website gives Rolph's article the patina of a perspective when it is nothing more than invective. And it drags the National Parks Traveler down in the mud with it. My point is simply that the same standards applied to comments should also apply (if not more so) to articles. That was not done with Rolph's article. Kurt, you have done better and can do better.
Gorden, you have an interesting perspective when you claim the discussion of the Superintendent of the NPS is "off topic" and "ad hominen" on a site discussing the National Parks.
I probably wouldn't be reading this book anyway, even if the book review had been more informative and made it seem interesting. There is obvious hypocrisy displayed in the manner in which this author produced his book. One of the core values purportedly advanced in this book is "Honesty". How can that be, when the author lied both to his boss (Interior Secretary Jewell) and OIG investigators, and even started a false email trail in an attempt to hide the apparent fact that he approached Eastern National to write the book, and not the other way around. While some people consider this matter to be trivial, I believe it displays a lack of the same values which the author promotes in his book.
Gordon, Traveler seems to make a sincere effort to actually be "fair and balanced." Although I was certainly turned off completely by Ms. Rolph's article, it's important that we have opportunities to read opinions from all sides. Without that, there is no balance.
And as an aside, I think I need a good stiff drink of Diet Pepsi WITH caffeine or something because I just agreed with EC not just once, but something like three times!
Now I'll push the SAVE button and within a few seconds my comment will pop up -- without moderation. But I also know that if I deserve it, Kurt will rear up and swat me down. But he's nice enough to usually do it more or less privately. Believe me, I know . . . . .
What I appreciate is that NPT is THE only media outlet in existence that will take on the NPS without forcing people to chug the NPS kool-aid. Testament to this fact is that I have found no other media outlet that would dare besmirch the beloved Jarvis and call him to task for an obvious and arrogant move. All other media serve as propoganda outlets for the NPS and regurgitate their press releases as gospel. I personally have experience with the Jarvis mentality. He has taught his underlings the mechanics of manipulation, deception and intimidation. All are characterized by his attitude in participating in this book deal. Yet the mainstream media marches on publishing stories about how underfunded the NPS claims to be.
Thank you NPT for providing an alternative to the NPS spin machines.
I am not defending this book review, or the book reviewed. But I do defend the right of a magazine or book review editor to assign or accept the review of a book, or a movie, a play, an opera, concert or art exhibit by a partisan, even viciously partisan reviewer. Can you imagine how boring book or any cultural reviews would be without some attitude? About as exciting as Cliff Notes, or as illuminating as cover notes.
Everyone interested in our National Parks to read NPT will find inspiration in Jon Jarvis' superb book http://www.eparks.com/store/product/123318/Guidebook-to-American-Values-...
"This is not an ordinary book review" indeed. It's not a book review at all. It's a transparent excuse to fire an ad hominem attack on the book's author, and tells readers not one thing about the book it purports to review! It is, at the very least, mistitled, if not entirely petulant, shallow and misleading.
What makes it so superb, Rod?
Kurt asks: "What makes this book so superb, Rod?"
Stephen Mather called our National Parks "a vast schoolroom of Americanism", believing that the people who enjoyed them would have greater pride in the nation that created and preserves them. Jarvis lists four dozen American values - rights, freedoms, aspirations and accomplishments - and selects Parks which most clearly embody and celebrate each. Those of us who know and love any one specific Park find in it, and in those who preserve it for us, living expression of not just one but many of these values.
Kurt, why do readers come to NPT? Inspiration, information, past memories and future dreams.
And what drives many of us away? Hateful, vindictive, poisonous rhetoric. Your editorial choice to publish Rolph's screed as a "book review" mirror those of Donald Trump's campaign - controversy is more popular than enlightenment. I find this repugnant. It drives me away from NPT for months at a time.
Jarvis' book is an excellent antidote to NPT. It is what NPT could aspire to be for us. Please do read it.
If we did an audit of government computers and employees logging on under multiple alias's I'll bet the number of Jarvis defenders around here would diminish.
What he did and does is indefensible.
I agree with ecbuck, Lee Dalton and Rick Smith among others on this review.
I think if Jon Jarvis made a mistake on Point Reyes, it MAY be the original defense on the basis of "science" rather than the real issue, which is that private commercial operations are not appropriate in National Parks. Whether Wilderness or not. (I don't know if the science defense was his approach or not, but other than the very beginning of his career he had a distinguished record pushing the NPS toward more scientific inventory and monitoring systems in parks.
As others have expressed, there may be ways to critique this book, but this review, with all its Point Reyes baggage an personal interest in sales for an upcoming book further attacking the park service and Jarvis.
There is an argument in favor of oyster farms in general and Drakes Bay in particular.
But the point should be "do you want a park there or not?"
Some Republican's are asking that question directly: they would eliminate national monuments and national park system units like Point Reyes, and return them to grazing and commercial acquaculture, etc. That is the basic question, do we want this very small part of the vastness of America set aside as national parklands or not?
d-2 - could you please identify these Republicans that would eliminate Point Reyes or any other National Park and turn it to grazing and commerical acquaculture? Fact is, the oyster farm was there first on those that wrote the enabling legislation for Point Reyes never intended for the osyter farm to be removed.
re: "I am unaware of any major Republican that is or has proposed the elimination of the National Parks"
See selected quotes below, from Jeffrey St. Clair's "The Rise and Fall of Richard Pombo" http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-richard-pombo/
The oyster company's support for Pombo is consistent with its smear campaign against Jarvis and NPS scientists. Their assault on environmental protection law was launched during Bush and Pombo's leadership. Clumsy PR ploys like Ms. Rolph's expose their dependence on fringe grievances and unethical tactics. By rehashing old rubbish in reputable online outlets like NPT & HuffPo proponents of ultra-conservative Wise-Use initiatives are able to build a body of citations that appear credible to the uncritical and casually-informed. When readers are not offered critical support from judicious editorial context, such disservice threatens both our natural and civil environment.
---
"In 1996, Pombo published a booklength screed against the Endangered Species Act and environmentalists. Titled This Land is Your Land ... which called for the dismantling of the Endangered Species Act and disposal of public lands to private interests. Though not a bestseller, the book acquired the allure of a Gnostic gospel among the “Wise Use” crowd ... But the Wise Use Movement’s backing of Pombo certainly doesn’t explain his rise to power.
...
Pombo’s scheme to sell off millions of acres of federal forest and range lands, once considered political poison, was adopted by the Bush administration in the fall of 2006, with a proposal to dispose of 200,000 acres of public land to mining and timber companies and real estate speculators, all in the name of funding rural schools.
In 2005, Pombo came close to realizing his wildest dream when the House of Representatives passed his bill to annihilate the Endangered Species Act by a hefty margin of 229 to 193. Soon after this mighty triumph, the Washington Times announced the onset of “Pombomania” among young Republican ultras.
...
The Sierra Club’s threat inflation of Pombo almost certainly factored into Tom DeLay’s decision to catapult the congressman over the heads of more senior members to the chair of the Resources Committee, one of the most prized seats in Congress.
...
Feinstein [n.b. THE key oyster co. advocate] and Pombo have worked closely over the years on everything from water policy in the Central Valley (more water for farms, less for salmon) and logging in the High Sierra near Lake Tahoe.
...
In 2002, Pombo went to bat for Charles Hurwitz, owner of Maxxam and infamous looter of redwoods and of Savings & Loans. Pombo and Tom Delay intimidated federal regulators into dropping an investigation of Hurwitz’s banking practices. ... Hurwitz, of course, was a top contributor to Pombo’s campaign war chest.
Republicans were so worried about Pombo’s ethical dilemmas that they recruited an old warhorse to challenge him in the primary: Pete McCloskey.
...
Back in the 1990s, Pombo made rich sport of attacking Hillary Clinton for her role in the Travelgate affair. But it turned out that Pombo’s office had its own travelrelated problems.
...
In the summer of 2005, Pombo took his family on a twoweek vacation, touring the national parks in a rented RV. He sent the $5,000 bill to the Resources Committee. When Rep. Ellen Tauscher questioned the reimbursement, Pombo said he was doing research. And perhaps he was. A few weeks after he returned from his grand tour, Pombo’s office leaked a white paper to the Washington Times calling on the Bush administration to sell off a dozen national parks. ... It turns out that since 2001 Pombo has paid his wife and his brother atleast $465,000 in consulting fees from his campaign fund. ... This wasn’t Pombo’s first infraction. In 2004, he used office funds to pay for the printing and mailing of a flier to a nationwide list of property rights fanatics urging them to write letters in support of Bush’s plan to allow snowmobilers to run amok in Yellowstone Park. The Ethics Committee ruled that the flier violated the rules on franking and slashed his mail budget. Later that year, Pombo gave all of the Republican staffers on the Resources Committee a paid vacation in October so they could disperse across the country to work in GOP election campaigns—another ethical foul.
In October 2005, the Center for Public Integrity reported that Pombo had taken two overseas junkets to New Zealand and Japan. Both trips were paid for by a group called the International Foundation for Conservation of Natural Resources, which receives funding from bioengineering firms such as Monsanto and also from prowhaling interests. Pombo did not report the trip on his income tax form, though the IRS considers overseas junkets gifts on which taxes must be paid.
...
This essay is excerpted from Born Under a Bad Sky: Notes from the Dark Side of the Earth by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR (AK Press, 2008)."
ecbuck: This is in response to your question to d-2. In a Nevada TV ad I watched last month, Senator Ted Cruz promised, if he is elected President, to return all of the State's Federal lands "To their rightful owners", whatever that means. He made no distinction in that ad between BLM, Forest Service, and NPS adm. lands. John Kasich has made a similar campaign promise.
I question your characterization of the ad. The acutal legislation he proposed would limit Federal Land ownership to 50% of a state -which would not threaten any National Parks. I have never seen any significant Republican (including Cruz) call for a blanket abolishment of the National Parks.
[added] Cruz's website lists 5 major Departments and 25 agencies, bureaus, commissions and programs he would like to eliminate. The Dept of Interior, Dept of Agriculture, BLM, NFS and NPS are not included on that list.
Ethical,
I believe I found the ad you are referencing. If you want to believe what you claim, I can see how you would interpret that ad in the way you did. I believe it was a carefully worded campaign ad (i.e. "Nevada land" rather than "land in Nevada" and as you noted "returned to its rightful owners") aimed at sore points for the people of Nevada. I believe his legislation and campaign platform explicitedly spelled out on his website are far more reflective of his position. I'll stand by my claim that I am unaware of any major Republican that is or has proposed the elimination of the National Parks.
RodF, I love the high tone of your points, and agree completely about the meaning of Parks. I have not read Jon Jarvis' book but intend to.
As to curation of NP Traveler's site, I also agree with those who believe Kurt and the gang can and should print whatever they want, including dripping hostility such as this review. We know it for what it is, it is so transparent.
And, I believe wrong headed.
I believe it is also remarkably wrong headed on the intent of the Point Reyes legislation.
I do not agree in reading the legislation and the legislative history that a case can be made that the law required the NPS to renew the lease. Yes, I read the statement of ONE of the sponsors saying he was shocked, shocked that his intent was so twisted.
I find that contention insupportable.
But I must say I did not read the original bill as originally introduced, and so it is just conceivable the Sponsor(S) had a different intent and the bill was modified in committee.
But considering how, except for Alaska, Congress almost always listens to the desires of the local Member of Congress, and considering how absolutely well known the rules about prior existing land rights and tenant interests was to Members of Congress and their Staff at that time, I cannot believe that at the time it was his intent to permit a commercial oyster lease in perpetuity.
It is too too easy for Congress to tell the NPS in the law, that they MUST renew in perpetuity a lease on the election of the lessee if that is what the Sponsor and Congress wanted to do. No where does the law say that.
Plus, it is too too easy for a Sponsor to take down a bill from Committee consideration if the Sponsor did not willingly accept modifications placed on the bill, IF that is what happened.
And no one said it did. The key is that the legislation did not REQUIRE the removal of the oyster farm nor was it the INTENT that the oyster farm be removed. Some rationale, other than "your lease is up" was appropriate. Instead, there was psuedo science and lies.
I'm sorry. I didn't find this "book review" to be helpful at all. The bias of the author is quite transparent, and I am surprised that Kurt found this type of "fireside reading" to have any merit whatsoever for posting on NPT as a featured article.
Rod and Owen -- even though the "review" may have been repugnant to many of us, isn't it important that we be given the opportunity to read things written by people whose views may clash dramatically with our own? If we are unwilling to read and even consider thoughts from the opposition, how are we going to be able to argue effectively to try to counter it?
To my way of thinking, we should be thanking Kurt because he DID choose to publish it.
Great Review!
Thank you for the candid input, and I can completely relate to the frustration around the hipocrisy and conflict of interest of the author in writing this book.
Environmentalism as an American culture has certainly taken an interesting turn in the past decade or two. It seems the Environmental Non-Profit Industrial Complex has lost its way and become misguided in many aspects under the glass ceiling of capitalism.
Thanks again!
Perhaps my tone above and the use of strong language was too negative in response to negative. I always try and take the the high road and in this case I did not. One should always strive to be responsive and true rather than reactive. We need tah more than ever now!
Pombo had no such intention.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/No-Arctic-oil-drilling-How-about-sell...
Not to mention that Richard Pombo is hardly a major figure in the Republican Party. I'll stand by my statement.
BTW - Here is the official list of his sponsored legislation. I see nothing about National Parks or selling federal lands.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400322#current_sta...
One of these days, we will come to realize, as does Peggy Noonan at THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (see her excellent column this morning on fighting ISIS) that the so-called leadership class is entirely out of touch with its constituents--and by that she means around the world. Europe is going under, and we are going under, by failing to recognize what needs to be done. These silly games are all a smokescreen by people who lead only from self-interest. You want to know who would sell off your public lands? Any politician who could get away with it. Look at the sweetheart deals for wind and solar, and no again, they are not being pushed by the Koch brothers. The 40 million acres of our public lands designated for green energy have been entirely pushed by the Obama Administration. The national parks? What are they, if not convenient islands in a sea of turbines and solar panels planned right up to the boundaries of the national parks. Think the Mojave National Preserve and the South Rim of Grand Canyon.
I laugh when I see Bernie Sanders flailing his arms and screaming to the sky about climate change. In the next breath his is talking about greedy Wall Street bankers. You are not supposed to see his own connections to Wall Street through his advocacy of green energy. The biggest driver of green energy is General Electric. Oh, and I suppose Senator Sanders would call them a Main-Street corporation.
Wake up and do some reading (and thinking) before you play gotcha on these blogs. EC is right. The Republicans are not your enemy, but neither are the Democrats your truest friends. History shows, as in proves, that the national parks have always had bipartisan support. That is why I never label a politician in my writing, i.e., Theodore Roosevelt (R). The Rs and Ds show nothing. Any politician can love the national parks--and any politician hate them. Or simply ignore them, is the greater point. Here in Washington State, one of our most famous Democratic senators wanted to log Olympic National Park for the union vote. By his math--and by his reckoning--the unions added up to more votes than the environmentalists. When did he switch sides? When the math changed--and not a moment before.
This year, it is again all about the math. If I can make you afraid of something, perhaps you will vote for me. But don't hope for any saviors in this bunch, either. They didn't get where they are by being truthful. They rather got where they are by playing politics. They need us to start pointing fingers so they can figure out what to say.
My two immersions in the political arena were real eye-openers, to be sure. It is a 16-hour day and a full-blown contact sport. The ones standing on the stage are the survivors. Now, go out and tell them what you want. But don't expect any of them to listen unless they know they have your vote. And while you're at it, you might give them a thousand bucks. Then they will really listen.
Alfred, interesting post. For starters Peggy Noonan has her own political viewpoint, worked for President Reagan as a special advisor. The WSJ opinion page is quite conservative, particularly now under the new ownership. Still, her column was worth the read. In any case, this is not the venue for politics, you have rasised some good points but I am not in complete agreement with them. Maybe our trails will cross sometime and we can discuss it further.
Thanks, Ron. I look forward to sitting down with you and recalling the good old days in Yosemite! Meanwhile, the late Garrett Hardin (himself a conservative) reminded his students that conservative is not a dirty name. I read THE WALL STREET JOURNAL because THE NEW YORK TIMES thinks it is. Well, they should be happy this morning now that The Bern took every county in my state. But is "free" the answer to everything? For every benefit, there still must be a payer. After we turn out the pockets of every billionaire, we will still be trillions short.
It all got away from us in the 1970s when we failed to heed the great teach-in of the 1960s. We were right; there are too many people on this planet. Now we are paying the price in every quarter. Peggy Noonan is one of the few people with the courage to say that instead of sweeping it under the rug. Even my conservative friends don't want to talk about population anymore, and that includes THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Some technological "fix" will save us. It always has and always will.
But as Garrett reminded us, there was no Wizard. Stop telling me about all of the people you are "going" to help, he would say, and tell me why you can't help them today. Stop telling me about all of the people you are "going" to feed, and tell me why the world can't end poverty today.
In any event, I am back again in Yosemite, working on a second edition of THE EMBATTLED WILDERNESS. It's great therapy talking about just 1,000 square miles instead of the entire planet. Yosemite gets me depressed enough.
Curious Alfred, what is your resolution for "too many people".
Well, EC, we used to say "Every child a wanted child." By that definition, the world birthrate would fall by half. As Mexico is proving now, the birthrate can fall dramatically when women are empowered to make a choice. Do women really want ten kids? I doubt it, but at least, if they're wanted they will be cared for. Just two days ago here in Seattle, a woman dumped her newborn off in a trash compactor. That's the extreme, but we all know what is meant by wanted and unwanted. If people don't want children, it is best they not have them, but millions continue to have them and we see the results.
In the 1960s, we could teach all of that in a sociology class and not be called on the carpet for being racist. You just want to prevent the poor from having children, Alfred. Actually, my wife and I have none of our own. We realized that there are great parents, and simply good parents. We decided that our being good parents would not be good enough. That admission, mulplied by eight billion people, should bring population growth to a halt.
But no, we are not allowed to teach choice and discipline (or limits), and so the choices the world continues to make are poor.
Thank you Alfred Runte for an excellent post on a good question by EC. Yes, "every child a wanted child", that is the position of most environmental organizations. It starts with education, at home then our high schools as well as colleges. Empowering women is critically important at all economic levels. Organizations like planned parenthood are also very important. I have a niece that works for planned parenthood, they are tough and straightforward with their patients. Yes discipline, choice, limits. I am looking forward to your new edition "Yosemite, Embattled Wilderness". Traveler will keep us posted on publication date, so we can get a copy.
Alfred - still didn't hear your "solution". And Ron - I reject aborton as the "solution".
Why put all the blame and responsibility for population growth only on the female side of the equation.
Ever heard of vasectomies?
Who did that. Just another of your baseless accusations
Who did that. Just another of your baseless accusations
Golly gee whiz. And here for most of my life I've been thinking it takes two to make a baby. Or is that a baseless accusation?
Just read some of the previous posts talking about women and "women's choice." Or how planned parenthood is "tough on their patients." In general, in our American society, the burden of responsibility is upon the woman. They even get the blame if they don't insist that their partner use precautions. Nowhere in any of these posts do we see any mention of the other half of the equation. It wasn't very long ago that an unmarried pregnant girl was banished into an exile of life-long shame while the young man went hunting for another to seduce. To many males, the number of females they've conquered and notched on their bedposts are matters of pride and bragging rights down at the bar. It appears that in our Earthly society, there's a pretty obvious double-standard world wide.
Perhaps the idea that contraception is up to the ladies has something to do with male macho pride. Or maybe that among many macho men vasectomy seems synonymous with castration.
One thing I think we can all be sure of is that the human race would have been extinct long ago if it was up to the boys to be the ones who became pregnant and had to endure the job of bearing our young. I've watched my wife and one of my daughters become mothers four times each in absolute awe. And many of them are working full time all those months of discomfort. Then they bravely venture forth and endure the pangs of birth.
If someone asked us guys to do it, we'd be running for the hills.
I missed any post about "womens choice" and the comment about "tough on their patients" had nothing to do with blaming women for population growth. In fact that was part of a comment praising the activities of an organization that accounts for as much as 40% of the abortions in the US.
That may be your society, but it isn't mine. I wasn't brought up thinking that and I didn't raise my kids to think that. But I think you are on the right track. For too many, we don't make people responsible for their decisions, whether its work ethic, lifestyle, health, or sex. When there are no consequences, people make bad decisions. That is why the "it should be free" mentality is so destructive, and no, that isn't a conservative or corporate philosphy - as your failure to back up your baseless accusations shows - it is a liberal one.
Yes, it takes two to make a baby, but the problem worldwide is the absence of women's rights. While in the Army, my brother served two years in the Middle East. He will be glad to tell you how they treat women. I am not talking so much about the United States--unless we want to accuse ourselves of overconsumption again. I am rather talking about all of those refugees pouring into Europe--and the hundreds of millions of people that are right behind.
The West can't take them all, but it is acting as if it can. Again, political correctness wins the day. And don't give me that business about the United States being a nation of immigrants. It is rather a nation of immigrant stock--as is the entire world. Historically, foreign born immigrants hovered under ten percent. The rest were Native Americans. Oops. Can't say that either, The term is reserved for the very first immigrants.
Political correctness has destroyed all honesty when it comes to world affairs--especially population. This isn't the 19th Century anymore. In 1910, the United States had just 91 million people. In just a single century, we have added 225 million. How long can that go on before there is nothing left of the natural world?
EC says he is looking for my "solution." No, he is again just looking to make light of the problem. These days, most Americans do make light of it. Political correctness has trained us to say nothing controversial, e.g., that everything on this planet has limits. It is still a spaceship, after all.
A big one, yes, but not an unlimited one. If we want to argue about CO2, why does no one want to argue about the rest of it? Because the solutions there are difficult--impossible, some would say. But we had better start talking about population again, or kiss your national parks good-bye.
Thanks to Dr Runte for daring to raise the critical, but forbidden, issue of overpopulation again. I doubt our political and economic systems are up to the challenges ahead, which threaten our societies, let alone our parks. EC probably would not see it as a "solution", but the Four Horseman (war, famine, disease, & ecological collapse) are still waiting to cull the human herd, as they always have.
"Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people...":
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/earth-carry...
Tahoma, your four horsemen will certainly play a role but I think going back to personal responsibility and less free stuff could be important contributors as well.
Sarah, thank you for bringing to light what very few people are aware of. The pervasive mismanagement of our National Parks starts at the top. The fact that Jarvis is still in his position and was only disciplined is telling. Mismanagement is rampant throughout the NPS. On June 14, 2016 when he appeared before Congress, the honorable Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the committee’s ranking member said, “I’m not sure you need to be in this position.”
So the point is, why on Earth would anyone want to read a book abour our National Parks from a NPS Director who should have been fired long ago. Typical Washington DC, too big to fail, to big to fire.
Pages